What To Do On The Flop - A Tough Decision?
Rick Nebiolo
some detail. I would like to limit the discussion to the proper action
on the flop and would like to get some fresh opinions from this
newsgroup.
"This hand was played in a 15/30 holdem game. Four players had
limped in and a player holding 4d 4c one off the button called, the
player on the button raised, both blinds called, and all remaining
players including the player holding 4d 4c called (eight players saw the
flop for two bets each).
The flop came 9d 8s 3d. The player in the small blind bet and two
players to his left called (two folded). What should the player holding
4d 4c do and why?"
Regards,
Rick
P.S. Please don't forget to explain your reasoning if you have time.
Badger
> The flop came 9d 8s 3d. The player in the small blind bet and two
> players to his left called (two folded). What should the player holding
> 4d 4c do and why?"
Rick, I assume the tough part of this hand is deciding which folding motion
to use when throwing this piece of crap in the muck. The worst
straightforward draw in poker is the underpair draw in Holdem. Calling or
raising with this hand is, to me, prima facie evidence the player is either
on tilt or a poor player. The reasons for folding are endless: you might
be drawing dead; the player on the button is probably going to raise; you
aren't getting anywhere close to implied pot odds even if you do get lucky
and spike your set on the turn and it ends up being good.....
If you were to stand on that hill at Hollywood Park, throw a handful of
chips down into the parking lot, and then go look for them, you would have a
much higher expectation than if you called or raised here.
The easiest money for a winning player in Holdem comes from players who call
post-flop, when multi-players took the flop, with pocket underpairs.
--
Badger
"The harder they come,
the harder they fall,
one and all"
Maverick
> The flop came 9d 8s 3d. The player in the small blind bet and two
> players to his left called (two folded). What should the player holding
> 4d 4c do and why?"
Impossible to say accurately since we don't know the playing style of the
other players, but it's quite possible you can raise here. The bettor
is probably the only one with a pair and he has two callers behind him who
sound like they have overcards. Since the bettor has two callers behind
him, he might be hard put to call much heat from the 44 in late
position..especially if there is an unfriendly turn card. By raising, the
44 can either buy a free turn card or can bet the turn hoping that the SB
lays it down and he'll be facing two people who might only be holding
overcards.
I've seen this type of play work alot...can backfire easily if you run
into a guy who has a real mitt, but there are enough bets in the pot and
the flop ugly enough to make it worth a try. Who knows...you might have
the best hand anyways.
Maverick
Note: Your only play here is either to raise or fold. Never call with
this hand. And, only raise if you think you really have a chance of
narrowing the field to one or two people with overcards.
Gary T Philips
If I count the pot correctly, buy the time it reaches the player with the
pocket 4's there is 19 small bets in the pot. The flop offers pocket 4's no
draws with the exception of the two remaining 4's. Having seen 5 cards ( 3
flop and 2 hole cards ) the odds of catching one of the remaining fours on
the next card is 2 / 47 or 22.5 to 1. So if one can imagine gaining only 3
1/2 small bets from that point on, calling can be justified. However here's
the kicker: What are the chances someone already has a higher set, thereby
making your draw dead to two perfect runners? (4-4) Also factor in the
chances of catching a 4 on fourth street and being outdrawn on fifth street
by a straight, a flush or a bigger set. So by now maybe you're beginning to
realize that anything besides a fold is stretching it some. I would fold
unless I had some reason to think that a four was coming on fourth street.
Gary Philips
Rick Nebiolo wrote:
> The following hand has been discussed by several poker acquaintances in
> some detail. I would like to limit the discussion to the proper action
> on the flop and would like to get some fresh opinions from this
> newsgroup.
>
> "This hand was played in a 15/30 holdem game. Four players had
> limped in and a player holding 4d 4c one off the button called, the
> player on the button raised, both blinds called, and all remaining
> players including the player holding 4d 4c called (eight players saw the
> flop for two bets each).
>
> The flop came 9d 8s 3d. The player in the small blind bet and two
> players to his left called (two folded). What should the player holding
> 4d 4c do and why?"
>
Dark Scorpion
<374A43D7...@worldnet.att.net>...
> The following hand has been discussed by several poker acquaintances in
> some detail. I would like to limit the discussion to the proper action
> on the flop and would like to get some fresh opinions from this
> newsgroup.
>
> "This hand was played in a 15/30 holdem game. Four players had
> limped in and a player holding 4d 4c one off the button called, the
> player on the button raised, both blinds called, and all remaining
> players including the player holding 4d 4c called (eight players saw the
> flop for two bets each).
>
> The flop came 9d 8s 3d. The player in the small blind bet and two
> players to his left called (two folded). What should the player holding
> 4d 4c do and why?"
I read an article in Card Player many moons ago, that said you should do
one of two things with small pocket pairs preflop...call for one bet, or
three bet them. I started doing that, and, to my surprise, it worked!
In the current situation (called two bets with pocket fours pre-flop), the
player *MUST* fold. He has to. He can't bluff people out, and he can't
pray for RR in diamonds (suicide), or even for trip 4's at the moment. He
has to fold.
The CP article that I read, however, would have pocket fours three bet
raise preflop. This situation is extra delicious, because pocket 4's just
did a call-raise. The hope is that you will freeze everyone on the flop in
this case. When the flop comes, the only people that can (and WILL) check
raise to you are: AKd, or two pair (most likely 98). I do not think JT
will check raise, I think JT would bet out. Royal Diamonds may bet out as
well, but I think royal diamonds will try to re-freeze you for the turn
with a check raise. Flop trips will bet AND three bet if fours raises the
flop.
The CP article, as I understood it said that, under the conditions above,
if it's checked to you, you bet. If it's bet in fron tof you, you fold.
If it's check-raised you call, but be prepared to fold the turn if it's not
a four, and guard against other trips if the turn is three bet to you.
As for your exact question (trying for more detail), fours must fold in
this situation. His three diamonds are too weak to try for RR diamonds,
all the while hoping JT doesn't straighten out. For two bets, with a blind
raise, you cannot count out 98, either. Royal spades is a problem, too,
because they will go for RR spades with one or two overcards, and have a
ton of outs on 4's.
Well, that's my opinion...anyone better? The Mistress of Mathematics? One
of any number of bracelets? The Professor? Mary Anne? Ginger?...uh, I
think I had better turn the TV off...
--
To the winds with us all, it is our destiny to dwell alone in the dark,
DarkScorpion
Paul Hankin
Rick Nebiolo <rickn...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>The following hand has been discussed by several poker acquaintances in
>some detail. I would like to limit the discussion to the proper action
>on the flop and would like to get some fresh opinions from this
>newsgroup.
>
> "This hand was played in a 15/30 holdem game. Four players had
>limped in and a player holding 4d 4c one off the button called, the
>player on the button raised, both blinds called, and all remaining
>players including the player holding 4d 4c called (eight players saw the
>flop for two bets each).
>
> The flop came 9d 8s 3d. The player in the small blind bet and two
>players to his left called (two folded). What should the player holding
>4d 4c do and why?"
Is this a trick question? You fold. OK, so the small blind might be
semi-bluffing, and the two callers might be calling with overcards or
straight draws, but if you're wrong it's going to be very expensive for
you - you're drawing to two outs - and if you're right you're *still*
drawing, because the turn has to not pair any of the other players and
not let them hit their flush or straight draws.
The decision isn't close IMO.
--
Paul Hankin
Asha34
dog. If the small blind is a relatively tight favorite than he probably 1st or
2nd pair (he would have easily limped in with 10-9, 98, A-9 etc.). If he is
semibluffing than he has a four straight or two over cards. The fair of fours
would be a slight favorite but could easily get outdrawn for an expensive hand.
OTOH if the sb is a maniac a call might be justified. But if the guy is a
maniac then he probably would have raised preflop with any kind of hand.
Ashley
Steve Brecher
> "This hand was played in a 15/30 holdem game. Four players had
> limped in and a player holding 4d 4c one off the button called, the
> player on the button raised, both blinds called, and all remaining
> players including the player holding 4d 4c called (eight players saw the
> flop for two bets each).
>
> The flop came 9d 8s 3d. The player in the small blind bet and two
> players to his left called (two folded). What should the player holding
> 4d 4c do and why?"
You've got the pre-flop raiser behind you yet to act, and you may be
drawing dead. If you put any money in the pot it may well come back
around two more bets to you. What's the tough part?
--
st...@brecher.reno.nv.us (Steve Brecher)
Jeffrey B. Siegal
> What should the player holding
> 4d 4c do and why?"
Throw the hand away so fast it leaves a contrail on its way to the muck.
Why? Because your hand sucks, you have minimal chance to improve, the
flop is likely to have helped the limpers, and the pre-flop raiser might
well have a hand.
Roger Kirkham
This seems a clear-cut 'fit or fold' situation - the call was correct given
the weakness of the hand, counterbalanced by the number of callers.
Basically, you are hoping to flop trips.
With a flop of 9d 8s 3d you haven't done this, there has already been a
raise from the small blind, so its time to fold and move onto the next hand.
An expert player against 'tight weak' opposition might raise here, but its
unlikely to chase out everyone - they may well put the expert on a draw, for
example holding Jack, 10 (a semi bluff) or two over-cards (another
semi-bluff). Furthermore, if the small blind is a competant player, his/her
raise should be respected - I'd guess they've flopped two pair or trips.
- roGER
Hetron
over on two plus two?
Rick Nebiolo wrote:
>
> The following hand has been discussed by several poker acquaintances in
> some detail. I would like to limit the discussion to the proper action
> on the flop and would like to get some fresh opinions from this
> newsgroup.
>
> "This hand was played in a 15/30 holdem game. Four players had
> limped in and a player holding 4d 4c one off the button called, the
> player on the button raised, both blinds called, and all remaining
> players including the player holding 4d 4c called (eight players saw the
> flop for two bets each).
>
> The flop came 9d 8s 3d. The player in the small blind bet and two
> players to his left called (two folded). What should the player holding
> 4d 4c do and why?"
>
Matt Treasure
What should the player holding
> 4d 4c do and why?"
>
>
19 small bets in the pot after the flop.
11-1 to hit the set if you see both the turn and river
22.5-1 if you only see only the turn
On the turn the pot will have 10 big bets in it
before any betting.
I say you raise or fold. Calling is not an option.
Which you do would depend on the type of players
at the table and how much control you have over them.
If you hit the set you will most likley win the pot.
(unless some one already has an over set)
You're getting correct odds now so if you
raise it will hopefully drive out the preflop raiser
(the button) and force the early callers to increase the size
of the pot. If they check the turn , you can also check
if you don't like it and see the river for free.
If you're not willing to raise, then fold.
Abdul Jalib
> Rick Nebiolo <rickn...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > "This hand was played in a 15/30 holdem game. Four players had
> > limped in and a player holding 4d 4c one off the button called, the
> > player on the button raised, both blinds called, and all remaining
> > players including the player holding 4d 4c called (eight players saw the
> > flop for two bets each).
> >
> > The flop came 9d 8s 3d. The player in the small blind bet and two
> > players to his left called (two folded). What should the player holding
> > 4d 4c do and why?"
>
> You've got the pre-flop raiser behind you yet to act, and you may be
> drawing dead. If you put any money in the pot it may well come back
> around two more bets to you. What's the tough part?
I'll go out on a limb here and disgree with everyone else and say
it's actually very close. If you assume a 50% chance that
the preflop raiser will raise and a 30% chance that someone will
reraise (driving you out), then it's basically breakeven. If you were
closing the action on the flop, you could definitely call for one bet.
I disagree with the concerns over drawing dead. Look at the action.
The only player whose actions are completely consistent thus far with
99 or 88 is the small blind. While the button might raise preflop with
them, he might not. While the players in the middle might go for a
call-reraise with a set, they might not. And there are only 6 such
hands (9s9h, 9s9c, 9c9h, 8d8h, 8d8c, 8c8h) to worry about out of the
many hundreds of hands they could hold. (On the basis of a sample size
of one, they seem quite loose.) Since you will not be always going
to the river, the cost of being up against a big set is much less than
in other situations, such as if you had top pair bad kicker and feared
you were beat.
I estimate a 30% chance you will lose if you make your set here.
This would be the case if you were up against 98, KK, an open-ended
straight draw or a flush draw, and somebody who is drawing dead against
you like A3 or top pair.
Part of what makes drawing tempting here is that when you draw a
4 on the turn, this makes it unlikely that you will lose with a set.
Note that you have the 4d (or else drawing would be very foolish),
and a 4 does not really make straights more likely.
In a followup message, I'll give an example where you could
clearly call on the flop with a little underpair.
Finally, here is the math in LISP format for your scenario.
(let ((opponents_preflop 7.0)
(small_bets_preflop 2.0)
(chance_raise_behind .5)
(chance_reraise_ahead .3)
(portion_seeing_turn .5)
(big_bets_turn 2.0) ;; per player seeing river
(portion_seeing_river .25)
(big_bets_river 1.0) ;; per player seeing showdown
(portion_seeing_showdown .2)
(outs 2.0)
(chance_no_bet_turn 0.05)
(chance_lose_with_set .30)
(big_bets_if_lose 4.0))
(let* ((chance_raised_but_not_reraised (* chance_raise_behind
(- 1 chance_reraise_ahead)))
(small_bets_flop (+ (* chance_raised_but_not_reraised 2.0)
(* (- 1.0 chance_raised_but_not_reraised) 1.0)))
(flop_pot_size (+ (* small_bets_preflop (+ 1 opponents_preflop))
(* small_bets_flop
opponents_preflop
portion_seeing_turn))))
(- ;; winnings minus investment equals profit
(* (- 1.0 (* chance_raise_behind chance_reraise_ahead))
;; not raised out of pot on flop
(+ (* (/ outs 47.0) ;; turned a set
(+ (* chance_lose_with_set ;; turned a set and lost
(* -2.0 big_bets_if_lose))
(* (- 1.0 chance_lose_with_set) ;; turned set and won
(* 2.0 (+ (* portion_seeing_river
opponents_preflop
big_bets_turn)
(* portion_seeing_showdown
opponents_preflop
big_bets_river)
flop_pot_size
small_bets_flop)))))
(* (- 1.0 (/ outs 47.0)) ;; missed turning set
chance_no_bet_turn ;; but got free card
(/ outs 46.0) ;; and rivered set
(+ (* portion_seeing_showdown ;; assumes no chance of loss here
opponents_preflop
big_bets_river)
flop_pot_size
small_bets_flop))) ;; end +
) ;; end *
small_bets_flop)))
=> -0.0293...
(This is the expected value in small bets of calling on the flop.)
To use: Copy the above into your Gnu emacs editor, edit the parameters at
the top, move your cursor to the end, and then hit control-c-e. Or put it
into your LISP shell if you have one. Note that small changes can make
calling the correct play. For example changing the chance of a free
card on the turn from .05 to .09 will make the call slightly positive.
The above is obviously fairly complicated and so I could have easily
made a mistake that would lead to garbage output. It's also by no
means an exact model. For a much better model, you'd basically need to
resort to simulation.
--
Abdul
Abdul Jalib
>
> st...@brecher.reno.nv.us (Steve Brecher) writes:
>
> > Rick Nebiolo <rickn...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > > "This hand was played in a 15/30 holdem game. Four players had
> > > limped in and a player holding 4d 4c one off the button called, the
> > > player on the button raised, both blinds called, and all remaining
> > > players including the player holding 4d 4c called (eight players saw the
> > > flop for two bets each).
> > >
> > > The flop came 9d 8s 3d. The player in the small blind bet and two
> > > players to his left called (two folded). What should the player holding
> > > 4d 4c do and why?"
> >
> > You've got the pre-flop raiser behind you yet to act, and you may be
> > drawing dead. If you put any money in the pot it may well come back
> > around two more bets to you. What's the tough part?
>
> I'll go out on a limb here and disgree with everyone else and say
> it's actually very close.
[munch]
> In a followup message, I'll give an example where you could
> clearly call on the flop with a little underpair.
Okay, so here we are in the followup message where I'll give the
example of where you should clearly draw for a two outer.
Suppose it's 8-handed, everyone calls, you call on the button
with 5d5s, the small blind raises, and everyone calls. From
past play with the small blind you know he is a rock and likely
has QQ, KK, AA, or AKs. The flop is 7d 2d Tc. The small blind
bets out and only one player folds.
The current pot size is 22 small bets. Your effective pot size is
close to 40 small bets. (If you make your set on the turn, you'll
get to raise with perhaps 4 callers, and then get 2 more big bets
on the river, perhaps.)
Fine point: If you hit your set on the turn, there is about a 25%
chance that you will be rivered, mainly by straights and flushes,
or that you are drawing dead versus a big set, which means that you will
be paying more than one small bet sometimes when you lose. If you
lose an average of 4 big bets when you get rivered, the one in a hundred
chance of making your set and then losing makes the call on the flop
cost an average of 1.08 small bets. You can think of this as reducing
the effective pot size by 8% to 37.
Now, you have 2 outs, but since we're guessing 25% of the time
you'll lose even when you make an out this reduces it to about 1.5
effective outs.
Fine point: there's also a chance you'll get a free card on the
turn, which increases your effective outs, but I'll ignore this here.
To determine if we should at least call, take your effective pot
size, add 1, multiply by your effective outs, and see if this
is greater than 47. 40 plus 1 is 41, times 1.5 is 60.5, which
is a lot bigger than 47. Therefore, call. (Even an effective pot
size of 33 and effective outs of 1.4 would suffice.)
It would be suicidal to raise here or in the 44 scenario. People
seem to be confusing when you have odds to draw with when you are
an odds on favorite. You are a huge odds underdog here. Preserve
your implied odds by not raising.
The differences between my scenario and the 44 scenario are as follows,
in order of importance. In my scenario...
1. You're "closing" the action on the flop. (Caro's terminology.)
2. There are more players seeing the turn, offering bigger implied odds.
3. The board offers fewer straight draws and fewer likely top two pairs.
--
Abdul
lewis wolfson
know...is there a seat open in this game? 15/30 two bets 8? callers? 'Scuse
me while I wipe off the drool from my chin.
Normally, I play lower limit as that is what my bankroll allows. Usually in
a no fold-em style game. This is not my preference but all that is available
in my area. Often I encounter the phrase "I knew I was beat so I called".
This one kills me.
As for what to do with this hand, RAISE the flop in an attempt to buy a
turn card. If the bettor comes back over the top...???
Good flops in your future!!!
----------<rickn...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>The following hand has been discussed by several poker acquaintances in
>some detail. I would like to limit the discussion to the proper action
>on the flop and would like to get some fresh opinions from this
>newsgroup.
>
> "This hand was played in a 15/30 holdem game. Four players had
>limped in and a player holding 4d 4c one off the button called, the
>player on the button raised, both blinds called, and all remaining
>players including the player holding 4d 4c called (eight players saw the
>flop for two bets each).
>
> The flop came 9d 8s 3d. The player in the small blind bet and two
>players to his left called (two folded). What should the player holding
>4d 4c do and why?"
>
gary_...@my-dejanews.com
nos...@x.net wrote:
> Isnt this the hand Mason Malmuth posted about playing in the Poker
Forum
> over on two plus two?
It sure looks like it. Mason called on the flop, and he was right do
so, I think. I'm shocked at the number of people who wouldn't call.
It does, of course, depends on whether or not the button is gonna
raise. But, unless he's clearly putting on some kind of disinterested
act, I'd assume he's not gonna raise. There is almost enough money in
the pot right now to give you the right price to take off a card. No
way in hell is a 4 gonna make you a second best hand, and nothing on
the flop suggest to me that a set of 4's isn't gonna be best. The
implied odds are there to give you enough extra. Sure you might get
beat by redraws. That might happen if you flop quads to.
I do think it was a mistake to not back-raise, making it 3-bets before
the flop. 7-1 is about the right price for a pocket pair -- including
both flopping a set and some of the other ways a pair can win (even
little pairs against 7 players can win in ways other than flopping a
set).
If it would have been me, I'd have 3-bet it before the flop (and I
think that's clearly the right play) and I'd raise on the flop. I'm
not gonna defend raising on the flop, and I don't recommend it to
everyone. But, it works for me -- mostly just cause I like to raise,
it makes me feel good.
Mason bet the turn when a nothing card hit. I think that was the right
thing to do also. Although if I had raised the flop I'd have checked
the turn. Just calling on the flop though, the bet was clearly the
right thing I think.
When a Q hit the river he checked. I think a bet would have been
right. Based on this sample of one hand, this looks like a really weak
field. These guys are very likely to fold an unimproved 8 or a 55 on
the river. I'm guessing that they are also the kind of player who
might just call on the river with AK. Many weak players will both lay
down second pair on the river but call with AK. But, Mason knows these
players better than me and I'm not saying that checking it down was
wrong.
Gary Carson
>
> Rick Nebiolo wrote:
> >
> > The following hand has been discussed by several poker
acquaintances in
> > some detail. I would like to limit the discussion to the proper
action
> > on the flop and would like to get some fresh opinions from this
> > newsgroup.
> >
> > "This hand was played in a 15/30 holdem game. Four players had
> > limped in and a player holding 4d 4c one off the button called, the
> > player on the button raised, both blinds called, and all remaining
> > players including the player holding 4d 4c called (eight players
saw the
> > flop for two bets each).
> >
> > The flop came 9d 8s 3d. The player in the small blind bet and
two
> > players to his left called (two folded). What should the player
holding
> > 4d 4c do and why?"
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Rick
> >
> > P.S. Please don't forget to explain your reasoning if you have
time.
>
--
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Boolou20
>> some detail. I would like to limit the discussion to the proper action
>> on the flop and would like to get some fresh opinions from this
>> newsgroup.
>>
>> "This hand was played in a 15/30 holdem game. Four players had
>> limped in and a player holding 4d 4c one off the button called, the
>> player on the button raised, both blinds called, and all remaining
>> players including the player holding 4d 4c called (eight players saw the
>> flop for two bets each).
>>
>> The flop came 9d 8s 3d. The player in the small blind bet and two
>> players to his left called (two folded). What should the player holding
>> 4d 4c do and why?"
>
Muck the piece of cheese!!!!
Stephen H. Landrum
>Isnt this the hand Mason Malmuth posted about playing in the Poker Forum
>over on two plus two?
Yes, but some people are not allowed to post on 2+2. Rick probably
wanted the insights from one of them.
Still, it would have been nice if Rick mentioned where he got it.
He's paraphrasing a bit, and changing the question a bit, but it's
just common courtesy to attribute the author when you are quoting
someone else.
"Stephen H. Landrum" <slan...@pacbell.net>
Daniel Negreanu
is even worse! The key to becoming a good hold'em
player is playing well after the flop. Anyone who
would even think of calling or raising here just
doesn't understand hold'em at all. Tough decision?
You must be kidding! Daniel Negreanu
In article <374A43D7...@worldnet.att.net>,
Rick Nebiolo <rickn...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Regards,
>
> Rick
>
> P.S. Please don't forget to explain your reasoning if you have time.
>
>
Jeffrey B. Siegal
> There is almost enough money in
> the pot right now to give you the right price to take off a card.
That's true as long as you're almost sure the pre-flop raiser isn't
going to raise. Also, keep in mind that the board has two suited cards;
you can hit your hand on the turn and still lose to a flush (or a
straight) on the river.
That the possibility of losing to a flush or straight reduces the value
of your hand by maybe 15% (though this depends on how readily your
opponents play suited cards). This corresponds to roughly an additional
three small bets that you'd like to see in the pot.. There are only 19
in there. Adjust that down to 16 and add in an estimated six you'll
likely make when you hit your hand and the call is very close (adjust
this upward if your opponents are more likely to pay you off big). The
possibility that the button will raise, along with the possibilty that
someone has flopped a bigger set, is more than enough to tip this
against you.
Fold unless your opponents are likely to pay you off big if you hit and
you have excellent reads on your opponents and are *very* confident that
no one has flopped a set and the button will not raise.
Maverick
> Calling on this flop is a horrible play, but raising
> is even worse! The key to becoming a good hold'em
> player is playing well after the flop. Anyone who
> would even think of calling or raising here just
> doesn't understand hold'em at all. Tough decision?
> You must be kidding! Daniel Negreanu
I agree that the majority of time you'll muck in this case, but there are
many indirect reasons why you might raise in this situation once or twice
a night.
1. You might get the hand that can actually beat you to muck because of
the callers behind him and the fear(if you are a tight player) that
he might be drawing dead against you. At minimum, you might get a free
river card to make your set. If you get 3 bet, then you can always
release it.
2. Doing a strange play a couple times a night adds to your +EV on your
other hands throughout the night. I'd suggest if you raise in this
position make sure whether you fold or see the hand out you make sure
to sure your opponents the 4-4 you raised with. Showing them plays
like this will help when you raise with semi bluff draws like flushes
and straights and you hit the flush/straight and keep them calling.
3. They might already put you on the semi bluff straight draw when you
raise and when it hits the turn you might easily get the pot with a
bet.
4. If worse comes to worse, there are already alot of bets in the pot and
you might actually hit your set and suck out.
Ralph Mair
the preflop raiser still to act is making a mistake. The thought of raising
to get a "free card" on the turn brings tears of laughter to my eyes. Fold.
Ralph Mair.
tonyj...@home.com
I just smiled and complimented him on his call. He went home broke an
hour later. Assuming a 4 doesn't come on the turn, is there any card
that won't make you cringe???
Tony
Maverick
> You said you can raise the flop and if you get
> 3-bet you can release it? I hope I'm misunderstanding
> this, because it ridiculous. Are you saying you'd
> throw 2 bets into the flop and fold for 1 more?
> That's absurd. Daniel Negreanu
I said you CAN do it...I didn't say *I* would do it. But, the concept is
anything but absurd. You make it two bets under certain table
conditions...sometimes when you get three bet, you can read in certain
things about what's going on at the table. Sometimes taht 3rd bet is
meaningless...sometimes that third bet let's you know it's time to lay it
down while you can. Depends on your opponents. I've seen a number of great
players make it three bets and then correctly fold to a fourth bet.
holl...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
>
> On Tue, 25 May 1999 11:16:05 -0400, Hetron <nos...@x.net> wrote:
>
> >Isnt this the hand Mason Malmuth posted about playing in the Poker Forum
> >over on two plus two?
>
> Yes, but some people are not allowed to post on 2+2.
Probably more accurate to say they choose not to participate because of
a hostile climate.
> Rick probably
> wanted the insights from one of them.
>
> Still, it would have been nice if Rick mentioned where he got it.
> He's paraphrasing a bit, and changing the question a bit, but it's
> just common courtesy to attribute the author when you are quoting
> someone else.
>
I think Rick wanted reactions from people without them knowing who had
played the hand.
Once you tell them the source, then a certain amount of objectivity is
lost. Probably
he would have 'fessed up at the end.
Eric
Rick Nebiolo
How ugly can this flop be (except from the point of view of the pair of
fours)? Many players limped in which often means middle cards, it contains a
two flush, plus a middle two straight (98). I have to think somebody (or even
several players) hit this flop hard and a raise by you will often come back at
you with three bets.
Regards,
Rick
Maverick wrote:
> On Mon, 24 May 1999, Rick Nebiolo wrote:
> > The flop came 9d 8s 3d. The player in the small blind bet and two
> > players to his left called (two folded). What should the player holding
> > 4d 4c do and why?"
>
Rick Nebiolo
When I first saw the question and who the author was, I too thought it was a
trick question since the final result of the hand was favorable and did
contain an expert play on the turn.
Regards,
Rick
Paul Hankin wrote:
> In article <374A43D7...@worldnet.att.net>,
> Rick Nebiolo <rickn...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >The following hand has been discussed by several poker acquaintances in
> >some detail. I would like to limit the discussion to the proper action
> >on the flop and would like to get some fresh opinions from this
> >newsgroup.
> >
> > "This hand was played in a 15/30 holdem game. Four players had
> >limped in and a player holding 4d 4c one off the button called, the
> >player on the button raised, both blinds called, and all remaining
> >players including the player holding 4d 4c called (eight players saw the
> >flop for two bets each).
> >
> > The flop came 9d 8s 3d. The player in the small blind bet and two
> >players to his left called (two folded). What should the player holding
> >4d 4c do and why?"
>
Rick Nebiolo
I felt it was a clear fold also, but am not so sure after reading some of the posts
below. I would point out that this isn't a case of being a small favorite or a big
dog since the original poster (Mason Malmuth on 2+2) was fairly certain (according
to a sub post in the thread) that he was beat when he took a card off on the flop.
As it turned out, the board paired 3's on the turn, he was checked to, he bet it
(the best play by far at this point), and only got the original lead bettor as a
caller. When the board came an offsuit queen on the river, he won a showdown
against a flush draw (Ad 6d).
Rick Nebiolo
What is a contrail?
Regards :-),
Rick
"Jeffrey B. Siegal" wrote:
> Rick Nebiolo wrote:
> > What should the player holding
> > 4d 4c do and why?"
>
Rick Nebiolo
Yes. You may be interested in my reply to Stephan Landrum below (I'll have it
done in a few minutes).
Regards,
Rick
Hetron wrote:
> Isnt this the hand Mason Malmuth posted about playing in the Poker Forum
> over on two plus two?
>
> Rick Nebiolo wrote:
> >
> > The following hand has been discussed by several poker acquaintances in
> > some detail. I would like to limit the discussion to the proper action
> > on the flop and would like to get some fresh opinions from this
> > newsgroup.
> >
> > "This hand was played in a 15/30 holdem game. Four players had
> > limped in and a player holding 4d 4c one off the button called, the
> > player on the button raised, both blinds called, and all remaining
> > players including the player holding 4d 4c called (eight players saw the
> > flop for two bets each).
> >
> > The flop came 9d 8s 3d. The player in the small blind bet and two
> > players to his left called (two folded). What should the player holding
> > 4d 4c do and why?"
> >
Rick Nebiolo
Apparently this game was played at the Bellagio. Who says they don't have good
games in Las Vegas?
Regards,
Rick
lewis wolfson wrote:
> WOW...Your post generated quite a bit of discussion. Good job! I want to
> know...is there a seat open in this game? 15/30 two bets 8? callers? 'Scuse
> me while I wipe off the drool from my chin.
> Normally, I play lower limit as that is what my bankroll allows. Usually in
> a no fold-em style game. This is not my preference but all that is available
> in my area. Often I encounter the phrase "I knew I was beat so I called".
> This one kills me.
> As for what to do with this hand, RAISE the flop in an attempt to buy a
> turn card. If the bettor comes back over the top...???
> Good flops in your future!!!
> ----------
> In article <374A43D7...@worldnet.att.net>, Rick Nebiolo
Maverick
> Maverick,
> How ugly can this flop be (except from the point of view of the pair of
> fours)? Many players limped in which often means middle cards, it contains a
> two flush, plus a middle two straight (98). I have to think somebody (or even
> several players) hit this flop hard and a raise by you will often come back at
> you with three bets.
1. Most cases I'd probably muck without hesitating.
2. From your story is appeared that some of these players already mucked
after the flop was bet...the SB seems to be the only one with a hand...the
next two callsers saw the flop from early position but only called the
flop so that sounds like overcards to me. In this particular situation I
see the VERY occasioanly opportunity to make an image play that might turn
into a success. Reason is that your raise might get everyone behind you to
fold...might also get you a free card on the river....might get the SB to
fold if they were doing all this raising with a pocket pair or AK of their
own...and that might leave you only with one of the two flop callers who
are probably playing over cards are at most a flush/straight draw and
giving you decent odds to freeroll for a win should you be beat and/or
give you good odds should you gets heads up against a flush/straight draw.
Most of the time I wouldn't do this....but if you make the occasional
image play, this trash flop seems like a good opportunity.
Rick Nebiolo
gary_...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Mason called on the flop, and he was right do so, I think. I'm shocked
> at the number of people who wouldn't call.
I was one that thought it was an easy fold on the flop. In a sub post,
Mason sort of admitted his call was a bit thin on the flop on 2+2. But
after reading you, Abdul and some others, I'm not so sure. I definitely
need to think through these long shot calls a lot more as I may be way too
tight.
> It does, of course, depends on whether or not the button is gonna
> raise. But, unless he's clearly putting on some kind of disinterested
> act, I'd assume he's not gonna raise. There is almost enough money in
> the pot right now to give you the right price to take off a card.
Isn't it amazing how many mid limit players on your left give away whether
or not they will raise, fold or call just by the way they hold their cards,
chips or body language. When you get this type on your left, it is almost
like having two buttons per round.
> No way in hell is a 4 gonna make you a second best hand, and nothing on
> the flop suggest to me that a set of 4's isn't gonna be best. The
> implied odds are there to give you enough extra. Sure you might get
> beat by redraws. That might happen if you flop quads to.
I think this matter still needs further investigation but then again I lean
forwards paranoia :-). I think a lot of redraws are there with this flop
but I'm having trouble quantifying it. Abdul's post below is making my
head spin but I'll see if I can make sense of it. Later I may post some
findings using Caro's Poker Probe which may help.
> I do think it was a mistake to not back-raise, making it 3-bets before
> the flop. 7-1 is about the right price for a pocket pair -- including
> both flopping a set and some of the other ways a pair can win (even
> little pairs against 7 players can win in ways other than flopping a
> set).
I think this idea deserves a post all its own although I would lean towards
doing this more with middle pairs. Let me know if you would like to start
such a post or should I.
> If it would have been me, I'd have 3-bet it before the flop (and I
> think that's clearly the right play) and I'd raise on the flop. I'm
> not gonna defend raising on the flop, and I don't recommend it to
> everyone. But, it works for me -- mostly just cause I like to raise,
> it makes me feel good.
Right now I don't feel good. My best friend just stopped by and I find out
that NYPD is having its final episode and it was 2/3 over. I thought the
final was last week when Sipowitz's wife was shot dead.
> Mason bet the turn when a nothing card hit. I think that was the right
> thing to do also. Although if I had raised the flop I'd have checked
> the turn. Just calling on the flop though, the bet was clearly the
> right thing I think.
I have no problems with Mason's turn bet, which is the strongest play by
far. In fact, it was the centerpiece of the original post.
> When a Q hit the river he checked. I think a bet would have been
> right. Based on this sample of one hand, this looks like a really weak
> field. These guys are very likely to fold an unimproved 8 or a 55 on
> the river. I'm guessing that they are also the kind of player who
> might just call on the river with AK. Many weak players will both lay
> down second pair on the river but call with AK. But, Mason knows these
> players better than me and I'm not saying that checking it down was
> wrong.
This is another potential thread but it might be better on 2+2 where Mason
can fill us in on some of the nuances. A lot of time the body language and
playing style of the single opponent you are up against dictates the
correct play.
Regards,
Rick
Maverick
>
> What is a contrail?
Jet Exhaust?
Abdul Jalib
> I estimate a 30% chance you will lose if you make your set here.
> This would be the case if you were up against 98, KK, an open-ended
> straight draw or a flush draw, and somebody who is drawing dead against
> you like A3 or top pair.
BTW, this was a pessimistic estimate, trying to allay the fears of those
worried about being up against a bigger set.
--
Abdul
Rick Nebiolo
"Jeffrey B. Siegal" wrote:
> gary_...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > There is almost enough money in
> > the pot right now to give you the right price to take off a card.
>
> That's true as long as you're almost sure the pre-flop raiser isn't
> going to raise. Also, keep in mind that the board has two suited cards;
> you can hit your hand on the turn and still lose to a flush (or a
> straight) on the river.
It is possible that Mason had a tell on the player behind that he didn't
mention. Otherwise, I would guess that the preflop raiser would raise with
any overpair, set, JTs, QJs, QTs, or big diamond draw. Some would raise
with an AK or AQ, especially if it included a diamond.
> That the possibility of losing to a flush or straight reduces the value
> of your hand by maybe 15% (though this depends on how readily your
> opponents play suited cards). This corresponds to roughly an additional
> three small bets that you'd like to see in the pot.. There are only 19
> in there. Adjust that down to 16 and add in an estimated six you'll
> likely make when you hit your hand and the call is very close (adjust
> this upward if your opponents are more likely to pay you off big). The
> possibility that the button will raise, along with the possibilty that
> someone has flopped a bigger set, is more than enough to tip this
> against you.
Let me know if you understand Abdul's formula below. I feel like a nitwit
by comparison.
> Fold unless your opponents are likely to pay you off big if you hit and
> you have excellent reads on your opponents and are *very* confident that
> no one has flopped a set and the button will not raise.
I've never been that confident, especially on a parley.
Regards,
Rick
Rick Nebiolo
I did put a lot of thought into whether it was proper or not (noting where
the hand came from) before posting this on rgp. I decided to keep the hand
disguised for two reasons. First, in Mason's original post, he described the
complete hand including the successful outcome. I believe when someone makes
what may be a bad play (i.e., the call on the flop) yet it turns out OK, many
seem to miss the bad play. Of course now I have my doubts that it was in
fact a bad call (which was my position on 2+2) after reading Abdul Jalib and
Gary Carson among others.
Second, there is the popularity factor. On 2+2 Mason is a frequent and
popular poster. Over here, well, I'm aware of the bad blood going around.
It was interesting that among the posters that liked Mason's call the most,
there is perhaps less than a cordial relationship (which is unfortunate -
they are all great minds IMHO). For the record, I enjoy both rgp and 2+2 for
different reasons and hope they both prosper and expand.
I changed the question only in that I made the player unknown and cut off the
play after the flop (which was expert by Mason on the turn but a river bet
could perhaps be debated). Since Mason's original post did not contain any
analysis, I felt I could repost it without committing any major sin. If I
did, I apologize and would welcome any comments concerning the fine line as
to what is proper and what is not.
In the end, the posts on both rgp and 2+2 illustrate what a wonderful and
complicated game poker is and I would like to thank all that participated in
the thread.
Regards,
Rick
"Stephen H. Landrum" wrote:
> On Tue, 25 May 1999 11:16:05 -0400, Hetron <nos...@x.net> wrote:
>
> >Isnt this the hand Mason Malmuth posted about playing in the Poker Forum
> >over on two plus two?
>
> Yes, but some people are not allowed to post on 2+2. Rick probably
> wanted the insights from one of them.
>
> Still, it would have been nice if Rick mentioned where he got it.
> He's paraphrasing a bit, and changing the question a bit, but it's
> just common courtesy to attribute the author when you are quoting
> someone else.
>
> "Stephen H. Landrum" <slan...@pacbell.net>
Mason Malmuth
and the original raiser only calls. This puts 21 other bets (besides your call) in
the pot. Now a four hits on the turn. There is a bet and two calls, and you raise.
This puts another 6 double size bets in the pot. A blank hits on the river and you
bet and get two calls (two more double size bets). This produces a total of 37
bets won compared to your original call.
Daniel Negreanu
When it comes to table image, I'm somewhat of an
expert. The play with the 44 isn't neccessary,
there are many other spots you can enhance your
table image. Raising with 10-6 of spades from
middle position once or twice a night will have
the desired effect of players thinking your
wacko. You have a much better chance of winning
that hand than the 44, but the result will be
even better.
You said you can raise the flop and if you get
3-bet you can release it? I hope I'm misunderstanding
this, because it ridiculous. Are you saying you'd
throw 2 bets into the flop and fold for 1 more?
That's absurd. Daniel Negreanu
In article <Pine.GHP.4.05.9905251614350.8856-
100...@smallpox.ecst.csuchico.edu>,
> 4. If worse comes to worse, there are already alot of bets in the pot
and
> you might actually hit your set and suck out.
>
>
Daniel Negreanu
solid, put in two bets on the flop in a multi-way
pot and fold for a 3rd. That is a very weak play
under any multi-way situation. As far as I'm
concerned this is a dead issue, the only logical
option you have on this flop is fold. Throwing
in two bets as dead money just doesn't appeal to
me. Sure I'll gain information, but I don't even
have a hand. I can get all the info I need by
folding for free and watching the action proceed.
Daniel Negreanu
In article <Pine.GHP.4.05.9905252151010.1119-
100...@steroid.ecst.csuchico.edu>,
Maverick <bret...@ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 May 1999, Daniel Negreanu wrote:
> > You said you can raise the flop and if you get
> > 3-bet you can release it? I hope I'm misunderstanding
> > this, because it ridiculous. Are you saying you'd
> > throw 2 bets into the flop and fold for 1 more?
> > That's absurd. Daniel Negreanu
>
> I said you CAN do it...I didn't say *I* would do it. But, the
concept is
> anything but absurd. You make it two bets under certain table
> conditions...sometimes when you get three bet, you can read in certain
> things about what's going on at the table. Sometimes taht 3rd bet is
> meaningless...sometimes that third bet let's you know it's time to
lay it
> down while you can. Depends on your opponents. I've seen a number of
great
> players make it three bets and then correctly fold to a fourth bet.
>
>
gary_...@my-dejanews.com
Daniel Negreanu <kidp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Calling on this flop is a horrible play, but raising
> is even worse! The key to becoming a good hold'em
> player is playing well after the flop. Anyone who
> would even think of calling or raising here just
> doesn't understand hold'em at all. Tough decision?
> You must be kidding! Daniel Negreanu
I'm not the one to argue that Mason understands a whole lot about
hold'em, but I don't think it's accurate to say he doesn't understand
the game at all. Many aspects of the game I suspect he understands
quite well.
Also, I don't think it's entirely accurate to assert that Abdul doesn't
understand hold'em at all.
And, I know it's not accurate to claim that I don't understand hold'em
at all.
But, that's not really what the thread is about. To rephrase the
question for you ----- Why is it a terrible play to call here? I'm
interested.
Gary Carson
>
> In article <374A43D7...@worldnet.att.net>,
> Rick Nebiolo <rickn...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > The following hand has been discussed by several poker acquaintances
> in
> > some detail. I would like to limit the discussion to the proper
> action
> > on the flop and would like to get some fresh opinions from this
> > newsgroup.
> >
> > "This hand was played in a 15/30 holdem game. Four players had
> > limped in and a player holding 4d 4c one off the button called, the
> > player on the button raised, both blinds called, and all remaining
> > players including the player holding 4d 4c called (eight players saw
> the
> > flop for two bets each).
> >
> > The flop came 9d 8s 3d. The player in the small blind bet and
two
> > players to his left called (two folded). What should the player
> holding
> > 4d 4c do and why?"
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Rick
> >
> > P.S. Please don't forget to explain your reasoning if you have
time.
> >
> >
>
> --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
> ---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
>
--
gary...@email.msn.com
rmm...@sk.sympatico.ca wrote:
> Anybody who calls in this situation to try and hit a set on the turn
with
> the preflop raiser still to act is making a mistake. The thought of
If all I know about this table is what happened before the flop and on
the flop up till it's my turn, I'm gonna conclude that this is a really
weak table. Most of the time, players who make up this kind of table
telegraph almost everything they do. I don't care whether or not the
button was a preflop raiser or not. Just a glance will tell you
quickly whether or not he's likely to raise.
I agree that if you have an indication that he's gonna raise, you
should dump the hand. But, the fact that he raised preflop isn't a
good enough reason to conclude he's gonna raise now.
I'll admit that I'm influenced in my decision to call by knowing that
Mason called. The reason is that Mason is not a fool. He knows enough
about the game to tell whether or not the button is giving an
indication that he's gonna raise. Since He called, I pretty much
assume that the button was not putting on some act about looking
disinterested. That's enough for me --- call is pretty automatic once
you've determined that he's not gonna raise. And, that is something
that can be determined.
Like I said, I'm not gonna defend a raise. Even though I suspect I
might raise in this situation. It has nothing to do with a free card.
Gary Carson
raising
> to get a "free card" on the turn brings tears of laughter to my eyes.
Fold.
>
> Ralph Mair.
>
> Rick Nebiolo wrote:
>
> > The following hand has been discussed by several poker
acquaintances in
> > some detail. I would like to limit the discussion to the proper
action
> > on the flop and would like to get some fresh opinions from this
> > newsgroup.
> >
> > "This hand was played in a 15/30 holdem game. Four players had
> > limped in and a player holding 4d 4c one off the button called, the
> > player on the button raised, both blinds called, and all remaining
> > players including the player holding 4d 4c called (eight players
saw the
> > flop for two bets each).
> >
> > The flop came 9d 8s 3d. The player in the small blind bet and
two
> > players to his left called (two folded). What should the player
holding
> > 4d 4c do and why?"
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Rick
> >
> > P.S. Please don't forget to explain your reasoning if you have
time.
>
>
--
HitTheFlop
>Rick, I assume the tough part of this hand is deciding which folding motion
>to use when throwing this piece of crap in the muck. The worst
>straightforward draw in poker is the underpair draw in Holdem. Calling or
>raising with this hand is, to me, prima facie evidence the player is either
>on tilt or a poor player.
I've just returned from a six day run at the Commerce and from
what I saw drawing to the under pocket pair for the turn is
part of California law. No one explained the exact penalties
for violating this statute so I was real careful to muck mine
without getting busted. Everyone else seemed to take
one off, sometimes two.
Best Luck,
Ed (no, not that Ed!)
Friends may come and go
but enemies accumulate.
Rick Nebiolo
I was at a remote computer this afternoon and used deja.com to look over the
this thread. In this spot was an intense post by Abdul Jalib which I have
copied below from deja.news and posted here.
I am using Netscape Communicator/Messager 4.5 for my email. I am screwing
around with two ISPs (ATTWorldNet and Earthlink) to compare speed for now and
this may be the source of my problem. Does anyone else have this problem or
problems with missing posts? Does anyone else see Abdul's post on Netscape?
Am I crazy?
Anyway, here is his post copied from deja.com:
>> Forum: rec.gambling.poker
>> Thread: What To Do On The Flop - A Tough Decision?
>> Message 14 of 32
Subject: Re: What To Do On The Flop - A Tough Decision?
Date: 1999/05/25
Author: Abdul Jalib <Abd...@PosEV.com>
Posting History
st...@brecher.reno.nv.us (Steve Brecher) writes:
> Rick Nebiolo <rickn...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > "This hand was played in a 15/30 holdem game. Four players had
> > limped in and a player holding 4d 4c one off the button called, the
> > player on the button raised, both blinds called, and all remaining
> > players including the player holding 4d 4c called (eight players saw the
> > flop for two bets each).
> >
> > The flop came 9d 8s 3d. The player in the small blind bet and two
> > players to his left called (two folded). What should the player holding
> > 4d 4c do and why?"
>
> You've got the pre-flop raiser behind you yet to act, and you may be
> drawing dead. If you put any money in the pot it may well come back
> around two more bets to you. What's the tough part?
I'll go out on a limb here and disgree with everyone else and say it's
actually very close. If you assume a 50% chance that
the preflop raiser will raise and a 30% chance that someone will reraise
(driving you out), then it's basically breakeven. If you were closing the
action on the flop, you could definitely call for one bet.
I disagree with the concerns over drawing dead. Look at the action. The only
player whose actions are completely consistent thus far with 99 or 88 is the
small blind. While the button might raise preflop with them, he might not.
While the players in the middle might go for a call-reraise with a set, they
might not. And there are only 6 such hands (9s9h, 9s9c, 9c9h, 8d8h, 8d8c,
8c8h) to worry about out of the many hundreds of hands they could hold. (On
the basis of a sample size of one, they seem quite loose.) Since you will not
be always going to the river, the cost of being up against a big set is much
less than in other situations, such as if you had top pair bad kicker and
feared you were beat.
I estimate a 30% chance you will lose if you make your set here. This would be
the case if you were up against 98, KK, an open-ended straight draw or a flush
draw, and somebody who is drawing dead against you like A3 or top pair.
Part of what makes drawing tempting here is that when you draw a 4 on the
turn, this makes it unlikely that you will lose with a set. Note that you have
the 4d (or else drawing would be very foolish), and a 4 does not really make
straights more likely.
In a followup message, I'll give an example where you could
clearly call on the flop with a little underpair.
Finally, here is the math in LISP format for your scenario.
(let ((opponents_preflop 7.0)
(small_bets_preflop 2.0)
(chance_raise_behind .5)
(chance_reraise_ahead .3)
(portion_seeing_turn .5)
(big_bets_turn 2.0) ;; per player seeing river
(portion_seeing_river .25)
(big_bets_river 1.0) ;; per player seeing showdown
(portion_seeing_showdown .2)
(outs 2.0)
(chance_no_bet_turn 0.05)
(chance_lose_with_set .30)
(big_bets_if_lose 4.0))
(let* ((chance_raised_but_not_reraised (* chance_raise_behind
(- 1
chance_reraise_ahead))) (small_bets_flop (+ (*
chance_raised_but_not_reraised 2.0) (* (- 1.0
chance_raised_but_not_reraised) 1.0))) (flop_pot_size (+ (*
small_bets_preflop (+ 1 opponents_preflop)) (*
small_bets_flop
opponents_preflop
portion_seeing_turn))))
(- ;; winnings minus investment equals profit
(* (- 1.0 (* chance_raise_behind chance_reraise_ahead))
;; not raised out of pot on flop
(+ (* (/ outs 47.0) ;; turned a set
(+ (* chance_lose_with_set ;; turned a set and
lost (* -2.0 big_bets_if_lose))
(* (- 1.0 chance_lose_with_set) ;; turned set and
won (* 2.0 (+ (* portion_seeing_river
opponents_preflop
big_bets_turn)
(* portion_seeing_showdown
opponents_preflop
big_bets_river)
flop_pot_size
small_bets_flop)))))
(* (- 1.0 (/ outs 47.0)) ;; missed turning set
chance_no_bet_turn ;; but got free card
(/ outs 46.0) ;; and rivered set
(+ (* portion_seeing_showdown ;; assumes no chance of loss
here opponents_preflop
big_bets_river)
flop_pot_size
small_bets_flop))) ;; end +
) ;; end *
small_bets_flop)))
=> -0.0293...
(This is the expected value in small bets of calling on the flop.)
To use: Copy the above into your Gnu emacs editor, edit the parameters at the
top, move your cursor to the end, and then hit control-c-e. Or put it into
your LISP shell if you have one. Note that small changes can make calling the
correct play. For example changing the chance of a free card on the turn from
.05 to .09 will make the call slightly positive.
The above is obviously fairly complicated and so I could have easily made a
mistake that would lead to garbage output. It's also by no means an exact
model. For a much better model, you'd basically need to resort to simulation.
--
Abdul
gary_...@my-dejanews.com
Rick Nebiolo <rickn...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > I do think it was a mistake to not back-raise, making it 3-bets
before
> > the flop. 7-1 is about the right price for a pocket pair --
including
> > both flopping a set and some of the other ways a pair can win (even
> > little pairs against 7 players can win in ways other than flopping a
> > set).
>
> I think this idea deserves a post all its own although I would lean
towards
> doing this more with middle pairs. Let me know if you would like to
start
> such a post or should I.
Well, 44 is probably somewhat marginal, but like I said, I like to
raise, it makes me feel good.
>
> This is another potential thread but it might be better on 2+2 where
Mason
> can fill us in on some of the nuances. A lot of time the body
language and
> playing style of the single opponent you are up against dictates the
> correct play.
Actually, I think the whole thread would have been better just left on
2+2. But, nothing is stopping Mason from posting here.
Gary Carson
HitTheFlop
>First, in Mason's original post, he described the
>complete hand including the successful outcome. I believe when someone makes
>what may be a bad play (i.e., the call on the flop) yet it turns out OK, many
>seem to miss the bad play.
Check out Roy Cooke's column every other week for
a good example of this.
Rick Nebiolo
Rick Nebiolo wrote:
Abdul,
Sorry about the confusion but I really don't see your post on this ISP
(ATTWorldnet) Mailreader combo. I may check the other ISP later (maybe your
missing post is there).
Anyway, your post has me totally intimidated. I had an easier time with
differential equations twenty five years ago but then agian I'm losing brain cells
as I sit. All I need to know is are you pulling my leg with the above formula,
what the heck is LISP, what is a Gnu emacs editor, and if I get one will I know
how to use it or get as smart as you?
Regards :-),
Rick
Badger
> I've just returned from a six day run at the Commerce and from
> what I saw drawing to the under pocket pair for the turn is
> part of California law. No one explained the exact penalties
> for violating this statute so I was real careful to muck mine
> without getting busted. Everyone else seemed to take
> one off, sometimes two.
The Commerce sure is the home of the mighty under-pocketpair draw. Even
after more than a decade of California Holdem, players still make this
horrid play (even as they sometimes try to "play good" by folding far
superior draws like gutshots!).
Mason winning this pot neither makes this a better or worse call in the
longrun. Absent a tell on the button pre-flop raiser, a call is
ludicrous -- in California anyway, where the preflop raiser will raise a
flop like this 90% of the time, as they usually should. In California, with
this many people taking the flop, this pot will be two or three bet the big
majority of the time. Calling is a flat-out loser play, here. (Also Mason
betting the river, as some advocate, would also be a truly terrible play.
No player is going to lay down *any*pair with that busted flush draw out
there.)
--
Badger
"The harder they come,
the harder they fall,
one and all"
Rick Nebiolo
My brain got fried reading Abdul's post with the LISP stuff but I still may have
enough working cells left to go over your post.
> Let's look at the best case senario. You call on the flop with the pair of fours
> and the original raiser only calls. This puts 21 other bets (besides your call) in
> the pot.
It's a nit but I count 20 other bets besides your call (16 pre flop, the lead bettor,
the two callers in front, and the caller behind).
> Now a four hits on the turn. There is a bet and two calls, and you raise.
> This puts another 6 double size bets in the pot. A blank hits on the river and you
> bet and get two calls (two more double size bets). This produces a total of 37
> bets won compared to your original call.
All that sounds fine except I can't imagine this best case scenario happening very
often, especially if your opponents are on draws where they won't call on the end
(unless it is a flush draw and the board pairs making the flush). Anyway, I agree
that it is closer than I originally thought.
While I'm at it, do you think there was any merit to betting on the river since you
are head up and may get the player (let's say he is the type who prides himself in his
laydowns - of course you were there, I wasn't) to through away a QJ or QT (I think
both of these hands he may have played the way you described in the thread). You also
may get a call from an Ace high diamond draw which you would like.
Regards,
Rick
P.S. I hope you didn't mind me posting this on rgp. My reasoning is explained in the
response to Stephen Landrum.
Badger
usually losing long posts. Abdul's was pretty long. I don't think I got it
either.
Or is it possible Mason has donated his deleting services to ATT and
Earthlink?
--
Badger
"The harder the battle you see,
the sweeter the victory.
You can get it if you really want
But you must try, try and try, try and try
You'll succeed at last."
gary_...@my-dejanews.com
"Badger" <steveb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> HitTheFlop wrote...
> longrun. Absent a tell on the button pre-flop raiser, a call is
> ludicrous -- in California anyway, where the preflop raiser will
raise a > flop like this 90% of the time, as they usually should.
Did you pay any attention to how passive these players are? Everyone
of them is painfully passive (including Mason). It's been my
experieince that those kind of super loose/passive players do telegraph
raises.
In California, with
> this many people taking the flop, this pot will be two or three bet
the big > majority of the time.
And, it would be at most tables, in most places, I think. But, at
those tables one of those preflop limpers would have back-popped it
when the button raised. Nobody did. These players need some life
support systems or something.
Calling is a flat-out loser play, here.
Not if you've got good reason to think the button will not raise.
Maybe I'm giving Mason too much credit. But, I'm willing to assume
that the button was giving no indications that he was going to raise
and that he was the kind of transparent player who would have been
giving some indication if he was intending to raise.
(Also Mason
> betting the river, as some advocate, would also be a truly terrible
play. > No player is going to lay down *any*pair with that busted
flush draw out > there.)
Lots and lots of players would be looking for a reason to lay down a
hand like J8. Those same players would look for a reason to call with
AK. The reason for that is that they can show what a tough player they
are by showing down an AK. But, they don't want to risk showing down a
rag J8 and getting embarressed by them. This tendency among some
players is the single largest benefit I've gotten from the Sklansky
hand groups.
The call on the flop is a good call unless you've got a reason to think
that the button is going to raise. His preflop raise is a reason to do
a close examination of him and what kind of act he's trying to put on
-- it's not a reason to assume he's going to raise without further
evidence.
Gary Carson
Jeffrey B. Siegal
> Sorry about the confusion but I really don't see your post on this ISP
> (ATTWorldnet) Mailreader combo. I may check the other ISP later (maybe your
> missing post is there).
The post hasn't made it to my ISP either.
> Anyway, your post has me totally intimidated.
All you need to know to read this is:
1. (let ((a 1)
(b 2)
(c 3)
is just assigning the value of 1 to a, 2 to b, and 3 to c. So
each of the probabilities has the values Abdul assigns to them
at the start of the program.
2. (+ a b) means "a + b". (* (- a b) c) means "(a - b)c" ("*"
is computerese for multiplication).
A few comments on the model:
1. Abdul assumes that you will always make 2 bets per player on the turn
when you win, but you might only make one bet if it is checked to you
and you aren't check raised. According to his model the probability of
this is only 0.05, however.
2. I think his estimates of how much you get paid off on the turn and
river are slightly too high. Of course, this depends on the game but in
my experience you can not expect to get paid off on two bets by 1 3/4
opponents on the turn (you can easily be raising over someone to your
right and facing people with a cold call of two bets your left, which
they won't call, or they might call one bet on your right and then fold
when you pop it) and especially not 1.5 opponents on the river. It is
more rare than that to get paid off by more than one opponent on the
river.
3. You will probably get check raised on the river if an opponent makes
a straight against you.
Badger
> "Badger" wrote:
> > Absent a tell on the button pre-flop raiser, a call is
> > ludicrous -- in California anyway, where the preflop raiser will
> > raise a flop like this 90% of the time, as they usually should.
> Did you pay any attention to how passive these players are? Everyone
> of them is painfully passive (including Mason). It's been my
> experieince that those kind of super loose/passive players do telegraph
> raises.
The button raised before the flop. The button is the only player I care
about, besides the flop bettor. The way this action will come down most of
the time is the 44 (and the other two postflop callers) will make a bad
call, the button raises, the flop bettor reraises, it gets head-up or three
way and 44 has thrown away money -- either by calling the one bet and
folding, or more horribly, calling the three bets.
> > In California, with this many people taking
> > the flop, this pot will be two or three bet the big
> > majority of the time.
>
> And, it would be at most tables, in most places, I think. But, at
> those tables one of those preflop limpers would have back-popped it
> when the button raised. Nobody did. These players need some life
> support systems or something.
Two or three bets after the flop, not before. (Eight way see flop for two
bets, blind bets flop, preflop raiser on button -- this is a textbook
example of a hand that will usually be two or three bets on the flop when
the flop rags off.)
> > Calling is a flat-out loser play, here.
> Not if you've got good reason to think the button will not raise.
> Maybe I'm giving Mason too much credit. But, I'm willing to assume
> that the button was giving no indications that he was going to raise
> and that he was the kind of transparent player who would have been
> giving some indication if he was intending to raise.
Jeez, if the button *folds out of turn*, this still is a money losing
call -- or at best about break even under optimum conditions. The button
folding for one bet is a horrible play after raising preflop with all that
money out there (unless they raised with 52s or some fluke hand). If the
button raises, it was a tremdously poor call with the 44, and no way is the
liklihood of the button raising going to be less than 50/50 -- in a
California 15-30 game. Maybe in Texas, maybe in Nevada -- in a game where
nobody cheats because Mason is in it. :)
> (Also Mason betting the river, as some advocate, would also be a truly
terrible
> play. > No player is going to lay down *any*pair with that busted
> flush draw out > there.)
> Lots and lots of players would be looking for a reason to lay down a
> hand like J8.
Sorry, Gary. No way. Find me a 15-30 player, with all those bets in the
pot, who is *ever* looking for a reason to lay down. J8 is calling head-up.
Almost nobody could play that bad to lay that hand down for one bet. Not in
the real world.
> Those same players would look for a reason to call with
> AK. The reason for that is that they can show what a tough player they
> are by showing down an AK. But, they don't want to risk showing down a
> rag J8 and getting embarressed by them. This tendency among some
> players is the single largest benefit I've gotten from the Sklansky
> hand groups.
In 15 years of poker I've only seen three people embarrassed to win a pot!
A player will love to show down 72o if it wins!
> The call on the flop is a good call unless you've got a reason to think
> that the button is going to raise. His preflop raise is a reason to do
> a close examination of him and what kind of act he's trying to put on
> -- it's not a reason to assume he's going to raise without further
> evidence.
Game experience is the evidence. You play in these games, that raise comes
all the time. *All the time*. Once in awhile it won't be raised. You are
a liveone playing for fun if you call this hand. You will get hand after
hand of better opportunities to put your money in the pot. In California at
least, you can pretty much count on getting way the best of it most of the
time. It'd be ridiculous to seize this opportunity to take the worst of it.
Trying to "get lucky" is the worst thing a serious player can do.
Abdul Jalib
it to be comprehensible, except by LISP programmers who really tried
hard to understand. In my followup post, I gave a simpler
and more verbal method for determining whether to call with a baby
pair in a slightly different scenario, so I suggest you use that.
However, here is a verbal description of what the LISP says:
Profit = winnings - investment
investment = how many bets you have to put in on the flop on average
winnings = the chance you're not reraised out of the pot on the flop
times
the sum of two cases:
case 1) the probability you turned a set
times
the sum of two subcases:
subcase i) the chance you lost with your set
times
the amount you lose when set is cracked
subcase ii) the chance you won with your set
times
the amount you win when your set holds up
case 2) the probability you missed turning a set
*and*
you get a free card
*and*
you river a set
times
the amount you win here
Obviously there should have been a case 3) of winning by bluffing or
by having the best hand, and this should improve the flop call from
debatable to correct.
As it turned out for Mason, the flop bettor was mentally
retarded and check-called with his AJs flush draw, when a bet-reraise
or check-raise would have been much more appropriate, especially
versus Mason who will lay down some hands there. When the pot gets
that big, you have to use hook and crook to win it. Most Bellagio
15-30 players are too loose preflop (but much tighter compared to
LA 15-30 players), and much too tight postflop.
> Finally, here is the math in LISP format for your scenario.
>
> (let ((opponents_preflop 7.0)
> (small_bets_preflop 2.0)
> (chance_raise_behind .5)
> (chance_reraise_ahead .3)
> (portion_seeing_turn .5)
> (big_bets_turn 2.0) ;; per player seeing river
> (portion_seeing_river .25)
> (big_bets_river 1.0) ;; per player seeing showdown
> (portion_seeing_showdown .2)
> (outs 2.0)
> (chance_no_bet_turn 0.05)
> (chance_lose_with_set .30)
> (big_bets_if_lose 4.0))
> (let* ((chance_raised_but_not_reraised (* chance_raise_behind
> (- 1 chance_reraise_ahead)))
> (small_bets_flop (+ (* chance_raised_but_not_reraised 2.0)
> (* (- 1.0 chance_raised_but_not_reraised) 1.0)))
> (flop_pot_size (+ (* small_bets_preflop (+ 1 opponents_preflop))
> (* small_bets_flop
> opponents_preflop
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Correction: (+ 1 opponents_preflop)
With the correction, it comes out to +0.006. Other considerations,
such as the probability the button will raise, are much stronger than
this little bug. I tried replacing the free card section with bluffing,
and if you have a 10% chance of getting a bluffing opportunity, and
a bluffing opportunity has a 10% chance of working, and costs you
1 big bet half the time and 2 big bets the other half of the time
(e.g., raising the bettor), then this increases the result to +0.023.
Somebody guessed there would be at least a 90% chance the preflop
raiser would raise again on the flop, which would then make it -0.376,
but I think that's pessimistic. This isn't a crazy California gamb000ling
game we're talking about. Still, whether or not to call critically
depends on the chance of a raise behind.
--
Abdul Jalib wearing the hat of |
Professional Degenerate Gambler| LISP lives!
Abd...@PosEV.com |
Jeffrey B. Siegal
> On Tue, 25 May 1999, Rick Nebiolo wrote:
> > What is a contrail?
>
> Jet Exhaust?
Close.
Streaks seen behind aircraft traveling at high speeds. Composed of
water vapor or ice crystals condensed from the air by aerodynamic
disturbances (usally at wing tips or edges).
Maverick
> The button raised before the flop. The button is the only player I care
> about, besides the flop bettor. The way this action will come down most of
> the time is the 44 (and the other two postflop callers) will make a bad
> call, the button raises, the flop bettor reraises, it gets head-up or three
> way and 44 has thrown away money -- either by calling the one bet and
> folding, or more horribly, calling the three bets.
There is no reason to worry about the button raising most of the time. The
Button often makes alot of loose preflop raising so he might not be
holding much of anything and might just muck if you twobet into him on the
flop.
Rick Nebiolo
Abdul,
Actually it was just a couple of comments mostly in fun. Upon closer examination, I
think I understand the syntax now and can follow it. I'll try to look at your
assumptions in a couple of days as I am tied up for the next 36 hours. I am also
having problems with my newsgroup reader (it soesn't show your followup post) and
there appears to be a big difference between what Netscape shows and what is on
deja.com. I'll find it on deja.com later tonight when I have a moment.
Thanks so much for responding.
Regards,
Rick
xMarc
Well, playing these 44's into several opponents involves a whole boatload of
guessing. Why not wait for a better opportunity where you can cause others
to do the guessing?
-Marc
Jeffrey B. Siegal wrote in message <374AA006...@quiotix.com>...
>Rick Nebiolo wrote:
>> What should the player holding
>> 4d 4c do and why?"
>
>Throw the hand away so fast it leaves a contrail on its way to the muck.
>
>Why? Because your hand sucks, you have minimal chance to improve, the
>flop is likely to have helped the limpers, and the pre-flop raiser might
>well have a hand.
>
HitTheFlop
>Game experience is the evidence. You play in these games, that raise comes
>all the time. *All the time*. Once in awhile it won't be raised. You are
>a liveone playing for fun if you call this hand. You will get hand after
>hand of better opportunities to put your money in the pot. In California at
>least, you can pretty much count on getting way the best of it most of the
>time. It'd be ridiculous to seize this opportunity to take the worst of it.
>Trying to "get lucky" is the worst thing a serious player can do.
This sums it up pretty well. If everything goes well then calling
with the under pair is very slightly positive and missing the
opportunity is similar to giving up maybe 1/3 of a small bet,
really not worth much. Calling and getting raised behind causes you
to piss away almost a full SB when no one else 3-bets it and
costs a full SB when they do.
gary_...@my-deja.com
is going to raise. We don't disagree that the preflop button raise is
a clue that we should be more than normally concerned that the button
will raise. We don't even disagree that it's more likely that the
button will raise than not -- absent other clues.
We do disagree on how readable the button likely is. This looks to me
like a very weak very passive table. The button player may or may not
fit the norm for the players at this table. I think he does fit the
norm, and the reason I do think so is that Mason called.
I read about this hand on 2+2 before it was posted here. So, I knew
Mason called. Although Mason does frequently say that tells are not
important in hold'em, I think he says that mostly because he's jealous
of Caro. I don't think he really believes it. I think Mason knows
enough about the game to have looked for immediate clues.
There are a few things I'd look for. One, is the button making an
obvious effort to appear disinterested? If so, I dump the hand, he's
gonna raise. Two, is the button making a show out of holding call
chips in his hand, waiting for his turn. If so, I dump the hand, he's
likely to raise. Three, is the button holding call chips in his hand
in a seemingly natural way, i.e. not an obvious act. If so, I don't
think he's gonna raise, I call. If I don't see any of those things I
don't think he's gonna raise, I call.
I find it interesting that two good poker players (yourself and Danial)
think a call is outragous here, even if you don't have a fear of a
raise. The commonality is that y'all both play a lot of tournaments.
In a trounament it does matter whether your chips are better put to
work in a more clearly advantagous situation. In a ring game it does't
matter that much. You can take lots of small EV longshot plays in a
ring game, because the decision isn't whether or not your chips can be
used later in a better situation. It's just whether or not the current
situation is worth the call -- you can just keep buying chips the 20
times it doesn't work, the one time it does work will pay for those 20
chips. In a tournament those 20 chips would be gone and you might not
have any chips left later. But, this hand is not being playing in a
tournament. In a tournament I'd make the call only if I was a very
large chip leader.
As far as the bet on the river, I've seen lots of 10/20 15/30 20/40
players who look for reasons to lay down a hand in one of the lessor
hand groups that they called a raise with preflop. This is one of the
characteristics of what I call an S/M player. They really do get an
ego boost from showing down a group 1 or group 2 hand, even when they
know it's beat. They really do get embarresed if they show down a
group 7 hand that they got trapped for a raise preflop. They define
themselves as "good players" and their definition of good player is
simply a player who plays group 1 group 2 hands. It damages their self-
image and their ego to show down a hand like J8. They'd tend to call
with second pair with a hand like 76s. They would tend not to call
with a hand like Js8h. No, it's now likely that that kind of player
has that J8, but sometimes they do, and they will dump it at the
slightest hint that they might not be best. Money is not nearly as
important to them as ego and self-image.
In article <e6a42k2p#GA.290@cpmsnbbsa03>,
"Badger" <steveb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> <gary_...@my-dejanews.com> wrote ...
> > "Badger" wrote:
> > > Absent a tell on the button pre-flop raiser, a call is
> > > ludicrous -- in California anyway, where the preflop raiser will
> > > raise a flop like this 90% of the time, as they usually should.
>
> > Did you pay any attention to how passive these players are?
Everyone
> > of them is painfully passive (including Mason). It's been my
> > experieince that those kind of super loose/passive players do
telegraph
> > raises.
>
> The button raised before the flop. The button is the only player I
care
> about, besides the flop bettor. The way this action will come down
most of
> the time is the 44 (and the other two postflop callers) will make a
bad
> call, the button raises, the flop bettor reraises, it gets head-up or
three
> way and 44 has thrown away money -- either by calling the one bet and
> folding, or more horribly, calling the three bets.
>
> Game experience is the evidence. You play in these games, that raise
comes
> all the time. *All the time*. Once in awhile it won't be raised.
You are
> a liveone playing for fun if you call this hand. You will get hand
after
> hand of better opportunities to put your money in the pot. In
California at
> least, you can pretty much count on getting way the best of it most
of the
> time. It'd be ridiculous to seize this opportunity to take the worst
of it.
> Trying to "get lucky" is the worst thing a serious player can do.
> --
> Badger
> "The harder they come,
> the harder they fall,
> one and all"
>
>
--
Daniel Negreanu
2.It may get raised behind you.
3.Even if you get there, you may not be a big favourite.
4.If you call the first bet, you'll have to call another
if it's raised, or muck it if it's re-raised, dead money.
5.Even if you have the best hand you won't be a favourite.
6.You start calling here, you may start stretching your
calling requirements on the flop, in other words tilt.
7.A professional poker player isn't a bingo player. They
don't chase pipe dreams.
8.You don't need that type of fluxuation if you play for
a living.
I didn't read Mason's comments, but it wouldn't surprise
me one bit if he calls in this spot. He is a perfect
example of why you shouldn't play hands like these, his
tilt-factor is humungous.
I will stick to my guns here, anyone who thinks calling
here is an option has alot to learn about hold'em.
Daniel Negreanu
In article <7ig5eu$7in$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
gary_...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <7if7l8$j34$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Daniel Negreanu <kidp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Calling on this flop is a horrible play, but raising
> > is even worse! The key to becoming a good hold'em
> > player is playing well after the flop. Anyone who
> > would even think of calling or raising here just
> > doesn't understand hold'em at all. Tough decision?
> > You must be kidding! Daniel Negreanu
>
> I'm not the one to argue that Mason understands a whole lot about
> hold'em, but I don't think it's accurate to say he doesn't understand
> the game at all. Many aspects of the game I suspect he understands
> quite well.
>
> Also, I don't think it's entirely accurate to assert that Abdul
doesn't
> understand hold'em at all.
>
> And, I know it's not accurate to claim that I don't understand hold'em
> at all.
>
> But, that's not really what the thread is about. To rephrase the
> question for you ----- Why is it a terrible play to call here? I'm
> interested.
>
> Gary Carson
> >
> > In article <374A43D7...@worldnet.att.net>,
> > Rick Nebiolo <rickn...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > > The following hand has been discussed by several poker
acquaintances
> > in
> > > some detail. I would like to limit the discussion to the proper
> > action
> > > on the flop and would like to get some fresh opinions from this
> > > newsgroup.
> > >
> > > "This hand was played in a 15/30 holdem game. Four players
had
> > > limped in and a player holding 4d 4c one off the button called,
the
> > > player on the button raised, both blinds called, and all remaining
> > > players including the player holding 4d 4c called (eight players
saw
> > the
> > > flop for two bets each).
> > >
> > > The flop came 9d 8s 3d. The player in the small blind bet and
> two
> > > players to his left called (two folded). What should the player
> > holding
> > > 4d 4c do and why?"
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Rick
> > >
> > > P.S. Please don't forget to explain your reasoning if you have
> time.
> > >
> > >
> >
gary_...@my-deja.com
Yes, you could be. I just don't think you are though. My impression
of the table is that these players would not tend to slowplay a set
when the flop has both straight and flush draws. The execption would
be the first player, the one who bet, he might be likely to check
raise, counting on the button to bet. So, although I might be drawig
dead, all the indications to me are that I'm not. I'll draw to less
than the nut flush, this doesn't seem a lot different to me.
> 2.It may get raised behind you.
This one is important. I went thru in a response to Badger above why
I'm willing to assume this isn't likely.
> 3.Even if you get there, you may not be a big favourite.
I don't see how I'm not a big favorite if I hit.
> 4.If you call the first bet, you'll have to call another
> if it's raised, or muck it if it's re-raised, dead money.
This just depends on the chances of getting raised by the button. It's
important to have been watching him.
> 5.Even if you have the best hand you won't be a favourite.
You mean if 44 is best? If I'm getting the right money price I don't
see much need to be the favorite.
> 6.You start calling here, you may start stretching your
> calling requirements on the flop, in other words tilt.
I don't think so. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't call if the pot had 12-15
bets instead of 19. 19 is a little marginal, I'll agree. But, I think
it's enough in this situation. Thinking that does not all of a sudden
mean that I'm gonna start thinking 10 is enough. Anybody that tilts
that easily should maybe take up slot machines.
> 7.A professional poker player isn't a bingo player. They
> don't chase pipe dreams.
Pipe dreams? That would be if you called expecting to spike a four. I
wouldn't expect to win that pot at all. I'd expect to win very few
times. I'd just expect to win enough when I do win to make up for the
many, many times that I don't get there.
> 8.You don't need that type of fluxuation if you play for
> a living.
Why not? I'll accept that many people have a large enough aversion to
risk that they shouldn't call. But, I don't think that a large
aversion to risk is a requirement to playing for a living. The other
way around actually, I think a large aversion to risk is a hindrance in
playing for a living. Maybe not in tournaments, I'm not sure about
that. But, in ring games large risk aversion is not a good thing.
> I didn't read Mason's comments, but it wouldn't surprise
> me one bit if he calls in this spot. He is a perfect
> example of why you shouldn't play hands like these, his
> tilt-factor is humungous.
I suspect Mason has a high degree of risk-aversion, although he claims
otherwise. I also think he pays too much attention to a restrictive
view of EV. Those charcteristics would tend to give him a large tilt-
factor. But, I don't really know.
> I will stick to my guns here, anyone who thinks calling
> here is an option has alot to learn about hold'em.
I think you're projecting too much Daniel. There is no such thing as
an optimal level of risk aversion. It just is what it is.
I think this hand is an example of one of the differences between
tournaments and ring games. In a ring game I'd call every time so long
as I was fairly sure I wouldn't get raised by the button. In a
tournament, I probably wouldn't call most of the time. In a tournament
I might have dumped it before the flop.
But, thanks for explaining your sense of outragousness. I'm not sure
you explained what it is I need to learn about hold'em. But, whatever
it is, I'm sure I'll learn it eventually.
Gary Carson
Ken Churilla
wrote:
>Rick Nebiolo wrote:
>
>All I need to know is are you pulling my leg with the above formula,
>what the heck is LISP, what is a Gnu emacs editor, and if I get one will I know
>how to use it or get as smart as you?
None of the above. :-)
Ken Churilla
Ken's Poker Page
http://www.best.com/~mentorms/poker/
Gary T Philips
Your ego need stroking that much? You have an insatiable need to make all us other
regular Joe's and Josephine's feel inferior just so you can feel better?
I suggest you read a book called Psychocybernetics by Maxwell Maltz. In it the
author states that no one person is better than another. Each has their own
individual strengths and weakness. I suggest you get off that high horse of yours
and get back to doing what you do best.
Gary ( just as good a person as you ) Philips
Jim Geary
something incomprehensible. Insulting those who know more
than you will not bring you closer to knowledge.
What is your objective?
Jim Geary
jaygee at primenet dot com
http://www.primenet.com/~jaygee/
Bill T
Gary T Philips <lvd...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:374C4F8C...@earthlink.net...
> Excuse me Abdul, but why would you PURPOSELY make a post here
incomprehensible?
> Your ego need stroking that much? You have an insatiable need to make all
us other
> regular Joe's and Josephine's feel inferior just so you can feel better?
> I suggest you read a book called Psychocybernetics by Maxwell Maltz. In
it the
> author states that no one person is better than another. Each has their
own
> individual strengths and weakness. I suggest you get off that high horse
of yours
> and get back to doing what you do best.
I thought all RPG'ers can parse LISP. Oh well.
"Psychocybernetics" stating that no one person is better? Sounds
politically correct, but unlikely to be true. I blelieve that all
persons should be accorded basic human rights and consideration,
but it is a stretch to think some of us are not just plain superior
to others.
Bill T
Abdul Jalib
> Rick Nebiolo wrote:
> > Sorry about the confusion but I really don't see your post on this ISP
> > (ATTWorldnet) Mailreader combo. I may check the other ISP later (maybe your
> > missing post is there).
>
> The post hasn't made it to my ISP either.
Since it appeared at http://www.deja.com, this is proof that it did
go out to some ISP's. Because of the distributed nature of the netnews
system, articles are sometimes delayed by days or lost completely from
the perspective of a single ISP.
Deja screws up the formatting, BTW, making it much more difficult
to read, unless you go to the very bottom of the post and select
"View original Usnet format".
> > Anyway, your post has me totally intimidated.
>
> All you need to know to read this is:
>
> 1. (let ((a 1)
> (b 2)
> (c 3)
>
> is just assigning the value of 1 to a, 2 to b, and 3 to c. So
> each of the probabilities has the values Abdul assigns to them
> at the start of the program.
>
> 2. (+ a b) means "a + b". (* (- a b) c) means "(a - b)c" ("*"
> is computerese for multiplication).
>
> A few comments on the model:
>
> 1. Abdul assumes that you will always make 2 bets per player on the turn
> when you win, but you might only make one bet if it is checked to you
> and you aren't check raised. According to his model the probability of
> this is only 0.05, however.
>
> 2. I think his estimates of how much you get paid off on the turn and
> river are slightly too high. Of course, this depends on the game but in
> my experience you can not expect to get paid off on two bets by 1 3/4
> opponents on the turn (you can easily be raising over someone to your
> right and facing people with a cold call of two bets your left, which
> they won't call, or they might call one bet on your right and then fold
> when you pop it) and especially not 1.5 opponents on the river. It is
> more rare than that to get paid off by more than one opponent on the
> river.
Well, it *is* a monstrous pot. I would certainly call (or raise) with
AK (no pair) on the river here, though I wouldn't overcall with it.
> 3. You will probably get check raised on the river if an opponent makes
> a straight against you.
I assumed you lose 4 big bets after the flop if you get sucked out on, one
more than you extract from your victims if you win. You get in one raise
on the turn and then get raised or check-raised on the river
when you get sucked out on by a straight. However, I agree that it
would be hard not to lose more when you lose with a set here. In
particular, because of the bloated pot size, I would be making some
very thin raises when I'm not sure my set is best, expecting to get
called by weaker hands that cannot afford to risk letting me bluff away
the pot.
If you would like to plug in some different values for the parameters,
just send me email and I'll send out the results.
Again, the parameters were:
opponents_preflop: 7.0
small_bets_preflop: 2.0
chance_raise_behind: .5
chance_reraise_ahead: .3
portion_seeing_turn: .5 (i.e., portion of preflop opponents)
big_bets_turn: 2.0 (per player seeing river)
portion_seeing_river: .25
big_bets_river: 1.0 (per player seeing showdown)
portion_seeing_showdown: .2
outs: 2.0
chance_no_bet_turn: 0.05
chance_lose_with_set: .30
big_bets_if_lose: 4.0
--
Abdul
Daniel Negreanu
gary_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <7ihi56$8lr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Daniel Negreanu <kidp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > 1.You could be drawing dead.
>
> Yes, you could be. I just don't think you are though. My impression
> of the table is that these players would not tend to slowplay a set
> when the flop has both straight and flush draws. The execption would
> be the first player, the one who bet, he might be likely to check
> raise, counting on the button to bet. So, although I might be drawig
> dead, all the indications to me are that I'm not. I'll draw to less
> than the nut flush, this doesn't seem a lot different to me.
>
drawing dead. Anyone of the players in the pot could have a set,
nothing they did rules that out. Maybe you would raise the flop with
a set, but I could show you a million players who would raise the turn
instead(I'm not saying I would, but some do). Drawing to a second nut
flush seems like a world of difference to me, at least it is a draw! I
don't consider having two outs a draw, that may not be any good if I
hit a draw. If the player behind you raised before the flop what makes
you think he won't raise the flop? He'd raise with any overpair, set,
flush draw, straight draw, pair of 9's,etc. I'd be worried about him
even raising with A,K and a back-door flush draw, I've seen it happen.
The reason I say that anyone who tells me they'd take a card off has
alot to learn, is because anyone I respect as a player, sees it as a no-
brainer, which it is. Ask a top player, he or she will tell you.
Mason is far from a top player.
Daniel Negreanu
Gary T Philips
Gary Carson replied: I don't see how I'm not a big favorite if I hit.
My response: With the board 9d-8c-3d and you have 4d-4c and get there on
fourth street. Try this senario and see if you are even a favorite much
less a big favorite.
Player A: Ad-Kd giving him 8 outs (9 remaining diamonds minus the 4d)
Player B: Jc-10s giving him 4 outs (8 minus the two diamonds and players C
& D 7's)
Player C: 7h-6c giving him 4 outs (8 minus the two diamonds and players B &
D's 10's)
Player D: 7s-10c giving him 4 outs ( 8 minus the two diamonds and player
B's J and player C's 6)
That's a total of 20 outs. Knowing in this example 14 cards that makes the
draw on fifth street an 18 : 20 DOG.
True this example is a stretch here but so is playing 4-4 after the flop.
Gary Philips
gary_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <7ihi56$8lr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Daniel Negreanu <kidp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > 1.You could be drawing dead.
>
> Yes, you could be. I just don't think you are though. My impression
> of the table is that these players would not tend to slowplay a set
> when the flop has both straight and flush draws. The execption would
> be the first player, the one who bet, he might be likely to check
> raise, counting on the button to bet. So, although I might be drawig
> dead, all the indications to me are that I'm not. I'll draw to less
> than the nut flush, this doesn't seem a lot different to me.
>
Daniel Negreanu
I'm glad you understand how ridiculous this question
really is. Well put. Daniel Negreanu
In article <374C6368...@earthlink.net>,
Gary T Philips
By Abdul's own admission he purposely made the post incomprehensible.
Hell, even a LISP programmer would find it difficult. Add to the fact
that Abdul, again by his own admission failed to include winning by
bluffing on the end as well as having the best hand from the flop on,
and one can conclude that not only would hardly anyone here understand
what he said but it was incomplete as well. Hmmmm. Objective? Not too
difficult to figure out. I am not as good as Abdul in being obscure.
Gary (plain as the nose on your face) Philips
Jeffrey B. Siegal
> Well, it *is* a monstrous pot. I would certainly call (or raise) with
> AK (no pair) on the river here, though I wouldn't overcall with it.
Right. It is the overcall that I doubt. You'll almost certainly get
called on the river, but to average 1.5 bets on the river you need to
get not only called but overcalled 50% of the time.
>
> > 3. You will probably get check raised on the river if an opponent makes
> > a straight against you.
>
> I assumed you lose 4 big bets after the flop if you get sucked out on, one
> more than you extract from your victims if you win.
Sorry, missed that. I was reading from Rick's misformatted repost.
BTW, the original post just arrived at my ISP, so there was some slow
propagation going on.
Abdul Jalib
> Abdul Jalib wrote:
>
> > Rick keeps commenting on the LISP formula. I didn't intend for
> > it to be comprehensible, except by LISP programmers who really tried
> > hard to understand.
> Excuse me Abdul, but why would you PURPOSELY make a post here
> incomprehensible? Your ego need stroking that much? You have an
> insatiable need to make all us other regular Joe's and Josephine's
> feel inferior just so you can feel better? I suggest you read a
> book called Psychocybernetics by Maxwell Maltz. In it the
> author states that no one person is better than another. Each has
> their own individual strengths and weakness. I suggest you get off
> that high horse of yours and get back to doing what you do best.
>
> Gary ( just as good a person as you ) Philips
I was showing my mathematical work as an appendix to an article in
which I said it was a very close decision and explained in English
some of the rationale. The mathematical expression coded in LISP
can be used without understanding it if you have Gnu emacs, which
is available for free off the 'net. As explained in the article,
you can plug in different values for the parameters/assumptions and
see how this impacts the profitability of calling.
Would you prefer that I cease providing mathematical support and
useful programs? Should I instead make aloof statements without
support, like "Anyone who would even think of calling or raising here
just doesn't understand hold'em at all" or "To repeat, it isn't even
close"?
--
Abdul
Gary T Philips
more important to the readers here, myself included, than hiding behind
mathmatical formulae that very few people understand. Nice try attempting
to incite other RGP'ers anger towards me by threatening to withdraw all your
future postings. The fact is you post here so that makes you fair game for
all RGP'ers, vehemently or no. Nobody's editing or banning your posts, but
someone is trying to get you to post so that the information can be
understood and therefore useful.
Gary (No Mason Malmuth ) Philips
Abdul Jalib wrote:
> Gary T Philips <lvd...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
> > Abdul Jalib wrote:
> >
> > > Rick keeps commenting on the LISP formula. I didn't intend for
> > > it to be comprehensible, except by LISP programmers who really tried
> > > hard to understand.
>
> > Excuse me Abdul, but why would you PURPOSELY make a post here
> > incomprehensible? Your ego need stroking that much? You have an
> > insatiable need to make all us other regular Joe's and Josephine's
> > feel inferior just so you can feel better? I suggest you read a
> > book called Psychocybernetics by Maxwell Maltz. In it the
> > author states that no one person is better than another. Each has
> > their own individual strengths and weakness. I suggest you get off
> > that high horse of yours and get back to doing what you do best.
> >
> > Gary ( just as good a person as you ) Philips
>
Ralph Mair
off" approach to poker. I need a reason to call bets on the flop, no matter
how hard I look at this I can't find one. The way I look at this hand I
would fully expect the pot to be raised by the button and possibly to be
reraised by the original bettor or one of the 2 people who have already
called the original bet. Even if I *knew* the button wouldn't raise I fold
anyway.
Just my 2 cents.
Ralph Mair.
gary...@email.msn.com wrote:
> In article <374B36B0...@sk.sympatico.ca>,
> rmm...@sk.sympatico.ca wrote:
> > Anybody who calls in this situation to try and hit a set on the turn
> with
> > the preflop raiser still to act is making a mistake. The thought of
>
> If all I know about this table is what happened before the flop and on
> the flop up till it's my turn, I'm gonna conclude that this is a really
> weak table. Most of the time, players who make up this kind of table
> telegraph almost everything they do. I don't care whether or not the
> button was a preflop raiser or not. Just a glance will tell you
> quickly whether or not he's likely to raise.
>
> I agree that if you have an indication that he's gonna raise, you
> should dump the hand. But, the fact that he raised preflop isn't a
> good enough reason to conclude he's gonna raise now.
>
> I'll admit that I'm influenced in my decision to call by knowing that
> Mason called. The reason is that Mason is not a fool. He knows enough
> about the game to tell whether or not the button is giving an
> indication that he's gonna raise. Since He called, I pretty much
> assume that the button was not putting on some act about looking
> disinterested. That's enough for me --- call is pretty automatic once
> you've determined that he's not gonna raise. And, that is something
> that can be determined.
>
> Like I said, I'm not gonna defend a raise. Even though I suspect I
> might raise in this situation. It has nothing to do with a free card.
>
> Gary Carson
>
> raising
> > to get a "free card" on the turn brings tears of laughter to my eyes.
> Fold.
> >
> > Ralph Mair.
> >
> > Rick Nebiolo wrote:
> >
> > > The following hand has been discussed by several poker
> acquaintances in
> > > some detail. I would like to limit the discussion to the proper
> action
> > > on the flop and would like to get some fresh opinions from this
> > > newsgroup.
> > >
> > > "This hand was played in a 15/30 holdem game. Four players had
> > > limped in and a player holding 4d 4c one off the button called, the
> > > player on the button raised, both blinds called, and all remaining
> > > players including the player holding 4d 4c called (eight players
> saw the
> > > flop for two bets each).
> > >
> > > The flop came 9d 8s 3d. The player in the small blind bet and
> two
> > > players to his left called (two folded). What should the player
> holding
> > > 4d 4c do and why?"
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Rick
> > >
> > > P.S. Please don't forget to explain your reasoning if you have
> time.
> >
> >
>
> --
>
Jaeger T. Cat
>more important to the readers here, myself included, than hiding behind
>mathmatical formulae that very few people understand. Nice try attempting
He did tell you what he thought. Then he included the LISP code
for those that wanted it.
If you didn't, ignore it.
God help us if RGP has to be dumbed down so (sorry Tiger) every AOLer
out there can understand it.
Jeffrey B. Siegal
> Hell, even a LISP programmer would find it difficult.
This statement is absurd. It wasn't a complicated program. It wasn't
even really a program at all--just an algebraic formula that happened to
be expressed, straightforwardly, in a programming langauge.
Give it up, Gary. There was nothing wrong with Abdul's post at all. If
you aren't interested in seeing the answer expressed in mathematical
terms, simply skip it and move on to the next article.
Different strokes.
DPCondit
editor and where can I find one, or what is a LISP
shell?
I love to read your posts, but you have me stumped.
Don
Abdul Jalib <Abd...@PosEV.com> wrote in message
> > Abdul Jalib wrote:
> >
> > > Rick keeps commenting on the LISP formula. I didn't intend for
> > > it to be comprehensible, except by LISP programmers who really tried
> > > hard to understand.
>snip
Ralph Mair
was WHAT TO DO ON THE FLOP. That's what the discussion was about not whether Mason
made a good play on 4th street or not, that information was not even included in
the original post. Sounds like Mason jumped in a pile of dung and came out smelling
like a rose, it happens once in a while.
Ralph Mair.
Dsklansky wrote:
> Though Abdul and Gary have done an excellent job of defending Mason (no that is
> not a misprint) I would like to add my two cents here. First of all I am not
> sure the call was correct and if it was it would be because of the possibility
> of getting a free card on fourth st. But if it was wrong it was very close and
> whether or not you make this call HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR SUCCESS AS A
> POKER PLAYER. It is almost a strictly mathematical decision with either a very
> slightly positive or negative EV under these circumstances. And once again I am
> amazed at the number of people who are argueing over yet another tivial point
> while the main point of Mason's original post goes ignored. That is his bet on
> fouth st. By knocking out overcards he has substantially increased his
> mathematical expectation and again THAT was the whole point of the post. (Mason
> did make the mistake of illustrating his excellent point with a hand that
> included a debatable play earlier in the hand. ) The thing you guys have to
> learn is that it is plays like this (on fourth st.) that make up a high
> proportion of your profits, especially in the moderate stakes games. As for
> Daniel's personal comments they come from left field. He has never played with
> Mason. If he had he would know thjat he had no tilt factor to speak of. And
> while Mason does not play in the very highest games, he does very well indeed
> in the 30 -60 and 40-80 in which he plays. He is certainly at least in the top
> 50 players in the world at these stakes and could easily be a very successful
> full time professional poker player (as he once was) if he wanted to.
Badger
>..... And once again I am
> amazed at the number of people who are argueing over yet another tivial
point
> while the main point of Mason's original post goes ignored. That is his
bet on
> fouth st. By knocking out overcards he has substantially increased his
> mathematical expectation and again THAT was the whole point of the post.
Maybe the point of his post on 2+2 but that wasn't even in the original post
on RGP by Rick Nebiolo! Better start following the threads over here before
getting *too* amazed by what people are talking about.
Badger
> [Gary Phillips] gave an extreme scenerio --snip--
Here is what seems to me a pretty likely scenario for the three players (a
bettor and two callers) in front of the 4d4c on a 9d8d3c flop. Bettor Ad6d,
Caller #1 JcTc, Caller #2 8h2c (or any lousy pair above fours). Just
against these three opponents when you spike a 4 on the turn, you are still
going to lose about a third of the time. And this doesn't even include the
player on the button!
On the flop you are only a 6% chance of winning, *if* you go to the river.
44 is by far the worst hand of the above four. I don't know what possesses
people to play such money losing, "god I hope I get lucky" dogs. Sure, an
outstanding player can be fairly competitive with this hand, but as a
general rule, for the average player, this would be a treacherously bad
call.
tha...@nmia.com
free compilers for a variety of platforms. The ones I've used are quite good.
EMACS is an editor that is written in LISP that is used for mostly (personal
opinion) for editing source code. Here is a link for EMACS:
http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/voelker/ntemacs.html#where-precompiled
In article <374d...@news1.jps.net>, "DPCondit" says...
>
>Pardon my ignorance, but what is a Gnu emacs
>editor and where can I find one, or what is a LISP
>shell?
>
>I love to read your posts, but you have me stumped.
>
>Don
>
>
>
>Abdul Jalib <Abd...@PosEV.com> wrote in message
>> > Abdul Jalib wrote:
>> >
>> > > Rick keeps commenting on the LISP formula. I didn't intend for
>> > > it to be comprehensible, except by LISP programmers who really tried
>> > > hard to understand.
Dsklansky
not a misprint) I would like to add my two cents here. First of all I am not
sure the call was correct and if it was it would be because of the possibility
of getting a free card on fourth st. But if it was wrong it was very close and
whether or not you make this call HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR SUCCESS AS A
POKER PLAYER. It is almost a strictly mathematical decision with either a very
amazed at the number of people who are argueing over yet another tivial point
while the main point of Mason's original post goes ignored. That is his bet on
fouth st. By knocking out overcards he has substantially increased his
gary_...@my-deja.com
You've always seemed like a really nice guy and your posts have usually
been interesting, informative, and fun to read. But, you've been
really crabby the last week or so. You were really quick to take
personal offense to some insult I made against Las Vegas, you got your
back up in some thread about what somebody did or didn't say at a
table, and now this. Maybe it's some kind of PTSD from having worked
the WSOP, I don't know.
But, calm down, please.
In article <374C72C7...@earthlink.net>,
Gary T Philips <lvd...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Not the point at all Abdul. Telling us what you think in English and
why is > more important to the readers here, myself included, than
hiding behind > mathmatical formulae that very few people understand.
He did explain it in english, then made the mathamatical post as
supporting documentation. I usually don't read the mathematic posts
(Abdul's and other's), not because I don't understand it, but because I
usually just rely on the poster's expertise (and I'm lazy).
There are a lot of folks on rgp with strong backgrounds in mathematics
and computer programming. Lot's of them. Some of them probably find
the algorithmic specifics that Abdul posted to be both interesting and
useful. Abdul recognized that not everyone would and put it in a
seperate post -- he said he was doing that. I think Abdul showed a lot
of consideration to both the math geeks and the math phobics by doing
that.
Nice try attempting > to incite other RGP'ers anger towards me by
threatening to withdraw all your > future postings.
Lighten up, Gary. He made no such threat. He was being sarcastic.
The fact is you post here so that makes you fair game for
> all RGP'ers, vehemently or no. Nobody's editing or banning your
posts, but > someone is trying to get you to post so that the
information can be > understood and therefore useful.
Why don't you just ask him to clarify the part you didn't understand.
Abdul has shown in the past (and in this incident) to be very willing
to do that, and he seems to be pretty patient about the whole thing.
Rather than slamming someone cause you didn't understand something,
just ask them to explain it. It usually works fine.
Gary Carson
gary_...@my-deja.com
Daniel Negreanu <kidp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you Mr.Phillips,
> I'm glad you understand how ridiculous this question
> really is. Well put. Daniel Negreanu
Well put?
He gave an extreme scenerio for the opponents holdings where the 44 is
the best poker hand on the flop. If they hold those cards then the 44
should call on the flop, not to spike a set, but because it's the best
hand.
A few days ago I gave a similar example. In fact it was the same
example except the 44 underpair was a JJ overpair and spiking a jack
would make someone else a jack. What I suggested in that example was
that many players (you might be one of them) cost themselves money in
those kind of overpair situations by getting aggresive. They lose
money on each bet because of all the draws. I think Morton's theorem
made a similar point. But, that doens't mean the JJ should fold. But,
he should realize that he's drawing (his draw is for everyone to miss)
and he's getting pot odds to call.
I think the call on the flop is pretty much automatic, but as David
pointed out it's a small thing. Folding everytime won't cost you
much.
But, well put? I guess so in that Gary P gave an example where it
would be correct to call on the flop. In his example, it would not be
correct to bet on the turn if you spike your set. But, that doesn't
mean you shouldn't call.
I guess I'm learning.
Jupiler
>
> JG,
> By Abdul's own admission he purposely made the post incomprehensible.
> Hell, even a LISP programmer would find it difficult. Add to the fact
> that Abdul, again by his own admission failed to include winning by
> bluffing on the end as well as having the best hand from the flop on,
> and one can conclude that not only would hardly anyone here understand
> what he said but it was incomplete as well. Hmmmm. Objective? Not too
> difficult to figure out. I am not as good as Abdul in being obscure.
You are wrong here, Gary. Abdul didn't say he made it incomprehensible
on purpose. He said he did not make it comprehensible. Which I
interpret as: I didn't sort my thoughts and I didn't put it in a form
somebody other than me can understand it. Or more plain. I didn't
bother to make it understandable. Take it as it is and see what you
get out of it. This happens quiet often in science.
Besides, I agree with Gary C. that you have become a little
bit cranky for whatever reason. Take it easy.
Abdul Jalib wrote:
> Rick keeps commenting on the LISP formula. I didn't intend for
> it to be comprehensible, except by LISP programmers who really tried
> hard to understand. In my followup post, I gave a simpler
> and more verbal method for determining whether to call with a baby
> pair in a slightly different scenario, so I suggest you use that.
> However, here is a verbal description of what the LISP says:
>
Regards,
--
Ernst-Dieter Martin I
email (ed...@XLfoot.com) is spam I A radioactive cat has
protected. replace 'XL' with 'big' I eighteen half-lives.
I
Jupiler
>
> Pardon my ignorance, but what is a Gnu emacs
> editor and where can I find one, or what is a LISP
> shell?
>
> I love to read your posts, but you have me stumped.
>
Goto http://www.gnu.org
and maybe you start getting a degree in computer science,
math or some engineering discipline.
Rick Nebiolo
I didn't think this post would take off quite the way it has. I want to reply in
some detail to several posts (especially yours and David's). Unfortunately, I'm
pretty beat and have to get up early tomorrow so it may have to wait about a day.
I certainly agree with David that the main point (i.e., knowing what is important)
of Mason's original post was the play on the turn (Mason correctly bet), but since
most of us on 2+2 were in agreement I thought I would explore a different area . Of
course I realize this may not be that important for players at the higher limits
(since you rarely see sixteen bets pre-flop). However, I play in the looser
California games between 6/12 to 15/30 and see this type of situation quite a bit.
Getting good "rules of thumb" for these loose calls is in fact pretty important to
someone like me.
To me the flop call did not seem close but now I'm not sure (and if it is close I
agree with David that it doesn't matter much). What is important is that I don't
think I have a great understanding or what is close and what isn't (I may be way too
tight here).
I would like to send some input into your math model at a later time if that is OK.
If I get time, I will also look into this software as it looks like it has a lot of
applications to poker and you say it is free (I'll try to find it using a search
engine). My math and programming isn't that bad, just a little rusty.
Regards and Thanks Again For Your Time,
Rick
Abdul Jalib
http://www.stat.umn.edu/~luke/xls/xlsinfo/xlsinfo.html
LISP is just a programming language, like BASIC. xlispstat works for
Mac, Windows, and Unix/Linux. However, if you've never touched LISP
before, you won't have an easy time using it. Gnu Emacs might be easier
to use, but if you've never touched an Emacs editor before, then you're
going to find it tough going at first.
tha...@nmia.com writes:
> Without going into a lot of detail GNU is a free software consortium that has
> free compilers for a variety of platforms. The ones I've used are quite good.
> EMACS is an editor that is written in LISP that is used for mostly (personal
> opinion) for editing source code. Here is a link for EMACS:
>
> http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/voelker/ntemacs.html#where-precompiled
>
>
> In article <374d...@news1.jps.net>, "DPCondit" says...
> >
> >Pardon my ignorance, but what is a Gnu emacs
> >editor and where can I find one, or what is a LISP
> >shell?
--
Abdul
Daniel Negreanu
a situation like this, but I figured Mr.Carson would
see the error in his ways eventually. It is an absolutely
rookie, beginner, tilted, negative EV call.
There isn't one pro beating a 100-200 hold'em game or
above that would even consider this call. I'd be
glad to have players making this call drop by the
Bellagio and have a seat right next to me in the
100-200 hold'em game. If they don't get this simple
concept, how are they going to deal with situations
that ARE actually tough? Daniel Negreanu
In article <uE6v4OAq#GA.52@cpmsnbbsa05>,
Abdul Jalib
> Though Abdul and Gary have done an excellent job of defending Mason
> (no that is not a misprint) I would like to add my two cents here.
> First of all I am not sure the call was correct and if it was it would
> be because of the possibility of getting a free card on fourth st.
Assuming a 40% (instead of 50%) chance of a raise behind, a 30% chance
of a reraise ahead in that case, a 0% chance of a free card, a 30% chance
of having your set sucked out on, a 0% chance of bluffing or having 44's
hold up unimproved, and the rest of the assumptions I listed before,
*deep breath*, then it's positive EV to call on the flop. Therefore,
the possibility of a free card on fourth street is not necessarily
relevant. Whether or not the button will raise is the primary concern,
followed by the chance of a free card or other bonus play on the turn.
> [Arrogant idiotic irrelevant crap deleted.]
--
Abdul
gary_...@my-deja.com
Daniel Negreanu <kidp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Excetionally well put Steve! I was going to illusrate
> a situation like this, but I figured Mr.Carson would
> see the error in his ways eventually. It is an absolutely
> rookie, beginner, tilted, negative EV call.
> There isn't one pro beating a 100-200 hold'em game or
> above that would even consider this call. I'd be
> glad to have players making this call drop by the
> Bellagio and have a seat right next to me in the
> 100-200 hold'em game.
LOL.
Please let me know where this 100/200 game that has 8 passive players
seeing the flop is. I'd like to take that seat right next to you.
LOL
If they don't get this simple
> concept, how are they going to deal with situations
> that ARE actually tough?
I guess some simple concepts are just too simple for you top pros.
LOL. You're really funny Daniel.
Gary Carson
ROFL
I really can't stop laughing, this is just so funny.
Sean Duffy
<kidp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Calling on this flop is a horrible play, but raising
>is even worse! The key to becoming a good hold'em
>player is playing well after the flop. Anyone who
>would even think of calling or raising here just
>doesn't understand hold'em at all. Tough decision?
>You must be kidding!
So why exactly is it that so many well known names in the poker world
feel the need to take digs at Abdul? I always thought you were above
that.
Heldar
"What is a contrail?"
When I was a kid we called them "jet trails" and, growing up 12 miles from
the middle of nowhere, it was an event to see one overhead, kind of like
seeing a rainbow, which was also pretty rare. It's the cloud-colored thing
left behind by some jets as they fly far overhead.
Sean Duffy
>Would you prefer that I cease providing mathematical support and
>useful programs? Should I instead make aloof statements without
>support, like "Anyone who would even think of calling or raising here
>just doesn't understand hold'em at all" or "To repeat, it isn't even
>close"?
Not until you become an extremely overrated tournament player. At
that point, you are welcome to make broad statements like those above
and assume that your word will be taken as gospel.
Rick Nebiolo
Badger wrote:
> HitTheFlop wrote...
> > I've just returned from a six day run at the Commerce and from
> > what I saw drawing to the under pocket pair for the turn is
> > part of California law. No one explained the exact penalties
> > for violating this statute so I was real careful to muck mine
> > without getting busted. Everyone else seemed to take
> > one off, sometimes two.
>
> The Commerce sure is the home of the mighty under-pocketpair draw. Even
> after more than a decade of California Holdem, players still make this
> horrid play (even as they sometimes try to "play good" by folding far
> superior draws like gutshots!).
>
> Mason winning this pot neither makes this a better or worse call in the
> longrun. Absent a tell on the button pre-flop raiser, a call is
> ludicrous -- in California anyway, where the preflop raiser will raise a
> flop like this 90% of the time, as they usually should. In California, with
> this many people taking the flop, this pot will be two or three bet the big
> majority of the time. Calling is a flat-out loser play, here. (Also Mason
> betting the river, as some advocate, would also be a truly terrible play.
> No player is going to lay down *any*pair with that busted flush draw out
> there.)
> --
> Badger
> "The harder they come,
> the harder they fall,
> one and all"
Badger,
Is this the Badger who won the WSOP Omaha H/L Tournament? If so, we have played
a bit and I had the honor of busting out at your table at the Hollywood Park
Tounament last week.
Regards,
Rick
Mark D Hiatt
One of the problems the B-17 and B-24 pilots faced doing daytime bombing
runs over Europe in WWII (the end of the pre-jet era) was the tremendous
contrails a huge bomber formation could pull behind them in certain weather
conditions. Each one clearly pointed to the target of ground-based gunners.
Warm air holds more moisture than colder air. As aero and thermal changes
occur, the "cloud" of vapor appears behind the passing airplane. As the air
cools again the moisture is squeezed out and the contrail disappears.
--
To send e-mail, "take out the trash" first.
In article <7ijmhd$7...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>, "Heldar"
Alan Bostick
sean....@NOSPAMbbs.NOSPAMgoldengate.NOSPAMnet (Sean Duffy) wrote:
> On Tue, 25 May 1999 22:19:22 GMT, Daniel Negreanu
> <kidp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Calling on this flop is a horrible play, but raising
> >is even worse! The key to becoming a good hold'em
> >player is playing well after the flop. Anyone who
> >would even think of calling or raising here just
> >doesn't understand hold'em at all. Tough decision?
> >You must be kidding!
>
> So why exactly is it that so many well known names in the poker world
> feel the need to take digs at Abdul? I always thought you were above
> that.
>
>
Is Daniel digging at Abdul here? I don't think so. He's not specifically
replying to Abdul's postings in the thread (the first of which was posted
a scant three hours before Daniel's). It looks to me like Daniel is stating
the obvious common-sense point of view with the force of his conviction.
Nothing wrong with that.
Which "well-known names in the poker world" take digs at Abdul, aside from
Doug Grant (whose digs have clear, if irrational motivation) and Mason
Malmuth (who, as far as I can tell, takes digs at *everyone*?
Mind you, now that Abdul has established himself as a major poker
theorist and strategist, he becomes fair game for criticism. Yo, Abdul!
Your mother wears army boots!
Alan "the Oakland Mosquito" Bostick
--
Alan Bostick | "Ah, never wager with a pataphysician," he said
mailto:abos...@netcom.com | as they left. "'Pataphysics is, after all, the
news:alt.grelb | ultimate weapon." -- Max Merriwell
http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~abostick
Alan Bostick
Gary T Philips <lvd...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Excuse me Abdul, but why would you PURPOSELY make a post here incomprehensible?
> Your ego need stroking that much? You have an insatiable need to make all us other
> regular Joe's and Josephine's feel inferior just so you can feel better?
> I suggest you read a book called Psychocybernetics by Maxwell Maltz. In it the
> author states that no one person is better than another. Each has their own
> individual strengths and weakness. I suggest you get off that high horse of yours
> and get back to doing what you do best.
Gary, you and Abdul live in two different worlds. In the world Abdul lives
in a person can cut and paste the LISP code into another buffer in her
EMACS-based newsreader, execute it, and read off the answer, whether or not
she actually comprehends it.
You don't need a Ph.D. to use EMACS. Hell, I'm using EMACS to compose this
reply, and all I've got is a lousy Masters.