Feb. 7th, 2008

peterbirks: (Default)
Well, the good news is that I found a painter and decorator. The bad news is that the cost is about 60% more than I thought it would be (and I always think high....). I could probably get it done cheaper if I was prepared to wait, then to project manage three or four Eastern Europeans. But, as Stringer Bell said in the Wire, whether you buy them off or go to war, you always pay in some way.

The more bad news is that I took the trusty old Micra in for a service (the one with relatively new tyres, a new battery) and got a phone call saying that it had failed its MOT because of severe corrosion on the rear under nearside. So, not such a trusty old Micra after all.

This means a difficult decision. A year ago I would have just bought another car, but, as is Sod's law, it's come at just about the worst time in cashflow terms. It seems fairly pointless paying whatever the welder says it will cost to repair a 1991 Micra that really is past its sell-by date. So I may tell them tomorrow to write it off, although I have no idea how one goes about this. I assume I just take the V55 down to them, pay them some money, after which they take back the new tyres and new battery without telling me, and I can forget about it. I suppose I could go to the effort of reclaiming the unpaid insurance and road tax, but the latter is hardly worth the effort for £20. The former might be worth doing -- I don't know how the system works on unused insurance.

It's all a bit irritating, because I was likely just about entering a period when a car would have been at least of some use. Then again, it's irritated me in equal measure over the past few years, and hiring might be a more logical alternative on those rare occasions that I need four wheels.

I know that Andy W wrote off his car a while ago (in the sense that it gave up the ghost, rather than he crashed it). Is it complex Andy? How much is it going to cost me?

++++++++

Here's something I've been thinking about in poker terms. As I've written before, I always approach the word "cooler" with some pessimism. Yes, coolers exist, but are they always coolers? In the land of online poker, it's so easy to transfer what would be a cooler in a live game directly to an online game. But if the live game consists of nine other 50%/20% players, whereas all of your six tables online are closer to 20%/6% players (and some afternoons that's the loosest you can find) then obviously when all the money goes in, your opponent's range is considerably narrower.

Indeed, at the moment, I was only half-jokingly going to refer to AKo as the online AQ, in that it was often a hand where you didn't know where you were post-flop.

But that wasn't my point.

This hand got me thinking. Villain is fairly loose passive over a small sample of 40 hands.


Texas Hold'em NL $0.50/$1.00

Seat 1: CADYBEHAN ($45.40 in chips) DEALER
Seat 2: Hero ($100.10 in chips)
Seat 5: Rayback2 ($302.60 in chips)
Seat 6: marvur ($38.47 in chips)
Seat 7: elGATOvolador ($98.50 in chips)
Seat 9: VILLAIN ($151.10 in chips)

Hero: Post SB $0.50
Rayback2: Post BB $1.00

*** HOLE CARDS ***

Dealt to Hero [J♡ Q♡]
marvur: Fold
elGATOvolador: Fold
VILLAIN: Call $1.00
CADYBEHAN: Fold
Hero: Call $0.50
Rayback2: Check

*** FLOP *** [2♡ 7♡ 8♡]

Woo hoo. Flopped flush

Hero: Bet $3.00
Rayback2: Fold
VILLAIN: Raise $15.00
Hero: Raise $40.00

Absolutely no point in pissing around at all

VILLAIN: Allin $135.10
Hero: Allin $56.10

*** TURN *** [7◊]

*** RIVER *** [6♣]

*** SUMMARY ***


Dealt to VILLAIN [3♡ 5♡]


Total pot $249.20 Rake $3.00
Hero: wins $198.20
VILLAIN: wins $51.00


Now, in this situation, I would still be going all-in against Mr Tight of tightsville. But suppose I had the 5h3h combination and the betting had gone similarly?

In this case, because of opponent's looseness (even when passive) I'm still pushing in my money, even with the 53sooted.

But there are certain opponents whom you know will only be pushing all-in here with either a made flush or a set.

Let's assume you are up against one of those players. My question is this. If that flop comes down, and opponent bets in the above fashion, how likely is it that he has a set and how likely is it that he has a made flush? We'll also allocate 5% to some other kind of hand, and look at the following scenarios:

1) You have limped and he has checked in the big blind or completed in the small blind
2) He has open limped
3) He has raised a smallish amount and you have defended your Big blind
4) You have raised and he has cold-called.


It seems to me that in some of the cases above he is more likely to have a set (depending on the rank of the cards and whether he has raised and been called, or has called a raise) while in others he is less likely to have a set.

Do we ever have a situation where he is significantly more likely to have a made flush than a set? And how does the situation change when, as above, there is more than one opponent?

I'm just wondering about this, rather than coming to any certain conclusions. At the moment I'm probably still going to get fucked if I flop a flush, no matter how small.


_________________

August 2017

S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20 212223242526
2728293031  

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 23rd, 2017 04:34 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios