![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksTime, there just never is enough of it. I had meant to take some photos of the "plate-glass misspellings" today; perhaps I could start a trend. My entire blog could become a collection of misspelt glass (or stone) engravings worldwide.
But then I got the famous signal of battery low", at which point the camera stopped functioning. I took this as a sign. That sign being that the battery was low. So, no pictures today, or before next Tuesday, as I am now parked at home ready to resume my hermit-like and definitely nowhere near Central London-like existence for three days.
++++
Three plumbers (well, one plumber and his two mates) are coming to install a new boiler tomorrow, to power flush all eight radiators, to fix thermostats on said radiators, to remove the external timer, and generally to cost me a fortune, in return for which I hope to have a Rolls Royce of boilers and a fully functioning central heating system. This winter I might get air-conditioning installed. I guess it's cheaper to get that done when the temperature is on the low side.
++++
Grubby is Leaving Las Vegas, heading to Chicago. A good move for Grubby, a lovable guy but clearly a gambling freak. Las Vegas is not a good place to live if you are a gambling freak. But the way he describes what is happening to LV at the moment almost makes me want to be a part of it (and, hell, I'm not a gambling freak). Three "urban villages" (good name for them) on the strip, in the gaps between Monte Carlo and Bellagio, the gapt to come between Paris and the Venetian, and between Fashion Mall and, well, possibly the Stratosphere, will transform the Strip from a gambling mecca to a place focused more on shopping, eating and residents. Robert Silverberg's Towers of Glass are set to become reality.
+++++
I'm playing well at the moment. I've really gritted my teeth, focused on making every decision one that I think is positive EV and, if in doubt, getting out early. This has inevitably led to me dumping the more speculative hands that I would often play if things were normal (i.e., I was winning as much as I expected to be winning). Because my reputation is somewhat looser than the way I am playing at the moment, I am getting paid off with my hands and winning. Unfortunately, just as Laggy play eventually catches up with you when people spot that your raising values are thinner than they had previously thought, so this tight style catches up with you when people realize that you aren't playing as loose-aggressive as you used to.
This is a good advertisement for the "mix it up" advice given in most good poker books, but the timetable for mixing it up is probably different from that given for live play.
It looks to me as if there is something like an eight-week window (and this is with me playing every day) before opponents in sufficient number get to categorize you correctly. At this point, some kind of shift is a good idea. This doesn't have to be a massive shift. You could, for example, move from 19% VPIP with 13.5% raises to 16.5% VPIP and 12% raises, and then to 18% VPIP with 8% raises. These apparent small shifts in percentages are quite significant enough to throw off your regular opponents. For the here-today-and-gone-tomorrow fish, you will still win roughly the same amount off them.
+++++
I had a little think about a common situation that I come across in my games.
You get AK in middle position and raise first in. It is passed round to the Big Blind who calls. The flop comes something like Q74 rainbow, and the Blind bets out, making the pot worth 2.5 big bets.
You can quite logically call, fold or raise here and each is correct in certain circumstances.
However, in the games that I am playing at the moment, with a number of weak-tights, this bet usually means a medium hand, probably a pair of Queens, but perhaps something like a pair of sevens with an ace kicker. For the sake of argument, let's assume that this is what our opponent has.
If I raise here, let's assume for mathematical simplicity that opponent will flat call the flop, turn and river with his Queens. He might, just might fold the middle pair if I keep betting at him and if some marginal scare card appears on the turn or river. If I raise the flop and check a rag turn card, he is likely to bet his queens for value on the river unless an ace or a king appears.
If I call here, opponent will bet the turn and will continue betting so long as an ace or king does not appear on turn or river.
If I fold, my expectation for the hand is zero.
So, the question is, how often should I raise with my AK to represent AA, KK or QQ? Clearly not 100% of the time, and clearly not 0% of the time. But what is the "saddlepoint" where it does not matter if my opponent calls me down or folds?
John Fox covers this kind of situation (for Draw poker when you are pulling for a flush) in some detail, and I could probably work it out (very slowly) for the above parameters. But you don't need a precise number here.
In this situation, I will have AA, KK AQ or QQ, 23 times. I will have JJ down to 88 (quite within my raising range here) 24 times. I will have AK AJ or AT, 72 times. I will have some other kind of hand about 20 times.
That gives us about 140 hands, of which only just over 14% really frighten my opponent (if he has Queens) and 28% of them will frighten him if he has the middle pin. Let's assume he has the Queeens twice as often as the middle pin. That gives us an average of 18% of hands frightening him (i.e., beating his hand) and 82% of hands not beating him.
So, assuming we always raise him with the 18% of hands that beat him (meaning that I raise with the big pairs all the time, and I raise with the smaller pairs 88 to JJ about half the time), how often should I raise with my AK, AJ or AT when I have that instead? Well, roughtly, I want to raise with the AK AJ or AT about the same number of times, so that, as far as my opponent is concerned, it's 50:50 that I am beating him or not. Since I will have the AK and AJ or AT (or some other hand that does not beat him) about 82% of the time, that means I should raise with it 18/82 times, or about 22%.
Shoving those numbers roughly into my head, I reckon that means that I should fold any of the hands where I think I am behind apart from the AK, and that I should raise with the AK about two-thirds of the time. Then, assuming the turn is a rag, I should check behind half the time and continue betting half the time. The same principle then applies on the river.
Note, I would only apply this given the parameters given at the start. If there is a significant possibility that the blind is betting out with air, in an attempt to get your AK, AJ or AT to fold, then you have to increase the percentage of times that you raise. By how much should this percentage be increased? That depends on the chance that your opponent is betting with air. However, once you get to $10-$20 or above, there's a much higher chance that the bet out will be with air. At these levels, the decision becomes significantly more player-dependent. Multi-tabling at $2-$4, you can get away with applying a more general algorithm.
Thoughts?
But then I got the famous signal of battery low", at which point the camera stopped functioning. I took this as a sign. That sign being that the battery was low. So, no pictures today, or before next Tuesday, as I am now parked at home ready to resume my hermit-like and definitely nowhere near Central London-like existence for three days.
++++
Three plumbers (well, one plumber and his two mates) are coming to install a new boiler tomorrow, to power flush all eight radiators, to fix thermostats on said radiators, to remove the external timer, and generally to cost me a fortune, in return for which I hope to have a Rolls Royce of boilers and a fully functioning central heating system. This winter I might get air-conditioning installed. I guess it's cheaper to get that done when the temperature is on the low side.
++++
Grubby is Leaving Las Vegas, heading to Chicago. A good move for Grubby, a lovable guy but clearly a gambling freak. Las Vegas is not a good place to live if you are a gambling freak. But the way he describes what is happening to LV at the moment almost makes me want to be a part of it (and, hell, I'm not a gambling freak). Three "urban villages" (good name for them) on the strip, in the gaps between Monte Carlo and Bellagio, the gapt to come between Paris and the Venetian, and between Fashion Mall and, well, possibly the Stratosphere, will transform the Strip from a gambling mecca to a place focused more on shopping, eating and residents. Robert Silverberg's Towers of Glass are set to become reality.
+++++
I'm playing well at the moment. I've really gritted my teeth, focused on making every decision one that I think is positive EV and, if in doubt, getting out early. This has inevitably led to me dumping the more speculative hands that I would often play if things were normal (i.e., I was winning as much as I expected to be winning). Because my reputation is somewhat looser than the way I am playing at the moment, I am getting paid off with my hands and winning. Unfortunately, just as Laggy play eventually catches up with you when people spot that your raising values are thinner than they had previously thought, so this tight style catches up with you when people realize that you aren't playing as loose-aggressive as you used to.
This is a good advertisement for the "mix it up" advice given in most good poker books, but the timetable for mixing it up is probably different from that given for live play.
It looks to me as if there is something like an eight-week window (and this is with me playing every day) before opponents in sufficient number get to categorize you correctly. At this point, some kind of shift is a good idea. This doesn't have to be a massive shift. You could, for example, move from 19% VPIP with 13.5% raises to 16.5% VPIP and 12% raises, and then to 18% VPIP with 8% raises. These apparent small shifts in percentages are quite significant enough to throw off your regular opponents. For the here-today-and-gone-tomorrow fish, you will still win roughly the same amount off them.
+++++
I had a little think about a common situation that I come across in my games.
You get AK in middle position and raise first in. It is passed round to the Big Blind who calls. The flop comes something like Q74 rainbow, and the Blind bets out, making the pot worth 2.5 big bets.
You can quite logically call, fold or raise here and each is correct in certain circumstances.
However, in the games that I am playing at the moment, with a number of weak-tights, this bet usually means a medium hand, probably a pair of Queens, but perhaps something like a pair of sevens with an ace kicker. For the sake of argument, let's assume that this is what our opponent has.
If I raise here, let's assume for mathematical simplicity that opponent will flat call the flop, turn and river with his Queens. He might, just might fold the middle pair if I keep betting at him and if some marginal scare card appears on the turn or river. If I raise the flop and check a rag turn card, he is likely to bet his queens for value on the river unless an ace or a king appears.
If I call here, opponent will bet the turn and will continue betting so long as an ace or king does not appear on turn or river.
If I fold, my expectation for the hand is zero.
So, the question is, how often should I raise with my AK to represent AA, KK or QQ? Clearly not 100% of the time, and clearly not 0% of the time. But what is the "saddlepoint" where it does not matter if my opponent calls me down or folds?
John Fox covers this kind of situation (for Draw poker when you are pulling for a flush) in some detail, and I could probably work it out (very slowly) for the above parameters. But you don't need a precise number here.
In this situation, I will have AA, KK AQ or QQ, 23 times. I will have JJ down to 88 (quite within my raising range here) 24 times. I will have AK AJ or AT, 72 times. I will have some other kind of hand about 20 times.
That gives us about 140 hands, of which only just over 14% really frighten my opponent (if he has Queens) and 28% of them will frighten him if he has the middle pin. Let's assume he has the Queeens twice as often as the middle pin. That gives us an average of 18% of hands frightening him (i.e., beating his hand) and 82% of hands not beating him.
So, assuming we always raise him with the 18% of hands that beat him (meaning that I raise with the big pairs all the time, and I raise with the smaller pairs 88 to JJ about half the time), how often should I raise with my AK, AJ or AT when I have that instead? Well, roughtly, I want to raise with the AK AJ or AT about the same number of times, so that, as far as my opponent is concerned, it's 50:50 that I am beating him or not. Since I will have the AK and AJ or AT (or some other hand that does not beat him) about 82% of the time, that means I should raise with it 18/82 times, or about 22%.
Shoving those numbers roughly into my head, I reckon that means that I should fold any of the hands where I think I am behind apart from the AK, and that I should raise with the AK about two-thirds of the time. Then, assuming the turn is a rag, I should check behind half the time and continue betting half the time. The same principle then applies on the river.
Note, I would only apply this given the parameters given at the start. If there is a significant possibility that the blind is betting out with air, in an attempt to get your AK, AJ or AT to fold, then you have to increase the percentage of times that you raise. By how much should this percentage be increased? That depends on the chance that your opponent is betting with air. However, once you get to $10-$20 or above, there's a much higher chance that the bet out will be with air. At these levels, the decision becomes significantly more player-dependent. Multi-tabling at $2-$4, you can get away with applying a more general algorithm.
Thoughts?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-07-14 09:04 am (UTC)AA: 6
KK: 6
QQ: 3/1 (Depending on foe having a Q or not)
AQ: 12/8 (Ditto)
You can have 27 or 21 hands. End of pedantry.
The fact that the betting is on the flop changes things, but imagine that the flop was the river, to start.
AA - AQ: 27 hands
Pot: 7.5 small bets after raise
Bluffing probability = 1/n
Bet is one small bet to foe.
If he calls, he loses 1 unit n-1/n times.
He wins 7.5 units 1/n times
7.5/n - n-1/n = 0
7.5 - n + 1 = 0
n = 8.5
or ~12^ of your bets.
Checking: 12% * +7.5 - 88% * 1 = 0.02 so I'm close.
But we aren't on the river.
Assume that foe knows he'll have to call two big bets:
Pot: 7.5 units now, 11.5 units on river
Best: 5 (raise, bet turn, bet river)
Bluff prob = 1/n
so 1/n * 11.5 - n-1/n * 5 = 0
11.5 - 5n + 5 = 0
5n = 16.5
n = 3.5
Checking:
30% * 11.5 - 70% * 5 = -.05 (close enough)
He'll do better than that because he'll draw out on you, but we'll ignore that. Someone else will fix that in the comments :)
You want him to find that calling or folding makes no difference, so reverse impled odds means he has to take case two. Thus you want to raise with 30% of 27 = 8 hands. That would be all the AK that are the same colour, I guess.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-14 09:18 am (UTC)Clearly my instincts are slightly off here as well, in that I would be bashing in a raise with 16 of the 140-ish hands, whereas your numbers indicate just eight. Ergo, the way that I was playing, my opponents would do better by always calling me down.
Empirically what was probably happening was that there were a few more people betting with "air" than I had guessed, because my raises with AK (or, indeed, any old shit, on occasion) often elicited a call of my raise, followed by a check-fold from opponent on the turn when I followed up.
Interesting numbers, though, and ones that will bear bearing (bare bareing?) in mind.
PJ
no subject
Date: 2006-07-14 10:44 pm (UTC)Then 30-ish% is 6.5 hands. AKs + AKblack as a raising range?
Regarding raising ranges, instead of looking at the pre-flop range, I think you need to look at fractions of post-flop legit raises.
It is an interesting question.
To ask another (possibly) interesting question, lets put the foe on QJo. So, he has 3 outs against your hypothetical overpair. Does that move his 30%?
no subject
Date: 2006-07-15 05:21 pm (UTC)As Fox says, in real life, where your reads and psychology are in play, they take precedence over the mathematics.
In other words, even though in theory you bet with the AK 'x' number of times, in practice, you try to bet it when you think opponent is likely to fold and you check behind when you think opponent won't.
Here's how it goes in real life at $2-$4. Oftentimes I bet the flop. Opponent (who has the queen-jack) says "hmm, maybe I'm behind to AQ, maybe he has AK, maybe he has nothing, maybe he does have AA or KK). I'll call and see what happens."
Turn brings a rag. Opponent checks. You bet. Opponent, who is weak-tight, says "wow. that rules out AK, because he would check with that here" (sub-text, because that is what weak-tight opponent would do) so, says weak-tight opponent, "he must have AQ or AA/KK. I'm getting out of here without throwing away another $8." He folds, end of story.
Or, alternatively, opponent, who is loose-passive, goes "wow, I have top pair. I call".
Or, very occasionally, opponent is tight-aggressive, and goes "let's see what's going on here" and check-raises the flop.
Or, very very occasionally, opponent is a more cunning kind of $2-$4 player, and he bets out.
Or, very very very occasionally, he checks the flop and then check-raises the turn.
But, most-times, he either folds the turn or flat-calls it.
If you know who your opponent is, you cut your cloth accordingly.
Now, at $5-$10, you are going to get a lot more check-raisers on the flop with the Q-J. And you will also get quite a few more check-raisers on the turn.
At $15-$30, life becomes horrible. You will be check-raised with air (representing AQ, KQ or QJ), which means that, every so often, you will actually have to three-bet with the AK. At $15-$30 I'd be tempted to check behind every time if I missed, and then to raise the rag turn with the AKs and black AK, folding any of the other hands but flat-calling with any pair higher than fives because the blind could well be value betting a small pair.
But, these are deeper waters.
PJ
no subject
Date: 2006-07-16 02:42 pm (UTC)I'm too lazy to try thinking it through at the moment :(