![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Walking through Ace Jack to Memphis
Dec. 15th, 2006 08:18 pm$2/$4 Texas Hold'em - Table Jackpot #1305541 (Real Money)
Seat 9 is the button
Total number of players : 10
Seat 2: Bubble113 ( $48.45 )
Seat 3: Villain 1 ( $71.25 )
Seat 4: Villain 2 ( $69 )
Seat 5: Solvero ( $51 )
Seat 6: Eukolie ( $65.50 )
Seat 7: esgesmintman ( $151.50 )
Seat 8: MarcGOs1 ( $101 )
Seat 9: galehaha ( $122.50 )
Seat 10: PuckDieStubenfliege ( $121.50 )
Seat 1: Hero ( $197 )
PuckDieStubenfliege posts small blind [$1].
Hero posts big blind [$2].
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to Hero [ A♡ J◊ ]
Bubble113 folds.
Villain 1 calls [$2]
Villain 2 calls [$2]
Solvero calls [$2]
All fold to:
Hero checks.
There’s a good argument for raising here with two limpers where one of the limpers is the small blind, but with three limpers out, a raise just makes it more likely that the hand will go to a showdown. AJ is often a hand that I might try a semi-steal with on the turn if it’s checked round on the flop and and a nine or lower (or a paired board) appears on the turn.
** Dealing Flop ** [ A◊, 2♠, 8◊ ]
Hero checks.
Villain 1 bets [$2]
Villain 2 calls [$2]
Solvero folds.
Hero raises [$4]
It’s surprising how many players are betting out with this kind of hand these days, which is almost certainly indicative of scared money. Sure, a bet out is likely to take the pot and eliminate bad beats, but is that all you want?
Villain 1 calls [$2]
Villain 2 calls [$2]
** Dealing Turn ** [ 7♡ ]
Hero bets [$4]
Villain 1 calls [$4]
Villain 2 calls [$4]
** Dealing River ** [ 8♣ ]
Hero checks.
Villain 1 checks.
Villain 2 checks.
I got this one wrong at the end. If I had had only one remaining opponent, I would have bet, but because I had two opponents, I checked. I think that checking here is definitely negative EV. It was just the paired 8s that spooked me. However, if we assume that at least one opponent has Ax, then any river card is likely to be a potential winner for opponent, and opponent is much more likely to have Ax than 98 or 87.
However, if I bet, and I am raised by Villain 1, and Villain 2 calls, do I call? And what if I am called by Villain 1, and then raised by Villain 2?
We’ll assume here that if one opponent folds and the other raises, that I make a crying call. But I’m not even sure that this is correct. It’s usually here that some bright spark from 1+2 says “it’s player dependent”. Well, as I believe I posted a couple of days ago on another matter, fucking duh. I think that these days we need a rather more precise analysis than that, but I‘m not sure what the precise analysis should be
Hero shows [ A♡, J◊ ]two pairs, Aces and Eights.
Villain 1 shows [ 6♡, A♣ ]two pairs, Aces and Eights.
Villain 2 doesn't show [ T♠, T♡ ]two pairs, Tens and Eights.
Hero wins $31 from the main pot with two pairs, Aces and Eights with Jack kicker.
I probably threw away one big bet here (the TT would be insane to call). The EV minus is, what? Hard to say. Sometimes opponents will have nothing and will bluff, in which case my check wins money. Sometimes I will be beaten and I will be called, but opponents would have checked if I checked. Sometimes I will be beaten and raised, and I will make a crying call.
To obtain an accurate assessment of how negative EV checking here is, probabilities have to be assigned to all of these scenarios. And, well, no-one who writes books can be bothered to do that much hard work. They tend to resort to lines such as “you should bet here “ (a line with which I agree, BTW), and then give vaguaries to back it up, such as “usually” or “most of the time”, backed up with the caveat, “Admittedly, sometimes....”
Have a read through any guide to how to play limit (or no limit) and count how often the words or phrases “usually”, “occasionally” “rarely”, “frequently”, “infrequently”, “most of the time” and “sometimes” appear. Every time that the word or phrase appears, the writer just can’t be bothered to assign more exact probability assessments. Sure, defences such as “readability” can be thrown in, but, well, trust me, I’m a writer. I’ve used these tricks myself.
If you think something is positive EV, to justify it you need to assign numbers. It doesn’t matter if your numbers are wrong. What matters is how far those numbers have to be wrong before your analysis becomes incorrect.
Once again, John Fox is exemplary here. His chapter on how often you should bluff when you miss a draw, so that nothing your opponent does can improve his or her expected loss on the hand, is a fine example of how it should be done.
Seat 9 is the button
Total number of players : 10
Seat 2: Bubble113 ( $48.45 )
Seat 3: Villain 1 ( $71.25 )
Seat 4: Villain 2 ( $69 )
Seat 5: Solvero ( $51 )
Seat 6: Eukolie ( $65.50 )
Seat 7: esgesmintman ( $151.50 )
Seat 8: MarcGOs1 ( $101 )
Seat 9: galehaha ( $122.50 )
Seat 10: PuckDieStubenfliege ( $121.50 )
Seat 1: Hero ( $197 )
PuckDieStubenfliege posts small blind [$1].
Hero posts big blind [$2].
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to Hero [ A♡ J◊ ]
Bubble113 folds.
Villain 1 calls [$2]
Villain 2 calls [$2]
Solvero calls [$2]
All fold to:
Hero checks.
There’s a good argument for raising here with two limpers where one of the limpers is the small blind, but with three limpers out, a raise just makes it more likely that the hand will go to a showdown. AJ is often a hand that I might try a semi-steal with on the turn if it’s checked round on the flop and and a nine or lower (or a paired board) appears on the turn.
** Dealing Flop ** [ A◊, 2♠, 8◊ ]
Hero checks.
Villain 1 bets [$2]
Villain 2 calls [$2]
Solvero folds.
Hero raises [$4]
It’s surprising how many players are betting out with this kind of hand these days, which is almost certainly indicative of scared money. Sure, a bet out is likely to take the pot and eliminate bad beats, but is that all you want?
Villain 1 calls [$2]
Villain 2 calls [$2]
** Dealing Turn ** [ 7♡ ]
Hero bets [$4]
Villain 1 calls [$4]
Villain 2 calls [$4]
** Dealing River ** [ 8♣ ]
Hero checks.
Villain 1 checks.
Villain 2 checks.
I got this one wrong at the end. If I had had only one remaining opponent, I would have bet, but because I had two opponents, I checked. I think that checking here is definitely negative EV. It was just the paired 8s that spooked me. However, if we assume that at least one opponent has Ax, then any river card is likely to be a potential winner for opponent, and opponent is much more likely to have Ax than 98 or 87.
However, if I bet, and I am raised by Villain 1, and Villain 2 calls, do I call? And what if I am called by Villain 1, and then raised by Villain 2?
We’ll assume here that if one opponent folds and the other raises, that I make a crying call. But I’m not even sure that this is correct. It’s usually here that some bright spark from 1+2 says “it’s player dependent”. Well, as I believe I posted a couple of days ago on another matter, fucking duh. I think that these days we need a rather more precise analysis than that, but I‘m not sure what the precise analysis should be
Hero shows [ A♡, J◊ ]two pairs, Aces and Eights.
Villain 1 shows [ 6♡, A♣ ]two pairs, Aces and Eights.
Villain 2 doesn't show [ T♠, T♡ ]two pairs, Tens and Eights.
Hero wins $31 from the main pot with two pairs, Aces and Eights with Jack kicker.
I probably threw away one big bet here (the TT would be insane to call). The EV minus is, what? Hard to say. Sometimes opponents will have nothing and will bluff, in which case my check wins money. Sometimes I will be beaten and I will be called, but opponents would have checked if I checked. Sometimes I will be beaten and raised, and I will make a crying call.
To obtain an accurate assessment of how negative EV checking here is, probabilities have to be assigned to all of these scenarios. And, well, no-one who writes books can be bothered to do that much hard work. They tend to resort to lines such as “you should bet here “ (a line with which I agree, BTW), and then give vaguaries to back it up, such as “usually” or “most of the time”, backed up with the caveat, “Admittedly, sometimes....”
Have a read through any guide to how to play limit (or no limit) and count how often the words or phrases “usually”, “occasionally” “rarely”, “frequently”, “infrequently”, “most of the time” and “sometimes” appear. Every time that the word or phrase appears, the writer just can’t be bothered to assign more exact probability assessments. Sure, defences such as “readability” can be thrown in, but, well, trust me, I’m a writer. I’ve used these tricks myself.
If you think something is positive EV, to justify it you need to assign numbers. It doesn’t matter if your numbers are wrong. What matters is how far those numbers have to be wrong before your analysis becomes incorrect.
Once again, John Fox is exemplary here. His chapter on how often you should bluff when you miss a draw, so that nothing your opponent does can improve his or her expected loss on the hand, is a fine example of how it should be done.
