A PLO hand
Jun. 25th, 2005 12:41 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksOh well, here's a PLO hand that I won (a rarity in itself at the moment). It worked out okay, but at the time I was not sure that I was doing the right thing.
Birks is at seat 0 with $49.
dudelbwski is at seat 1 with $24.30.
mystiko is at seat 3 with $38.30.
LFS1 is at seat 4 with $48.35.
dtydad is at seat 6 with $11.50.
coldeeze is at seat 7 with $103.45.
Cornier is at seat 8 with $46.50.
pokernanny is at seat 9 with $9.25.
The button is at seat 9.
Birks posts the small blind of $.25.
dudelbwski posts the big blind of $.50.
Birks: As 4s 5h 7d
mystiko folds. LFS1 calls. dtydad calls. coldeeze folds. Cornier folds. pokernanny calls. Birks calls. dudelbwski raises to $3. LFS1 folds. dtydad calls. pokernanny calls. Birks calls.
The big blind raiser has been doing this quite a lot. He was also not that strong a player (indeed, later he would go broke, but not to me!) I probably shouldn't call this pre-flop raise. Perhaps the same ranks of cards, but double-suited, or something like A456. But really this is a little bit weak. The first signs of tilt at getting so little to play for an hour or so? Perhaps. In fact, after this hand, I settled down again.
Flop 8c Jh 3d
This isn't any kind of flop for me, and I'm quite happy to fold to a 50 cent bet. Except that it doesn't come.
Birks checks. dudelbwski checks. dtydad checks. pokernanny checks.
Turn 8c Jh 3d 6s
And, out of pig's ears do silk purses come. I know that this is a pretty good wrap. The check-round on the flop seems to indicate no sets, unless someone has just hit their sixes. And it's the kind of board where people find it hard to resist trying a "steal". There's no flush danger, so if I hit my hand on the river, I may well get called for a reasonably sized bet. Alternatively, I would be quite happy to take down the pot now.
Birks checks. dudelbwski bets $.50. dtydad calls. pokernanny calls.
I think that this confirms that there is no set out there. I think that the most I am up against is two pairs. I'm not sure of my equity against a single opponent with two-pairs, but I reckon that it's pretty good, especially since I might be able to force a laydown with a raise.
Birks raises to $15. dudelbwski folds. dtydad folds. pokernanny folds. Birks is returned $14.50 (uncalled).
$.70 is raked from a pot of $14.50.
Birks wins $13.80.
So, let's assume my opponents have 2-pair twice and a ropey drawing hand once. If they put me on a set of sixes, it's hard for them to call this bet. But, this is low-limit and you do get some truly dreadful calls. Let's put my calling opponent (if he had called) on AJT8. What's my equity on this "super wrap"?
Turns out that I'm 42.5% to 57.5% dog.
Does that make my raise wrong? Should I just flat-call for the superb equity that I am getting to 50 cents?
Well, it all comes down to psychology. If there is NO chance that I will win this pot uncontested, and if it is 100% certain that one of my opponents has 2-pair, then, yes, a call is the correct bet. Assuming that I bet $3 on the river if I hit, and this is always called (I could apply different numbers here, such as a $6 bet that is called half the time, or a pot bet that is called 20% of the time -- they all generate the same $3 river return( then we have an expected return of:
-50c 57.5% of the time (= minus .29)
$15 + $3 42.5% of the time (=$7.65)
for an EV of $7.36.
If I raise $15 and am called, we now have $45 in the pot. Let's assume that I bet $8 into this if I hit and am called 100% of the time (equal to a pot bet being called about 15% of the time).
That gives us -$15 57.5% of the time (= - $8.62)
and +$38 42.5% of the time (= +16.15)
for an EV of $7.53.
That's close enough to say "it makes no difference". If we assume that the chance that I have horribly misread the hand and that I am far worse off than I thought cancels out with the chance that I am called by a pile of shit, then ANY chance that I take down the pot uncontested raises the latter EV into a seriously positive edge.
Suppose I think there is only a 25% chance that all the opponents will fold (my own estimate was closer to 60%)
That gives the second play an EV of:
+$15 25% of the time = $3.75
-$15 43% of the time = -$6.49
+$38 32% of the time = $12.16
for a total EV of $9.42.
This is not just a PLO point, it's a technique used time and again by Ulliott, Brunson, Cloutier and Negreanu. There only needs to be a small chance that your opponent will meekly lie down and die for the raise in this situation to be mathematically correct.
Birks is at seat 0 with $49.
dudelbwski is at seat 1 with $24.30.
mystiko is at seat 3 with $38.30.
LFS1 is at seat 4 with $48.35.
dtydad is at seat 6 with $11.50.
coldeeze is at seat 7 with $103.45.
Cornier is at seat 8 with $46.50.
pokernanny is at seat 9 with $9.25.
The button is at seat 9.
Birks posts the small blind of $.25.
dudelbwski posts the big blind of $.50.
Birks: As 4s 5h 7d
mystiko folds. LFS1 calls. dtydad calls. coldeeze folds. Cornier folds. pokernanny calls. Birks calls. dudelbwski raises to $3. LFS1 folds. dtydad calls. pokernanny calls. Birks calls.
The big blind raiser has been doing this quite a lot. He was also not that strong a player (indeed, later he would go broke, but not to me!) I probably shouldn't call this pre-flop raise. Perhaps the same ranks of cards, but double-suited, or something like A456. But really this is a little bit weak. The first signs of tilt at getting so little to play for an hour or so? Perhaps. In fact, after this hand, I settled down again.
Flop 8c Jh 3d
This isn't any kind of flop for me, and I'm quite happy to fold to a 50 cent bet. Except that it doesn't come.
Birks checks. dudelbwski checks. dtydad checks. pokernanny checks.
Turn 8c Jh 3d 6s
And, out of pig's ears do silk purses come. I know that this is a pretty good wrap. The check-round on the flop seems to indicate no sets, unless someone has just hit their sixes. And it's the kind of board where people find it hard to resist trying a "steal". There's no flush danger, so if I hit my hand on the river, I may well get called for a reasonably sized bet. Alternatively, I would be quite happy to take down the pot now.
Birks checks. dudelbwski bets $.50. dtydad calls. pokernanny calls.
I think that this confirms that there is no set out there. I think that the most I am up against is two pairs. I'm not sure of my equity against a single opponent with two-pairs, but I reckon that it's pretty good, especially since I might be able to force a laydown with a raise.
Birks raises to $15. dudelbwski folds. dtydad folds. pokernanny folds. Birks is returned $14.50 (uncalled).
$.70 is raked from a pot of $14.50.
Birks wins $13.80.
So, let's assume my opponents have 2-pair twice and a ropey drawing hand once. If they put me on a set of sixes, it's hard for them to call this bet. But, this is low-limit and you do get some truly dreadful calls. Let's put my calling opponent (if he had called) on AJT8. What's my equity on this "super wrap"?
Turns out that I'm 42.5% to 57.5% dog.
Does that make my raise wrong? Should I just flat-call for the superb equity that I am getting to 50 cents?
Well, it all comes down to psychology. If there is NO chance that I will win this pot uncontested, and if it is 100% certain that one of my opponents has 2-pair, then, yes, a call is the correct bet. Assuming that I bet $3 on the river if I hit, and this is always called (I could apply different numbers here, such as a $6 bet that is called half the time, or a pot bet that is called 20% of the time -- they all generate the same $3 river return( then we have an expected return of:
-50c 57.5% of the time (= minus .29)
$15 + $3 42.5% of the time (=$7.65)
for an EV of $7.36.
If I raise $15 and am called, we now have $45 in the pot. Let's assume that I bet $8 into this if I hit and am called 100% of the time (equal to a pot bet being called about 15% of the time).
That gives us -$15 57.5% of the time (= - $8.62)
and +$38 42.5% of the time (= +16.15)
for an EV of $7.53.
That's close enough to say "it makes no difference". If we assume that the chance that I have horribly misread the hand and that I am far worse off than I thought cancels out with the chance that I am called by a pile of shit, then ANY chance that I take down the pot uncontested raises the latter EV into a seriously positive edge.
Suppose I think there is only a 25% chance that all the opponents will fold (my own estimate was closer to 60%)
That gives the second play an EV of:
+$15 25% of the time = $3.75
-$15 43% of the time = -$6.49
+$38 32% of the time = $12.16
for a total EV of $9.42.
This is not just a PLO point, it's a technique used time and again by Ulliott, Brunson, Cloutier and Negreanu. There only needs to be a small chance that your opponent will meekly lie down and die for the raise in this situation to be mathematically correct.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-06-25 06:32 pm (UTC)A couple of points...I think this number work is good for your game as its clear that "over the table" you are overestimating your hands. Very few drawing hands, in PLO, are a favourite over even a crap made hand, as you discovered. Also, estimating making all 3 players pass at 60%, even though they showed some cosiderable weakness, is surely too high. On average that would make them each likely to pass about 85%, which doesnt feel right considering they did all call a bet.
Lastly, you are not factoring in the possibility of how you play the river, if you are called. This is analagous to my bad check raise I described on my blog. What happens if the board pairs? Or you hit air?
gl
Dave
Over-estimation
Date: 2005-06-25 07:57 pm (UTC)I could write something really long here (and probably will end up so doing), but I'll try to keep as brief and salient as I possibly can.
First, I did point out at the beginning of the pice that (a) I was possibly a bit tilty because I had been card-dead for so long (three sessions or so) and (b) I wasn't particularly happy with my play. So, in that sense, I was aware of what was going on, but I did it anyway, because I felt that, if wrong, it was marginal.
Second, I wouldn't have made this play at even one level higher. In this sense, I think that I read the players better than you think I did. You might be giving them too much credit. I was aware that, even though I had a great drawing hand, it remained just that. So I knew that I was likely to be a dog against any caller (of course, what I want are two callers or none, since if they are both looking for the board to pair, my EV rises dramatically).
Third: Although I said that my estimate was 60%, my calculation in the numbers is just 25%. So, I allowed for my estimate being on the high side. But was it? Think back to those weak tournaments, when you got three or four limpers, and you put in a big raise from the Big Blind, casually hoovering up the money without seeing a flop. In a sense, my bet here is a bit like that. The only bet that they have called is 50 cents. They are not saying to themselves "hmm, there might be a raise behind me", they are saying "hmm, I have nothing better than a pair, but it's only 50 cents". My bet is 30 times their call. And, on top of that, it was a nice amount for the game -- enough to be a "significant bet" to the players in the game. They were not all-in every five hands and whip out another $50. I had been sitting at the game for some time and I had a feeling that this bet would knock them out. In addition, I had been playing very conservatively for about an hour. If I had any image it was that of only pushing very strong hands.
Lastly, you say that I had not factored in the possibility of how I would play the river. Here, I most definitely had! For a start, I would not have made this play if the board had not been a rainbow. So, it makes no difference to me if the board pairs or if the board doesn't pair but I hit air. I am walking away from the hand in either case. The great thing about this hand is that I can't hit a "half-way house" (i.e., I hit a straight but the board pairs, or I hit a straight but three of a suit are on board). Either I make my hand and I know that I am winning (or at worst tieing) or I fail to make my hand and I know that I am losing. I am not going to try a bluff if the river comes up a blank for everyone.
It was definietly an unusual situation, in that it required a rainbow board, a checked flop and an utterly insipid bet from the other players on the turn. Even if the player on my left had bet, say $3, I think that I would have just flat-called.
The one point that you fail to mention that I ought to have factored in and mentioned more explicitly (although I alluded to it when I said that I might have "totally misread the situation") is the chance of a reraise all-in before the last card is dealt. This was the reason that I wouldn't have tried this play at even one level higher.
Although I considered this event very unlikely, I'll admit that part of my mood when I put in the rearaise was slight "need for action". If a player has a set and reraises me all-in (a quality play with the initial 50 cent bet -- too clever for this level I think!) then I have to call, since I am getting 2-to-1 about a 42% shot.
However, it changes the EV of my initial raise. The extent to which it changes it depends on the likelihood of the reraise. At just one level higher I reckon there would be something like a 20% chance of this happening, while at this level it might be as low as 5%.
Without delving into the maths again, I would think that if there is only a 5% chance of the reraise, then my EV remains better if I raise than if I call, but with a 20% chance of a reraise, I suspect that my EV is better if I just call.
But, even at a higher level, surely the player looking for a reraise coup would be likely to bet more than the absolute minimum?
Re: Over-estimation
Date: 2005-06-26 05:55 pm (UTC)I guess my general point is that the best maths work is done away from the table, like here. And often an internal radar used to holdem can makes some slight errors, so it is doubly valuable to check things out - I do it all the time. I saw the calculation was based on 25%, but I still feel that if you really beleive it was 60% then you are in danger of ignoring the maths for the sake of feel. You may be right, but 85% for each of them is a big overlay to overcome.
Interestingly, the move is a lot more compelling three handed.
Lastly if you are going completely limp if you miss, then you are surely missing a trick. The whole line of this move was that you were capitalising on their weakness. One flat call is not necessarily a big show of strength either. If you check on a miss, you may simply be giving away a pot a bet could have won, or give a red flag to a bluff from a similarily missed draw. And this isnt factoring the problems of hitting an understriaght.
gl
BDD
Re: Over-estimation
Date: 2005-06-26 08:50 pm (UTC)I agree that it's a good idea to do some maths work away from the table. And I also agree that one's instinctive feel for the numbers (particularly if you are normally a limit player) might be off. After all, this is why most pot limit players get murdered at limit!
The reason I would walk away if I was called and then missed is a psychological one. The players at this level are loath to put in as much as $15, but if they do, they are quite likely to put in the extra $30. This has no rational justification, but it seems to happen "I'm in for fifteen, I might as well be in for fifty.... ". In this sense, I knew that I had to either get them out before their fifteen went in (because it would not be in their mindset to call the $15 and then fold -- as far as they were concerned, the $15 meant that had to go in on the river as well) or I had to hit. If I did hit, I think I could well have been called more than I estimated earlier. Also, most of my massive losses in pots, in my 30 years of playing the game, have been on massive bluffs at the end which I can't imagine anyone calling!
I'll admit that I hadn't put in calculations re the under-straight. Numbers get hard there!