Nothing new

[peterbirks]

It's all a bit same-old same-old at the moment, isn't it? I remain a fraction bullish on sterling, but not really enough to plonk my money down at the moment. I see a medium-term upside (say, sometime in the next 12 months) of $1.66 to $1.68, but short-term I've got no idea where it is going. As my old boss in the currency world once said "we're at the mercy of politicians here". Nothing annoyed him more than reality getting in the way of his charts. But, well, he was a dick.

My short on Barclays (expires June, I think), has gained back about £150, and I'm letting it run. Definitely not one of my greatest bets of all time, though.

Poker has been a bit odd. I dropped over $300 yesterday after a nice run for a few days up to Tuesday at 10pm. $200 of the $300 was a single hand that I think I played badly, even though playing it very well would only have saved me $70. And there's a metagame factor involved.

I'll detail the hand later, but the most intersting thing about it was my lack of emotional involvement. Not only did I not go on tilt, but I woke up this morning trying to remember whether I had won or lost.

This could be a sign of incipient manicism or it could be a genuine inurement to my current stakes, where $200+ gains and losses are becoming somewhat run-of-the-mill.

Anyhoo, the hand went as follows. I've no worries or intention to alter any of my play before the river, even though I know it's not a typical style.

Blinds $1-$2, NL, 888 site. Full Ring, 10.15pm Table has a VPIP of about 26% and an average pot size of $32 or thereabouts.

Villain: UTG. Stats are 30% VPIP 9% raises. Aggression is about 1.7, which is slightly passive but not unduly so.

Villain ($218) limps for $2

Passed to Hero in MP2.

Hero ($200) (5h 5d) raises to $6

Passed round to Villain, who calls.

Flop comes 5c 6d 9c

Villain checks,

Hero bets $7

Villain raises to $14

Hero calls.

$42 in pot. Effective stack $180.

Turn Kd

Villain bets $36

Hero calls

$112 in pot, effective stack $144.

River 4h

Villain bets $70

Hero raises all-in to $144

Villain calls.

Villain shows 8s 7h for the flopped straigh

Hero mucks thee of a kind, fives.

Why the raise by me on the river? Well, to be frank, I don't know. I just knew that this was what I intended to do if a brick came on the river. It's not as if I didn't see the possible flopped straight; I just decided that he didn't have it. I was minorly scared of a set of nines or a set if sixes, and it was this and this alone that made me ponder just calling the river.

Sometimes I do this, and often I'm right, and I don't know why I take these views (given that opponent's play here is perfectly consistent with him flopping a straight). I can justify this to myself in metagame terms in that it's more likely to generate calls in future, but something in my head clearly felt that I was ahead of opponent's range?

But what am I actually beating? Not a lot. A bluff, obviously. A thin-value bluff (say, a pair of Kings bad kicker, pair of 10s, pair of 9s), and a lower set of 4s or 2s, but none of those hands fits with the check-raise on the flop.

I think that I've probably assigned an overpair to this guy (or, perhaps assumed that he has assigned me with and overpair/Ace-King) and that he has bet accordingly. In fact, he's just bet his hand in an ABC fashion. Meh. Lesson learnt.

___________

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

This hand illustrates a concept I've been thinking about for some time about the problems with playing small pairs. Suppose you raise with a small pair where you would also raise with AA to allegedly diversify your range. When you flop bottom set and are getting action it's true they can't put you on the hand but they can put you on AA and the two hands are essentially the same. This is subtly distinct from the well-known issue of reverse implied odds when you hit bottom set and have to pay off a higher one. So basically I hate playing small pairs and I'd be interested to know how profitable they are for you broken down by pair and position.

matt

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

I'll give you some detailed analysis results later, Matt, because this is an interesting point and it was precisely the point that occurred to me.

Briefly, I checked pairs of 6s, 5s and 4s in early and mid positions where I had either raised first in or raised a single limper. The numbers were profitable.

Two comments on your analysis:

1) If opponent is willing to go all in with two-pair (and many are against a raiser in this situation), then bottom set is different from AA.

2) more importantly (and this will come out when I list the figures in more detail, although "when you flop bottom set" AA and small pairs are esentially the same, eight times in nine you will not flop bottom set. At this point AA is a bet for value while your small pair is worth far less. In other words the two hands are, most of the time, significantly different. In this sense the raise with the small pair is a much more flexible hand. It may "become" a pair of Aces (when you flop bottom set), but most of the time it will remain a small pair. And a few times it will be middle set. Very rarely, it may even be top set.

PJ