Mi Caja su Caja
May. 21st, 2009 12:50 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksIt looks like the shit is beginning to hit the fan in Spain before Ireland. Caja Madrid is going to skip interest payments on two bonds due to rising defaults on mortgages backing the debt; it's the first halt in such payments by a Spanish bank during the current downturn.
The default, worth $1.65m on junior bonds, comes because defaults on underlying mortgages rose to cut-off levels stipulated by terms of the funds. This is likely to be the first of many such defaults in Spain, which entered the home-ownership stakes in a far more reckless and immature way (by which I mean, it was starting from a more primitive home-ownership base) than even Ireland. With the recession hitting the country harder than anywhere else in the EU and likely to be deeper and longer-lasting than anywhere else in the EU, the propsects for lenders in Spain's fragmented mortgage market looks like shit.
++++++++
The idiocy of some companies when it comes to even the basics of Enterprise Risk Management sometimes defies belief. Not only did Pringles manufacturer Proctor & Gamble blithely walk into court and say that Pringles were not crisps because they were 33% fat and flour (ummm, yummmmm, clearly aiming for the Homer Simpson market) and only 42% potato, but they managed to lose the case (an attempt to avoid VAT). Even afterwards, the PR man, who must have been desperately looking for a hole in the ground to swallow him up, insisted on referring to the company's "savoury snack product".
Did the company actually think about this before attempting to dodge the VAT? Didn't anyone say "look, it's a bit hard to market something when you proudly boast that it's mainly fat, flour, emulsifier and wheat starch".
Muchos applause to the judges, who basically told Proctor & Gamble, "stop talking bollocks".
++++++++++++
Some poker decisions:
$100 BI, 5pm. Pokerstars. You pick up Th 7h on the button, with about $100 in front of you.
Curiously, four players limp, all of them in around the 20% VPIP / 8% raise range. Do you fold, limp behind, or raise?
I chose to limp. No raise came from the blinds, making $7 in the pot.
Flop comes Ks Kh 5h, givving you a flush draw. Six players check to me. Do you bet or check?
Decision 2:
You pick up KK in the Cut-off with $100 in front of you in $100 BI. Passed round to you. You rase to 3x and are called in the Big blind by a standard PS player, perhaps a bit tighter and more passive than usual (say, 11%/6%), making it a $6.50 pot.
Flop comes T53 rainbow.
You bet $3. Blind check raises to $9. You call. $23.50 in the pot
Turn brings a Jack. Big blind bets $15. You call. $52.50 in the pot. You still have $73 in front of you, as has opponent.
River brings another 3, making JT533, no possible flush. Big blind checks. Do you check behind or bet?
What arguments are there for reraising (a) on the flop or (b) on the turn? Is there ever an argument for a fold?
_______________________
The default, worth $1.65m on junior bonds, comes because defaults on underlying mortgages rose to cut-off levels stipulated by terms of the funds. This is likely to be the first of many such defaults in Spain, which entered the home-ownership stakes in a far more reckless and immature way (by which I mean, it was starting from a more primitive home-ownership base) than even Ireland. With the recession hitting the country harder than anywhere else in the EU and likely to be deeper and longer-lasting than anywhere else in the EU, the propsects for lenders in Spain's fragmented mortgage market looks like shit.
++++++++
The idiocy of some companies when it comes to even the basics of Enterprise Risk Management sometimes defies belief. Not only did Pringles manufacturer Proctor & Gamble blithely walk into court and say that Pringles were not crisps because they were 33% fat and flour (ummm, yummmmm, clearly aiming for the Homer Simpson market) and only 42% potato, but they managed to lose the case (an attempt to avoid VAT). Even afterwards, the PR man, who must have been desperately looking for a hole in the ground to swallow him up, insisted on referring to the company's "savoury snack product".
Did the company actually think about this before attempting to dodge the VAT? Didn't anyone say "look, it's a bit hard to market something when you proudly boast that it's mainly fat, flour, emulsifier and wheat starch".
Muchos applause to the judges, who basically told Proctor & Gamble, "stop talking bollocks".
++++++++++++
Some poker decisions:
$100 BI, 5pm. Pokerstars. You pick up Th 7h on the button, with about $100 in front of you.
Curiously, four players limp, all of them in around the 20% VPIP / 8% raise range. Do you fold, limp behind, or raise?
I chose to limp. No raise came from the blinds, making $7 in the pot.
Flop comes Ks Kh 5h, givving you a flush draw. Six players check to me. Do you bet or check?
Decision 2:
You pick up KK in the Cut-off with $100 in front of you in $100 BI. Passed round to you. You rase to 3x and are called in the Big blind by a standard PS player, perhaps a bit tighter and more passive than usual (say, 11%/6%), making it a $6.50 pot.
Flop comes T53 rainbow.
You bet $3. Blind check raises to $9. You call. $23.50 in the pot
Turn brings a Jack. Big blind bets $15. You call. $52.50 in the pot. You still have $73 in front of you, as has opponent.
River brings another 3, making JT533, no possible flush. Big blind checks. Do you check behind or bet?
What arguments are there for reraising (a) on the flop or (b) on the turn? Is there ever an argument for a fold?
_______________________
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-05-21 01:00 pm (UTC)1: I bet somewhere between $5 and pot, figuring either to be getting odds if it's called, information (someone most likely hit 2nd or 3rd set) if it's raised and maybe take it down immediately when behind.
2: Dunno - is he good enough to have been trying to float you off the hand? The flop raise might be for info, since your LP open-raise can be from a fairly wide range and the $3 could be pure c-bet. I have a feeling the only hand that will call a bet is beating you here, so I'm checking.
no subject
Date: 2009-05-22 09:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-21 07:58 pm (UTC)2. River, alyin, I like it as played up until then.
gl
dd
no subject
Date: 2009-05-22 09:11 am (UTC)decisions
Date: 2009-05-21 11:58 pm (UTC)What happens on the next street depends on who bets and how much.
2. He is generally passive but now decides to check-raise and lead out the next street. I can see a passive player not reraising pf with decent overcards (AK/AQ) but they don't seem to fit here. That leaves overpairs, funky two pair hands and sets, and also AT in his range.
We're beating QQ, AT, T5, missed overs are unlikely and not calling a bet anyway. T3 beats us, AA, JJ, TT and 55 are also ahead so I think a check behind would be best. As for the question of reraising, I can't see why we'd want to make the hand easier for our opponent to play rather than force him to make more decisions out of position, if he is behind he hasn't got too many outs. I'm not good enough to fold the turn but certainly if he had bet again on the river.
Re: decisions
Date: 2009-05-22 09:30 am (UTC)Reasoning: (a) Betting fulfils one of the main objects in that it gives opponents an opportunity to make a mistake (in this case, folding a better hand).
(b) What are opponents likely to have with which they can check-raise you? It's here that the fact that the pair on board is Kings is significant. No-one has raised pre-flop, no-one has bet post-flop. Being on the button, your range is far more consistent with having a King than any of the other players. At this level, a check-raise bluff in this kind of situation is very rare. A check-raise for value is rarer still. Something like KQ might check-call or check-raise, but mostly, following the (wrong) principle that "a flush draw is always out there", KQ would bet out. Only 55 is likely to check-raise.
2) This was an interesting hand in that it's one where I have changed my style in the past month. I bet half opponent's stack and he called. My KK beat his QQ.
Answering the posts in turn:
Mike: As you can see there are a few hands (QQ, possibly AT and perhaps AJ) that will call that I am beating. I had concluded that he most likley had one of these hands.
Dave: I value-bet half the pot rather than go all-in because (a) I thought that this would be more likely to get a call from QQ and (b) (less likely) there was a remote chance that this might elicit some kind of mistaken check-raise bluff with something like 99 or 88. If opponent has AA I suppose he might fold an all-in and call the half-pot, but, see below.
Anon: You raise two interesting points. Your phrase "he is generally passive" led me down a line which I have decided is a fraction flawed -- that being that, just because someone is slightly more tight-passive than normal, I should not immediately rule out plays that more aggressive players make.
Second, once we get to the river and opponent checks, the whole hand changes, and the hands that you list were, in the most part, ruled out. In fact, I put opponent precisely on QQ, although ATs and (less likely) AJs were possibilities.
AA: He didn't reraise pre-flop. This kind of player reraises preflop with Aces
the other KK: Possible.
QQ: The only hand apart from KK that fits his entire betting pattern perfectly. Six times more likely than KK.
ATs: fits the call pf and the cr on flop, and possibly the bet on the turn.
AJs: fits the bet on the turn but not the CR on the flop. However, not impossible.
99 88 77 66: All possible, although he's a bit passive to CR the flop with these hands. More frequent is a check-call on the flop and (say with 99 or 88) also on the turn.
T3: V unlikely. Defended blind and checked river? Too tricky for this kind of player
JJ TT 55: Would have bet the river.
T5: V unlikely, see T3.
If he bets more than half the size of the pot on the river, I am folding. Any less I would make a crying call.
PJ
Re: decisions
Date: 2009-05-23 12:16 pm (UTC)1) I haven't played on 'Stars for a while so perhaps the games are more passive than I remember, also my analysis might be suffering somewhat from incorrectly attributing my own thinking/behaviour to the average opponent. Still I'd say the button would be the least likely candidate to hold a king here, I'd give him all kinds of holdings that make a playable multiway combination - suited connectors, suited aces and low-mid pairs. I wouldn't give him hands like AK, KQ, (maybe KJs too) though because I wouldn't limp behind with them. I also wouldn't play suited trashy kings K7s K5 etc, so that really only leaves hands like KJ, KT, K9.
Everyone knows that paired boards are an opportunity to win a pot without a hand, so if I happened to have a king my thinking would be usually check to the button to allow him to bluff. If I didn't have a king and was in the cut-off or blinds I'd usually be looking to check-raise the button, again he's expected to bet most of the time and it's much more likely the blinds hold a king - they can hold all the trashy 'unplayable' ones and be reluctant to raise AK, KQ or KJs OOP. The cut-off can limp the same weak ones as the button and the stronger kings too hoping to come over the top of a squeeze.
Although the king or flush draw don't always have to be out there, you have enough opponents who can have one or the other frequently enough and a table position that suggests (to me at least) you'll rarely hit this flop hard. Still you bet and took it, maybe that's the way things usually go now when your opponents are playing 24 tables at once. Still it was a small pot maybe this analysis is OTT, getting check-raised might lead you to lose the equity in your draw (you might stack trips!), or perhaps just as likely save your stack (you might lose to the ace high flush or boat!), a small stab is hardly going to lead to a big EV disaster.
2) After you called the flop check-raise and turn lead, how often can his check-call with 77,88,99 or similar on the river actually win him money? I'd say a slightly passive player would tend to fold here, unless he's putting you on the classic missed overs and has heroic tendencies. However if he can put you on ace-high then why wouldn't he think of check-raising the river with T5 or T3? Would you be passive enough to check back AK and let what now appears to be a rather weak hand take it down?
Still you put him on QQ and he did end up having it, I'd say in your case the proportion of reading well to running well is favourable. However I'm wary of being that specific, when there are so few hands that you can bet for value against maybe a check behind is prudent.
Mattito.
Re: decisions
Date: 2009-05-23 08:06 pm (UTC)When I said that the button was the most likely to hold a king, I should have added "apart from the blinds". Although I accept that button has a wider range (a fact I should have thought of), I was focused on the fact that while button could have any number of Kxs, everryone apart from the blinds was roughly limited to KQ or KJs and maybe KTs. Oh, and the very few players who limp with AK, hoping to get in a reraise. I would most certainly play trashy suited kings on the button if I can get in for a limp. K8s is almost raisable against a single limper.
Looked at in terms of EV, we have a number of scenarios (which could of course be sub-divided further).
1) You win the pot there and then = +7
2) You get flat-called and checked to on the turn. Gives you 33% of hitting flush. Lets make this one about +4
3) You get flat-called and bet at on the turn. Not so good. About 0, perhapps -2?
4) You get check-raised on the flop. V Bad. If it's a mini-raise you could call (although I don't like it), but let's assume it's a proper CR and you fold. = -4
The EV of checking is also positive. About +2 is my guess.
So, depending on how you assign the results in (A) (you bet), you either do or do not get a positive EV greater than (B) (you check).
+++++++
On the KK hand, I very rarely put people on particular hands. That was why I mentioned this one. My main point on T3 and T5 is that I can't see the guy defending the hand preflop with those holdings. But, if he did, most 100BI players who played the hand this way would Bet out the river. If they had check-called the flop, then a CR on the river is more likely, but two CRs in a single hand is v rare at 100 BI...
PJ
What we need to do is assign probabilities and values to these.
But what about the reduced fat ones?
Date: 2009-05-22 08:28 am (UTC)If you remember the even more fascinating Jaffa Cakes case, that one had to wander all the way up to Europe before getting the definitive judgement that determined the difference between a cake and a biscuit (leave a cake and it goes hard, leave a biscuit and it goes soft (or was it the other way round?)).
Re: But what about the reduced fat ones?
Date: 2009-05-22 08:35 am (UTC)Yes, you can see how we touch on all the reallt tough financial matters in our office. I actually used a headline this morning that I am most proud of:
"Taxi drivers complain".
PJ
Re: But what about the reduced fat ones?
Date: 2009-05-22 11:37 am (UTC)Re: But what about the reduced fat ones?
Date: 2009-05-22 11:45 am (UTC)For 10 points, can anyone guess the probably name of the house before it was renamed Arnold? It's easily googleable and the first entry that comes up actually mentions the name of my school as well.
PJ
Re: But what about the reduced fat ones?
Date: 2009-05-22 11:49 am (UTC)PJ
A side track
Date: 2009-05-22 12:02 pm (UTC)This would have been the residence between when it was Hogarth's residence and before it became my school. The statue (of George I) was demolished to be replaced by one of Shakespeare, mainly on the grounds that Shakespeare spoke better English than George I. The building has a church spire behind it, which I assume is that of St Martin's In The Fields (my school's original home) which would indicate that my school is on a spot now occupied by a Yates' Wine Lodge, a WAG-infested nightclub, and the premises of Capital Radio.....
PJ
Re: But what about the reduced fat ones?
Date: 2009-05-24 10:50 pm (UTC)St. Aidan - Red and black (occasionally red and blue)
St. Cuthbert - Green and black
St. Oswald - Blue and black
The Venerable Bede - Yellow and black
...and no, I'm not bitter. (Yes, I am.)