Another limit hand
Jun. 30th, 2005 10:39 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Here's a hand that didn't go so well. In fact, I ballsed it up, but I didn't balls it up as much as it seems. In fact, the whole thing creates an interesting area of limit hold 'em research.
$15/$30 Hold'em
Table Table 34811 (Real Money)
Seat 10 is the button
Total number of players : 10
Seat 1: radsun ( $741.5 )
Seat 2: pmoneybags1 ( $3855.72 )
Seat 5: KINGDAVID666 ( $1376 )
Seat 6: ChoosyMother ( $586.36 )
Seat 9: powerful32 ( $1477 )
Seat 7: Birks ( $1582 )
Seat 10: Alvie19 ( $683 )
Seat 4: WhiteBubble ( $806 )
Seat 8: Bonsai05 ( $664 )
Seat 3: TheSpartain ( $702.5 )
radsun posts small blind [$10].
pmoneybags1 posts big blind [$15].
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to Birks Kd Ac
TheSpartain raises [$30].
All intervening players fold
Birks raises [$45].
All intervening players fold
TheSpartain calls [$15].
Flop 7s, 9c, 5h
TheSpartain checks.
Birks bets [$15].
TheSpartain calls [$15].
So far, nothing unpredictable. I may have this guy dominated, or he may have a pair, or he may have Ax suited where x is one of the flop cards.
Turn As
TheSpartain checks.
Birks checks.
I can see this check causing heart palpitations throughout limit hold 'em land, and I'm not sure that I am happy with it myself. However, it had worked well for me a couple of times previously where in one case I had the other player dominated and he bet the river, while in the other he had Ax (where x was paired) and I was drawing to three outs. However, this time, it went a bit belly-up.
River 6h
TheSpartain bets [$30].
Birks calls [$30].
TheSpartain shows [ 6s, 6c ] three of a kind, sixes.
Birks doesn't show [ Kd, Ac ] a pair of aces.
TheSpartain wins $202 from the main pot with three of a kind, sixes.
There's a whole bunch of mathematical calculations I could go into here (and indeed I may do so some day, when I am less tired) to see how miinus EV my check is on the turn (let's ignore metagame concepts for a moment, which I think are seriously overrated in terms of overall win rate).
First we have to assign a range of hands to the foe. Then we have to decide how the foe would play that range. Then we have to assign probabilities to the foe's action if I bet the turn rather than check it. Then we have to decide MY action (do I, for example, fold to a check-raise?). It's no use coming up with "it depends", because you have to analyze the situation mathematically before you can come up with "feel" plays. In fact, all "feel" plays are based on these calculations, it's just that the people using them don't realize that they are making them (which is why "feel" plays often have a habit of being wrong).
At a rough guess, I would say that the looser and more aggressive your opponent is, the more correct (or less incorrect) is a check on the turn. The question is, how loose-aggressive does he need to be? This player was not particularly loose-aggressive. I should have bet the turn, no doubt about it. As it happens, I would probably have lost more money by so doing, since he is just about getting value for his six outs (and, even if he isn't, he's likely to call here). But that's hindsightitis.
$15/$30 Hold'em
Table Table 34811 (Real Money)
Seat 10 is the button
Total number of players : 10
Seat 1: radsun ( $741.5 )
Seat 2: pmoneybags1 ( $3855.72 )
Seat 5: KINGDAVID666 ( $1376 )
Seat 6: ChoosyMother ( $586.36 )
Seat 9: powerful32 ( $1477 )
Seat 7: Birks ( $1582 )
Seat 10: Alvie19 ( $683 )
Seat 4: WhiteBubble ( $806 )
Seat 8: Bonsai05 ( $664 )
Seat 3: TheSpartain ( $702.5 )
radsun posts small blind [$10].
pmoneybags1 posts big blind [$15].
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to Birks Kd Ac
TheSpartain raises [$30].
All intervening players fold
Birks raises [$45].
All intervening players fold
TheSpartain calls [$15].
Flop 7s, 9c, 5h
TheSpartain checks.
Birks bets [$15].
TheSpartain calls [$15].
So far, nothing unpredictable. I may have this guy dominated, or he may have a pair, or he may have Ax suited where x is one of the flop cards.
Turn As
TheSpartain checks.
Birks checks.
I can see this check causing heart palpitations throughout limit hold 'em land, and I'm not sure that I am happy with it myself. However, it had worked well for me a couple of times previously where in one case I had the other player dominated and he bet the river, while in the other he had Ax (where x was paired) and I was drawing to three outs. However, this time, it went a bit belly-up.
River 6h
TheSpartain bets [$30].
Birks calls [$30].
TheSpartain shows [ 6s, 6c ] three of a kind, sixes.
Birks doesn't show [ Kd, Ac ] a pair of aces.
TheSpartain wins $202 from the main pot with three of a kind, sixes.
There's a whole bunch of mathematical calculations I could go into here (and indeed I may do so some day, when I am less tired) to see how miinus EV my check is on the turn (let's ignore metagame concepts for a moment, which I think are seriously overrated in terms of overall win rate).
First we have to assign a range of hands to the foe. Then we have to decide how the foe would play that range. Then we have to assign probabilities to the foe's action if I bet the turn rather than check it. Then we have to decide MY action (do I, for example, fold to a check-raise?). It's no use coming up with "it depends", because you have to analyze the situation mathematically before you can come up with "feel" plays. In fact, all "feel" plays are based on these calculations, it's just that the people using them don't realize that they are making them (which is why "feel" plays often have a habit of being wrong).
At a rough guess, I would say that the looser and more aggressive your opponent is, the more correct (or less incorrect) is a check on the turn. The question is, how loose-aggressive does he need to be? This player was not particularly loose-aggressive. I should have bet the turn, no doubt about it. As it happens, I would probably have lost more money by so doing, since he is just about getting value for his six outs (and, even if he isn't, he's likely to call here). But that's hindsightitis.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-30 11:40 pm (UTC)I used to do these fancy plays too, but the question is when you give your foe infinite pot odds, he has to work hard to make a mistake. However if you bet, he does have the chance to make a mistake. I don't think this hand is that complicated. Most limit hands, especially on Party, arent.
gl
dd
on the turn
Date: 2005-07-01 06:23 am (UTC)Good point re the KQ. In fact, with the KQ I would always bet, so, along the theory of always keeping your potential range of hands as wide as possible (as far as your opponent is concerned) I have to bet the Ace.
Your second good point. If you give your opponent infinite odds, it's hard for him to make an error.
I like the three-betting point. Almost certainly correct.
However, when all that's said and done, I didn't say that the play was right (I suspect that I was succumbing to T&K loss aversion because I was in front ... inexperience at these stakes, probably), merely that the play was not as wrong as one might automatically think. What would be interesting would be HOW minus EV it was compared to a bet.
This would require a lot of assumptions on your opponent's play (e.g., you say "especially on Party", but the games change rapidly, and a lot depends o n the time of day). But it would be an interesting exercise.
A bit of analysis
Date: 2005-07-01 01:24 pm (UTC)The standard deviation if I check is $12.23, whereas if I bet it is $34.20.
That last pair of figures is perhaps the most interesting illustration of all, and might explain why one style of play (say, mine) can amble along with an SD of 10.5BBs and hour or 14BBs or thereabouts per 100 hands (I haven't got my exact figures to hand), while another player (say, Aksu), would be looking at 15BBs per hour and 18BBs per 100 SD in exactly the same game.
Re: A bit of analysis
Date: 2005-07-02 11:23 am (UTC)Re: A bit of analysis
Date: 2005-07-02 12:14 pm (UTC)Well, you saw what I did with a six on the river. So it should be fairly obvious what I am going to do with virtually everything else on the river if I check the turn. So I have to assume that you are asking what my plays are on a range of river cards, if I bet the turn and am called, or are you asking my plays on a range of river cards if I bet the turn and I am raised (and I call). Or are you asking my plays on a range of river cards if I bet the turn, am raised, and I three-bet it?
After that, are you asking what my play is on a range of river cards if my opponent bets, or if he checks?
Generally speaking, given my check, I flat-call any river bet.
If I bet and am called, and opponent then bets the river, I flat call.
If I bet the turn and am raised, and I call, and opponent bets river, I flat call
If I bet the turn, am raised, I three-bet, and opponent calls, then bets river, I flat-call.
If opponent checks river given my check on turn, I probably bet any hand where there is no possible straight or where river card is not a Q or J.
If opponent checks river after calling my turn bet, same applies.
If opponent checks river after check-raising me on turn (and I call), I probably chicken out and check any card, but I might bet sometimes.
If opponent checks river after check-raising me on river and calling my three-bet, I probably bet any card that is not a Q or J or possible straight, but I might check sometimes.
Re: A bit of analysis
Date: 2005-07-02 01:01 pm (UTC)Given that he bets the river, how do you respond to each river card?
You answered it this with
'Generally speaking, given my check, I flat-call any river bet.'