An interesting hand

[peterbirks]

This is a typical FML hand on stars this month. However, I have now worked out how to combine all my results on Hold Em Manager (while also keeping them separate for site-by-site analysis) and I see that, even though I'm more than $500 down from where I would be in Sklansky dollars in all-in situations, over all sites I'm actually up a few bucks. This doesn't allow for the in-play buckets of shit that can get thrown at you (Had a KK cracked by A9s when his flush hit river, for example, but there was no-all-in), but it's a rough assessment.

PokerStars Game #9-max Seat
#1 is the button

Seat 1: Van Belle ($118 in chips)
Seat 2: johnsonck69 ($223.35 in chips)
Seat 3: Villain2 ($50 in chips)
Seat 4: Comarre ($93.40 in chips)
Seat 5: NikoTheLaus ($48.25 in chips)
Seat 6: lucky168168 ($459.50 in chips)
Seat 7: Plus_Jun ($171.80 in chips)
Seat 8: HERO ($102.05 in chips)
Seat 9: Villain1 ($134.30 in chips)

johnsonck69: posts small blind $0.50
Villain2: posts big blind $1

*** HOLE CARDS ***

Dealt to HERO [6♡; 6♣;]
Comarre: folds
NikoTheLaus: folds
lucky168168: folds
Plus_Jun: folds
HERO: raises $2 to $3
Villain1: calls $3

Villain1 is very loose-aggressive, about 60%/30%.

Van Belle: folds
johnsonck69: folds
Villain2: raises $6 to $9

Villain2 is a more typical Pokerstars player, but he's also playing a half-stack. Let's put him at something like 12%/5%.

HERO: calls $6
Villain1: calls $6

$19 in pot

*** FLOP *** [A♠ T◊; 6◊;]

Gives me a set

Villain2: checks
HERO: bets $7
Villain1: raises $7 to $14
Villain2: raises $14 to $28
HERO: calls $21

I really can't see Villain1 resisting another raise here. In addition, I don't want to raise him out of the pot. I'm sure that my EV is greater if we get a three-way all-in.

Villain1: raises $14 to $42
Villain2: calls $13 and is all-in

All going according to plan, then. Villain2 might be AA, but he's more likely to be AK, following the (flawed) line of FFM that it's good to play a half-stack because then you can commit with TPTK. In fact it just gives you an opportunity to make a mistake that you wouldn't have made if you had a full stack.

HERO: raises $51.05 to $93.05 and is all-in
Villain1: calls $51.05

Looking good.

*** TURN *** [A♠ T◊; 6◊;] [8◊;]
*** RIVER *** [A♠ T◊; 6◊; 8◊;] [3♣;]

*** SHOW DOWN ***
HERO: shows [6♡; 6♣;] (three of a kind, Sixes)

Villain1: shows [A◊; J◊;] (a flush, Ace high)

Bollocks. :-)

Villain1 collected $104.10 from side pot
Villain1 collected $147.50 from main pot

(Villain2 did have AKo, by the way).

Comments

Well, these things happen

[real-aardvark.livejournal.com]

Meanwhile, in the real world, everybody is short-stacked, and hitting a flush on the river when all the money is in won't help.

To quote Martin Wolf (courtesy of the FT) in front of the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs -- and who would wish to gainsay the right of a bunch of self-selected ignorant xenophobic millionaires to haul in any totemic individual they wish in the hopes of blaming somebody else and underpinning their own re-election? --

"None of this is surprising. Not only did the global financial system seize up at the end of last year, but the Asian Development Bank has reported that the total loss of worldwide market wealth is $50 trillion, close to a year’s world output."

And all of that is crap. Except for the final sub-clause, which I think is interesting.

First of all, it's an interesting definition of "output." Yup, we output it, and then we input it. Zero-sum games suck, eh?

Second of all, $50 trillion is an awful lot of polyester shirts lying around on the various docks of the world. Is this loss too severe to bear?

Thirdly, and I'm going to have to revert to the main clause here, what the fuck has any of this to do with "market wealth?"

In case you miss my point -- obfuscated as usual -- I'll spell it out in a bunch of syllogisms. (Somewhat reversed, in that I cheat by applying sarcasm to the conclusion.)

(a) "Market wealth" is a good thing in and of itself. "Market wealth" has dipped $50 trillion. [sarcasm]Ooh, that hurts.[/sarcasm].
(b) Apparently, the world has just lost an entire year's worth of "output." Insert appropriate Economics textbook argument here for the second part of the syllogism base. I dunno; me, I'm not an economist. Let's say "growth," or "stability," or "I wish my auntie had married a Vulcan and died soon after, coz I'd now own fifty per cent of a non-existent planet."

This stuff is both absurd and obscene. It's about time we all got back to being paid for actually producing something -- rare in the UK, I know, but still possible.

Incidentally, the quote holds out hope for your previous post, which whinges about your pension fund. Yes, I agree; their projection on inflation is absurd. No, I think you're wrong about their projection on growth (well: either one of you could be wrong -- it's a madhouse).

All they appear to be saying is that UK equities will be 4.5% up over the next year.

I won't comment on the accuracy of this. I will, however, point out that the return on equities and the actual growth of the economy appear to have no correlation whatsoever.

Yr Luvin Uncle Aardvark.

PS The Sox lost on Saturday to a two-run homer in the ninth inning over the Green Monster. No matter; we crushed them 12-5 on the Sunday.

Also, I now know where the real Cheers bar is. But I'm not going to tell.