[psuasskicker]

When I worked for Northrop, and we were interested in blowing up the Soviet Union, I used similar techniques many times, and we weren't concerned with no limit poker, but we were concerned with real no limit.

That just leaves me with a real warm and fuzzy feeling all over. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

This is a very good way to analyze many statistical situations.

In general I think this is a pretty good way to put analytical rigor behind lines of thinking. I don't disagree that one can try to do that with problems such as these.

The problem is that in NL I feel it's too short sighted. In limit, the analysis fits much better, where you will win or lose a set amount based on the number of bets that will go into the pot.

In NL, you're putting your entire stack at risk in every hand you're playing, which means those sort of numbers wind up going out the window in scenarios like this. The problem I have with it is that you don't know what the guy with JJ holds. So even if you flop a pair, after having faced a reraise, you're left in a situation where you're just not going to be all that comfortable.

I just think it's too limiting to say he's going to bet 2/3 pot all the time, and will never put in a second bet unless he's tough which will be offset by the times you can flop a draw to continue with. I think it makes sense to put analytical rigor into many things, but this problem is simply too complex to boil down to the rather straight-forward way it was done in this analysis.

Another issue I take with the analysis is that it seems to contradict your earlier thinking, where you said it would be better to fold before the flop; but then your analysis seemed to show that it was +EV to actually make the call. I know which one of those two I believe to be correct, but I'm not sure anymore which you're advocating.

And if you're advocating folding as the correct play, then I don't see how your analysis can be considered relavent for the initial question (since you're saying calling is better). The actual initial question you were trying to answer, which I thought was basically "which would you prefer (which hand is better) after taking the flop, with chips remaining in one's stack?" Maybe I'm confused on the question?

No. I'm not advocating any strategy. All I'm trying to do is to show that a strategy exists for Player A who holds the ace-queen suited that will produce a positive expectation.

That strategy seems to be check calling one bet and folding to any second betting. And it only considers one pair situations, and assumes villain will always act in the same way. I think it's far too simplistic for this situation, and advocates a less than optimal strategy after facing a reraise.

As I state in one of the posts above, I analyzed a more simple problem and then made inferences about the more complex problem.

This is basically the heart of why I think this is much more applicable an analysis in limit than in NL. In limit, there's a defined amount you can win or lose in a given hand. In NL, with your stack at risk, you're left in a situation where the betting on the next few streets can be much higher or lower.

So for example, take this problem in a 20/40 limit situation. You bet on the flop and get raised. The most you can lose by calling down that $20 is another $100 total (including the $20). So you can do an analysis based on your betting and getting raised some times and calling down from there much easier, cause you know the bet puts out $20, and the call down is another $120 in a defined size pot.

But in this scenario, you're left with some amount of money behind your bet sizes. You note the $225 bet, but with another ~$750 behind this, the analysis can go pretty haywire quickly. And it gets worse the deeper your stack.

That's why I think this is too complex to try to tackle by simply showing one level of analysis, then applying a few general principles/assumptions to the variables behind them. The variables make a huge difference in the outcome of the hand, and I don't think it's easy enough to simply say "it still seems to me that A's expectation remains positive" and "I'll contend, perhaps incorrectly, that [other scenarios] don't occur that often to impact the overall expectation significantly."

Just my .02

- C -