[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
Talk about debating how many angels can danceon the head of a pin! Elegant as this analysis is, it's essentially irrelevant since the error estimate in each supposition is so great that the standard error will totally oblitertae the value of the single, determinsitic point estimate decision you have to make. The only way this kind of analysis can be of anything but academic value is in the event that you get to face this decision repeatedly so that your large number of trials give you a chance to benefit from the value added of the analysis. So I conclude that the only times this kind of micro-analysis is justified is for situations that occur frequently (e.g., overcards on th flop; small pocket pairs) In fact, this discussion reminds me of a succinct bit of Sklanksy wisdom (cannot recall source) in wich he castigates 2+2'ers for obsessing over intersting but rare hands at the expense of more common situations. Barron has, in this post, perfectly illustrated this fault.

[/ QUOTE ]


EDIT: brian, hold old are you? what are you studying/doing for a living? i'm curious to see how this relates to your choice of language in above post (i'm 26...which is old to ancient on this board apparantly... and work as an analyst for the 2nd largest hedge fund in the US)



wow!! it's like talking to the old me here!

now to address your arguments.

i THINK you are saying (please correct me where im wrong because me level of knowledge may be below yours) that it is useless to engage in hand range estimates (the exercise of summing point estimate of hands) unless the situation is likely to occur frequently since any such estimation will bring with it such a large variance (= standard deviation^2, my rephrasing of standard error and "error estimate" around each supposition) that you won't observe enough occurances to bring the estimates to an observable probability, and thus, any level of usefulness? is that right?

so if it if... then thats the heart of your argument ...

before i go on here, id like to ask humbly that you present an alternative analysis and the conclusion for your play on the flop (it's far easier to poke holes in an analysis than to present an alternative).

now, please note that the only consideration of our continuing here is whether your equity vs. the field, given your pot+implied odds, is large enough.

your equity vs. the field is determined by hand ranges that they likely hold given the information available to you from 1.75 streets of action and the number of outs you have in this scenario.

outs: you have 1 nut out and 2 chances to hit it (4.3%). there are no redraws against you here.

you have 3 other gutshot outs (12.5%). there are only redraws for 2 pairs and sets + other pairs both hitting their 2 outs + another hiting their 10 outs or vice versa. the following goes for all redraws here. given ONLY one set is out there (redraws are reduced significantly if > 1 set is out), the redraw has 7 outs on the flop to fill up and 10 from the turn to the river. thats 27.8% (7 outs from flop to river) + 6.5% (3 outs from turn to river). thats 35.3% GIVEN a set is out there. minus the times you hit your nut out and their dead (4.3%)= 31%. how likely is it that a set is out. think of ALLLL the possible hands out there against you. a short list includes starting w/t he

PFR: ([pausing the analysis here due to time constraints. i'll finish up tonight when i get home, or tomorrow]

redraw calc concluded.

next we do diamond outs

then 2 pair outs - redraw to set/better 2 pair.

then we compare it to total equity estimate vs. immediate + implied odds (you'll have to pay a lot in some situations on teh turn to see river etc.)

then we conclude (my guess is that you shoudl almost certainly continue, but, ala bacon, we'll see if that hypothesis holds water vs. the estimate analysis that will result from above.

in the meantime, if you can please help me not do all the work above by simply proving how naive i am in engaging in it, i'll be greatly appreciative.

Barron

(PS- there is a chacne brian is levelling ALL of us here, in which case, i've been caught hook+line+sinker)