Player Discussion

[fyodor]

Ok, I said I was done with this thread, but in keeping with a tradition that has long ago been established here, I will post again (and again if necessary).

I was only half joking with my calculations.

If AQs folds to the $110 reraise he risks and loses nothing. JJ picks up whatever is in the pot. $55

If AQs calls the $110, he can expect to make $14.65 on his call given the postflop conjectures of MM. No one disputes this.

JJ should make $165 x 67% - $375 x 26% + $390 x 7% = $40.35 on his $150 reraise when AQs calls.

Note that $40.35 + $14.65 = the $55 that was in the pot when JJ reraised.

Given that JJ would have won the entire $55 if AQs had folded, he actually loses $14.65

Based just on the money added when AQs calls (the $110) JJ loses 35c ($110 x 67% - $375 x 26% + $390 x 7%) I am no math genius (you all know that right?) but probably the -$375 in this calc should include the $55 and actually be $430 which then does balance the books.

The reason the dead money is considered in only one side of the equation is because AQs is making his call based on money already in the pot. JJ bases his calcs on money yet to arrive. What's in there is his already. He just bet. If no one calls he gets it.

I know it's stupid and believe me I see the other (real) side. It's just that this is the only math that makes Mason right. And someone had to elaborate.

[amoeba]

don't try to alter the math to make mason right.

everybody can be wrong. Mason is likely a good player and probably I would hesitate to play him but in this case his assumptions are wrong.

your math is off, by the way.

how can JJ win only $110 ( the amount of the reraise) ?

[NajdorfDefense]

[ QUOTE ]
this is one of the most dissapointing threads i have ever read. either mason communicated his question very very poorly in his first post (less likely) or he got trapped and is backpeddling like a mother [censored] (more likely)

and on top of this he takes a condescending tone with his dissenters?

[/ QUOTE ]

nh sir. I have been buying and reading and enjoying 2+2 books for almost ten years now. I guess here's one I'm gonna have to skip.

[SunOfBeach]

here's some 'elaboration':

we need to look at the amount of money each player is putting into the pot.

lets look at AQs first, using masons numbers:

67% * -110 = -73, risking 110 = risking 73
26% * 430 = 112, risking 335 = risking 87
7% * -335 = -23, risking 335 = risking 23

this is a net of 16, while putting a weighted average of 183 into the pot, for an ROI of 8.7%

repeating for JJ, using diablos numbers:

67% * 165 = 110, risking 375
26% * -375 = -98, risking 375
7% * 390 = 27, risking 375

this is a net of 39, while putting 375 into the pot, for an ROI of 10.4%

closer than most had been saying, but JJ still looks better.

of course, none of this says that masons assumptions are valid, and they most likely are not, but thats a different argument altogether.

[El Diablo]

[ QUOTE ]
here's some 'elaboration':

we need to look at the amount of money each player is putting into the pot.

lets look at AQs first, using masons numbers:

67% * -110 = -73, risking 110 = risking 73
26% * 430 = 112, risking 335 = risking 87
7% * -335 = -23, risking 335 = risking 23

this is a net of 16, while putting a weighted average of 183 into the pot, for an ROI of 8.7%

repeating for JJ, using diablos numbers:

67% * 165 = 110, risking 375
26% * -375 = -98, risking 375
7% * 390 = 27, risking 375

this is a net of 39, while putting 375 into the pot, for an ROI of 10.4%

closer than most had been saying, but JJ still looks better.

of course, none of this says that masons assumptions are valid, and they most likely are not, but thats a different argument altogether.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, you basically just repeated the EV calcs I wrote in the post that you responded to. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]
here's some 'elaboration':

we need to look at the amount of money each player is putting into the pot.

lets look at AQs first, using masons numbers:

67% * -110 = -73, risking 110 = risking 73
26% * 430 = 112, risking 335 = risking 87
7% * -335 = -23, risking 335 = risking 23

this is a net of 16, while putting a weighted average of 183 into the pot, for an ROI of 8.7%

repeating for JJ, using diablos numbers:

67% * 165 = 110, risking 375
26% * -375 = -98, risking 375
7% * 390 = 27, risking 375

this is a net of 39, while putting 375 into the pot, for an ROI of 10.4%

closer than most had been saying, but JJ still looks better.

of course, none of this says that masons assumptions are valid, and they most likely are not, but thats a different argument altogether.

[/ QUOTE ]

ROI doesn't belong in this context, the amount you lose when you lose is already incorporated in the EV calculation.

[SunOfBeach]

Uh, just trying to add in that the issue isnt just that 39 > 16, but that theres more money put into the pot by JJ than by AQs to arrive at these numbers (something i think mason pointed out in passing in one of his many posts). irrelevant, anyhow, since JJ>AQs even after re-considering this.

[knifeyspoony]

Everyone is missing the point. When looking at the better hand you should be thinking about rate of change of EV. That's why AQ is better here, its EV improves with time as opposed to JJ who's EV/sec decreases. Mason is clearly thinking on the next level, so to speak.

I think there is a quote from Richard Nixon which is appropriate here, something about inflation.

[Python49]

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone is missing the point. When looking at the better hand you should be thinking about rate of change of EV. That's why AQ is better here, its EV improves with time as opposed to JJ who's EV/sec decreases. Mason is clearly thinking on the next level, so to speak.

I think there is a quote from Richard Nixon which is appropriate here, something about inflation.

[/ QUOTE ]
Please elaborate.

[Mark1808]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For the poster who said JJ had position please reread the original post by Mason and you will see that he said

What happen was that a player raised to $40 and then got reraised to $150. The original raiser then folded and showed AQ. His opponent then showed JJ.

JJ could have limped reraised or been in the blinds it is unclear.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Here's a hint. In almost all cases the ace-queen will check the flop and the player holding the jacks will bet probably somewhere between half the pot to the whole pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Try reading the whole thread, kid.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does position change the results of this example. Thanks for the kid compliment! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]