Player Discussion

[elindauer]

Hi Mason,

I don't have a lot of experience to draw on in this NL situation, so my intuition may be off. I do, however, have a fair amount of experience in math, and it seems to me that your analysis here is very shaky.

You are essentially making some hand waving arguments that show the expectation to be very close. A $15 edge for the AQs would mean that of the current $315 pot, the AQs will win 52% of the pot, with the jacks taking down 48%.

Now, you admit that your example is flawed, and that true NL strategy is much more complicated. What happens if the jacks frequently check behind on the flop when an overcard hits? A huge part of your calculation assumes that the AQs makes a good chunk of change every time it connects, with the jacks drawing almost dead.

So what does your example prove? Isn't it perfectly plausible that by tweaking the assumptions just a bit, it's going to go from 52/48 in favor of the AQs to 51/49 in favor of the jacks?

So instead, here's a different argument.


According to twodimes, the pot equity should be divided up 54/46 in favor of the jacks. I'll speculate that two perfect playing, game-theory optimized equal opponents should divide the pot up in about this way. Further, the jacks have position, so they should be able to make a little more. Therefore, the jacks are better.


-Eric

[Larry David]

gg no re n00b, so bm -_-; -_____- -_- =/ ;-"

Close this effing thread please.

[Phaedrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Close this effing thread please.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's an idea: just stop reading it if you don't like it...

[Mark1808]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Close this effing thread please.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's an idea: just stop reading it if you don't like it...

[/ QUOTE ]

I like reading everyone's posts that's why I come to this poker forum. But thanks for the offer.

[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]
This thread shows very nicely why 80% of poker players are losers and why only 20% are winners. Poker is one of the areas where the minority can be right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except the majority here are some of the biggest winners in NL holdem and the lone wolf is a limit player who likes to act like he is smarter than everyone even when it is clear he is wrong. Put him in a NL game with the best nine players who disagree with him and he's the fish.

[Phaedrus]

[ QUOTE ]

According to twodimes, the pot equity should be divided up 54/46 in favor of the jacks. I'll speculate that two perfect playing, game-theory optimized equal opponents should divide the pot up in about this way.

[/ QUOTE ]

This implies that position and implied odds have no value.

[Larry David]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This thread shows very nicely why 80% of poker players are losers and why only 20% are winners. Poker is one of the areas where the minority can be right.

[/ QUOTE ]


No, it shows this because even many of the people who agree with JJ as a better EV hand, their reasoning skills are terrible and they generally don't understand what they are talking about.
Except the majority here are some of the biggest winners in NL holdem and the lone wolf is a limit player who likes to act like he is smarter than everyone even when it is clear he is wrong. Put him in a NL game with the best nine players who disagree with him and he's the fish.

[/ QUOTE ]

[poincaraux]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

According to twodimes, the pot equity should be divided up 54/46 in favor of the jacks. I'll speculate that two perfect playing, game-theory optimized equal opponents should divide the pot up in about this way.

[/ QUOTE ]

This implies that position and implied odds have no value.

[/ QUOTE ]
Did you stop reading his post after the part that you quoted?

[Phaedrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

According to twodimes, the pot equity should be divided up 54/46 in favor of the jacks. I'll speculate that two perfect playing, game-theory optimized equal opponents should divide the pot up in about this way.

[/ QUOTE ]

This implies that position and implied odds have no value.

[/ QUOTE ]
Did you stop reading his post after the part that you quoted?

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, I guess so, but surely position is worth more than "a little more"?

[black_knight]

Who has time to read through 398 posts but here are my two cents:

Malmuth, you're way off base. I don't care about the math: it's the wrong way to look at it! You have to consider so many other things than you are in your analysis. For example, Caro's law of loose wiring, position, bluffing, not to mention the gross assumption that AQ KNOWS that he's facing JJ. The problem with calling in this situation with AQs is that you're just too often dominated, or facing a big pair that puts you in a lot of trouble. But let's be more serious: what if the JJ guy actually has AQ as well and is being unusually agro with it? What happens when the flop misses AQs entirely and JJ guy (who now has AQ too) puts in a continuation bet? You fold. You have to consider NL in a way entirely different from the super-mathematical world of limit, and you're approach to the problem is irrelevant...sorry.