|
|
#461
11-22-2005, 11:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Player Discussion
[ QUOTE ]
Let me guess you didn't read through the previous hundreds of replies before posting. I agree with now locking this thread. [/ QUOTE ] I read enough to know that what I posted is absolutely correct. I read where Mason thinks calling the $110 is +$15 EV based on his assumptions. I question those assumptions. And it is immaterial who put in the first $40. 
|
|
#462
11-22-2005, 11:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Player Discussion
Correct and explained in detail a million times. Weeks ago.
|
|
#463
11-22-2005, 12:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Player Discussion
[ QUOTE ]
Hi Everyone: I thought I would pass along a little discussion that I took part in tonight. I've been trying to play some no limit hold 'em since it has become so popular and we are publishing books on this subject, so earlier this evening I was sitting in a $5-$10 blind no limit game at The Wynn. What happen was that a player raised to $40 and then got reraised to $150. The original raiser then folded and showed A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]. His opponent then showed J[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]. This of course started a discussion as to which hand was better. Most of the table agreed that the pair of jacks were better since they would win over 50 percent of the time in a show down. Then someone said, "Let's ask Mason since he writes all the books." My answer was that if someone was all-in, the jacks would be better, but if they each had chips left, which was the case here, the ace-queen suited was better. Well, no one understood what I was talking about. No wonder the games are good. Best wishes, Mason [/ QUOTE ] When your sitting at the table and don't spot the fish in the first 1/2 hour...
|
|
#464
11-22-2005, 01:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Resolution
[ QUOTE ]
I see now that what I was concentrating on was the interesting fact that the existence of future bets would help the jacks in limit (because it can knock out six outs on either the flop or the turn) but against most players those future bets would hurt the jacks and help the ace-queen suited in no limit (because of the increased implied odds). [/ QUOTE ] Thanks for the reply, Mason. And I hope you see now that having money still left behind actually widens the gap between JJ and AQs in this scenario. Your OP implied that the players at that table did not seem to understand the concept that having money behind could make a difference. But we can't assume that, since their confusion might have been due to their understanding that JJ benefits. You were there, so perhaps you have good read on what they were really thinking. I wish the discussion in this thread had turned in a different direction. Sorry for posting here, I play small stakes.
|
|
#465
11-22-2005, 11:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Resolution
[ QUOTE ]
I have now reconsidered my statement and agree that El Diablo is correct. I see now that what I was concentrating on was the interesting fact that the existence of future bets would help the jacks in limit (because it can knock out six outs on either the flop or the turn) but against most players those future bets would hurt the jacks and help the ace-queen suited in no limit (because of the increased implied odds). MM [/ QUOTE ] So the point is that in this situation the AQs will do better on average in the strictly postflop action than the JJ? We're all in agreement on that? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] PairTheBoard
|
|
#466
11-23-2005, 12:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Resolution
I'm small stakes but I figure I have earned the right to one post after reading this friggin' thing.
I certainly agree that Mason is wrong here, but I do think that the concept of implied odds in the AQs vs JJ situation can be discussed in more depth. If the stacks were 10BBs both hands would be allin preflop and JJ would be favourite. I don't think however that the gap in the hands profitability will increase LINEARILY with increasing stack sizes. With this I mean that even tho JJ is even better versus AQs with 100BBs than with 10BBs it doesn't say what happens inbetween, and this is where I think Mason's thinking has some value... Because of the often PSB on the flop AQs has the advantage of earning more on the flop (doulbe of what he put in) when ahead. If the stacks are big this also includes losing the entire stack sometimes the few times both players hit. But if the stacks instead are 35BBs the AQs will not risk much more the few times it is behind JJ after hitting itself. The point I'm trying to make is that the SHORTTERM (Thinking of the streets as the timeline) implied odds is better with AQs and therefore maybe a better than JJ in this precise situation if the stacks were 35BBs instead of 100BBs.. If JJ has made a CB into a 18$ pot of 18$ when the flop is Q high, will he fold the rest of his 7$ when AQs bets a blank turn? I think Masons thinking was that a CB in nolimit is much more expensive when failed than in nolimit, but neglected the massive implied odds JJ can have with big stacks.
|
|
#467
11-24-2005, 02:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Resolution
[ QUOTE ]
I'm small stakes but I figure I have earned the right to one post after reading this friggin' thing. I certainly agree that Mason is wrong here, but I do think that the concept of implied odds in the AQs vs JJ situation can be discussed in more depth. If the stacks were 10BBs both hands would be allin preflop and JJ would be favourite. I don't think however that the gap in the hands profitability will increase LINEARILY with increasing stack sizes. With this I mean that even tho JJ is even better versus AQs with 100BBs than with 10BBs it doesn't say what happens inbetween, and this is where I think Mason's thinking has some value... Because of the often PSB on the flop AQs has the advantage of earning more on the flop (doulbe of what he put in) when ahead. If the stacks are big this also includes losing the entire stack sometimes the few times both players hit. But if the stacks instead are 35BBs the AQs will not risk much more the few times it is behind JJ after hitting itself. The point I'm trying to make is that the SHORTTERM (Thinking of the streets as the timeline) implied odds is better with AQs and therefore maybe a better than JJ in this precise situation if the stacks were 35BBs instead of 100BBs.. If JJ has made a CB into a 18$ pot of 18$ when the flop is Q high, will he fold the rest of his 7$ when AQs bets a blank turn? I think Masons thinking was that a CB in nolimit is much more expensive when failed than in nolimit, but neglected the massive implied odds JJ can have with big stacks. [/ QUOTE ] Blasphemy! Please go back to the low limit board. Wait a minute, $5 $10 usually has average stacks of about $500, so $150 preflop and $225 continuation bet will probably leave in the $125 range for one of the players. So if AQ hits, calls flop, and then check check on the turn, you think JJ will call AQ's $125 river bet in a $890 pot? Me too. Probably would call up to $200 more ($575 starting stack) in my opinion.
|
|
#468
11-24-2005, 03:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Resolution
Dont feel like reading all these posts,
Just wanna know if mason cried uncle yet?
|
|
#469
11-24-2005, 12:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Resolution
[ QUOTE ]
Dont feel like reading all these posts, Just wanna know if mason cried uncle yet? [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I have now reconsidered my statement and agree that El Diablo is correct. I see now that what I was concentrating on was the interesting fact that the existence of future bets would help the jacks in limit (because it can knock out six outs on either the flop or the turn) but against most players those future bets would hurt the jacks and help the ace-queen suited in no limit (because of the increased implied odds). MM [/ QUOTE ] I will let others elaborate.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
