MONSTER variance (w/ graphs)

[Schneids]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Cuz they had AK and T9? I didn't think there were hands that were going to pay me off unless I was beat and I thought there was a good chance one of them was trying to checkraise a flush, since big-dumb PapaWarbucks always bets when checked to.

[/ QUOTE ]

if you say so. btw i was just sweating and saw that royal with AQs in the 20bb pot. got damn you run good. what did socutiesf have?

[/ QUOTE ]

here

PS winning one big pot and running like ass in 10 others in a game twice as big doesn't count me for running good [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[Hock_]

If you have QQ-TT instead of KK then I played it fine. Since I had AK, the likelihood you held those hands is, what, 18:4 times as likely as KK or AA? You could also have had a set, so let's for argument say that one time in four I'm in really bad shape. But roughly 75% of the time I'm drawing to 6 outs (it's really unlikely you have a hand like A8, so my A and K outs are clean as long as you don't have AA, KK or a set). In light of that, and considering the size of the pot, I think I played it fine.

[Schneids]

[ QUOTE ]
If you have QQ-TT instead of KK then I played it fine. Since I had AK, the likelihood you held those hands is, what, 18:4 times as likely as KK or AA? You could also have had a set, so let's for argument say that one time in four I'm in really bad shape. But roughly 75% of the time I'm drawing to 6 outs (it's really unlikely you have a hand like A8, so my A and K outs are clean as long as you don't have AA, KK or a set). In light of that, and considering the size of the pot, I think I played it fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

The call reraise by patrik should make you think he has a flush draw (which patrik will there a majority of the time), therefore decreasing your outs further and also giving you reverse implied odds

[The Funky Llama]

hock, isn't it pretty likely that patrick has either a set or a flush draw? Isn't it also likely that schneids strong flop play is much more indicative of AA/KK/77/88 than it is of TT/JJ?

[Hock_]

[ QUOTE ]
The call reraise by patrik should make you think he has a flush draw (which patrik will there a majority of the time), therefore decreasing your outs further and also giving you reverse implied odds

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but by that point the pot is so big that even calling 2 SBs is correct if I have even just 4 clean outs.

And there are no reverse implied odds if I recognize that if I hit an A or K and get raised I'm dead in the water (or if I hit and someone bets into me I just call).

I'll grant that it's close, but at worst it's close.

[The Funky Llama]

if you have either 0, 2, or 4 outs it isn't close to correct unless somehow the 4 out scenarios are weighted pretty heavily

[Hock_]

[ QUOTE ]
if you have either 0, 2, or 4 outs it isn't close to correct unless somehow the 4 out scenarios are weighted pretty heavily


[/ QUOTE ]

Which is exactly where I started my response to Schneids.

[The Funky Llama]

do you agree that you have either 0, 2, or 4 outs the vast majority of the time? What percentage do you think you have each?

[Hock_]

[ QUOTE ]
do you agree that you have either 0, 2, or 4 outs the vast majority of the time? What percentage do you think you have each?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't have the time to calculate this on the fly obviously, but my guess was roughly:

0 outs = 20%

3 outs = 10%

4 outs = 60%

6 outs = 10%

[The Funky Llama]

By your weightings he has 3.3 outs on average making it close to a call.

I think you give way too much weight to the 4 out sceneario though. For you to have 4 outs you need patrik not to have a set, A7 or A8, and schneids to have TT-QQ. I think schneids is a lot more likely to raise the flop with KK/AA than JJ/TT and I think patrik has a set a lot so I dont think that parlay is particularly likely.