Player Discussion

[El Diablo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Well, no one understood what I was talking about. No wonder the games are good.


[/ QUOTE ]
I still don't understand what you are talking about after having a quick glance over the entire thread.

Was the question "after raising pf, and getting reraised, would you rather have JJ or AQs?" and are you trying to argue that AQs is better?

or am I missing something here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is (part of) what Mason is saying.

Player A (AQs) raises. Player B (JJ) re-raises with position. Player A calls. Both players have plenty of chips left.

The question is: Given that those things have already happened (do not consider whether or not A should have called the re-raise), is it better to be AQs or JJ here?

The large majority of us with a lot of no-limit experience prefer the JJ hand in that situation.

Mason, I believe, is claiming that once you are at that point, he would rather have the AQs hand.

That part I still don't really get.

[El Diablo]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Mark:

In my limited no limit experience, it doesn't work this way. What will happen is that if no ace or queen (or other great hand) comes, the ace-queen will fold to the jacks bet.

If an ace comes, or a queen with no king, the player with the ace-queen will call the bet and then there will frequently be no bet on fourth street. If there is another bet on fourth street, then it becomes very tough as to what the ace-queen will do -- I'm talking about typical players, not what an expert would do.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, Mason, I am going to take a stab at what I think you might be getting at.

A or Q flops x% of the time. Pot size = p. [In checking this post, I realize that p includes blinds too, and I'm sure there are other errors of sloppiness in what I write below, but all my general thoughts still hold, so I'm not going to bother correcting this stuff]

You postulate that you will be playing bad, straightforward players who will x% of the time w/ AQ gain (.5p + .75p)(x%). [Because they check-call the flop and that is it for the betting]

(1-x)% of the time they will check-fold and lose (1-x%)(.5p).

Not surprisingly, Mason, your description of how the hand will be played reminds me of how limit players play NL - typically far worse than even relatively inexperienced low-limit NL players.

It's not quite that easy, though.

Even against straightforward bad players who play as you stated, this does not consider a few scenarios.

The AQ player, if he check-calls and checks as you suggest he will, will always give the Jacks two shots to hit his Jack.

Sometimes the flop will contain an A or Q AND a Jack, and AQ will call.

Sometimes the flop will have a flush draw and AQ will check-call.

There are multiple scenarios besides "A or Q on flop, no J" where AQ will put money in.

Also, sometimes the flop will be KQ and AQ will fold to the continuation bet.

Even worse, it is much more common that AQ will get stacked by JJ than the reverse.

As AQs starts facing better and better players holding the Jacks, the chances of getting stacked increase as well as the chances of getting blown off the better hand.

Given these considerations (and numerous others I didn't list), it seems very hard for me to come up with reasons for preferring AQs given the situation you described.

[mikech]

[ QUOTE ]
Not surprisingly, Mason, your description of how the hand will be played reminds me of how limit players play NL - typically far worse than even relatively inexperienced low-limit NL players.

[/ QUOTE ]
if mason can make such a fundamental mistake as this one, a mistake that reminds you of the kind made specifically by players transitioning from limit to no-limit, then that doesn't bode well for two other 2+2 authors known as limit players writing a book on no-limit.

i don't presume to know or disparage sklansky's and miller's abilities as nl players, but i have a simple question: wouldn't RAY ZEE writing the nl cash games book make a lot more sense??

[El Diablo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not surprisingly, Mason, your description of how the hand will be played reminds me of how limit players play NL - typically far worse than even relatively inexperienced low-limit NL players.

[/ QUOTE ]
if mason can make such a fundamental mistake as this one, a mistake that reminds you of the kind made specifically by players transitioning from limit to no-limit, then that doesn't bode well for two other 2+2 authors known as limit players writing a book on no-limit.

i don't presume to know or disparage sklansky's and miller's abilities as nl players, but i have a simple question: wouldn't RAY ZEE writing the nl cash games book make a lot more sense??

[/ QUOTE ]

Ed is very inexperienced at NL, and as far I I know David is not very experienced at NL either. Both, however, are very good at math and poker theory. I imagine the book will be written in a way that focuses on NL topics that take advantage of those strengths.

[Clayton]

[ QUOTE ]
I imagine the book will be written in a way that focuses on NL topics that take advantage of those strengths.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like to interpret this as Malmuth being the 15-handicapper with the absolutely perfect swing and the rest of the 2p2 consensus being Ray Floyd.

[El Diablo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I imagine the book will be written in a way that focuses on NL topics that take advantage of those strengths.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like to interpret this as Malmuth being the 15-handicapper with the absolutely perfect swing and the rest of the 2p2 consensus being Ray Floyd.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what that really means, but when it comes to NL, only one of the 2+2 authors has a perfect swing.

[Kirkrrr]

I'd have to disagree. The original raiser will be OOP and firing blind at a flop he misses 70% of the time. If he knew the other guy had JJ, that may be fine. Since he really doesn't know what he's up against with a hand that has purely negative implied odds, I don't see anything wrong with the fold.

Kirk

[Imperial]

Since David S is writing I would not be surprised if the book goes like:

"If you think your opponent is weak, you should raise"
"If you think he is strong, you should fold"
"Unless he gives you correct odds, then you should call"

[The_Bends]

I'm sure this is not the case but Mason seems to have based every explination so far on a very specific senario that includeds both ingnoring preflop action (which is a huge part of the hand) and implying that the player with AQs will somehow know that he is up against JJ and will therefore play postflop perfectly. Its been assumed for example that if the flop comes Kxx then JJ will automatically drop to a CR.

The key question in NL is nearly always, who is under pressure. In this hand it is clearly the AQ, no flop bar KJT makes him happy. Even if I flop AQx I'm going to have to worry because AA and QQ are perfectly possible given the preflop action. JJ holds all the cards here, better position, better preflop action, a better hand heads up and far greater potential for making the best hand over the second best. I'm prepared to accept that I'm wrong but it seems that the great and the good of the forum are of one voice. A justification of AQs or a retaction would be good.

[Kirkrrr]

I think what he's trying to say is that vs JJ, you can pretend like you have AKQ in your hand, since to the poor sob with the JJ, it's all about same - he sees any of those, he shuts down and you'll usually be able to take the pot.. However, I really don't see how that has any application whatsoever practically speaking since IRL you'll never know that you're up against exaclty JJ. In his example, AQs is also OOP just to make things that much worse.

So I see the point he's trying to make but the example is definitely bad.

Kirk