Player Discussion

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
67% of the time, AQ loses 150
26% of the time, AQ wins 165+225 = 390
7% of the time, AQ loses 150+225 = 375
= -100 + 101 - 26 = -25


[/ QUOTE ]

The above is wrong. I'll let others elaborate.

MM

[El Diablo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
67% of the time, AQ loses 150
26% of the time, AQ wins 165+225 = 390
7% of the time, AQ loses 150+225 = 375
= -100 + 101 - 26 = -25


[/ QUOTE ]

The above is wrong. I'll let others elaborate.

MM

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason, please explain what you believe is wrong about that equation in the context that I wrote it.

More importantly, please explain why you disagree with my calculations that show the EV of JJ (whether looking at the problem in terms of EV for the whole hand or EV post-flop) to be higher than that of AQs.

Ed, feel free to chime in as well. You're an MIT grad, so if there's an error in my post, I'm sure you could point it out and provide the correct relative EV calcs for JJ v. AQs using the assumptions Mason provided.

[SunOfBeach]

another MIT grad chiming in...

the 2nd set of calculations in your post, given mason's assumptions, are perfectly correct.

i can only assume that mason is referring to your first set of equations misrepresenting the preflop/postflop/dead money issue...

[nigelloring]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mason,

Please explain your original clain that E[AQs] > E[JJ].

Matt

[/ QUOTE ]

I was just going to ask the same thing. You claimed to make a statement and said other players in the game were bad because they believed the opposite. What is your position and how are you backing it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, please do this, Mason. If I were you, I would either:

(1) Call - demonstrate E[AQs] > E[JJ] in some reasonable fashion or
(2) Fold - admitting you are wrong and cutting your losses.

I'm not saying either of these actions is necessarily right for you.

To me it seems you are reraising with air - refusing to admit you're wrong and getting around demonstrating E[AQs] > E[JJ] by refusing to entertain arguments around it. It's very nice to see that you're responding to so many people, but I for one cannot see where you have addressed this point.

If you are attempting a proof by verbosity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_verbosity), I don't accept it as valid. If you're not, please set me straight.

In my opinion, your reasoning as to E[AQs] > 0 may or may not be valid, but by itself does not show that E[AQs] > E[JJ].

In fact, as others have pointed out, since your reasoning shows E[AQs] < half-of-money-in-pot, I draw the conclusion that E[AQs] < E[JJ].

Thank you.

[/ QUOTE ]

While we're all giving out our qualifications, I have a Bachelor's and honorary Master's in Physics from Oxford University. I am also a winning 10/25 NL player and a break-even 25/50 NL and 50/100 NL player.

So Mason, I'll ask again, please demonstrate that E[AQs] > E[JJ].

[Matt Flynn]

Mason,

In general this is a collegial forum. We get some obnoxious interlopers, but in general all the top posters on this forum treat each other well.

Every really good poster who has chimed in save one on this forum has disagreed with your position. Ok, so let's talk no limit. We can have a discussion and come to a consensus. If saving face is so important, it is simple to declare restraining conditions that make E[AQs]>E[JJ]. We can then agree to disagree on whether those constraints are relevant to the game you were playing in.

I feel that the need to be right has perverted the discussion here. This is not a book. It is ok for anyone, including you, to be wrong or to make a series of iffy assumptions. Who cares if you change your mind? This is a discussion site, not a bible for playing no limit.

I ask that you treat me and the other posters here with some respect, or at least tone it down. Your last post, while perhaps better dismissed as banter between colleagues, imo crosses the line. You have declared a position, claimed everyone who disagrees does not know how to play no limit, disagreed with every experienced poster who has chimed in save one (who has since recanted I am willing to bet), presented an interesting but irrelevant discussion, and now nitpick on addition on a man who admits to having 12 scotches. It has been four days. Please let the thread die if you have no intention of explaining yourself or refuse to admit that you are wrong. Otherwise, let's have some fun and talk poker!

Much appreciated.

Matt

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Beach:

I only read the beginning of our Masked Man's friend post. So I don't know anything about the second set of equations. But for this problem, and original question to make any sense, you must start the expectation equation from the point where the question is asked. And, at that point the ace-queen suited had just folded by turning his hand over.

When doing math/stat type problems, and for them to make any sense, it needs to be clear that the problem, as mathematicians like to say, is well defined. In the analysis I did, that is certainly the case. But to just ask the question, which is better, a pair of jacks or ace-queen suited, without defining the parameters of the problem doesn't make any sense.

Now if El Diablo, or anyone else for that matter, wants to say that before the flop with no one else in, or with multiple players in, or perhaps something different but specific, they much prefer jacks to ace-queen suited, I have no problem with that. In fact, I suspect that in most cases they are probably right. But that was not the question poised in this problem.

Also, let me address one other issue which is coming up in some of the posts. It may be true that a typical player might not play the ace-queen suited in any manner that is remotely close to the way I described and thus will do much poorer than what my analysis indicates. But so what. That's like saying that you would prefer your small connectors not to be suited so you won't get trapped by a bigger flush.

[ QUOTE ]
another MIT grad chiming in...

[/ QUOTE ]

I went to Virginia Tech.

Best wishes,
Mason

[El Diablo]

Mason: [ QUOTE ]
sense, you must start the expectation equation from the point where the question is asked.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason: [ QUOTE ]
When doing math/stat type problems, and for them to make any sense, it needs to be clear that the problem, as mathematicians like to say, is well defined.

[/ QUOTE ]

Definition, from Mason: [ QUOTE ]
The question is regardless as to whether it is right or wrong to call the raise, if you do go ahead and call it, which hand would you now rather have.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason. This question is indeed well-defined. As I understand it, you defined it clearly as such: AQ has called the reraise by JJ. Which hand would you now rather have?

I ask you one more time. Please explain your rationale for preferring AQs to JJ given the constraints and assumptions that you laid out.

I showed how EV[JJ] > EV [AQs] given two possible interpretations of the problem, the second one being the one that seems to reflect your well-defined question.

If you believe the question is something different, please show how EV[AQs] > EV[JJ] using the assumptions you have laid out in your earlier analysis. I do not care whether AQs is +EV or not. I simply want to see how you come up with EV[AQs] > EV[JJ].

Your "analysis" does not answer that question. I believe mine does. If you disagree, please explain why.

[Rococo]

[ QUOTE ]


Also, let me address one other issue which is coming up in some of the posts. It may be true that a typical player might not play the ace-queen suited in any manner that is remotely close to the way I described and thus will do much poorer than what my analysis indicates. But so what. That's like saying that you would prefer your small connectors not to be suited so you won't get trapped by a bigger flush.


[/ QUOTE ]

This observation really gets to the nut of the problem. For the purpose of calculating the expected value of the AQ suited, you are assuming that the player with JJ employs a sub-optimal strategy and that the player with AQ employs the perfect strategy to exploit that suboptimal strategy.

When you sit in the shoes of the JJ player, however, you don't give him the same strategic advantage (i.e. playing the JJ optimally against a suboptimal strategy by the player with AQ).

This leap of logic results in an analysis where, among other things, the AQ suited never gets stacked, never folds a winning hand, etc. Thus, the AQ suited does better in your analysis against JJ than it does in the real world.

[punter11235]

El Diablo, what happened ?
I havent seen so much patience and empathy in your posts for months. I am not only referring to this one but for all of them ts for a week or so.

[cero_z]

Hi Mason,

[ QUOTE ]
HEE HAW!

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

(This is a joke; I still love you, baby)