Re: Baluga theorum tested (sql stuff)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Did you consider draws/suck outs that hit on the river? Maybe I read it wrong but it looks like you are looking at the final hand and not the hand held on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a very good point and I'd like to see these calculations done with turn equities in stead of river showdowns.

Re: Baluga theorum tested (sql stuff)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Did you consider draws/suck outs that hit on the river? Maybe I read it wrong but it looks like you are looking at the final hand and not the hand held on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a very good point and I'd like to see these calculations done with turn equities in stead of river showdowns.

[/ QUOTE ]

This would require integration with pokenum, which anyone is welcome to do. I personally think it's too much of a pain in the ass.

Re: Baluga theorum tested (sql stuff)
 

Are we to assume that we can take these results, and conclude they also apply to the hands where Player B c/r's the turn & Player A folds TPTK? If not, how does this help us?

Re: Baluga theorum tested (sql stuff)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Are we to assume that we can take these results, and conclude they also apply to the hands where Player B c/r's the turn & Player A folds TPTK? If not, how does this help us?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not? I don't see what player A's action has to do with the strength of player B's hand - Well I guess if player A has a boat as opposed to air, then player B's hand is less likely to be strong, but that should be a minor effect.

Re: Baluga theorum tested (sql stuff)
 

Obviously we don't know what villain has when we fold the turn. This tells us the hand villain ended up with when those hands went to showdown. If people aren't finding this helpful just disregard it or if any sql people want to improve on it, feel free to hit me up on aim at wildzer080.

Re: Baluga theorum tested (sql stuff)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously we don't know what villain has when we fold the turn. This tells us the hand villain ended up with when those hands went to showdown. If people aren't finding this helpful just disregard it or if any sql people want to improve on it, feel free to hit me up on aim at wildzer080.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is sort of what I was leading at. It could be the case that villain is c/r'ing certain flop+turn combos w/ hands that would do well in pushing out TPTK, but don't necessarily reflect the results that we see here. Then again, maybe not.

Re: Baluga theorum tested (sql stuff)
 

booya

remember its a guideline not a rule

Re: Baluga theorum tested (sql stuff)
 

[ QUOTE ]
booya

remember its a guideline not a rule

[/ QUOTE ]

haha it is now unbreakable concrete. Actually, the real reason I started fooling around with this was that I was curious about common situations where the guideline is less likely to apply. 2 instances where it is a lot less likely to apply are when the checkraiser is shortstacked (so a cr is all in and somewhere in the area of a minraise) and when the turn is a scare card. Those situations are also pretty related to stats (ie, a player who cr's a scare card is more likely to have TAG stats leaning towards ultra aggressive and the shortstacked player usually has some kind of combination of fishy stats). Of course this is pretty obvious to most, but it's kind of interesting to quantify with a somewhat decent sample size.

Re: Baluga theorum tested (sql stuff)
 

Doesn't Baluga Theorem state only that we are raised on the turn? Which includes being raise from someone in position when we are oop and bet first - not just c/r'd when we are in position?

Re: Baluga theorum tested (sql stuff)
 

What if they're check raising draws....I suppose the failed ones result in HighCard...and the ones that hit result in the 26% of hands that are flushes and straights???

That would mean 3betting turns on draw heavy boards to get a fold would keep you ahead 74% of the time?