Re: Is there anything more ridonkulous than the mid-limits in AC?
 

OK all you Einsteins:

From page 105 of Stox "Winning in Tough Hold'em Games" Defending from the Big Blind:
High limit, short handed player (similar results for mid, low and grinder):

43off suit
287 trials
winning %: 1.74%
Amount won/(lost): ($33,979)
Avg $ per hand: ($118.39), that's a loss!
Big bet per hand: (0.50) loser
W%When Seeing the Flop:29.41%
Went to Showdown:35.29%
Won at Show down: 50%

43suited
102 trials
winning %: 15.69%
Amount won/(lost): ($8,529)
Avg $ per hand: ($83.62), that's a loss!
Big bet per hand: (0.45) loser
W%When Seeing the Flop:32.65%
Went to Showdown:16.33%
Won at Show down: 62.5%


If it won 50% at show down that's great. However in this case I believe the BB hit his pair on the flop. However, I interpret this data as; if you call from the big blind defending against a raise, you lose big time, especially if you don't hit your 4-3, suited or unsuited.

Discuss amongst yourselves...Please analyze and explain why this is a profitable call when defending the big blind.

Re: Is there anything more ridonkulous than the mid-limits in AC?
 

[ QUOTE ]
OK all you Einsteins:

From page 105 of Stox "Winning in Tough Hold'em Games" Defending from the Big Blind:

43off suit
287 trials
winning %: 1.74%
Amount won/(lost): ($33,979)
Avg $ per hand: ($118.39), that's a loss!
Big bet per hand: (0.50) loser
W%When Seeing the Flop:29.41%
Went to Showdown:35.29%
Won at Show down: 50%

43suited
102 trials
winning %: 15.69%
Amount won/(lost): ($8,529)
Avg $ per hand: ($83.62), that's a loss!
Big bet per hand: (0.45) loser
W%When Seeing the Flop:32.65%
Went to Showdown:16.33%
Won at Show down: 62.5%


If it won 50% at show down that's great. However in this case I believe the BB hit his pair on the flop. However, I interpret this data as; if you call from the big blind defending against a raise, you lose big time, especially if you don't hit your 4-3, suited or unsuited.

Discuss amongst yourselves...Please analyze and explain why this is a profitable call when defending the big blind.

[/ QUOTE ]
your amazing this is like the sports betting thread except even wrose.
look at it this way all these people who play well, maybe even better than you, are saying "dude, it is an obv call, or if not an obv call it is at the very wrost boarderline." to this your responce is welp u are all wrong. fine. if you don't want to consider the situation more closely that is ok, but u should at least consider that in the face of greater evendence you are wrong.
dave
ps. you don't even [censored] understand the mistake you made in your post and how you proved our point. your mentality is y poker is always gonne be profitable.

Re: Is there anything more ridonkulous than the mid-limits in AC?
 

[ QUOTE ]
your amazing this is like the sports betting thread except even wrose.
look at it this way all these people who play well, maybe even better than you, are saying "dude, it is an obv call, or if not an obv call it is at the very wrost boarderline." to this your responce is welp u are all wrong. fine. if you don't want to consider the situation more closely that is ok, but u should at least consider that in the face of greater evendence you are wrong.
dave

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't think so Dave. I'm folding my 4-3. There appears to be evidence to the contrary in the tables on pages 105 thru 125, the 4-3's are money losers, I fold that. You can find me at the Borgata on Saturday. Please sit two seats to my left, and call with all of your 4-3's to my button raises. Feel free to raise back my blind steals with that hand, and go to the showdown. Poker will always be profitable for me.

Re: Is there anything more ridonkulous than the mid-limits in AC?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Not to mention everyone, the obvious tilt that Al incurred after this hand. Which in my opinion is worth the pf call to begin with.

Seriously though, I can't figure out if threads like this are aimed at creating tougher games or the posters are just rubbing in their good table selection.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you really select a bad table at the Borgata?

Re: Is there anything more ridonkulous than the mid-limits in AC?
 

The thing that "somewhat surprised" me was the tellathon at $10-20. It's like some of them have NEVER read a book, e.g., Korean woman touching her neck dimple and calling down to the river with KK and an Ace on the flop...come on, the $3-6 tables are over there.

Re: Is there anything more ridonkulous than the mid-limits in AC?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
your amazing this is like the sports betting thread except even wrose.
look at it this way all these people who play well, maybe even better than you, are saying "dude, it is an obv call, or if not an obv call it is at the very wrost boarderline." to this your responce is welp u are all wrong. fine. if you don't want to consider the situation more closely that is ok, but u should at least consider that in the face of greater evendence you are wrong.
dave

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't think so Dave. I'm folding my 4-3. There appears to be evidence to the contrary in the tables on pages 105 thru 125, the 4-3's are money losers, I fold that. You can find me at the Borgata on Saturday. Please sit two seats to my left, and call with all of your 4-3's to my button raises. Feel free to raise back my blind steals with that hand, and go to the showdown. Poker will always be profitable for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you honestly not see how your "stats" proved their point?

Re: Is there anything more ridonkulous than the mid-limits in AC?
 

[ QUOTE ]
OK all you Einsteins:

From page 105 of Stox "Winning in Tough Hold'em Games" Defending from the Big Blind:
High limit, short handed player (similar results for mid, low and grinder):

43off suit
287 trials
winning %: 1.74%
Amount won/(lost): ($33,979)
Avg $ per hand: ($118.39), that's a loss!
Big bet per hand: (0.50) loser
W%When Seeing the Flop:29.41%
Went to Showdown:35.29%
Won at Show down: 50%

43suited
102 trials
winning %: 15.69%
Amount won/(lost): ($8,529)
Avg $ per hand: ($83.62), that's a loss!
Big bet per hand: (0.45) loser
W%When Seeing the Flop:32.65%
Went to Showdown:16.33%
Won at Show down: 62.5%


If it won 50% at show down that's great. However in this case I believe the BB hit his pair on the flop. However, I interpret this data as; if you call from the big blind defending against a raise, you lose big time, especially if you don't hit your 4-3, suited or unsuited.

Discuss amongst yourselves...Please analyze and explain why this is a profitable call when defending the big blind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmmmm I wonder what the win rates of those hands would be vs a steal raise if you just folded them every time? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

I don't think many have necessarily said its correct to defend with them, but just that its certainly not that far off. Now if we know its a raiser who will play very poorly post flop then surely its gotta be correct.

-ActionBob

Re: Is there anything more ridonkulous than the mid-limits in AC?
 

i hear the world is flat.

Re: Is there anything more ridonkulous than the mid-limits in AC?
 

Ok, so Al forgot what happens when you just fold, but isn't everyone learning the lesson of the statistics a little too well?

1. The table in WITHG is for a finite set of hands. The underlying mean of the distribution is not revealed to us and the hands that were marginal in the data sample may actually be losers (or bigger winners).

2. The results are the results for the play of a particular high limit player. I don't think we know who he is, but he likely plays better than Al. Against the same competition, Al may get crushed with 43s.

3. The results are for play against a particular set of steal raisers. We don't know them, either, but they probably play better than Al's competition.

So, maybe all we can say from that data is that one particular high stakes player should be relatively indifferent between playing or folding 43s to a steal raise. Al's opponent here should probably be deciding what to do based on other considerations or consideration of how well he plays vs. Al.

Re: Is there anything more ridonkulous than the mid-limits in AC?
 

[ QUOTE ]
OK all you Einsteins:

From page 105 of Stox "Winning in Tough Hold'em Games" Defending from the Big Blind:
High limit, short handed player (similar results for mid, low and grinder):

43off suit
287 trials
winning %: 1.74%
Amount won/(lost): ($33,979)
Avg $ per hand: ($118.39), that's a loss!
Big bet per hand: (0.50) loser
W%When Seeing the Flop:29.41%
Went to Showdown:35.29%
Won at Show down: 50%

43suited
102 trials
winning %: 15.69%
Amount won/(lost): ($8,529)
Avg $ per hand: ($83.62), that's a loss!
Big bet per hand: (0.45) loser
W%When Seeing the Flop:32.65%
Went to Showdown:16.33%
Won at Show down: 62.5%


If it won 50% at show down that's great. However in this case I believe the BB hit his pair on the flop. However, I interpret this data as; if you call from the big blind defending against a raise, you lose big time, especially if you don't hit your 4-3, suited or unsuited.

Discuss amongst yourselves...Please analyze and explain why this is a profitable call when defending the big blind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do the world a favor and cease living. As in the sports betting thread, you have hijacked a thread and taken it off onto a tangent.

No one said that it is a profitable call. Everyone said that it is marginally -EV. Everyone also said that it is VERY -EV to bet three times with King high into a calling station on an apparently ragged board. People are trying to help you, though I imagine that they will stop doing so given that you have acted like such an ass.

By the way:

[ QUOTE ]

You are now ignoring this user. You will no longer see the body of any of their posts.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thread. OVER.