How valuable are implied odds in stud?
 

Before I go on to my main question I want to get an unbiased answer to the first part...

Game is 8 handed 100-200 with a $20 ante and $30 bring-in.

7h folds, you have (9d8d)Ah and complete into Tc 7c 6d 5h 4s 4c.

The Tc on your right raises you.

How do you feel about a call?

Re: How valuable are implied odds in stud?
 

So everyone else folds to you I assume? I think implied odds are very powerful, but I don't like your implied odds here. Your only overcard to the ten is the visible ace, so if you catch another one, he is likely gone so your implied odds here are weak.

I would like the situation better if you had a reasonable shot at both the flush and straight. His raise could very well mean that three of your primary straight outs are dead - two tens and the 7c. One of your secondary outs is also dead - the 6d.

So I don't like a call.

Re: How valuable are implied odds in stud?
 

Depending on your table image (assuming this is live?) I think this was a risky play in EP even with the duplicated cards showing. Even if someone only calls, the only way to win is to scare someone out on 5th or pair your doorcard and win a small pot. I'd like having a little something more to fall back on to make this play. With the raise here, pairing your hole cards might not even help and an ace kills your action, so I don't think peeling is the right play.

Re: How valuable are implied odds in stud?
 

You took a stab at it & got raised. Fold. Move on to the next hand.

Re: How valuable are implied odds in stud?
 

Bad. As I do about the initial raise. As to the title question, implied odds have a much stronger impact in NL games. Implied odds= if I hit my hand I am going to get PAID. I limit this is like 2 BB max usually, so I just focus on pot odds and hand reading.

Re: How valuable are implied odds in stud?
 

If I were frisky enough to raise that hand into that many cards I'd fold to the T's raise. Then I'd get up from the table before I continued spewing chips. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

In regards to implied odds in stud - I feel that the more ops in the hand the more valuable implied odds are. Same concept of raising a live 4 flush on 5th into multiple ops - the more ops the more value the raise has - the less ops the less value, and there is a point of negative value with few enough ops.

Raising with the 2/3 suited A98 is an example of negative value against more than 2 ops, in my opinion. It's such a poor hand that in fact it has little implied odds value and more steal value - hence the silliness of trying to steal through that many.

Re: How valuable are implied odds in stud?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Before I go on to my main question I want to get an unbiased answer to the first part...

Game is 8 handed 100-200 with a $20 ante and $30 bring-in.

7h folds, you have (9d8d)Ah and complete into Tc 7c 6d 5h 4s 4c.

The Tc on your right raises you.

How do you feel about a call?

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you figure you have any implied odds in this example?

Re: How valuable are implied odds in stud?
 

Implied odds for who?

I think you can feel fine about folding..

Re: How valuable are implied odds in stud?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Before I go on to my main question I want to get an unbiased answer to the first part...

Game is 8 handed 100-200 with a $20 ante and $30 bring-in.

7h folds, you have (9d8d)Ah and complete into Tc 7c 6d 5h 4s 4c.

The Tc on your right raises you.

How do you feel about a call?

[/ QUOTE ]



Ok a couple of points:

1. I intended the open-completion to be completely non-controversial, and truly I think it is.

You have a live A up card and overcards to all but one of your opponents.

More importantly you are getting 1.9:1 on a raise.

IMO the open-completion is virtually guaranteed to be profitable here. This is an auto-raise in any remotely high ante game.

But I didn't mean the post to be about that at all.

2. In my title I was using the term 'implied odds' a little more widely than it is usually used, though I think still correctly.

What I meant by implied odds is not that your hand actually benefits from the subsequent rounds of betting (the way a 4-flush does), but that your hand suffers less than pure showdown equity would indicate.

In stud hi any time you have a dog hand against a hand that you have a strong read on (for example in this case, where it looks like you're up against split TT), your effective odds are better than your showdown odds.

This is mainly because you can give up on 4th or 5th if you have not improved enough to justify continuing, but also because you get some bluff equity when, say, you pair you doorcard and your opponent makes moderately FTOP incorrect folds when he should be chasing two pair.

Also anytime your hand is more concealed than your opponents you get some implied odds because he will pay you more when you improve than you will pay him than he improves.

So even though you are still a dog, a hand that is say a 60/40 dog might, due to implied odds (or some other term if you prefer) be able to play on in a spot where it is only getting say 55/45 to call down.

3. As to the specific hand I mentioned, I 100% agree that it seems like a fold when the T reraises you.

However I was not the person with this hand. The person with this hand is considered to be an expert stud player, and he called.

So what I'm wondering is if I have been underrating the value of implied odds when you have a no pair / no draw hand with a little potential.

My standard thought process in these situations is to look at my showdown equity versus my opponent's most likely holding (30% equity versus split TT in this case), and compare that to the equity I would need to justify calling down (40.2% in this case).

If my equity beats my pot odds I definitely play on. If my equity is a few % too low I still play due to the implied odds considerations I mentioned above.

If my showdown equity is off by something like a 4% or greater I just fold.

(BTW this is the same basic process all those 3rd street recommendations for smaller pair verus bigger pair in 7CSFAP are based on.)

So as I normally play the (98)A is an insta-fold after the T raises me.

However like I said the presumed stud expert called.

Thus the question of my godawfully long post is -

Are implied odds (specifically the chance of improving on 4th or 5th with an unmade hand) a lot more valuable than I have previously realized?

(BTW before anyone gets sidetracked on this, the guy with the T up is a solid player, not a maniac or anything.)

Re: How valuable are implied odds in stud?
 

[ QUOTE ]
However I was not the person with this hand. The person with this hand is considered to be an expert stud player.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe Phil Ivey made this exact play in a $1,000/$2,000 game the other night. He proceeded to check/call after pairing his 8 on fourth street, and he got a ton of action on fifth and sixth (I think 7 big bets total) after catching another 8 on fifth. His opponent caught paint on those streets, and ended up losing a showdown to Ivey's full house. I also thought the decision on third street was interesting to consider.

Re: How valuable are implied odds in stud?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However I was not the person with this hand. The person with this hand is considered to be an expert stud player.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe Phil Ivey made this exact play in a $1,000/$2,000 game the other night. He proceeded to check/call after pairing his 8 on fourth street, and he got a ton of action on fifth and sixth (I think 7 big bets total) after catching another 8 on fifth. His opponent caught paint on those streets, and ended up losing a showdown to Ivey's full house. I also thought the decision on third street was interesting to consider.

[/ QUOTE ]


Nice catch sir.

I changed the limit to 100-200 and didn't name Phil because I didn't want people to get distracted with false hand-waving arguments like "At these limits poker becomes much more of a mental game!", or "Phil and David probably have a long history with each other so they're just playing this way for fun."

(I have actually seen both of those arguments made, more or less, in other forums to justify dubious plays by name pros.)

Re: How valuable are implied odds in stud?
 

What you saw play out was a longshot hitting perfect. With straight cards dead as hell, making disguised trips was about the best that could be expected, and Ivey did better than that. If he makes an open pair after raising an Ace door and "gets a ton of action" do trip eights really look that good?

There are two reasons this hand is junk: 1) it's junk, and 2) if he makes an open pair he may not get any action. That he did get action exposes a third reason: 3) any hand willing to make a big pot with him probably has him in bad shape.

This is a gambling play, a gambling situation and a gambling hand. It is not out of the question that an excellent poker player will also like to gamble. Me, I have about one percent gamble in me, and I fold without thinking twice on Third. If I got it in my head that a steal would work, I fold to the raise afterword.

Regarding the hand as played, or situations like it, if somebody wants to play poker that way (clinging to a bluff with a trash hand, dead outs, out of position...), he is my guest. Occasionally he will hit three perfect cards and make a full house, and once in a blue moon his opponent will also have a hand to make a pot worth the effort.

Using this one hand as a template is too results-oriented to be seriously considered.

Re: How valuable are implied odds in stud?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Using this one hand as a template is too results-oriented to be seriously considered.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are assuming the (98)A call is -EV, which is what I would previously have done.

I am wondering if it's possible that the ability to get away cheaply on 4th or 5th when the hand does not improve is enough to overcome the steep equity deficit you face versus the T's distribution here.

I am not making anything of the fluke way the cards came down. I am not being results oriented. Give me some credit here.

The only thing that intrigues me is that someone who is supposed to be a great stud player seemed to think the 3rd street call was correct.

I would have found the hand equally interesting if Phil had bricked on 4th and his opponent made open TT and Phil folded (except that I would never have gotten to see his hole cards.)

Re: How valuable are implied odds in stud?
 

I really think he got trapped into playing on by his poor 3rd street decision to call the raise.....then he got extremely lucky. This is one of the reasons I would fold this hand. You put villain on probable tens and now you improve on 4th to a pr of 8s and now feel the need to continue on with your dog underpair. It just seems like a losing play leading to potential bigger mistakes and losses as the hand plays on, instead of just mucking the steal attempt and moving on.

Re: How valuable are implied odds in stud?
 

MM,

Was this a live game or online? If it was online & at FTP, they shuffle the hole cards if you didn't know that already (you probably do!!!). Could have some bearing on everybody's analysis.

Re: How valuable are implied odds in stud?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Using this one hand as a template is too results-oriented to be seriously considered.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are assuming the (98)A call is -EV

[/ QUOTE ]
How can it not be? From Twodimes against (2[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] T[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]) T[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] Hero is .325 to win. The completion was a mistake, and chasing the money with no hand is a mistake. If he calls the raise, he will have paid 2 SB (albeit in two installments) to win 3.9 SB. If we just consider the immediate call, getting 4.9:1, well then he has put enough money in already to "justify" calling the raise, but that's crazy and not really a solid argument for this line. The pot "justifies" the call, but the line as a whole is clearly flawed. Put in enough ill-advised action early and you will eventually find yourself in a position that mathematically justifies calling one more bet, regardless of your chance of winning. This is not sound poker, it's a martingale.

[ QUOTE ]
I am wondering if it's possible that the ability to get away cheaply on 4th or 5th when the hand does not improve is enough to overcome the steep equity deficit you face versus the T's distribution here.

[/ QUOTE ]
There is only an implied odds position if the Tens are willing to make a big pot. That is only good for hero if his hand can beat the Tens for a big pot. Hero's hand usually suffers from negative implied odds itself because he has misrepresented it as stronger than it plays, and if he gets action he usually won't like it. Making money here is a longshot.

[ QUOTE ]
I am not making anything of the fluke way the cards came down. I am not being results oriented. Give me some credit here.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, this is about the only scenario where hero doesn't just put chips in the pot and they go away. Normally, yes, you get credit, but without knowing the results, how can this be seen as anything other than a gamble on a longshot?

[ QUOTE ]
The only thing that intrigues me is that someone who is supposed to be a great stud player seemed to think the 3rd street call was correct.

[/ QUOTE ]
It looks to me like he thought he was gambling.

Re: How valuable are implied odds in stud?
 

What you really seem to be asking is if it's OK to call a raise after you've bluffed a fairly large amount into a very small pot. The answer, I guess, is yes - *if* you think you're going to catch. This same reasoning is used by all the fish at the table, who can't make correct folds when they know they're sufficiently behind in a limit game. Catching and getting paid off isn't justification for making bad decisions early in a hand - no matter if it's a fish or Phil Ivey (or both).

Re: How valuable are implied odds in stud?
 

did you guys not just see the ev calc vs split tens?

Re: How valuable are implied odds in stud?
 

I've read the thread, and I still think this is a fold when it gets back to you. You've got crap, the Ten has a real hand, and this has got to be a playing loser.

Perhaps Phil Ivey can turn this into a profitable situation because he's Phil Ivey. He's got an intimidation thing going for him that I'm not likely to have any time soon. Perhaps he only believes that he can turn this into a profitable hand. I'm not saying this is the case here, but a lot of folks have an inflated notion of their ability to outplay their opponents. I think it's a bad call.

Re: How valuable are implied odds in stud?
 

Ok, it seems like everyone thinks Phil's 3rd street call is simply wrong.

Like I said it seems wrong to me too, I just wondered if it might be right due to IO considerations that I have underestimated. (Not the IO from making a fluke boat, which is just as likely with 723 as with a98, just the 'IO' of being able to fold cheaply on 4th or 5th if you have not developed a playable hand.)

Remember when there is a bunch of money in the pot, you do not need to improve to a favorite for your hand to become profitable. Just improving to some kind of playable hand by 5th (any pair or a str8 or flush draw) will be a significantly profitable situation with 3.9 small bets already in the pot after our steal attempt (and 7.9 in there if we get to 5th).

But again, maybe the 3rd street call is just plain wrong, so that's that.

The second point that has been raised, which I did not expect, was a couple of people are insisting the original 3rd street completion is wrong.

I feel almost certain the original 3rd street completion is mandatory and I didn't expect people to disagree with it.

This is a *good* board for you hand.

Basically unless the T up has split TT or any of your opponents has a buried overpair to your 8 (or roll-ups), you don't even mind getting called, and barely mind getting raised, because of the large overlay from the pot.

Given that fact plus your substantial steal equity, I truly think this is an insta-raise in any reasonable lineup where the ante is not small.

Re: How valuable are implied odds in stud?
 

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not making anything of the fluke way the cards came down. I am not being results oriented. Give me some credit here.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, this is about the only scenario where hero doesn't just put chips in the pot and they go away. Normally, yes, you get credit, but without knowing the results, how can this be seen as anything other than a gamble on a longshot?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think I conveyed my point about IO so let me try again here.

If after Phil made his initial completion, the TT guy said "Phil, how about you agree now to just put in a bet dark on every street and we will run out the cards?", it is 100% certain this would be -EV and Phil would be better off folding.

However there is some pot size where the case above is -EV but a 3rd street call of the TT's raise is +EV.

For example say Phil has 30% equity versus the TT, but someone decides to toss in enough money that Phil now needs only 31% equity to blindly put in a bet on every street.

This is still not enough money to to call down, of course, but it is now definitely enough money to call on 3rd.

The reason is Phil doesn't have to blindly put in money on every street. He can save bets by folding on 4th-7th when his equity has dropped below his pot odds.

His opponent on the other hand, because he already has a good hand, can very rarely make these good folds (only when Phil makes open trips, open aces up, or an open 4 flush).

For example say Phil calls 3rd and he catches (9d8d)Ac2s versus (xx)TcJs.

Phil will now simply check-fold.

On the other hand say Phil catches any diamond, any pair, or any straightening card (22 outs I believe, not counting dead cards), and his opponent does not pair his doorcard.

Now Phil will be +EV on calling 4th.

In this way he can substantially improve his effective odds over the blindly calling down odds, and thus require less showdown equity than the pot would seem to indicate.

So the question I was considering is just how much of an equity deficit these implied odds (or whatever they may properly be called) can overcome.

Note I did not list the possibility of making a fluke concealed monster at all. That is too rare to be a significant consideration.

Re: How valuable are implied odds in stud?
 

There is one possible reason P.I. played this hand rather than folding. OP didn't say who the opponent was but I assume it's another top pro & they play together alot. Phil could have played it for metagame reasons but I guess only he would know that.

But, as the cards lay, it's a horrible hand to play IMO.

Re: How valuable are implied odds in stud?
 

[ QUOTE ]
There is one possible reason P.I. played this hand rather than folding. OP didn't say who the opponent was but I assume it's another top pro & they play together alot. Phil could have played it for metagame reasons but I guess only he would know that.

But, as the cards lay, it's a horrible hand to play IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice catch Brad, and nice analysis by electrical. I agree that the odds do not seem to be there for a call on the reraise, but all of us saying it was a "bad" play is like watching an old school NASCAR race and saying "How can that Earnhardt fella ever win drivin' like that??!!" That's PI's game... ruthless... fearless.. intimidating. He knows enough not to 3-bet 3rd st, and to only check/call 4th (which is more than I can say for the average fish), and thus his odds aren't bad ENOUGH to back down from this confrontation.

Re: How valuable are implied odds in stud?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is one possible reason P.I. played this hand rather than folding. OP didn't say who the opponent was but I assume it's another top pro & they play together alot. Phil could have played it for metagame reasons but I guess only he would know that.

But, as the cards lay, it's a horrible hand to play IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice catch Brad, and nice analysis by electrical. I agree that the odds do not seem to be there for a call on the reraise, but all of us saying it was a "bad" play is like watching an old school NASCAR race and saying "How can that Earnhardt fella ever win drivin' like that??!!" That's PI's game... ruthless... fearless.. intimidating. He knows enough not to 3-bet 3rd st, and to only check/call 4th (which is more than I can say for the average fish), and thus his odds aren't bad ENOUGH to back down from this confrontation.

[/ QUOTE ]


[img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]


These are exactly the types of comments I wanted to avoid by keeping the player and the limit disguised.

It's not worth going into but I really really don't think any of those factors are relevant here.

Phil plays a zillion tables and just tries to play his best game and he doesn't have any particular ego invested in a 1k-2k 8-handed stud hi hand. Metagame is just a non-issue here.

And I realize I'm just asserting rather than arguing this but it's not important enough to get bogged down on imo.

Re: How valuable are implied odds in stud?
 

[ QUOTE ]
MM,

Was this a live game or online? If it was online & at FTP, they shuffle the hole cards if you didn't know that already (you probably do!!!). Could have some bearing on everybody's analysis.

[/ QUOTE ]


It was online. I know Phil's hand is the one I gave because the third down card was an offsuit deuce or something.

Re: How valuable are implied odds in stud?
 

[ QUOTE ]

These are exactly the types of comments I wanted to avoid by keeping the player and the limit disguised.

It's not worth going into but I really really don't think any of those factors are relevant here.

Phil plays a zillion tables and just tries to play his best game and he doesn't have any particular ego invested in a 1k-2k 8-handed stud hi hand. Metagame is just a non-issue here.

And I realize I'm just asserting rather than arguing this but it's not important enough to get bogged down on imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

I respect what you're trying to do here Mic by asking the question purely based on Value strategy. I just don't think you can make inferences about his hand having more value than you thought simply because he's a WC player and made this particular play (unless Phil happened to mention his own analysis to you over dinner sometime). If a donkey at 0.50/1 limit made the same play, would you be wondering if it was a good idea or not?

WC players make plays like this all the time, and it doesn't necessarily mean they honestly believe they have the pot odds or implied odds to make that one hand profitable in the long run. Reread Super/system or Gigabet's numerous posts to see what I mean. But even if we all agree that WE would be correct to fold here (and I think that's the majority opinion), it doesn't mean that HE was making a mistake by calling.

Re: How valuable are implied odds in stud?
 

No one has ever accused me of being loose in any poker game and I raise the Ace in any kind of high ante game.

I call the raise in a high ante game (if the other player is loose enough in later streets or weak enough to take the pot away) hoping to catch good -- some percent of the time. If the other player is a nit, I fold, if the player is unknown I fold.

The second is close but there are situations where it is likely OK.

My 2cents.

Re: How valuable are implied odds in stud?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The completion was a mistake, and chasing the money with no hand is a mistake. If he calls the raise, he will have paid 2 SB (albeit in two installments) to win 3.9 SB. If we just consider the immediate call, getting 4.9:1, well then he has put enough money in already to "justify" calling the raise, but that's crazy and not really a solid argument for this line. The pot "justifies" the call, but the line as a whole is clearly flawed. Put in enough ill-advised action early and you will eventually find yourself in a position that mathematically justifies calling one more bet, regardless of your chance of winning. This is not sound poker, it's a martingale.

[/ QUOTE ]

What the heck is a martingale? Wasn't he the host on Tic Tac Dough?

Seriously tho, you've hit upon a really key concept in poker. The original completion has some merit since there are a lot of antes to shoot for, but let's agree is was a marginally bad play from EP. That marginally bad play has put you in a spot where you may get correct pot odds to call every subsequent bet, but take the worst of it the whole time. I mean, it's really hard to turn down 5:1 odds as a 2:1 dog don't you think? (note: this is not even counting the times when the T is restealing) Then he picks up an underpair and unless the T makes an open pair on board PI is priced in the rest of the way.

Point is, you can't turn down good pot odds because you made a bad play earlier -- that's losing poker. So like Steve said, if you avoid bad plays early you don't get stuck in hands where you can play optimally the rest of the time and still get crushed.

Re: How valuable are implied odds in stud?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I feel almost certain the original 3rd street completion is mandatory and I didn't expect people to disagree with it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm also surprised many people disagree with the completion. It might be helpful to decide what hands Ivey should be calling a raise with here. If not (98)A, then how about (J9)A? What about (KQ)A? (22)A? Three flushes only? (Split aces and buried pairs higher than tens seem to be reraises, but I guess they could be thrown in for deception if Ivey is calling with nothing else.)

I ask this because it seems exploitable for him to only continue with an extremely limited number of hands in a high ante game where the board is such that Ivey's opponents know that Ivey will be completing holdings as weak as three overcards to the board. I don't mean this to justify calling with all sorts of weak garbage, but I agree with the OP that people might be undervaluing the weak end of their stealing ranges on third street.

Re: How valuable are implied odds in stud?
 

Trencherman -

You bring up a very good point about not being exploitable to a reraise when you are raising from a steal position.

I have often been perplexed by that one in both stud hi and razz, because there are many situations in those two games where, if you play by standard 'book' advice, your opponents would appear to be +EV on a resteal with any 2 cards (this is especially common in razz).

I made a few posts about that in connection with razz (specifically when you should steal with the second to last low card in razz, and how bad a hand you should call with versus a resteal there).

I know for a fact I play exploitably in razz and probably stud hi in many of my steal spots (that is I fold to a resteal often enough that my opponent is +EV on restealing 100% of the time.)

I think what this all indicates is that the way standard stud players handle certains situations is actually game theoretically incorrect.

BTW I have decided to try and do some math on this hand to calculate Ivey's EV on calling the reraise on 3rd. So far it looks surprisingly close to 0 EV.

Basically because of the huge pot he gets a decent amount of profit from hitting a 9 or an 8 and just playing his hand out from there. He gets a lot of profit when he hits open AA and his opponent folds everything but trips.

I haven't worked out the value yet of catching a flush card or straightening card, but I think it's pretty low, although it does give us another chance to backdoor into a pair and call down.

We also saves a lot of money by folding the river when we winds up with a one-pair hand that can't beat TT. (This is an example of the broader notion of 'implied odds' that I have been advocating.)

Re: How valuable are implied odds in stud?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Trencherman -

You bring up a very good point about not being exploitable to a reraise when you are raising from a steal position.

I have often been perplexed by that one in both stud hi and razz, because there are many situations in those two games where, if you play by standard 'book' advice, your opponents would appear to be +EV on a resteal with any 2 cards (this is especially common in razz).

I made a few posts about that in connection with razz (specifically when you should steal with the second to last low card in razz, and how bad a hand you should call with versus a resteal there).

I know for a fact I play exploitably in razz and probably stud hi in many of my steal spots (that is I fold to a resteal often enough that my opponent is +EV on restealing 100% of the time.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you're asking questions that I actually know something about, lol. If you're exploitable to a reraise by atc in razz when stealing thru one last baby and the bring-in, then you may be stealing too often. Both the 'book' and experienced players know that you have to be judicious in your range of stealing hands, as the last baby will often reraise (or smooth call) and the bring-in will often call as well (whether it's correct or not). The more juice there is for you to steal, the more inclined they are to defend it (and correctly so).

Re: How valuable are implied odds in stud?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think I conveyed my point about IO so let me try again here.

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps a better term for what you describe is implied risk rather than implied odds. You are controlling the implied risk by being prepared to fold later. It seems clear to me that the implied odds for Hero are negative, since he has represented a stronger hand than he holds. Thus opponents' decisions will be based on that possibility, and opponent will likely only put in a lot of action with a very strong hand. Conventional implied odds positions presume that opponent will not suspect that hero has a strong hand, and will be willing to put in a lot of action regardless.

[ QUOTE ]
If after Phil made his initial completion, the TT guy said "Phil, how about you agree now to just put in a bet dark on every street and we will run out the cards?", it is 100% certain this would be -EV and Phil would be better off folding.

However there is some pot size where the case above is -EV but a 3rd street call of the TT's raise is +EV.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, but this ignores the fact that so much of the money Phil could get out of the pot began the hand in his stack already. If he builds a pot with his own chips and then plays for it from behind, he's playing bad poker (or gambling). The criticism isn't of the one call of the raise on Third, but of this as a general approach to poker -- put enough money in as a dog that you are marginally justified in calling some more bets later. It seems like a plan to lose the maximum and win the minimum.

I've found myself in this position before, and it sucks. It's like paying vig on money you already had.

Re: How valuable are implied odds in stud?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Trencherman -

You bring up a very good point about not being exploitable to a reraise when you are raising from a steal position.

I have often been perplexed by that one in both stud hi and razz, because there are many situations in those two games where, if you play by standard 'book' advice, your opponents would appear to be +EV on a resteal with any 2 cards (this is especially common in razz).

I made a few posts about that in connection with razz (specifically when you should steal with the second to last low card in razz, and how bad a hand you should call with versus a resteal there).

I know for a fact I play exploitably in razz and probably stud hi in many of my steal spots (that is I fold to a resteal often enough that my opponent is +EV on restealing 100% of the time.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you're asking questions that I actually know something about, lol. If you're exploitable to a reraise by atc in razz when stealing thru one last baby and the bring-in, then you may be stealing too often. Both the 'book' and experienced players know that you have to be judicious in your range of stealing hands, as the last baby will often reraise (or smooth call) and the bring-in will often call as well (whether it's correct or not). The more juice there is for you to steal, the more inclined they are to defend it (and correctly so).

[/ QUOTE ]


The problem in the razz case comes in high ante games.

Say it's a full 100-200 game as described earlier in this thread.

Once you make your completion, the final low card is getting 2.9:2 on a resteal.

So if you fold 41% of the time he shows an automatic profit.

If you are raising by the book standards of (Xb)c (where b and c are different baby cards and X is a random card), then your 41st percentile hand, starting from the worst and going down, is a ten low.

So basically if you fold more than a small fraction of your tens here (and the 'book' play is to fold all T's), then your opponent, shows an automatic profit reraising you with any 2.

You can tweak the numbers a little but that's the basic problem.

Re: How valuable are implied odds in stud?
 

[ QUOTE ]
It might be helpful to decide what hands Ivey should be calling a raise with here. If not (98)A, then how about (J9)A? What about (KQ)A? (22)A? Three flushes only?

[/ QUOTE ]
In this situation, I call (rather than three-bet) with the following:

Three suited to the Ace
live underpairs
two broadway cards

Can't think of much else to call with, really. His two-straight-flush would catch my eye if it were completely live and I was anxious to play against someone bad, but not considering how dead the straight cards are.

If you don't have much of a hand, it makes sense that you ought to play on only with cards that have the best possibility of developing into a hand. Given the dead cards, Hero's hand is essentially unrelated rags.

Re: How valuable are implied odds in stud?
 

OK, you've said a mouthful here and we need to go over it point by point if you want to get to the bottom of it.

[ QUOTE ]
1. The problem in the razz case comes in high ante games.

[/ QUOTE ]
Like I said before, in the high antes you have more reason to steal, but there is also more reason for your opps to defend against it. Likewise, there is more reason for you to defend against a resteal. This is why the antes stimulate action.

[ QUOTE ]
2. Say it's a full 100-200 game as described earlier in this thread.Once you make your completion, the final low card is getting 2.9:2 on a resteal.

[/ QUOTE ]
And you are getting 4.9:1 to defend against it with a reasonable stealing hand.

[ QUOTE ]
3. So if you fold 41% of the time he shows an automatic profit.

[/ QUOTE ]
This only takes into account your folds, not your calls or 3-bets. If you 3-bet your big hands he's getting 5.9:1 to call you. How bad does his hand have to be to lay it down correctly there? How good does it have to be to show a long term break even or +EV against your likely 3-bet range?

[ QUOTE ]
4. If you are raising by the book standards of (Xb)c (where b and c are different baby cards and X is a random card), then your 41st percentile hand, starting from the worst and going down, is a ten low.

[/ QUOTE ]
What is your definition of "baby" here, 8 or better? If so, is the 100th percentile hand a (K7)8 and the 0th (a2)3? Are you putting all the hands in order by your worst card? If so, does that mean a 987 is materially better than a TA2 against a random hand?

[ QUOTE ]
5. So basically if you fold more than a small fraction of your tens here (and the 'book' play is to fold all T's), then your opponent, shows an automatic profit reraising you with any 2.

[/ QUOTE ]
Which book are you quoting? Nevermind, we all know which one. Aside from the fact that the default assumption in the 3rd street chapter is the low (i.e. micro) ante game, I don't believe even 'the book' decrees that all 3-card tens should be folded (tho I'll have to recheck this). If a book told you to throw away a (T3)4 getting 5:1 odds against someone reraising you with (xx)8, would you do it? If you believe that he may be reraising without a hand because you fold to a reraise so often, would you still do it?

[ QUOTE ]
6. You can tweak the numbers a little but that's the basic problem.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't tweak numbers. I analyze them and put them in their proper perspective.

Hope this is helpful... I did try hard not to sound too sarcastic. I just want people to realize that you can't use a cookie-cutter approach to all situations, even in a relatively simple game like Razz.

Re: How valuable are implied odds in stud?
 

[ QUOTE ]

The problem in the razz case comes in high ante games.

Say it's a full 100-200 game as described earlier in this thread.

Once you make your completion, the final low card is getting 2.9:2 on a resteal.

So if you fold 41% of the time he shows an automatic profit.

If you are raising by the book standards of (Xb)c (where b and c are different baby cards and X is a random card), then your 41st percentile hand, starting from the worst and going down, is a ten low.

So basically if you fold more than a small fraction of your tens here (and the 'book' play is to fold all T's), then your opponent, shows an automatic profit reraising you with any 2.

You can tweak the numbers a little but that's the basic problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not going to go through the math right now to find out for myself, but I suspect that the answer to avoiding exploitation involves three-betting on third street with both legitimate hands and some re-resteals, and that these re-resteals are going to come from hands like three-card tens.

Getting back to the original hand as posted, I think there is some merit to Phil Ivey calling the raise if there are cards he can catch to take down the pot with the worst hand without a showdown. I can't prove that, but it's a hypothesis that I have.

Re: How valuable are implied odds in stud?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Hope this is helpful... I did try hard not to sound too sarcastic. I just want people to realize that you can't use a cookie-cutter approach to all situations, even in a relatively simple game like Razz.

[/ QUOTE ]


I am not advocating a cookie cutter approach at all, in fact I have often questioned some of the SOR lines in this forum. The point of my post even was to show that that the particular line in SOR is clearly exploitable.

I was pointing out that if you follow the SOR advice in a sufficiently high ante game, it becomes +EV for your opponent to reraise you with any 2 cards down.

To be honest I don't see how any of your comments dispute that.

Re: How valuable are implied odds in stud?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Getting back to the original hand as posted, I think there is some merit to Phil Ivey calling the raise if there are cards he can catch to take down the pot with the worst hand without a showdown. I can't prove that, but it's a hypothesis that I have.

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, what worse hand would that be? What hand would split tens fold to here? All I can think of is an open three-flush with big cards or three to Broadway with a Ten, and in either case the betting would need to sell it, so it would be an expensive play. It's also in the realm of catching perfect, so I'd consider even that possibility a long shot.

Re: How valuable are implied odds in stud?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Hope this is helpful... I did try hard not to sound too sarcastic. I just want people to realize that you can't use a cookie-cutter approach to all situations, even in a relatively simple game like Razz.

[/ QUOTE ]


I am not advocating a cookie cutter approach at all, in fact I have often questioned some of the SOR lines in this forum. The point of my post even was to show that that the particular line in SOR is clearly exploitable.

I was pointing out that if you follow the SOR advice in a sufficiently high ante game, it becomes +EV for your opponent to reraise you with any 2 cards down.

To be honest I don't see how any of your comments dispute that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I realize you're not advocating the cookie cutter approach, I was just summarizing my point by warning others that your point is a good example of why NOT to use a cookie cutter approach. SOR does in fact SAY that he would usually throw away anything worse than a 3-card 9 to a reraise, but then backpedals to say that you have to adjust this strategy based on what you think the man may be reraising with. (This is a very common pattern in this book of covering all bases -- to say always or never do "this", and then amend it 16 different ways). I guess you can infer from this that if you think the restealer is in fact restealing, you can loosen up your calls. I doubt a beginning player would infer that, so he would wind up playing way too tight unless he is reading the knowledge dropped in this forum.

MY point was that even if you are playing so ridiculously tightly as to fold more than 41% of the time with your opponent getting 2.9:2 odds on a resteal, that he will not necessarily turn an automatic profit. Why? Because while he will take down the small pot whenever you fold, what happens when you don't? Does he mentally fold (or fold to a 3-bet) and give up on the 6-7 small bet pot? Even SOR says that he has no problem reraising with a very big hand, so the top 30% or so of your original raising range would merit a 3-bet.

The paradox here is that if the restealer has utter trash in the hole, he can abandon his 2-bet and will in fact make a slim profit over time by forcing you to fold. But what if he has a 3-card 8 or 9? His BEST play is to call and not give up his equity in the growing pot, but he will have to give up some EV on later streets to do so. His odds are worse if he reraises a mediocre hand against a tight stealer because the stealer's range to make that play in the first place is so limited. Now he has given back some of the small profit he makes with his resteal strat, and across the whole range of any 2 hole cards he can have he may well come out worse than if he folds trash and reraises with the good hands. Of course, he can reraise with trash AND premium hands, and smooth call with mediocre ones, but that is also an exploitable pattern that gives up EV from his playable hands.

Remember, the whole basis of both of our points is that this is a HIGH ANTE game. With so much juice to shoot for (and presumably only two players with a chance at it) a lot of different plays may turn out to be +EV for either player, and usually for both. The potential restealer in your example is already +EV just by still having a hand and being HU for the pot! That doesn't mean all of his plays are equal, as some will maximize the +EV better than others.

Re: How valuable are implied odds in stud?
 

I remember Phil Ivey during an interview within the last 6 months or so laughing and saying he played too many hands at stud. He may have been referring to his early days in A.C.