Quiz#20 Same Concept
 

The big blind is a loose passive player and Stox is on the button with Q [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]6 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]
Preflop:
Stox raises, bb calls

Flop(4.5 sb):8 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]7 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]2 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]
bb checks, Stox bets, bb calls

Turn(3.25 bb): K [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]
bb checks, Stox bets, bb calls

River(5.25bb): A [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]
bb checks, Stox bets?

You need the passive player to fold 16% of his hands that you beat in order for this to be profitable. Can you think of 16% of his hands that he would fold? If this were the A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] it might be a profitable play. However, the flush and straight both missed. The passive player will call if he has any idea of how to play. Since this book is for tough games I would think that the passive player would at least have a clue.

Re: Quiz#20 Same Concept
 

How bad are we talking about how this player is?

Re: Quiz#20 Same Concept
 

seems like a check vs a loose passive

Re: Quiz#20 Same Concept
 

Alot of people disagree with Stox play here, as Ive seen this hand example atleast three times now on 2+2. I think Stox play is very defensible here.

Re: Quiz#20 Same Concept
 

ace is a good card

Re: Quiz#20 Same Concept
 

[ QUOTE ]
ace is a good card

[/ QUOTE ]
It is a good card, but remember that your opponent is now getting 6.25-1. You can have a wide variety of hands here and I think that even the weaker players in a tough game realize this.

Re: Quiz#20 Same Concept
 

Don't like this bet. If he folds good chance you were good anyway. Having said that both of the hands with stox were questionable river bets which I don't think are terrible mistakes given stox does not seem to splash around chips all that liberally (from what I've seen of him). So I don't really think these are as bad as people are saying given his image.

Re: Quiz#20 Same Concept
 

When I read this one I disagreed with it too, simply because we have a Q in our hand so we now beat just about everything that isn't paired up.

Re: Quiz#20 Same Concept
 

i think this bet is more profitable than the other hand. guy makes a good point that we beat all his missed straight draws still. so betting is only profitable if he folds a pair.

Re: Quiz#20 Same Concept
 

[ QUOTE ]
The big blind is a loose passive player and Stox is on the button with Q [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]6 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]
Preflop:
Stox raises, bb calls

Flop(4.5 sb):8 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]7 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]2 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]
bb checks, Stox bets, bb calls

Turn(3.25 bb): K [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]
bb checks, Stox bets, bb calls

River(5.25bb): A [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]
bb checks, Stox bets?

You need the passive player to fold 16% of his hands that you beat in order for this to be profitable. Can you think of 16% of his hands that he would fold? If this were the A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] it might be a profitable play. However, the flush and straight both missed. The passive player will call if he has any idea of how to play. Since this book is for tough games I would think that the passive player would at least have a clue.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Stox only bets this river about 40% of the time it should be profitable. If the guy has a pair of sevens he'd have about 35.36% equity vs Stox's open raising range from the button. That's 2.21 bets of a 6.25 BB pot. But if Stox is only bluffing here 40% of the time, it reduces this to .884 big bets. Right?

To be clear, I don't mean that, from the opponent's point of view there is a 40% chance that he is bluffing. I mean from the hero's point of view, when he reaches the river without pairing on a board that contains an Ace and King, that he'll continue betting if it has gone check/call, check/call about 40% of the time or less. He'll check behind about 60% of those cases. This should create negative ev for small pairs to call.

Below shows the equity for 7d6d on the river against Stox's approximate range here.

Text results appended to pokerstove.txt

362 games 0.005 secs 72,400 games/sec

Board: Kh Ac 8d 2d 7s
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 64.641% 64.36% 00.28% 233 1.00 { 22+, A2s+, K5s+, Q5s+, J7s+, T8s+, 98s, 87s, 76s, 65s, A4o+, K7o+, Q9o+, J9o+, T9o }
Hand 1: 35.359% 35.08% 00.28% 127 1.00 { 7d6d }


---

376 games 0.005 secs 75,200 games/sec

Board: Kh Ac 8d 2d 7s
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 71.277% 71.28% 00.00% 268 0.00 { 22+, A2s+, K5s+, Q5s+, J7s+, T8s+, 98s, 87s, 76s, 65s, A4o+, K7o+, Q9o+, J9o+, T9o }
Hand 1: 28.723% 28.72% 00.00% 108 0.00 { 3d2c }


---

376 games 0.005 secs 75,200 games/sec

Board: Kh Ac 8d 2d 7s
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 71.277% 71.28% 00.00% 268 0.00 { 22+, A2s+, K5s+, Q5s+, J7s+, T8s+, 98s, 87s, 76s, 65s, A4o+, K7o+, Q9o+, J9o+, T9o }
Hand 1: 28.723% 28.72% 00.00% 108 0.00 { 3d2c }


---

362 games 0.016 secs 22,625 games/sec

Board: Kh Ac 8d 2d 7s
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 64.641% 64.36% 00.28% 233 1.00 { 22+, A2s+, K5s+, Q5s+, J7s+, T8s+, 98s, 87s, 76s, 65s, A4o+, K7o+, Q9o+, J9o+, T9o }
Hand 1: 35.359% 35.08% 00.28% 127 1.00 { 7d6d }


---


So, in all, we bet this flop always when checked to. On the turn, since we have no showdown value we bet and fold to a raise. If our hand had showdown value we sometimes check to induce a river bluff. And after this river comes and the opponent checks again, I think we bluff about 40%.

Re: Quiz#20 Same Concept
 

i dont see what our hand range equities have to do with our river play??

the situation is he is calling wtih a pair since he is loose passive, and folding any draws he missed, that we already beat

Re: Quiz#20 Same Concept
 

I thought about this after I created the other thread when someone made the statement of pulling off the "bad bluff". However, if the guy is loose and passive is he ever folding a pair here?

Re: Quiz#20 Same Concept
 

[ QUOTE ]
i dont see what our hand range equities have to do with our river play??

the situation is he is calling wtih a pair since he is loose passive, and folding any draws he missed, that we already beat

[/ QUOTE ]

It is a long term ev situation. If he calls us every time in this situation with a small pair he will have negative ev. He won't win the 6.25 bet pot often enough to make up for his losses if we only bet it 40%.

Of course, if we know that he will always call with any pair I think the river bet is bad as there are exactly three hands that beat us that might fold: QJ, QT, and Q9. And I can't think of any worse hands that might call.

Re: Quiz#20 Same Concept
 

sure, him calling will have a negative ev longrun for him because we will be valuebetting even 7s or 8s on this board. lp's are supposed to make -ev plays though, lets not help him.

Re: Quiz#20 Same Concept
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i dont see what our hand range equities have to do with our river play??

the situation is he is calling wtih a pair since he is loose passive, and folding any draws he missed, that we already beat

[/ QUOTE ]

It is a long term ev situation. If he calls us every time in this situation with a small pair he will have negative ev. He won't win the 6.25 bet pot often enough to make up for his losses if we only bet it 40%.

Of course, if we know that he will always call with any pair I think the river bet is bad as there are exactly three hands that beat us that might fold: QJ, QT, and Q9. And I can't think of any worse hands that might call.

[/ QUOTE ]
I know what you are thinking, but I don't think that you can get this complex against a loose passive player. Against a tight-agressive player this play would be better as it will widen their river calling range for future hands. I'd still rather make this type of play with a hand like 65 or T9, where I'd have a chance to knock out a better hand like JT or a missed Q high flush draw.

Re: Quiz#20 Same Concept
 

emersons post is interesting. i dont know what to make of it.

Re: Quiz#20 Same Concept
 

i think it has merit against a thinking opponent rather than a loose passive.

it's also possible that us betting and him calling are -ev for both parties, correct?

Re: Quiz#20 Same Concept
 

[ QUOTE ]
emersons post is interesting. i dont know what to make of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is possible that this poker stove run for 76 of diamonds lead me to some incorrect conclusions about other possible holdings. For reasons I don't understand, pocket sixes, and other small pocket pairs, have a substantially bigger equity, and thus stronger case for calling, than does the pair of sevens on the busted diamond draw that I examined.

Re: Quiz#20 Same Concept
 

[ QUOTE ]


It is possible that this poker stove run for 76 of diamonds lead me to some incorrect conclusions about other possible holdings. For reasons I don't understand, pocket sixes, and other small pocket pairs, have a substantially bigger equity, and thus stronger case for calling, than does the pair of sevens on the busted diamond draw that I examined.

[/ QUOTE ]

This was a little glitch. Even pocket queens only have 41.541% equity against the Stox button open raising range. On boards that have AK and three rags, bluffing on the river about 38% of the time should make it unprofitable for any one pair hand to call (less than kings).

Text results appended to pokerstove.txt

1,986 games 0.005 secs 397,200 games/sec

Board: 8d 7s 2d Kh Ac
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 58.459% 58.31% 00.15% 1158 3.00 { 22+, A2s+, K5s+, Q5s+, J7s+, T9s, 98s, 87s, 76s, 65s, A4o+, K7o+, Q9o+, J9o+, T9o }
Hand 1: 41.541% 41.39% 00.15% 822 3.00 { QQ }


---

Re: Quiz#20 Same Concept
 

[ QUOTE ]
ace is a good card

[/ QUOTE ]

yea. i think stox played this well.

Re: Quiz#20 Same Concept
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ace is a good card

[/ QUOTE ]

yea. i think stox played this well.

[/ QUOTE ]

thirded :-)

Re: Quiz#20 Same Concept
 

[ QUOTE ]
emersons post is interesting. i dont know what to make of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I made a logical and mathematical error in that bluff frequency calculation. If he has about 36% equity with a small pair against our range, meaning that 64% of the time we will have him beat and bet, then the chance that we are bluffing cannot be greater than his pot odds to be optimal. He is getting 6.25 to 1. So the correct bluffing default, before we take opponent tendencies into account, would be about 10.25%. To get that frequency we bluff about 28.5% here, not the 40% that I posted previously. (10.25% /36%)


I agree with those who don't like the river bet. We already beat most of the missed draws.

Re: Quiz#20 Same Concept
 

how did you get that 28.5%?

Re: Quiz#20 Same Concept
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
emersons post is interesting. i dont know what to make of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I made a logical and mathematical error in that bluff frequency calculation. If he has about 36% equity with a small pair against our range, meaning that 64% of the time we will have him beat and bet, then the chance that we are bluffing cannot be greater than his pot odds to be optimal. He is getting 6.25 to 1. So the correct bluffing default, before we take opponent tendencies into account, would be about 10.25%. To get that frequency we bluff about 28.5% here, not the 40% that I posted previously. (10.25% /36%)


I agree with those who don't like the river bet. We already beat most of the missed draws.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think that the passive player who has been calling down with his pair of 4's understands this. Against a TAG this hand is most likely played differently postflop. You'd think that a TAG would raise on the flop or turn with a low pair to protect his hand, driving you out of the pot.

Re: Quiz#20 Same Concept
 

IMHO loose passives are loose passives because they chase their aces and/or other draws too much, not because they can't make teh big laydowns when the situation calls for it.

Re: Quiz#20 Same Concept
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
emersons post is interesting. i dont know what to make of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I made a logical and mathematical error in that bluff frequency calculation. If he has about 36% equity with a small pair against our range, meaning that 64% of the time we will have him beat and bet, then the chance that we are bluffing cannot be greater than his pot odds to be optimal. He is getting 6.25 to 1. So the correct bluffing default, before we take opponent tendencies into account, would be about 10.25%. To get that frequency we bluff about 28.5% here, not the 40% that I posted previously. (10.25% /36%)


I agree with those who don't like the river bet. We already beat most of the missed draws.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think that the passive player who has been calling down with his pair of 4's understands this. Against a TAG this hand is most likely played differently postflop. You'd think that a TAG would raise on the flop or turn with a low pair to protect his hand, driving you out of the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is really the same issue that Harmon discusses in the limit section of Super System 2 when she says not to bluff with AK high. The rationale is that you already beat the missed draws and those that made small pairs along the way are not going to fold once they get to the river very often. In this case an AK is on the board, so Q high would be about the same thing. True, this is not the nut no pair. That would be QJ. But there are only three better hands that have a high likelihood of folding here. I think that bluffing any more than the optimal amount would be a mistake here, and I really don't think you should bluff here with any hand better than jack high.

Re: Quiz#20 Same Concept
 

[ QUOTE ]
i think it has merit against a thinking opponent rather than a loose passive.

it's also possible that us betting and him calling are -ev for both parties, correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not really possible. You can have a situation where there is negative log growth for both parties. That happens when you make a positive expectation bet that is more than twice the Kelly fraction relative to your bank. It is negative log for both. But both sides of a bet can't have negative ev in poker unless it is related to the rake. That is not the case here. If you ran this situation a billion times they can't both lose money. There is no place for the excess to go.

Re: Quiz#20 Same Concept
 

[ QUOTE ]
how did you get that 28.5%?

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, here is the math. We determined that a small pair has approx 36% equity against hero's open raising range from the button. This means that 64% of the time the small pair is beat on the river. He is getting pot odds of 6.25 to call. If we bet here every time it would be profitable for him to call in such situations. For an optimal bluff we want his chance of winning to be no better than his pot odds. So we divide 64% by 6.25. That comes to 10.24%.

So this means that we are betting about 74.25%. Checking behind 25.75%. Of the times we are betting, if the small pair calls, he wins less than once out of 6.25 times. So it is not profitable.

Now, we arrive at the decision point of whether to bluff or check 36% of the time. In order that our total bluff % is 10.25%, we bluff 28.5% of that 36%.

.285 * .36= .1026

This gives us just about the total percentage we are looking for. This is just a default, however. You bluff either more or less frequently depending on your read of the opponent. I think in this situation we bluff less, not more frequently, than optimal.

Re: Quiz#20 Same Concept
 

interesting stuff. this is 'game theory' math right?

i don't understand the math in the first example but the second one got me thinking.

Re: Quiz#20 Same Concept
 

[ QUOTE ]
interesting stuff. this is 'game theory' math right?

i don't understand the math in the first example but the second one got me thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's good, cause there was a flaw in the logic I used in the first example.

Re: Quiz#20 Same Concept
 

[ QUOTE ]
And after this river comes and the opponent checks again, I think we bluff about 40%.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is true if he adapts to how we play, if he doesnt we only need to know what he will call with on this river and bet if its a winning play.

Also, we cant randomly bluff because if we - for example - bluff first time and he calls with pair of 2s and win pot it would be idiotic to bluff a 2nd time because he will now call with all hands that beats us, including a better Q (well [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] )

Normally we want a player who does a misstake to do this more often, so normally we want a LP to call more and bet less. We will then win a few less pots since he calls a lot on river but win bigger pots every time we are ahead. If this is true, betting this river as a bluff hoping he will call us with any2 in future when he sees what we bet with on river would be a good investment in future hands.

Re: Quiz#20 Same Concept
 

This came up in the micro-limit forum as well,
and Stox responded.