Two Plus Two Newer Archives (http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/index.php)
-   -   THREE, yes THREE ACES!!, but barf 2/4NLCASH (http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/showthread.php?t=558984)

 brandysbich 12-02-2007 01:58 AM

Re: THREE, yes THREE ACES!!, but barf 2/4NLCASH

Thanks for explaining how you got the 30% figure, still doesnt seem right to me that top set is only good 30% of the time here but i'm not going to argue about something I dont know.

About not making it more complicated than it is, you saying that by using the "zomg 3 aces' approach and just calling based on that is not gonna get me far wrong...yet optimally according to you this is a fold? I dont see how not far wrong could be a complete u-turn on optimal play. I dunno...for me there's just too much things involved in hu like instincts, flow of the game and history that crunching numbers on a hand like is just gonna give you headaches. I mean who are we kidding, no matter what the equations say i'd be willing to bet not one HUCASH player here can say they are c/fing this river. So in the end it all comes down to zomg I have 3 aces i call.

 tmcdmck 12-02-2007 02:17 AM

Re: THREE, yes THREE ACES!!, but barf 2/4NLCASH

the reason that "zomfg 3aces" makes you call, yet my approach makes you fold, yet i say there is not much in it is pot odds.

on river villain makes a pot sized bet, so we are getting 2:1 to call. that means we have to be good 1/3 times for a call to be correct. 30% is slightly less the 1/3 times, therefore it is a fold. BUT because there is only 3% in it, a call would not lose you that much, therefore a call would not be that bad. when a decision is really close, it normally makes little difference what you actually do in the longrun, as a close decision means you intuitively feel you are very close to being good the right amount of the time one way or the other.

so basically the nice thing about the "zomg 3aces" approach is that when you call incorrectly, you rarely lose that much (in the longterm), and it saves you from folding incorrectly (which is likely to cost you more due to how often a set of aces is good).

obviously there are flow and instincts, but they are really just an instinctual understanding of the numbers (and if they are not, then quite frankly you have bad instincts). furthermore, since you cant convey those things well in a post, we just have to deal with cold hard maths. i really dont understand why you think bringing maths into poker is so problematic: understanding pot odds is vital to success, and it would be very odd if a player said calculating them was uneccessary and made their head hurt. equity calculations are a more complex example of the same thing.

i disagree that no HUCASH player would be folding the river. I am usually a calling station, but i have folded sets in spots like this.

 mb6tour 12-02-2007 02:32 AM

Re: THREE, yes THREE ACES!!, but barf 2/4NLCASH

As to the pokerstove issue, I strongly recommend you get Hold'em Ranger too. It's allows you to wheight hands and to insert suited cards much easier.

The equity calc I made to this hand looks like that:

Board: Ts 6d Js Ah 3s

Wins Ties Equity
24.00% 0.00% 24.00% ( AcAd )
76.00% 0.00% 76.00% ( 66, TJ, KQ, As2s+, Ks2s+, Qs5s+, 5s6s+, )

If we add more two-pair combinations and put also TT and JJ it gives you:

Board: Ts 6d Js Ah 3s

Wins Ties Equity
34.48% 0.00% 34.48% ( AcAd )
65.52% 0.00% 65.52% ( 66, TJ, KQ, As2s+, Ks2s+, Qs5s+, 5s6s+, TT, JJ, J6s, )

And with T6s + aces up

Board: Ts 6d Js Ah 3s

Wins Ties Equity
46.48% 0.00% 46.48% ( AcAd )
53.52% 0.00% 53.52% ( 66, TJ, KQ, As2s+, Ks2s+, Qs5s+, 5s6s+, TT, JJ, J6s, T6s, AT, AJ, A6, A3 )

I'm not wheighting anything here.

 creedofhubris 12-02-2007 03:23 AM

Re: THREE, yes THREE ACES!!, but barf 2/4NLCASH

[ QUOTE ]

and when you say there are "so many" other hands he could be value betting, you realise that our equity vs any set, any aces up, JT, any straight or any flush (giving him the range you suggested, excluding air) is only 30%, making it an clear fold for us.

[/ QUOTE ]

We only need .33 equity vs. his range to call that pot-sized river bet. Alter that range even a little and it's a call.

 tmcdmck 12-02-2007 03:30 AM

Re: THREE, yes THREE ACES!!, but barf 2/4NLCASH

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

and when you say there are "so many" other hands he could be value betting, you realise that our equity vs any set, any aces up, JT, any straight or any flush (giving him the range you suggested, excluding air) is only 30%, making it an clear fold for us.

[/ QUOTE ]

We only need .33 equity vs. his range to call that pot-sized river bet. Alter that range even a little and it's a call.

[/ QUOTE ]

i know, but i think if its going to be altered, it is to weight it towards a flush, remove the sets and some of the 2 pair hands, lowering our equity. i suppose we would add some air too, but i have no idea how much.

 brandysbich 12-02-2007 03:49 AM

Re: THREE, yes THREE ACES!!, but barf 2/4NLCASH

ok tmc i think we done bud, cos you starting to twist my words and now i'm starting to get annoyed.

First, I didnt say using math in 'poker' is problematic. I said using it in a hand like this HU is just going to give you headeaches when every single time you going to call anyway...I'm gonna go as far as saying a fold here is a leak.

Second, as shown above by somebody else your pokerstove calculations arent even accurate with the %'s being 46.48 equity without even putting air into villains range...so getting 3 to 1 on this call makes it a massively EV call.

Third, you are nothing close to a calling station if you fold top set here or any set for that matter on a 3 to flush board with 1 possible straight as well

I still stand by my statement that not one HUCASH player (maybe I should change this to regular or winning HUCASH player) will c/f this river.

 tmcdmck 12-02-2007 04:38 AM

Re: THREE, yes THREE ACES!!, but barf 2/4NLCASH

[ QUOTE ]
ok tmc i think we done bud, cos you starting to twist my words and now i'm starting to get annoyed.

First, I didnt say using math in 'poker' is problematic. I said using it in a hand like this HU is just going to give you headeaches when every single time you going to call anyway...I'm gonna go as far as saying a fold here is a leak.

Second, as shown above by somebody else your pokerstove calculations arent even accurate with the %'s being 46.48 equity without even putting air into villains range...so getting 3 to 1 on this call makes it a massively EV call.

Third, you are nothing close to a calling station if you fold top set here or any set for that matter on a 3 to flush board with 1 possible straight as well

I still stand by my statement that not one HUCASH player (maybe I should change this to regular or winning HUCASH player) will c/f this river.

[/ QUOTE ]

well were not done because you clearly understood dick all of what i said.

1) diferent ranges will give different hand equity values. i disagree with the range that gave 47% equity. that simple. i also disagree with the range i used myself to get 30% equity (i was infact just using the range you suggested - air to make a point). if anything i feel the range that gave 24% equity is closest to correct. i feel their range is basically that plus air.

2) i dont use maths when every time i am going to call anyway. i use maths when it is not clear what to do, such as in this situation (and calling the fold a leak is preposterous, the situation is too rare for it to be a leak, and if it is a mistake at all, it is a small one.) also you are getting 2:1, not 3:1. also when i call myself a station, obviously it is situation dependent. the point i was making was that this is a situation where i really think hard rather than autocall like i usually would. ALSO also, maths does not give me a headache. i enjoy it.

a) wild speculation
b) almost certainly inaccurate (nit is a profitable style of play in most games)
c) a horrid argument device designed to bypass reason and appeal to ego. it is referred to in philosophy as the informal fallacy of "poisoning the well".

you know what, after all this, im not 100% it is a fold, and i never was nor claimed to be. i was just trying to analyse the hand thoroughly, and i seem to have painted myself into a corner explaining to you why it might well be a fold. yes i think it is a fold on the balance of probabilities, but not beyond all reasonable doubt.

 TNixon 12-02-2007 04:55 AM

Re: THREE, yes THREE ACES!!, but barf 2/4NLCASH

***EDIT***
One day maybe I'll learn to finish the thread before responding. It looks like everything I've said below is already taken into account. I personally believe the range that gives 24% equity doesn't include nearly enough of the hands that villain probably thinks are good, but there's no point in quibbling bits.

Mostly irrelevant stuff follows: [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
--------------------------
The only straight is KQ, which is a pretty unlikely limp on the button, and you can't really count every single possible flush, unless you know opponent is a donk who's going to call any two suited cards to a raise, including stuff like 72 and 93.

You can also likely exclude big suited cards (or at least discount them), AK through whatever you think villain is going to raise instead of limp with, and probably stuff like KQ, maybe all the broadway flushes, depending on how villain plays.

After you dump a bunch of possible flushes that are unlikely limps (or, again, at least discount them somewhat), you probably get a lot more than 30% equity.

And you're getting 2 to 1 odds, so you only need to have 33% equity for the call to be good, which means that even if you're in love with the 30% equity figure, you really don't have to add very much air at all to his range to make the call good.

By the numbers, it seems like a call to me (although admittedly a very marginal one), and whenever it's even remotely close, I tend to call, because I want most villains to think I'm an even bigger calling station than I am, so they won't try to bluff me out of every single pot.

Of course, if we're dumping some flushes and straights as unlikely limps, you can probably discount a couple of the Ax two pairs, and maybe some of the others that might be unlikely calls to the raise, like T3 and J3, so maybe it all evens out.

Still, almost all villains are going to have *some* sort of air in their range, and a fair number of them will turn weaker pairs into bluffs on the flush river.

 tmcdmck 12-02-2007 05:02 AM

Re: THREE, yes THREE ACES!!, but barf 2/4NLCASH

i am now sounding like such a broken record, you are right, except i think the hands need to be weighted, and you could get all sorts of numbers dependant on said weighting. basically some people will come out with "call" some fold.

i think ill just shut up in this thread from this point forth.

 TNixon 12-02-2007 05:09 AM

Re: THREE, yes THREE ACES!!, but barf 2/4NLCASH

Yeah, I didn't even see the actual range posting that did take into account some of that stuff. Sorry about that.

But in all honesty, even 24% is close enough that you'd have to be *very* confident of your range weighting to make it a clear fold. Who knows? Maybe his range is 100% flush, and he wouldn't pot anything less. But I honestly think there have only been a handful of occurences where I've had a solid enough read that I could make this fold. I'm just almost never *that* confident that I know what my opponent is up to.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:46 PM.