#1
|
|||
|
|||
Razz: folding on 4th street
A question to Example 6 of the Razz Problems in SOP.
hero: (26)7T villian: (xx)73 villian: bets hero: folds Sklansky states that calling would be -EV and that a 97 instead of the T7 would be break-even. How is this determind? Is this an intuitiv statement derived from years of playing experience or is it possible to give some mathematical reasoning behind it? I tried a simulation at www.pokertools.com putting villians starting hand on (8- 8- 7). It gives a 34% probability of winning for hero. Depending on the number of players at the table and the ante strukture calling would give hero 34% of a pot containig more than 5,6 SBs (Full Tilt 8/16, full table). So if there would be no further betting rounds, it would be clearly profitable for hero to call. (It t would be even more profitable if we take into account that there is some probability that the 3 paired villian.) Is there any methode to estimate the effect of further betting rounds? Any flaws in this reasoning? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Razz: folding on 4th street
Well, you have to look at the money not yet put in. If you've got a pot of 2 or 3 BBs, and you've got to make the call of 3 additional BBs to show it down. It's important to note that it's heads up at this point. You and this man are the only two putting money in the pot. I would not like to be getting my money here as a 2:1 dog when the the amount of money you're putting in is only being matched in a 1:1 ratio.
Furthermore, you stand to lose a few more BBs if you hit a second best 7 low, which is a real posibility in this hand. I agree with dumping it. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Razz: folding on 4th street
ummm what was 3rd street action, it seems pretty relevant to the discussion (both for pot size and for hand-reading)
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Razz: folding on 4th street
[ QUOTE ]
ummm what was 3rd street action, it seems pretty relevant to the discussion (both for pot size and for hand-reading) [/ QUOTE ] There has been no double raise on 3rd street. Although not explicitly stated I would asume that none of the opponents made the bring in, and that none was in a steal position. |
|
|