Since Not Everyone Reads the PLO Forums

[donger]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, here's a good trick. If you want to see how often your opponent has a "piece" of something open up pokerstove and fill out whatever board with some blank cards or cards that make the 3 straight or whatever, give yourself the nut K or A high and see how often he connects. You can also see how your equity changes as different types of cards peel off, or how much things like different 3 betting ranges affect your equity with certain hands on certain flops.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this referencing the PLO post? If not, what 3 straight are you talking about? Can you give an example?

[kapw7]

If I understand correctly, it gives you the %age of times that your opponent has a pair or better in a HU holdem game.

[The Bryce]

Ok, here's an example of the way I do this. Let's say in my HU LHE game I'm just peeling and folding UI with Tx or Jx hands from the BB on AKQ type flops and I'm wondering if there's more I should be doing with that.

So the first thing I wonder about is whether it's better to peel and donk any turn that doesn't pair me as a bluff. I think that if I check-raise the flop almost any opponent will peel with a gutshot card, but will usually fold to a bet on a big street. So now I bring in the mathematics. I open up stove and give my opponent the top 80%, and put the board down as something like AKQQ6. I then give myself the nut nothing, which in this case happens to be J9, and get 40% equity. Being laid 6:4 that my opponent has a "nothing" hand when the pot is laying me 6:2 I now know that I can show an immediate profit by donking after the peel as long as my opponent does not in some way @#$% with me half the time by either raising or calling.

If I believe that peeling and donking is too transparent I can also see that check-raising the flop and betting becomes a better option when that extra small bet I put in cuts the chance that he will mess around down by what we'll say is approximately 1/4 of the time (it's 1/2 minus the extra % of a unit you win according to whatever % your bluff succeeds or some protection value and minus some small amount for flop equity). Therefor, I know that if I "feel" my opponent will respond poorly to a peel and donk, I know that this will almost always be a better option.

I can further do things like see how big of a difference there is between a 6 or a 2 peeling off on the turn, how much the numbers change against a tighter range or a guy who plays any two out of the SB, and how different this scneario is to one dealing with a KQJ flop etc. You may have noticed that some things are neglected or just approximated in this process, such as equity to improve (I'm simply ignoring the cost of peeling in the bluff cost since it was something I was already doing), possible protection value in check-raising, etc, but these are the small fries. The more creative you are the more you can come up with some pretty crazy stuff. By being pre-aware of the mathematical constrictions and opportunities I can sit at the table and focus my attention on a much smaller range of decision making, which is namely deciding how often I feel opponents are going to do what. This stuff is cumulative too, wherein the more of it you know the more you're going to be able to cross-apply it or parts of it in situations that you can recognize as similar and go through the process a lot faster.

[bbbushu]

"Cross-apply" = debater rhetoric [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

thanks a lot for posting an example, this will have me thinking for months.

bbbushu