(razz) Typical hand from bring-in? - Page 2

*TT* · #11 08-30-2007, 02:07 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
6th street is an easy fold, your a HUGE 12% equity dog vs villain's range even factoring in possible pairs, your equity share of the pot is less that a bet. If you raised 5th as advised the pot would be 9.8BB and the hero's equity share would be 2.45BB - without spending the time to weigh the live outs vs the equity share (is someone willing to do this? I don't have enough time) I'd say its time to fold even if the hand was HU.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you mean hero is 12% below fair equity? For a 3-way pot this would be 33% - 12% = 21%

[/ QUOTE ]

12% equity in a 3-way pot.

[/ QUOTE ]
May I see your work on this problem then, b/c I come up with a very different answer.

[/ QUOTE ]
link.

luckily I didn't clear out my browser cache yet, it was still sitting in there. You can play with the range a little bit but i think (5-*) is realistic - except for when the result is precisely (44)4 - the downside of this range. Did you get similar results on the prior streets?

SGspecial · #12 08-30-2007, 10:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
link.

luckily I didn't clear out my browser cache yet, it was still sitting in there. You can play with the range a little bit but i think (5-*) is realistic - except for when the result is precisely (44)4 - the downside of this range. Did you get similar results on the prior streets?

[/ QUOTE ]
I see what you did there. You sim doesn't match up with your read of seat 1 on early streets. You said:

[ QUOTE ]
at this level the other Q is not folding to a leading bet nor a c/r. I am fine with how the hero played 4th street because vs the opponent's "likely" ranges (assuming seat one would complete with a decent hand but limped in knowing he was closing the action, and the Q thinks he can play a 2 card hand 5 or lower with an A) he is a slight 39% favorite but won't be able to get the hand HU.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that seat 1 would have completed 3rd with a decent/monster hand, and certainly would have bet or c/r'd on 4th. Since he didn't, you have to adjust his range to exclude those possibilities. The * is too random.

Also, why did you give seat 4 an A in the hole? Did he have the case A up his sleeve?

*TT* · #13 08-30-2007, 12:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
link.

luckily I didn't clear out my browser cache yet, it was still sitting in there. You can play with the range a little bit but i think (5-*) is realistic - except for when the result is precisely (44)4 - the downside of this range. Did you get similar results on the prior streets?

[/ QUOTE ]
I see what you did there. You sim doesn't match up with your read of seat 1 on early streets. You said:

[ QUOTE ]
at this level the other Q is not folding to a leading bet nor a c/r. I am fine with how the hero played 4th street because vs the opponent's "likely" ranges (assuming seat one would complete with a decent hand but limped in knowing he was closing the action, and the Q thinks he can play a 2 card hand 5 or lower with an A) he is a slight 39% favorite but won't be able to get the hand HU.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that seat 1 would have completed 3rd with a decent/monster hand, and certainly would have bet or c/r'd on 4th. Since he didn't, you have to adjust his range to exclude those possibilities. The * is too random.

Also, why did you give seat 4 an A in the hole? Did he have the case A up his sleeve?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm in a bit of a rush to check but I think i did mention the downside of the random card in the post, for example (5- *)4 can include (44)4 which is a very unlikely holding, I agree that the wildcard isn't perfect but even with the wildcard holding the hero's equity is so small that i didn't need adjust it to a smaller range for more accurate figures.

I added the A in the hold for seat 4 to show the likely worst case scenario for a 2 card hand (I try not to make ranges too wide, I'd rather overcompensate by a tad), and also removed seat 4 at various times to simulate a heads up situation.

SGspecial · #14 08-30-2007, 01:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm in a bit of a rush to check but I think i did mention the downside of the random card in the post, for example (5- *)4 can include (44)4 which is a very unlikely holding, I agree that the wildcard isn't perfect but even with the wildcard holding the hero's equity is so small that i didn't need adjust it to a smaller range for more accurate figures.

I added the A in the hold for seat 4 to show the likely worst case scenario for a 2 card hand (I try not to make ranges too wide, I'd rather overcompensate by a tad), and also removed seat 4 at various times to simulate a heads up situation.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think a (44)4 holding is likely enough to contribute much range skew, so don't worry about that. What I am worried about is your sim range for him includes starters such as:
(A2)4
(23)4
(A5)4
etc. which I see no reason to expect given his three weak plays on 3rd and 4th sts.

What do the rest of you "studders" put seat 1 on?

p.s. I understand you want to look at the worst case for seat 4's holding, but there's no reason to favor an A over another bike card in this hand. So assuming he has the case A is just shooting yourself in the foot.

AggressiveCall · #15 08-30-2007, 01:39 PM

Interesting. I agree with above that 5th could be a raise, and definitely that the river bet was wrong, a check-call would probably work well.

On 6th, I personally was thinking the hands were more like this: http://www.propokertools.com/simulator/s...amp;h4=&h5=

Something along the lines of giving Seat 1 a definite high card, and Seat 4 any draw to better than the 9 high Seat 1 and I appear to be have. Even with these favorable assumptions, bit under 20%. I have to call 6th, and would also have to call on 7th (changing to check-call, they're almost certain to bet). 2BB to 8.8BB pot, so I think 6th is a fold with about any range we give them.

kerze · #16 08-30-2007, 01:48 PM

SG - I was about to post the same thing as you about not being considered about (44)4 but rather (a2)4.

I think Seat 1's possible holdings based on actions up to the 6th street bet.

(5- T+ 4) - I think if his second card is an unpaired 7 or better he completes or if and I take 8 and 9 out because he's not betting on 5th and 6th if he has paired his 8 and 9.

(5- 4 4) - a baby and he has paired his 4.

224
334
554

The 224 is the least likely because they are the only remaining 2's

It's hared to codify this whole thing so I was just using the (5- T+ 4)holding and then ran a separate sim to see if the (5- 4)4 came out much different. The (5- 4) would be a bit worse for us because the 4 is one of our live cards. (224) and (554) are good for us as they take away two of our dead cards while (334) is bad for us as it takes away two of our live cards.

I also changed TT's sim for seat 4 from (A 5-)Q to (5- 5-)Q

With Seat 1 having 22 we are 19%, 33 we are 16%, 55 we are 24%, (5- 4)4 we are 19%, and (5- T+ 4) we are 21%. I look at the whole thing and say about 20%.

RustyBrooks · #17 08-30-2007, 02:02 PM

This is actually what I was getting into in another thread - propokertool's syntax is good but it's hard to pin down a range exactly, particularly when you want to *exclude* a range of hands that would normally be included by * or 8-, etc.

I might have something to demo next week, a poker-stove like program for stud, holdem, razz, omaha, etc, although no hi/lo games, and I haven't put any work into draw because I don't play it.

Something else I'd love to do, but that's probably nearly impossible, is when specify a razz range, say something like, include a 20% possibility he's paired a down card.

AggressiveCall · #18 08-30-2007, 02:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This is actually what I was getting into in another thread - propokertool's syntax is good but it's hard to pin down a range exactly, particularly when you want to *exclude* a range of hands that would normally be included by * or 8-, etc.

I might have something to demo next week, a poker-stove like program for stud, holdem, razz, omaha, etc, although no hi/lo games, and I haven't put any work into draw because I don't play it.

Something else I'd love to do, but that's probably nearly impossible, is when specify a razz range, say something like, include a 20% possibility he's paired a down card.

[/ QUOTE ]

Out of curiosity, what language do you work in?

RustyBrooks · #19 08-30-2007, 02:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is actually what I was getting into in another thread - propokertool's syntax is good but it's hard to pin down a range exactly, particularly when you want to *exclude* a range of hands that would normally be included by * or 8-, etc.

I might have something to demo next week, a poker-stove like program for stud, holdem, razz, omaha, etc, although no hi/lo games, and I haven't put any work into draw because I don't play it.

Something else I'd love to do, but that's probably nearly impossible, is when specify a razz range, say something like, include a 20% possibility he's paired a down card.

[/ QUOTE ]

Out of curiosity, what language do you work in?

[/ QUOTE ]

The front end is all Tcl/Tk, the heavy lifting is mostly done in C

*TT* · #20 08-30-2007, 02:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
p.s. I understand you want to look at the worst case for seat 4's holding, but there's no reason to favor an A over another bike card in this hand. So assuming he has the case A is just shooting yourself in the foot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I experimented with other ranges not including the case A and as you can see from the other sims posted after mine that the range doesn't change to greatly, hero is still a dog. Simulation isn't a precise science, I can live with a 7% margin of error in this situation; there are bigger fish to fry IMHO but I wouldn't blame you if you disagreed.