Interesting situation vs unknown opponent...first hand NLTRN

[Indiana]

hmmmmm, so u think that a shove is more valuable than calling it down? I also thought about a shove, but why do u feel he has to have a semi-bluff draw hand? wouldn't he also do this with air as well? If its air then shoving is the wrong play because you lose value....of course if ur certain that its semi-bluffing then shove. But i dont see how you could put him on this hand, even though you were correct given the results.

[The Camel]

[ QUOTE ]
hmmmmm, so u think that a shove is more valuable than calling it down? I also thought about a shove, but why do u feel he has to have a semi-bluff draw hand? wouldn't he also do this with air as well? If its air then shoving is the wrong play because you lose value....of course if ur certain that its semi-bluffing then shove. But i dont see how you could put him on this hand, even though you were correct given the results.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was such an unusual situation.. one I have never encountered before, I really didn't know which course of action was best. Folding, calling and raising were all strong possibilities, I only shoved because I decided he most likely had a draw. Obv, I didn't expect him to have pair + flush draw.

[PokerAmateur4]

I would have certainly called, then check/called. The push is interesting though, I'm surprised. I'd like to know what made you think this has more value than turn call, check/call river.

I would cite this hand as an example that very poor players often don't think logically about the hand as some people were suggesting "he is strong or bluffing entirely." In my much more limited experience I've already seen a lot of stuff like this.

[ukdentisto32]

i think u made the right play, a draw is a good possibility and i think he has air here alot of the time

[Leo Doyle]

I think the main reason why so many people opted, for the "Wait for a better spot" type answer is because the majority of hands (that i've seem) posted on this site are losing hands - "could i have gotten away from this" kind of thing. before you answer the origional post your already (well I am anyway) thinking, so what was it that beat him, and it's hard to shake, it's the old stick with the masses, if I'm wrong at least im still the majority.

I think this is a great post.

Not only for the hand but for how I might post hands for advice in future.

Leo

[Dima2000123]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm reading a little hostility into yer posts now

[/ QUOTE ]
Good read.

[ QUOTE ]
What is going to bring you better results, playing one pot at 60% equity for all your chips or endless 200 chip pots, for example, at 60% equity? The 200 chips pots, of course.

[/ QUOTE ]
Lets see you start with 1500 chips so one pot would be 3000 *.6 = 1800 chips for a profit of 300
15 200 chip pots would be (200 *.6)*15 = 1800 for a profit of 300 chips

So you see you acted like you knew what you were talking about and yet actually were getting a middle school math problem wrong, thus the hostility.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's never a good idea to be condescending when you're dead wrong. Your fatal error is assuming that there would only be 15 pots of size 200 chips. While it is true that there would only be 1 pot per match with a 3000-a-pot strategy, there would a lot more than 15 pots per match on average with a 200-a-pot strategy (DUCY?)

This is not a middle school math problem, this is actually a rather complicated graduate level probability question. The actual question is: "What's the probability that at some point in the match you're going to win 15 more pots than your opponent before your opponent wins 15 more pots than you, and how many hands on average will it take?" The match will end when and only when that happens.

It turns out that you're a near lock to win the tournament with 200-a-pot strategy (99.8% favorite). On average, it's going to take you 74-75 hands per match (definitely not 15 like you wrongly assumed).

What's the catch? You're going to play 1 tournament with virtually 100% edge in the same time that it would take for you to play 75 tournaments with a 20% edge. If you can get into new tournaments at will where you're 60% favorite in a pot, then you'd be stupid to keep the pot anything less than 3,000 chips large. If the tournament is a one-time opportunity, then you'd be stupid not to play 200 chip pots at a time.

[ackbleh]

Cwar, I've no doubt that I've won multiple times what you have playing headsup NL -- but I suppose that because you have a higher post count and I have only 50, you think you're god's gift to poker and I'm a newbie. This is why my post count is so low -- people with crappy attitudes like you.

And you're the one blowing the math problem, the person who takes 60% edges in endless small pots will get all of the chips more often than someone who takes a 60% edge in one pot... specifically, they will get all of the chips more than 60% of the time. I'm not going to take the time to explain this to your arrogance, but I'll offer you a hint: Think analogy to bankroll management.

That said, I can see where this is headed, and it doesn't matter. Go back to being your big fish in a small pond. My bronchitis is getting better and my fever is finally going down... I'll go back to making money.

[ChicagoRy]

I'll take the first 60% edge, you never know if you'll get another.

[cwar]

[ QUOTE ]
Cwar, I've no doubt that I've won multiple times what you have playing headsup NL

[/ QUOTE ]
But my penis is bigger.

[tmcdmck]

Ackbleh, if you are managing your bankroll properly, you should not need to sacrifice EV for low variance, or am I missing something?