Player Discussion

[El Diablo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
this is one of the most dissapointing threads i have ever read. either mason communicated his question very very poorly in his first post (less likely) or he got trapped and is backpeddling like a mother [censored] (more likely)

and on top of this he takes a condescending tone with his dissenters?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's just another example of "when a genius is certain". I put my money on Mason [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I am a betting man and would be willing to wager a sizeable amount that Sklansky (and Miller, but he is just MIT, not genius) would agree with me that, given the assumptions Mason has laid out, JJ is the better hand in this situation, where better is defined as the higher +EV hand that you would rather hold in the situation as defined by Mason.

[El Diablo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, but I have had enough. I'll let others elaborate.

MM

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason, no-one is going to elaborate, because no-one has a f'ing clue what you are getting at.

JG

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I elaborated in detailed and showed exactly what Mason was getting at and where he got tripped up in his analysis.

What Mason got right was that given a certain set of simple assumptions, it is better (more +EV) for AQs to call than to fold.

However, Mason erred in extrapolating from that into believing that that fact made AQs a preferable hand to JJ in this specific situation.

Mason did half the work in his analysis. He figured out that AQs was +EV of 15. However, the conclusion he reached, that this made AQs better than JJ, is flawed. This is because he forgot about the fact that both of these hands can be +EV in this situation given the dead money in the pot. So, while AQs is +EV, JJ is still more +EV, and thus the better, more profitable hand, which the player should prefer to have.

[Mark1808]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess you missed the part where I showed that using Mason's assumptions, we can mathematically prove that JJ has the higher EV. Thanks for coming out, though, chief.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if AQ reraises $150 instead of calling, now the action is on JJ. Use your rationale to compute the better hand and then you will see why your thinking is faulty.

[Leptyne]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The question is, Would you rather be reraising $150 with JJ or calling $110 as AQ given the fact that JJ acts first after the flop and makes a continuation bet of 3/4 of the pot?

AQ has a higher EV than JJ in this case, but this is not saying its a better hand!! It says given the amount of the reraise over the original bet and the fact JJ makes a continuation bet out of position AQ is a better hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, isn't JJ in position?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahhhh, ya gotta love this. What started out to be a good discussion has deteriorated because so many posters clearly don't understand what is being discussed.

[El Diablo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess you missed the part where I showed that using Mason's assumptions, we can mathematically prove that JJ has the higher EV. Thanks for coming out, though, chief.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if AQ reraises $150 instead of calling, now the action is on JJ. Use your rationale to compute the better hand and then you will see why your thinking is faulty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Feel free to do any math you would like to try and disprove what I've shown. Until you do that...

I'm sorry, but I have had enough. I'll let others elaborate.

[Tao_Jones]

I'm confused [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] WTF really wants to call a re-raise with AQs in a relatively deep 100/bb cash game, especialy OOP, in the first place? This entire thread is mental masturbation.

I think id probably want 45 clubs alot more than AQ if the stacks are 150bb's+++

ElD and Flynn I think you did fine jobs on this thread and I apprecite your contributions.

Mason I love the "no wonder these games are so bad" line, my sides hurt for ten minutes.

PS if you ever want to play 5/10 NL HU with me online please be sure to PM me.

[img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[slong]

Dear Mark1808:

You are mistaken. I'll let others elaborate.

best wishes,
slong

EDIT: damnit El Diablo beat me to it

[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Mark:

[ QUOTE ]
We are looking at the point in time that JJ has made it $150; who would you rather be the J making it $150 or the AQ calling $110?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly right and may be a point that is confusing many. If Player A, who holds the ace-queen suited, chooses to fold, his expectation from that point on zero. If he chooses to play, and perhaps follows the strategy I outlined and it gives him a positive expectation from that point on, then that positive expectation must come from somewhere. In this case it can only come from Player B who holds the jacks. Thus Player B's expectation is now negative from that point on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't going to reply to this thread because it is so convoluted and filled with detailed refutations that I thought another one wouldn't do much good.

But the flaw in Mason's logic is very concisely displayed in the quoted post, so I thought I would point it out. The bold is mine.

It is true that the positive expectation of AQs has to come from somewhere, but it comes from the dead money in the pot, not from JJ. JJ, as others have calculated, has a higher positive expectation, which also comes from the dead money in the pot.

This is a situation where both the bettor and the caller are making a positive expectation play. A limit expert such as Mason should be familiar with this concept; I'm amazed that he got it wrong. He might as well be saying you would rather be the flush draw than a made hand when a made hand bets 1 BB into a 12BB pot on the turn. The flush draw has positive expectation and it must be coming from somewhere. The made hand would prefer a fold (as would JJ here), but that is not the same thing as the flush draw (or AQ) having a higher expectation than the made hand after the call.

By calling the 110 AQs is claiming his portion of the money that was in the pot before JJ's reraise. For it to be true that AQs has a higher expectation than JJ after the flop call, AQs would have to have an additional postflop advantage that Mason never claimed it had and which it clearly does not. Indeed, it would seem JJ in position has the postflop edge, although not enough to make the call a negative expectation call for AQs, given the dead money in the pot.

I am also amazed at the arrogance and condescension Mason has displayed in defending this position, all while making such a fundamental theoretical error.

[Jacques]

I'd be willing to bet with you but only if Barron Vangor Toth is the one doing the final analysis.

[Mark1808]

[ QUOTE ]

Feel free to do any math you would like to try and disprove what I've shown. Until you do that...

I'm sorry, but I have had enough. I'll let others elaborate.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the JJ example you said the $150 reraise was allready in the pot so it was not part of his negative EV. Well, what if AQ would reraise $150 instead of call, now according to your thinking AQ's $300 is already in the pot and not part of its negative EV and JJ has a decison to call $150. So AQ can only lose the 4% of the time J flops with A or Q because 67% of the time it will miss the flop and fold, and according to your previous logic the $300 was dead money and not a loss because AQ had already raised.

For the poster who said JJ had position please reread the original post by Mason and you will see that he said

What happen was that a player raised to $40 and then got reraised to $150. The original raiser then folded and showed AQ. His opponent then showed JJ.

JJ could have limped reraised or been in the blinds it is unclear. But the hypothesis is position or not JJ will make a 3/4 pot continuation bet no matter what. Meaning if he acts first or it is checked to him.

I noticed most dissenting post are filled with vitrolic language which is very unprofessional. If you disagree state your case, you are all giveig poker players a bad image! LOFL!