|
|
#321
11-17-2005, 03:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Player Discussion
Ok, I never finished high school and I suck at no limit (as well as several other forms of poker) but I am prepared to elaborate on Mason's behalf.
After JJ's raise, AQs needs to call $110 If he instead folds JJ takes the pot of $205 which includes his $150 bet Using numbers from Mason and agreed upon by El Diablo 67% of the time AQs loses $110 (his original $40 is dead money) 26% of the time AQs wins $430 (210 + 225 continuation bet) 7% of the time AQs loses $335 (110 + 225 call of cont. bet) EV = $14.65 67% of the time JJ wins $110 (we ignore the rest which he would have won anyhow had AQs folded) 26% of the time JJ loses $375 (150 + 225) 7% of the time JJ wins $335 (110 + 225 again ignoring anything in the pot before AQs called the reraise) EV = 40c This is what Mason is trying to say. Whether you like the way he ignores the original $55 in the pot when JJ puts in the reraise or not, tough nuts. That's the way he couched the problem in his head. Any attempt at refuting my numbers will be ignored. I'm done with this thread. 
|
|
#322
11-17-2005, 03:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Player Discussion
Mason: "hmmm need publicity & controvosy for book,
I know i'll post something controversial and use my image and said pointless controvosy to get 28000 views of my thread, yeah" then halfway through thread: "oh, uh, i'm actually wrong. oooh I know lets do lots of replies to all but the serious questions, end them all with 'best wishes', and imply a fermat; 'I have a wonderful solution to this problem, but there isnt enough room in this margin' "
|
|
#324
11-17-2005, 04:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Analysis
Personally, I'm confused as to which "others" are supposed to explain here. There are no "others", unless Sklansky/Miller somehow agree with Mason and can prove it (which is pretty much impossible, given the math clearly shows JJ has higher +EV in the situation Mason described). Somehow I doubt Sklansky/Miller would even agree with the original statement, and I assume thats why they have refrained from responding.
Although saying "you have had enough" may have been +EV, as you were not getting anywhere avoiding the original question, it would have been more +EV to admit your mistake, as illustrated by Diablo's simple math. Do you see why? P.S. I'm still going to buy the Miller/Sklansky book, and I don't think this thread should discourage anyone else from doing so.
|
|
#325
11-17-2005, 04:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Analysis
Anybody but me have serious doubts about the skills at nl sklansky/miller have? Seems to me mason must have discussed this with them and still decided to post that crappy followup. Why dont they do some real research and actually put in the hours; playing 500k hands at 5/10 or something. Would take 3 months if they all three decided to play. If they dont do this I see no other solution than KKF cowriting the book.. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
|
#327
11-17-2005, 04:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Analysis
[ QUOTE ]
Anybody but me have serious doubts about the skills at nl sklansky/miller have? Seems to me mason must have discussed this with them and still decided to post that crappy followup. Why dont they do some real research and actually put in the hours; playing 500k hands at 5/10 or something. Would take 3 months if they all three decided to play. If they dont do this I see no other solution than KKF cowriting the book.. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] I think there is a good chance the book will contain a lot of solid material that will be much better than anything that has been written before but that will simultaneously be very familiar, even simple, to the most knowledgeable twoplustwo members. HOH II is a good model for this phenomenon. (Perhaps HOH I was too, but I had barely played NL before reading it, so it was my source for a lot of what many better players already knew). I don't know how good a book it will be, and I think it will be worth buying, but I will definitely be skimming it in the bookstore before I buy. I am nearly certain I would not buy a NL book by Mason after this thread.
|
|
#328
11-17-2005, 05:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Analysis
I guess I'm a little late to this thread but...
.. in a coin flip, would you rather have a made hand or have to make a hand? I'll take JJ over AQ preflop... even more so in a full ring game than shorthanded. As to why... I'll let you think about that. :-)
|
|
#329
11-17-2005, 06:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Player Discussion
Penn Engineering: I think your math works out fine.
I also think I'll Let Others Elaborate (ILOE) could find a place in the glossary they provide here. To explain, they can just link it to this thread. Cheers
|
|
#330
11-17-2005, 06:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Player Discussion
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, I never finished high school and I suck at no limit (as well as several other forms of poker) but I am prepared to elaborate on Mason's behalf. After JJ's raise, AQs needs to call $110 If he instead folds JJ takes the pot of $205 which includes his $150 bet Using numbers from Mason and agreed upon by El Diablo 67% of the time AQs loses $110 (his original $40 is dead money) 26% of the time AQs wins $430 (210 + 225 continuation bet) 7% of the time AQs loses $335 (110 + 225 call of cont. bet) EV = $14.65 67% of the time JJ wins $110 (we ignore the rest which he would have won anyhow had AQs folded) 26% of the time JJ loses $375 (150 + 225) 7% of the time JJ wins $335 (110 + 225 again ignoring anything in the pot before AQs called the reraise) EV = 40c This is what Mason is trying to say. Whether you like the way he ignores the original $55 in the pot when JJ puts in the reraise or not, tough nuts. That's the way he couched the problem in his head. Any attempt at refuting my numbers will be ignored. I'm done with this thread. [/ QUOTE ] Your EV calc is wrong because you're effectively saying that only AQ is capable of winning the dead money - when JJ wins you're not counting the dead money. Consistency is your friend in EV calculations ... Anyways, El D is right, it looks like Mason only hatched out half the problem and saw that it was +EV for AQ to call and then assumed that this resulted in a -EV postflop for JJ. Whereas, in truth, the +EV for AQ is a result of the dead money (it lowers JJ's EV but not to the point that it becomes less than AQ's). mj p.s. I'm not buying the book unless he admits to being wrong and apologizes for the condescending tone (and even then, maybe not).
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
