Donkey Test

[gedanken]

goofball question. I said bad flop, bet.

I want the testmaker to define "bad flop". It's bad to me because the J or 9 is likely to have given him a pair or draw. It's low enough that he's likely to suspect it missed us. It's a pretty good flop to cbet, though, and we'll probably pick up the pot.

I also bet to "protect" my hand and promote calls on future flop bets, but I think there's a higher-than-usual chance he's calling or checkraising and I'm going to have to let go. If I knew how to float, maybe I'd try that instead. Checking behind might really be better, since I have some chance to improve, so a free card helps me, maybe more than him.

[gedanken]

[ QUOTE ]

the fact that he plays the hand exactly like a straightforward player would play a flush draw should set of alarms immediately

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
On the flop, he's getting 1.5:1 pot odds which should discourage him from chasing a flush draw normally. Yet he calls...

The river now completes the flush draw and goes over the top by betting 3 times the pot. If he had the flush, would he really try to scare us off like that??

[/ QUOTE ]

nice points, very nice. The film had actually had some good poker.

[Fiepoto]

wow, crashzzz! I've heard countless players comment on that scene and almost to the one, they all say that it's a cooler.

Your analysis is the best I've heard on that scence. It was a cooler, but it should have been a call, not a raise all-in.

One might also add that KGB gave "a speech" before calling the preflop bet.

[crashzzz]

thanks... [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

But Seidel was in a tournament at the final table, heads-up. So, re-raising all-in was the right thing to do in his case...

(his bankroll, wasn't in danger, he was well in the money at second place)

[Sentinell]

I don't like the question. They say "You think he rivered the flush.", but we know it's a wrong read because of the movie. But still, as long as we think he rivered the flush we have no choice but to go all-in, do we?

[Fiepoto]

A few people have posted that they know where one can find the correct answers (according to the test makers). If you do, please make a post and provide a link, or just post the answers on to this thread.

Much appreciated!

[crashzzz]

back to question 51...

let's calculate our EV if we've gone all-in...

Say, we have reason to believe he could be bluffing (and why not after all? we've both shown sign of weakness by checking the turn). So there is a 10~20% chance he could be bluffing, let's make it 10%.

If we push all-in, he'll definitely call with AA, probably call with 89, he'll be more hesitant with 88, if he did have a flush, he would be more incline to fold.

Of the possible hands we've put him on the flop, he could have: AhAd,8s8h,8d8h,8s8d,8s9h,8d9h,8h9h,TsJs,JsQs. So a total of 9 possible hands.

1 out of 9(11%), he'll calls with AA.
3 out of 9(33%), he'll call ~30% of the time with 88
3 out of 9(33%), he'll call ~50% of the time with 89
2 out of 9(22%), he'll fold with his flush.

so he'll fold 50% of the time when he doesn't have AA.

EV=(19550$)(.10) + (-49000$)(.11)(.90) + (19550$)(.50)(.90) + (53550$)(.38)(.9) == +24215$

let's be conservative, and say he's bluffing 10% of the time, has AA 33% of the time, a weaker full house the rest of the time (57%). To which, he'll only call with his 89 only half of the time (he has 6 possible weaker full house, 3 of which are with 89, ie 1.5out6 he'll call), so (.57)(.25)= 14.25%

EV=(19550$)(.10) + (-49000$)(.33) + (19550$)(.57-.1425) + (53550$)(.1425) = 1955$ - 16170$ + 8357$ + 7630$ == +1772$

still making it a positive EV going all-in in a conservative scenario.

If it wasn't our entire saving on the line, all-in is the right call. Since our entire saving is on the line, hey! I'm allowed to be conservative and just call no? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[JPajamas]

[ QUOTE ]
A few people have posted that they know where one can find the correct answers (according to the test makers). If you do, please make a post and provide a link, or just post the answers on to this thread.

A few people was just me...I'll hang on until Monday, to give more people to weigh in on various questions, and then I'll post an answer key that gives a score of 156...(I'm stumped at finding the last 2 correct answers...or the one BIG answer). So, as a group, how does everyone think WE ranked?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ev_slave]

[ QUOTE ]
wow, crashzzz! I've heard countless players comment on that scene and almost to the one, they all say that it's a cooler.

Your analysis is the best I've heard on that scence. It was a cooler, but it should have been a call, not a raise all-in.

One might also add that KGB gave "a speech" before calling the preflop bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

The DVD has commentary on that seen with pros telling you what's up. They unanimously concur that you should always avoid raising the nuts.

But the standard "what can he call with?" question can save you money here. An all-in will make flushes fold, it's possible the little-house can call, but the big-house is calling 100% of the time. Call is higher EV.

[crashzzz]

[ QUOTE ]
..Call is higher EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

indeed...

let's take back my EV estimation from my previous post, where we would call instead of raising all-in in my conservative scenario.

EV=(19550$)(.10) + (-15000$)(.33) + (19550$)(.57) = 1955$ - 4950$ + 11143.50$ == +8148.50$

Calling here would have a higher EV (instead of +1772$ for going AI).

On a side note, if we believe he is less likely to be holding AA, and more willing to call with a weaker hand, going all-in would have a better EV.
EV=(19550$)(.10) + (-15000$)(.11)(.90) + (19550$)(.88)(.90) == +15953.60$ (instead of +24215$)

Meaning, the worst you think the player is, the better it is to go all-in for a higher EV. I think that should make sense, no?