easy fold 4th? (Razz)

[Praxising]

[ QUOTE ]
I actually think that is a good book and chapter. However, OP didn't jam 3rd. He didn't even complete it. Sklansky says to fold 4th in a raised pot if you brick. This is an unraised pot.

I don't know why this thread has 27 posts. All the middle + stake players are saying fold. Calling is a calling station play.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I am disagreeing. And no one has any real evidence I am wrong. Rusty has the only actual results from play and his data doesn't contradict me. But also is likely not real significant at this point.

I just got my copy of SoP today and he doesn't say it in such a cut and dried way. And if he did, I'd disagree with him, also, unless there were better arguments than the ones here.

I'm not saying I am right, I'm saying I disagree. Shall we agree to disagree?

[RustyBrooks]

The other thing to consider that is hard to datamine is who do *I* call bricks against? Well, people who have shown propensity to bluff every street with no low, or call down showing QJQT or similar bull crap. I guaruntee that I am folding a brick to most tight players who have not shown a propensity to get out of line (well. I probably have made a few frustration calls)

Edit: and I probably fold a fair amount of the time to people who DO get out of line.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I actually think that is a good book and chapter. However, OP didn't jam 3rd. He didn't even complete it. Sklansky says to fold 4th in a raised pot if you brick. This is an unraised pot.

I don't know why this thread has 27 posts. All the middle + stake players are saying fold. Calling is a calling station play.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I am disagreeing. And no one has any real evidence I am wrong. Rusty has the only actual results from play and his data doesn't contradict me. But also is likely not real significant at this point.

I just got my copy of SoP today and he doesn't say it in such a cut and dried way. And if he did, I'd disagree with him, also, unless there were better arguments than the ones here.

I'm not saying I am right, I'm saying I disagree. Shall we agree to disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]
He won the hand, so the play is good? This is very elementary that it is bad. Even if you are slightly ahead, you are at a disadvantage having the worst board. You almost certainly had the best hand on 3rd, but you still cannot call now.

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's hard to analyze a hand like Ivey's out of context (which I think is Ad's point), but in general assuming that pros play razz well (even the great Phil Ivey) and emulating their play can make an ass of u (and hopefully not me).

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, we don't want to Play Poker Like the Pros, that's fer sure! BTW, in that book, Hellmuth advises jamming third so you don't fold if a brick hits.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's one point of consensus among most razzers is that if a double bet (or more) was put in on 3rd that there's enough in the pot to justify calling with any brick, so long as your 3-card hand is low and live. Now I'm not saying you should play exactly like Hellmuth preaches in all other respects, but you do need to ask yourself a question:

"Do I want to play in a manner that will best exploit the 0.25/0.50 games or do I want to learn how to play a more solid game and beat the bigger stakes when I'm rolled for them?"

[/ QUOTE ]

clarification - if a double bet occurs on 3rd street, the hero is likely drawing better than the villain, the hero's outs are live, and the hero is closing the action assuring its going to be heads up.

Hero is 4:1 against catching perfect vs one opponent, but that only means he is drawing for 1 card, and the villain may be drawing for a 1 card low as well. This situation has tremendous reverse implied odds considerations that must be faced every time, so the 4:1 calculation must be weighed against the range of hands the villain likely holds as well.

All in all, this is a clear fold on 4th street as others have pointed out (I'm just helping SG, he already laid it out pretty good). This is a spot where the hero is better off coming back to fight another day. Peeling here is a leak, it is evidence of a misunderstanding of the games fundamentals.

On the bright side most villain's peel here, thats actually good for us in the long run [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[RustyBrooks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I actually think that is a good book and chapter. However, OP didn't jam 3rd. He didn't even complete it. Sklansky says to fold 4th in a raised pot if you brick. This is an unraised pot.

I don't know why this thread has 27 posts. All the middle + stake players are saying fold. Calling is a calling station play.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I am disagreeing. And no one has any real evidence I am wrong. Rusty has the only actual results from play and his data doesn't contradict me. But also is likely not real significant at this point.

I just got my copy of SoP today and he doesn't say it in such a cut and dried way. And if he did, I'd disagree with him, also, unless there were better arguments than the ones here.

I'm not saying I am right, I'm saying I disagree. Shall we agree to disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]
He won the hand, so the play is good? This is very elementary that it is bad. Even if you are slightly ahead, you are at a disadvantage having the worst board. You almost certainly had the best hand on 3rd, but you still cannot call now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually he's referring to some datamining that I did, not my play (I was not in this hand). FWIW I'm trying to prove that calling 4th is wrong by looking at hard data, but I don't have enough or I'm making a mistake.

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I actually think that is a good book and chapter. However, OP didn't jam 3rd. He didn't even complete it. Sklansky says to fold 4th in a raised pot if you brick. This is an unraised pot.

I don't know why this thread has 27 posts. All the middle + stake players are saying fold. Calling is a calling station play.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I am disagreeing. And no one has any real evidence I am wrong. Rusty has the only actual results from play and his data doesn't contradict me. But also is likely not real significant at this point.

I just got my copy of SoP today and he doesn't say it in such a cut and dried way. And if he did, I'd disagree with him, also, unless there were better arguments than the ones here.

I'm not saying I am right, I'm saying I disagree. Shall we agree to disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]
He won the hand, so the play is good? This is very elementary that it is bad. Even if you are slightly ahead, you are at a disadvantage having the worst board. You almost certainly had the best hand on 3rd, but you still cannot call now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually he's referring to some datamining that I did, not my play (I was not in this hand). FWIW I'm trying to prove that calling 4th is wrong by looking at hard data, but I don't have enough or I'm making a mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you looking for in your hard data?

[RustyBrooks]

[ QUOTE ]
What are you looking for in your hard data?

[/ QUOTE ]

First, my hands, because I have way more hands on myself than the next person down, but next I looked at all the people I had 2k+ hands on. I just isn't enough though. However, all of them showed less loss by calling a TJQK on 4th than folding.

[RustyBrooks]

Oh, whoops, I misread you question. I thought you asked where I was looking for hard data.

OK, well, I'm going through every hand where I saw 4th, I hit a brick, and one of my opponents did not. If I folded, then obviously I subtract whatever I put in to that point. If I did not fold, I tally up my win/loss amount for those hands. So based on the total lost by foldings divided by the number of hands, vs the same calculation made for calling, I have found that myself and some other people who I have a 2k of hand data on have made money when we called.

[jbrennen]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, well, I'm going through every hand where I saw 4th, I hit a brick, and one of my opponents did not. If I folded, then obviously I subtract whatever I put in to that point. If I did not fold, I tally up my win/loss amount for those hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would take issue with your methodology. I think that the correct way would be to consider folding your hand on 4th street to have 0 EV. (Any money that you already put into the pot isn't yours any longer, so tracking how much of it might have been yours at one point is really pointless for evaluating subsequent play...) For those hands where you didn't fold on 4th street, take the value of your eventual share of the pot, and subtract the total amount that you put in on 4th street or later.

[RustyBrooks]

Well, I see your point, but I'm not sure I agree. We're standing at the starting line, before 4th comes out, and saying, if I brick, and he doesn't, I'm going to fold. Which is basically saying, every time I put a sb in the pot prefourth, I'm giving up 25% of it (approximately) right off the bat voluntarily.

Also, I don't think you can ever consider folding to be an 0ev situation. You are always giving up the portion of the pot that is due to you by EV calculations.

In essence I'm trying to compare two different people, one who never folds to a brick and one who always does, to see who makes more money in that situation than the other. They both happen to be me.