RAZZ - PStars weird 4th street call

[jbrennen]

If you raise this hand on 3rd street and he folds, you get 50c profit on the hand. That is exactly half a big bet, so every time that you raise and he folds, you are winning at a rate of +50 BB/100 hands. Is that a good enough win rate for you? Do you see why you want to win the hand on 3rd street?

By limping on 3rd street, you're more or less betting that you can do better than +50 BB/100 against this opponent even when you give him a free card. Obviously, that's your call, but any Razz hand that I take down on 3rd street unopposed is a big win in my mind.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
But I think seminar, not lecture hall. I'm sorry you think that isn't sufficiently respectful. It is not my intention to appear to discount what people say. This is just how I learn. It's how a lot of people learn, like lurkers who haven't the personality to just come out and argue with the "professors." I do.

[/ QUOTE ]

then please start arguing about a point that actually makes sense and not something like "well I'm going to slowplay a hand whose equity will so drastically change on fourth that third street equity will be totally irrelevant."

ps: you *want* him to reraise when at all possible, so you can 3 bet as a favorite.

[SGspecial]

[ QUOTE ]
But I think seminar, not lecture hall. I'm sorry you think that isn't sufficiently respectful. It is not my intention to appear to discount what people say. This is just how I learn. It's how a lot of people learn, like lurkers who haven't the personality to just come out and argue with the "professors." I do.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have no problem with people questioning authority, or questioning the experts. I personally believe a lot of experts are way off the mark, and have said so. Discourse is great, and really the only reason to post in the forum in the first place. I know you took a lot of [censored] for your OP (and were obv ready for it) but you don't learn much by simply getting defensive about the plays you made. I don't mean to come off as snooty, and I was just having a little fun piling on with the weed brownies comment (plus, I think I flamed seat 8 for his missed steal as much as I flamed you). Argue away, but if you want to get better then bring some hard evidence to back it up.

[Praxising]

[ QUOTE ]
then please start arguing about a point that actually makes sense and not something like "well I'm going to slowplay a hand whose equity will so drastically change on fourth that third street equity will be totally irrelevant."

ps: you *want* him to reraise when at all possible, so you can 3 bet as a favorite.

[/ QUOTE ]
adanthar, I will tell you a secret: I have no idea what you just said. I don't know why him reraising makes me a favorite, or why the "equity" will "drastically change" on fourth or why that would make 3rd st equity, whatever that is, irrelevant. I don't understand this way of thinking, I am not arguing with it or criticizing it, I am telling you quite straightforwardly, it is like listening to someone speak a different language.

There are a lot of players like me. A lot of winning players, believe it or not, though at Razz I am still to new to have achieved that.

Anyway, thank you for trying.

[Praxising]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no problem with people questioning authority, or questioning the experts. I personally believe a lot of experts are way off the mark, and have said so. Discourse is great, and really the only reason to post in the forum in the first place. I know you took a lot of [censored] for your OP (and were obv ready for it) but you don't learn much by simply getting defensive about the plays you made.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess it came off as defensive because there is no tone of voice online. SG, I'm not sensitive, been online since dinosaurs roamed the halls of Microsoft, survived the creation/evolution debate. I feel in my gut that this was not a badly-played hand. I think it looks like caca. I think I'm trying to figure something out and this debate, as it were, is helping.

Oh, hey, you remember the "call a brick on fourth" debate? That helped me unravel somethings about that - and you don't always fold, but you need special circumstances to call. I finally realized that I was sort of subconsciously recognizing those and when I would call it would usally work out well. So I made a rule for myself to always call one brick. Bad rule. Almost any "always/never" rule is -EV in poker. But the discussion it made me see how many calls I shouldn't have made when I figured out why I should have called some of them. So now, I probably call more than you do, but I call about 50% less than before.

[ QUOTE ]
I was just having a little fun piling on with the weed brownies comment (plus, I think I flamed seat 8 for his missed steal as much as I flamed you). Argue away, but if you want to get better then bring some hard evidence to back it up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I graduated from high school in 1968. I invented weed brownies! (I also refined internet flaming in the early 90s until I remembered I was trying to be a Christian. )

[Andy B]

Heh, I'm one of the geezers on here and I was born in 1968. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Raise third for crying out loud. After that, the first spot I see where I would put any chips in the pot is sixth.

[Praxising]

[ QUOTE ]
But you're also putting him on garbage here when he bets 4th and doesn't that mean you're going to stay in longer and give him more money if he makes a hand?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, it seemed like a horserace all the way through.

[ QUOTE ]
Raising 3rd gives him an option to make a mistake, and instead he gets to play optimally.

[/ QUOTE ]"An option to make a mistake." Huh. I hadn't thought of it that way, before. Yeah, I was trying to control it - so..hmmmm.

Thanks, Rusty

[blumpkin]

lol OP, to understand poker and play well, especially in games like razz, you need to understand the concepts that you so foolishly dismissed when you said you had no idea what adanthar was talking about. it is blatantly clear that you cannot be a winning player. since i assume you are posting hands to try and improve and win at this game, i would suggest you try and understand the comments people are making concerning this hand.

[Praxising]

[ QUOTE ]
If you raise this hand on 3rd street and he folds, you get 50c profit on the hand. That is exactly half a big bet, so every time that you raise and he folds, you are winning at a rate of +50 BB/100 hands. Is that a good enough win rate for you? Do you see why you want to win the hand on 3rd street?

By limping on 3rd street, you're more or less betting that you can do better than +50 BB/100 against this opponent even when you give him a free card. Obviously, that's your call, but any Razz hand that I take down on 3rd street unopposed is a big win in my mind.

[/ QUOTE ]OK, don't try to explain how you got 50BB per 100, I'll just trust you. So, are you talking about risk/reward ratio, which is an anthropological concept I do understand?

[RustyBrooks]

[ QUOTE ]
An option to make a mistake." Huh. I hadn't thought of it that way, before. Yeah, I was trying to control it - so..hmmmm.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'd highly recommend reading Sklansky's Theory of Poker, as he discusses this kind of thing from the get-go. His Fundamental Theorem of Poker is: if you can make your opponent do something other than what he would do if he could see your cards, you win, and if he does the same thing he would do if he saw your cards, you lose.

So, in the immediate case, he'd generally be correct to fold if you bet 3rd and therefore if you bet, you're trying to make him fold, but you're *rooting* for a call, or even a *raise* because you're ahead and a call or a raise is only correct if your hand is worse.

I see what you're *going* for here, you're making a tactical mistake yourself in an effort to have him make a larger one later, but unfortunately you're in a situation where it's tough to predict what 4th will bring. Sklansky says giving a free card to induce a mistake is OK pretty much if and only if it's relatively non-risky to do so. Like... say you have a made 7 on 5th and your opponent is showing xx58T. He *can not* improve to beat you on 6th (although he can pick up a redraw to beat you) so giving him a little leash here can induce a mistake on later streets, ESPECIALLY since you've displayed weakness and ESPECIALLY because he might make an 8 or 9 on a later street and pay you off. In order to make this move, though, you have to be able to a) predict that the outcome will usually be favorable for you and b) not pay his ass off if he catches against all odds.