|
|
#101
10-22-2007, 10:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: QQ from upfront early in Warmup...Is this ok?
Definitely a POY candidate, PM. A+
|
|
#102
10-22-2007, 10:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: this post is not about Baltostar
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The "implied odds", which is really the implied expectation, are what you expect to win if you hit, multiplied by the percentage that you hit. It's really that simple. And flopping a set or better is 7.5:1... [/ QUOTE ] Does this mean if villain had you covered you would call mostly any amount as long as there were 7.5:1 ratio of what you can win and how much it is to call? This can't be right. I am trying to develop a shorter hand way of figuring out when to call with small pairs for set odds (I only play live so don't fiddle w/numbers as much as I should). How does your stack and villain's play come into this equations (I realize with smaller stacks and w/a villain that won't stack off w/1 pair calling is less desirable, but how do you account for them mathmatically?). [/ QUOTE ] The answer to your question is no. You have to make an assessment of "what you expect to win", not "what you can win", which is an assessment of many factors, including the depth of the stacks, the strength of your opponent's hand and his ability to get away from a big hand. I don't believe hard-and-fast rules are achievable given the number of variables involved. Obviously, if you cannot win better than 7.5x your risk, you should not call for the sole purpose of flopping a set. And anything close to 7.5x undoubtedly isn't worth it either. In Shannon's hand, the Villain raised the UTG raiser, which indicates that he has a very big hand, which signals that he's probably willing to put a lot more chips in the pot postflop. Set mining against people who have made a standard postflop raise from middle or late position is almost invariably a mistake, since there's no reason to think their hand is very strong. Of course, there are often many reasons to call with a pair other than just set mining. Here are two examples from the Caesar's $10K event I just busted out of which show my thought process in two set-mining hands. First, blinds 50/100, very laggy player raises UTG to 250, UTG+2 calls 250, MP1 who's been very active raises to 1250 (this shows he has a big hand since he's putting in a 3bet of a UTG raise, albeit from a laggy player, with many people yet to act behind him), CO calls 1250, Button calls 1250, I look down at 22 in the SB. Since UTG is super laggy in opening but has never 4bet, I don't give him credit for much of a hand and I'm not very worried that he's going to reraise everyone. I figure if I call, the pot will be so big that UTG and UTG+2 will call as well. At that point, the pot will have 7600 in it. Someone is going to have to bet at least 3-4K into a pot that big to try to take it down, so I figure the minimum I will win if I flop a set is 9500 (10600-1250) or so, and there's a good chance of winning a lot more since MP1 has a hand he might not be able to fold. Everyone has at least 13K to start the hand. So I called, UTG and UTG+2 did not, which means I was overly optimistic. Flop: K Q 2, two spades, I checked, checked around to CO who bet 2K, I moved all in for about 12K more, everyone folded, CO thought forever and made a terrible call with AK, I doubled up. Second example: 100/200, loose EP limps, loose MP limps, button who has about 27K raises to 1000, I look down at 55 in the BB with 25K. This was again a situation where I thought the two limpers would follow if I called, since they had done so in similar situations, which would create a big bet on the flop, so I called. Neither limper had limp/reraised all day, so I wasn't worried about that. Additionally, the Button had shown a tendency to stick with big hands rather than folding them, which is what you want. The 2 limpers both folded, so much for my analysis, making me overly optimistically wrong again. Flop: J 5 3, two hearts. I check, Button bets 1500, I raise to 4500, he raises to 12K, I move allin, he instacalls and turns over JJ. GG me. I think the preflop call in the second hand is marginal, the one in the first hand is the type of call I think you have to make in playing to win. [/ QUOTE ] Good post Todd, addresses many of the issues I have been thinking about and further confirmation that I set-mine too much. BTW, I really don't think you were "wrong" in first post about UTG and UTG+2 not calling - that had to be a mistake on their part given pot odds. Maybe hand 2 is less more marginal call.
|
|
#104
10-23-2007, 03:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: QQ from upfront early in Warmup...Is this ok?
[ QUOTE ]
Please believe me, I have been diligently studying poker for 2 years, including every respected book written on NLHE (just now starting on Ed Miller's latest.) You have to understand I have multiple degrees in math, engineering, computer science, and I've been gambling in varous forms for almost 15 years, and I can't help it if I notice serious flaws in mechanisms of thought that have become de rigeur in the poker community. [/ QUOTE ] Ok... Noted... [ QUOTE ] The importance of relative stack risk considerations become apparent if you scale up the scenarios: Imagine a tournament where every time you limp or call to play for set value you are not raised. Now imagine an identical tournament but where every time you limp or call to play for set value you are min-raised and you call the raise (because you calculate your given implied odds based on cost-of-call and they always exceed your calculated required implied-odds). In the 2nd tournament, on avg lose you twice as much stack utility each time you miss your set. You are much more likely to do well in the 1st tournament than in the 2nd. Now play 1000 type 1 tournaments, and a 1000 type 2s. All else equal, the type 1 tournaments have significantly larger $EV. The real problem with only concentrating on cost-to-call is that players tend to get pulled into assuming excessive relative stack risk. Opportunities tend to look better than they really are when rated on a relative basis. [/ QUOTE ] So... Multiple degrees in maths, engineering and computer science you said. Then you should know the importance of backing up your claims with a valid proof. Since I happen to have a Master of Science in computer science I know this is something they teach you during the first year when introducing abstract algebra and logics. And your example of the two tournaments is _not_ (NOT!) a valid proof that you have to take previously invested money into consideration when you calculate current odds. As already stated, this is something you have to account for before you make the initial call/raise, but I think most posters here in HSMTT know that. So... No Q.E.D at the end of your post. [ QUOTE ] If you have some other way to adjust for this problem, more power to you. What works for me when deciding when to play across events is to consider total chip outlay in relation to max payoff. [/ QUOTE ] If your opinion of 'works for me' is equal to cashing in 1/3 18-man tournaments, more power to you.
|
|
#105
10-23-2007, 04:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: QQ from upfront early in Warmup...Is this ok?
I’ve known Baltostar for quite some time, and I don’t find it the least bit surprising that his way of thinking has encountered opposition on a public message forum.
He may have mentioned his background in trading, but he probably neglected to reveal his other talents, and I assure you if you were aware of them, you would not be so quick to dismiss his advice. From a garage in Ohio, Baltostar developed a visual language he calls the “Logic Alphabet,” in which a group of specially designed letter-shapes are maneuvered like puzzle pieces to reveal the geometric patterns hidden beneath the symbolic web. For the last five years, Baltostar has been exploring the symmetries and relations inherent in these patterns, which he has made manifest in a series of delicately crafted wooden models and in thousands of pages of diagrams. Baltostar’s work is based on a discovery that the logic on which our computers run is allied with a geometric structure whose form is a tesseract, or four-dimensional cube. Much of his work over the past half-century has aimed at identifying the one, two and three-dimensional subsets of this group of symmetrical relations. The resulting models and diagrams, often crystalline in nature, constitute a genuine research project in logic while simultaneously passing through distinct aesthetic phases. Most importantly, these models enable us to manipulate logic symbols spatially. The parallels between his research and the game of poker are obvious. You should listen to what he has to say.
|
|
#107
10-23-2007, 04:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: QQ from upfront early in Warmup...Is this ok?
[ QUOTE ]
I’ve known Baltostar for quite some time, and I don’t find it the least bit surprising that his way of thinking has encountered opposition on a public message forum. He may have mentioned his background in trading, but he probably neglected to reveal his other talents, and I assure you if you were aware of them, you would not be so quick to dismiss his advice. From a garage in Ohio, Baltostar developed a visual language he calls the “Logic Alphabet,” in which a group of specially designed letter-shapes are maneuvered like puzzle pieces to reveal the geometric patterns hidden beneath the symbolic web. For the last five years, Baltostar has been exploring the symmetries and relations inherent in these patterns, which he has made manifest in a series of delicately crafted wooden models and in thousands of pages of diagrams. Baltostar’s work is based on a discovery that the logic on which our computers run is allied with a geometric structure whose form is a tesseract, or four-dimensional cube. Much of his work over the past half-century has aimed at identifying the one, two and three-dimensional subsets of this group of symmetrical relations. The resulting models and diagrams, often crystalline in nature, constitute a genuine research project in logic while simultaneously passing through distinct aesthetic phases. Most importantly, these models enable us to manipulate logic symbols spatially. The parallels between his research and the game of poker are obvious. You should listen to what he has to say. [/ QUOTE ] Interesting, because reading this actually makes me want to NOT listen to what he has to say even more than before
|
|
#109
10-23-2007, 05:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: QQ from upfront early in Warmup...Is this ok?
[ QUOTE ]
You should listen to what he has to say. [/ QUOTE ] I have no doubts at all baltostar is an intelligent human being and he's obviously doing a lot of studying in the area of poker. But, why should we listen to what he has to say, when he simply cannot listen to what others, professional poker players with several 100K in lifetime winnings, have to say? It's not scientific at all, it's pure and simple ethics... This tends to be widespread personal shortage among over-educated people (professors, scientists etc.) who spend their entire lives trying to prove something. They become so involved in their works that they are unable to absorb anything from the outside world that contradicts their thinking. Those people have a fundamental enormous life leak... Baltostar is so determined to prove that you can play poker successfully 100% based on a strict set of rules that you under no circumstances may diverge from, that he cares not to think he actually might be off here. I may regret this when I next year read about boundaries of reasonable expectations for specific hands, the theorem of Schroedinger's cat applied to poker, and the improved method of calculating implied odds in his upcoming poker book. Until then I will continue listen to those who actually have proven track records to their names and are able to establish a two-way communication.
|
|
#110
10-23-2007, 06:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: QQ from upfront early in Warmup...Is this ok?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I’ve known Baltostar for quite some time, and I don’t find it the least bit surprising that his way of thinking has encountered opposition on a public message forum. He may have mentioned his background in trading, but he probably neglected to reveal his other talents, and I assure you if you were aware of them, you would not be so quick to dismiss his advice. From a garage in Ohio, Baltostar developed a visual language he calls the “Logic Alphabet,” in which a group of specially designed letter-shapes are maneuvered like puzzle pieces to reveal the geometric patterns hidden beneath the symbolic web. For the last five years, Baltostar has been exploring the symmetries and relations inherent in these patterns, which he has made manifest in a series of delicately crafted wooden models and in thousands of pages of diagrams. Baltostar’s work is based on a discovery that the logic on which our computers run is allied with a geometric structure whose form is a tesseract, or four-dimensional cube. Much of his work over the past half-century has aimed at identifying the one, two and three-dimensional subsets of this group of symmetrical relations. The resulting models and diagrams, often crystalline in nature, constitute a genuine research project in logic while simultaneously passing through distinct aesthetic phases. Most importantly, these models enable us to manipulate logic symbols spatially. The parallels between his research and the game of poker are obvious. You should listen to what he has to say. [/ QUOTE ] Interesting, because reading this actually makes me want to NOT listen to what he has to say even more than before [/ QUOTE ] Am I the only one who assumed that this post was a joke?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
