How valuable are implied odds in stud?

[Micturition Man]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not making anything of the fluke way the cards came down. I am not being results oriented. Give me some credit here.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, this is about the only scenario where hero doesn't just put chips in the pot and they go away. Normally, yes, you get credit, but without knowing the results, how can this be seen as anything other than a gamble on a longshot?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think I conveyed my point about IO so let me try again here.

If after Phil made his initial completion, the TT guy said "Phil, how about you agree now to just put in a bet dark on every street and we will run out the cards?", it is 100% certain this would be -EV and Phil would be better off folding.

However there is some pot size where the case above is -EV but a 3rd street call of the TT's raise is +EV.

For example say Phil has 30% equity versus the TT, but someone decides to toss in enough money that Phil now needs only 31% equity to blindly put in a bet on every street.

This is still not enough money to to call down, of course, but it is now definitely enough money to call on 3rd.

The reason is Phil doesn't have to blindly put in money on every street. He can save bets by folding on 4th-7th when his equity has dropped below his pot odds.

His opponent on the other hand, because he already has a good hand, can very rarely make these good folds (only when Phil makes open trips, open aces up, or an open 4 flush).

For example say Phil calls 3rd and he catches (9d8d)Ac2s versus (xx)TcJs.

Phil will now simply check-fold.

On the other hand say Phil catches any diamond, any pair, or any straightening card (22 outs I believe, not counting dead cards), and his opponent does not pair his doorcard.

Now Phil will be +EV on calling 4th.

In this way he can substantially improve his effective odds over the blindly calling down odds, and thus require less showdown equity than the pot would seem to indicate.

So the question I was considering is just how much of an equity deficit these implied odds (or whatever they may properly be called) can overcome.

Note I did not list the possibility of making a fluke concealed monster at all. That is too rare to be a significant consideration.

[Brad1970]

There is one possible reason P.I. played this hand rather than folding. OP didn't say who the opponent was but I assume it's another top pro & they play together alot. Phil could have played it for metagame reasons but I guess only he would know that.

But, as the cards lay, it's a horrible hand to play IMO.

[SGspecial]

[ QUOTE ]
There is one possible reason P.I. played this hand rather than folding. OP didn't say who the opponent was but I assume it's another top pro & they play together alot. Phil could have played it for metagame reasons but I guess only he would know that.

But, as the cards lay, it's a horrible hand to play IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice catch Brad, and nice analysis by electrical. I agree that the odds do not seem to be there for a call on the reraise, but all of us saying it was a "bad" play is like watching an old school NASCAR race and saying "How can that Earnhardt fella ever win drivin' like that??!!" That's PI's game... ruthless... fearless.. intimidating. He knows enough not to 3-bet 3rd st, and to only check/call 4th (which is more than I can say for the average fish), and thus his odds aren't bad ENOUGH to back down from this confrontation.

[Micturition Man]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is one possible reason P.I. played this hand rather than folding. OP didn't say who the opponent was but I assume it's another top pro & they play together alot. Phil could have played it for metagame reasons but I guess only he would know that.

But, as the cards lay, it's a horrible hand to play IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice catch Brad, and nice analysis by electrical. I agree that the odds do not seem to be there for a call on the reraise, but all of us saying it was a "bad" play is like watching an old school NASCAR race and saying "How can that Earnhardt fella ever win drivin' like that??!!" That's PI's game... ruthless... fearless.. intimidating. He knows enough not to 3-bet 3rd st, and to only check/call 4th (which is more than I can say for the average fish), and thus his odds aren't bad ENOUGH to back down from this confrontation.

[/ QUOTE ]


[img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]


These are exactly the types of comments I wanted to avoid by keeping the player and the limit disguised.

It's not worth going into but I really really don't think any of those factors are relevant here.

Phil plays a zillion tables and just tries to play his best game and he doesn't have any particular ego invested in a 1k-2k 8-handed stud hi hand. Metagame is just a non-issue here.

And I realize I'm just asserting rather than arguing this but it's not important enough to get bogged down on imo.

[Micturition Man]

[ QUOTE ]
MM,

Was this a live game or online? If it was online & at FTP, they shuffle the hole cards if you didn't know that already (you probably do!!!). Could have some bearing on everybody's analysis.

[/ QUOTE ]


It was online. I know Phil's hand is the one I gave because the third down card was an offsuit deuce or something.

[SGspecial]

[ QUOTE ]

These are exactly the types of comments I wanted to avoid by keeping the player and the limit disguised.

It's not worth going into but I really really don't think any of those factors are relevant here.

Phil plays a zillion tables and just tries to play his best game and he doesn't have any particular ego invested in a 1k-2k 8-handed stud hi hand. Metagame is just a non-issue here.

And I realize I'm just asserting rather than arguing this but it's not important enough to get bogged down on imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

I respect what you're trying to do here Mic by asking the question purely based on Value strategy. I just don't think you can make inferences about his hand having more value than you thought simply because he's a WC player and made this particular play (unless Phil happened to mention his own analysis to you over dinner sometime). If a donkey at 0.50/1 limit made the same play, would you be wondering if it was a good idea or not?

WC players make plays like this all the time, and it doesn't necessarily mean they honestly believe they have the pot odds or implied odds to make that one hand profitable in the long run. Reread Super/system or Gigabet's numerous posts to see what I mean. But even if we all agree that WE would be correct to fold here (and I think that's the majority opinion), it doesn't mean that HE was making a mistake by calling.

[ACPlayer]

No one has ever accused me of being loose in any poker game and I raise the Ace in any kind of high ante game.

I call the raise in a high ante game (if the other player is loose enough in later streets or weak enough to take the pot away) hoping to catch good -- some percent of the time. If the other player is a nit, I fold, if the player is unknown I fold.

The second is close but there are situations where it is likely OK.

My 2cents.

[SGspecial]

[ QUOTE ]
The completion was a mistake, and chasing the money with no hand is a mistake. If he calls the raise, he will have paid 2 SB (albeit in two installments) to win 3.9 SB. If we just consider the immediate call, getting 4.9:1, well then he has put enough money in already to "justify" calling the raise, but that's crazy and not really a solid argument for this line. The pot "justifies" the call, but the line as a whole is clearly flawed. Put in enough ill-advised action early and you will eventually find yourself in a position that mathematically justifies calling one more bet, regardless of your chance of winning. This is not sound poker, it's a martingale.

[/ QUOTE ]

What the heck is a martingale? Wasn't he the host on Tic Tac Dough?

Seriously tho, you've hit upon a really key concept in poker. The original completion has some merit since there are a lot of antes to shoot for, but let's agree is was a marginally bad play from EP. That marginally bad play has put you in a spot where you may get correct pot odds to call every subsequent bet, but take the worst of it the whole time. I mean, it's really hard to turn down 5:1 odds as a 2:1 dog don't you think? (note: this is not even counting the times when the T is restealing) Then he picks up an underpair and unless the T makes an open pair on board PI is priced in the rest of the way.

Point is, you can't turn down good pot odds because you made a bad play earlier -- that's losing poker. So like Steve said, if you avoid bad plays early you don't get stuck in hands where you can play optimally the rest of the time and still get crushed.

[Trencherman]

[ QUOTE ]
I feel almost certain the original 3rd street completion is mandatory and I didn't expect people to disagree with it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm also surprised many people disagree with the completion. It might be helpful to decide what hands Ivey should be calling a raise with here. If not (98)A, then how about (J9)A? What about (KQ)A? (22)A? Three flushes only? (Split aces and buried pairs higher than tens seem to be reraises, but I guess they could be thrown in for deception if Ivey is calling with nothing else.)

I ask this because it seems exploitable for him to only continue with an extremely limited number of hands in a high ante game where the board is such that Ivey's opponents know that Ivey will be completing holdings as weak as three overcards to the board. I don't mean this to justify calling with all sorts of weak garbage, but I agree with the OP that people might be undervaluing the weak end of their stealing ranges on third street.

[Micturition Man]

Trencherman -

You bring up a very good point about not being exploitable to a reraise when you are raising from a steal position.

I have often been perplexed by that one in both stud hi and razz, because there are many situations in those two games where, if you play by standard 'book' advice, your opponents would appear to be +EV on a resteal with any 2 cards (this is especially common in razz).

I made a few posts about that in connection with razz (specifically when you should steal with the second to last low card in razz, and how bad a hand you should call with versus a resteal there).

I know for a fact I play exploitably in razz and probably stud hi in many of my steal spots (that is I fold to a resteal often enough that my opponent is +EV on restealing 100% of the time.)

I think what this all indicates is that the way standard stud players handle certains situations is actually game theoretically incorrect.

BTW I have decided to try and do some math on this hand to calculate Ivey's EV on calling the reraise on 3rd. So far it looks surprisingly close to 0 EV.

Basically because of the huge pot he gets a decent amount of profit from hitting a 9 or an 8 and just playing his hand out from there. He gets a lot of profit when he hits open AA and his opponent folds everything but trips.

I haven't worked out the value yet of catching a flush card or straightening card, but I think it's pretty low, although it does give us another chance to backdoor into a pair and call down.

We also saves a lot of money by folding the river when we winds up with a one-pair hand that can't beat TT. (This is an example of the broader notion of 'implied odds' that I have been advocating.)