Insane HH from Niagara 10k involving THE Vanessa Rousso (and Shaniac)

[0evg0]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
btw preflop is really bad, and i love how ppl use "its deepstacked" as an excuse to play horribly bad preflop poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't understand why raising here is so bad? i'd raise here every time, especially in a live tourney since it's so boring. is it because we are really really deep? would you raise 74s here with 100-200 bbs? what sc's would you raise in this spot 400bbs deep?

[/ QUOTE ]

what would be the purpose of your raise? If you'd raise here everytime, you must be opening about 90% of pots, which is obviously not good. just because we're deep doesn't make preflop irrelevant or mean that you can just throw chips in. every time you feel like it. I feel like a lot of tournament players perceive 400bbs as an infinitely deep stack because they're used to playing with 20-30bbs or whatever. Raising 47s here isn't a horrible large spew but it's still not a good play, so why do it?

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm not sure how u determine from me raising 74s that I open 90% of pots from utg+1. i'm probably opening something like

22+,ATs+,KTs+,QTs+,J9s+,T7s+,96s+,85s+,74s+,64s+,5 4s,43s,AJo+,KQo

maybe a few more suited connectors and maybe A9s. That's less than 20% of hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to get better at poker dan, you should stop playing 17% of hands utg. And we both know that your listed range is [censored] and u raise at least 20 more hands than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't think of a single depth at which that preflop raising range is totally solid.

You're obv good at poker, but for the love of god if everyone on this forum just played like 30k hands of nl cash for a month instead of 8-tabling 100 FOs and [censored].

Jesus, MTT's might actually become difficult.

[mwalsh2020]

[ QUOTE ]
the verdict seems to be that raising w/ 74 utg 400 bb deep has negative implied odds. the only argument against that so far is that raising in that spot w/ 74 can benefit your meta game. but isn't it hard to benefit the meta if you don't go to a showdown? can doing something "deceptive" without anybody knowing what you're doing actually benefit meta on a hand for hand basis? (obviously someone will catch on that you're playing loose UTG if you raise 25% of your hands)

[/ QUOTE ]

thats actually a very good point... most people like the 74s raise here on the basis of adding deception into their game but as we've seen, the negative implied odds is probably so significant as to completely diminish the benefits of widening your range.

When the stacks get really deep, keeping your range as wide as possible is very important, but avoiding reverse implied odds situations is also very important. Thus, the solid advice from ansky and others to play hands like 98s and nut hands like pocket pairs (careful with the low ones 400bbs deep) and suited aces in order to keep deception in your pf game while limiting reverse implied odds.

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
yeah okay, but all I said was there's a significant chance the raise is worse for him than throwing some chips on the floor, which is not where you went with this [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

BTW, I get you, but I'm not totally sure it's theoretically right either since there are math-based spots where you have to put in more chips after the initial raise. it's close enough though.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the times that we are supposed to theoretically put chips in, are usually going to be times where it's going to increase our EV to more than -150, not the opposite.

Also in response to shaniac, I'm not twisting people's words around. In fact when I first posted my response, I got all kinds of critiques, telling me to go look at Ansky's posts and don't I understand reverse implied odds and etc etc. I at least make it clear that I understand what people are saying and pretty much agree with them, yet the critiques that I was getting were just telling me how flat out wrong I was and etc etc.

Below is what I said:

"If you play extremely well thats impossible. Theoretically there should be no situation in which a raise will cost you more chips than you are putting in. This will only occur if you have some weaknesses that you will exhibit later in the hand. I don't think that I have to assume this will be the case when I discuss the hand. "

Every single word of it is true, and yet instead of critically trying to understand what I was saying, they just assumed I was talking about something else and started telling me how wrong I was. When multiple people attack a statement without even bothering to understand it, it can be a bit frustrating.

The premise that it's theoretically impossible for the EV of a play to cost you more chips than you've put in, is completely true and irrefutable. This is all I was saying. Any time you are forced with a later decision in which you must put in more chips, it will always be correct to fold, unless putting in these chips increases your EV, thus still keeping your original play at no worse than the EV of the chips you put in.

I know that no one plays perfectly and etc etc, which is why I prefaced my entire statement with "theoretically".

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
Curtains you're arguing that reverse implied odds don't exist in NLHE, this is just not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

OH MY GOD. Of course they exist. However there is never a situation where the theoretical outcome of a play will cost you more chips than you have put in. The reverse implied odds may lower your theoretical EV, but it can never lower it beyond the chips you've already put in the pot.

For instance let's say that theoretically you put 100 chips into the pot OOP with AJo. Let's say that normally the play would be breakeven, but because of stack sizes, position and etc, the play will instead cost you 30 chips of EV. That is where reverse implied odds may come in.

[curtains]

btw let me give another example of why this debate of whether we'd rather raise to 150 utg with 74s or simply throw the chips in the gutter is really strange.

Imagine we are in the BB. Imagine we have 74s! Imagine that the blidns are 100-200. Imagine that it's min raised with a few callers. Are you honestly going to fold 400 BB's deep there? Even if it's limped it's a relatively similar example, but we aren't going to simply muck our hands, because we expect ourselves to be able to control our play and not throw away chips with marginal hands out of position postflop.

Again I understand that there are some differences between what I said above and the actual situation in the hand, but the differences aren't that great. If we were so bad that it was -EV to simply see a flop with certain hands, then it would be correct to muck pre flop instead of checking our option in the BB. If anyone ever posted a situation in which they did so, everyone on the forum would call them a raving idiot. Or perhaps this thread will create a new fad of people mucking from the BB preflop so that they avoid future mistakes and reverse implied odds and etc.

[kleath]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Curtains you're arguing that reverse implied odds don't exist in NLHE, this is just not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

OH MY GOD. Of course they exist. However there is never a situation where the theoretical outcome of a play will cost you more chips than you have put in. The reverse implied odds may lower your theoretical EV, but it can never lower it beyond the chips you've already put in the pot.

For instance let's say that theoretically you put 100 chips into the pot OOP with AJo. Let's say that normally the play would be breakeven, but because of stack sizes, position and etc, the play will instead cost you 30 chips of EV. That is where reverse implied odds may come in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's an example for you:

Full table everyone is 500bbs deep, you are UTG and raise 3x and everybody calls, we happen to know that everyone at the table will play perfectly postflop. Now we simulate this situation with the same table layout but each persons cards get moved to the left player every hand, this is simulated to get a significant sample. By your contention everyone's EV here will be neutral over a large sample, I don't believe this is true.

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Curtains you're arguing that reverse implied odds don't exist in NLHE, this is just not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

OH MY GOD. Of course they exist. However there is never a situation where the theoretical outcome of a play will cost you more chips than you have put in. The reverse implied odds may lower your theoretical EV, but it can never lower it beyond the chips you've already put in the pot.

For instance let's say that theoretically you put 100 chips into the pot OOP with AJo. Let's say that normally the play would be breakeven, but because of stack sizes, position and etc, the play will instead cost you 30 chips of EV. That is where reverse implied odds may come in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's an example for you:

Full table everyone is 500bbs deep, you are UTG and raise 3x and everybody calls, we happen to know that everyone at the table will play perfectly postflop. Now we simulate this situation with the same table layout but each persons cards get moved to the left player every hand, this is simulated to get a significant sample. By your contention everyone's EV here will be neutral over a large sample, I don't believe this is true.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm confused what you mean? All I'm saying is that our EV won't be worse than the chips we already put in. Forgive me but I don't understand exactly what you are saying, but I'm also pretty sure you don't understand what I'm saying.

[kleath]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Curtains you're arguing that reverse implied odds don't exist in NLHE, this is just not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

OH MY GOD. Of course they exist. However there is never a situation where the theoretical outcome of a play will cost you more chips than you have put in. The reverse implied odds may lower your theoretical EV, but it can never lower it beyond the chips you've already put in the pot.

For instance let's say that theoretically you put 100 chips into the pot OOP with AJo. Let's say that normally the play would be breakeven, but because of stack sizes, position and etc, the play will instead cost you 30 chips of EV. That is where reverse implied odds may come in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's an example for you:

Full table everyone is 500bbs deep, you are UTG and raise 3x and everybody calls, we happen to know that everyone at the table will play perfectly postflop. Now we simulate this situation with the same table layout but each persons cards get moved to the left player every hand, this is simulated to get a significant sample. By your contention everyone's EV here will be neutral over a large sample, I don't believe this is true.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm confused what you mean? All I'm saying is that our EV won't be worse than the chips we already put in. Forgive me but I don't understand exactly what you are saying, but I'm also pretty sure you don't understand what I'm saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

If theoretically our ev from preflop cannot be worse than the amount of chips we commit, then based strictly on postflop everyone in that example would be neutral ev, Im saying given equal skill level having position over each hand(cards being rotated to ignore the strength of any individuals hand) will show positive expectation, if the button has +EV then someone has to be -EV, thus you can not make a mistake but still cause yourself to lose value due to pf.

[baltostar]

Sorry to interupt but it's important to point out to a few posters that there's no such thing as "negative implied odds".

Implied odds are traditionally defined as your payoff if a line works out in a certain way that is beneficial to you divided by your incremental cost to pursue that line. The dividend, the divisor, and the quotient are all positive numbers.

Reverse implied odds are traditionally defined as your current max payoff (the pot) for lines which you do not anticipate improving divided by your anticipated additional cost to continue to showdown. The dividend, the divisor, and the quotient are all positive numbers.

Dividing cEV by incremental cost to enter/continue with the hand is expected reward/risk, and that ratio can be negative.

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Curtains you're arguing that reverse implied odds don't exist in NLHE, this is just not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

OH MY GOD. Of course they exist. However there is never a situation where the theoretical outcome of a play will cost you more chips than you have put in. The reverse implied odds may lower your theoretical EV, but it can never lower it beyond the chips you've already put in the pot.

For instance let's say that theoretically you put 100 chips into the pot OOP with AJo. Let's say that normally the play would be breakeven, but because of stack sizes, position and etc, the play will instead cost you 30 chips of EV. That is where reverse implied odds may come in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's an example for you:

Full table everyone is 500bbs deep, you are UTG and raise 3x and everybody calls, we happen to know that everyone at the table will play perfectly postflop. Now we simulate this situation with the same table layout but each persons cards get moved to the left player every hand, this is simulated to get a significant sample. By your contention everyone's EV here will be neutral over a large sample, I don't believe this is true.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm confused what you mean? All I'm saying is that our EV won't be worse than the chips we already put in. Forgive me but I don't understand exactly what you are saying, but I'm also pretty sure you don't understand what I'm saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

If theoretically our ev from preflop cannot be worse than the amount of chips we commit, then based strictly on postflop everyone in that example would be neutral ev, Im saying given equal skill level having position over each hand(cards being rotated to ignore the strength of any individuals hand) will show positive expectation, if the button has +EV then someone has to be -EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

The EV you are talking about has already been calculated preflop based on position/cards etc. The point is that it can never be greater than the chips we have already put in, or if we have the better end of things, it cannot be greater than the entire pot. All positional advantages and etc. are calculated preflop.

I'm really really right about this, it's not complicated. If you ever feel like you are in danger of your losses exceeding the amount you've put in, you can just check/fold 100% of the time. Any perfect playing machine can do this always and it will prove without a doubt that you cannot theoretically lose more than you've already put in.