|
|
#21
11-06-2007, 06:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Q9s two pairs
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] this is one of those spots where you're confident in your read that you're beat and you've been right on with your hand reading for a long time and making lots of good folds which is great, but you're getting dangerously close to the point where you're relying too much on your hand-reading and folding ability. based on your description he can still have two pair. you're getting a bajillion to one. you have to call. and you cant get mad at yourself when he shows the set, which he will 9 out of 10 times. not close. folding too much in spots like this is a big leak. [/ QUOTE ] oh yeah and i can't read boards on 2+2 and i didnt realize that JT made a straight so it might actually be a fold. [/ QUOTE ] What a noob. Pete you are the best. Come in and give advice. Then back it up with "i might write more about this at some point. i don't think its been addressed in any published articles or books." So very awesome. 
|
|
#22
11-06-2007, 07:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Q9s two pairs
|
|
#24
11-06-2007, 10:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Q9s two pairs
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] this is one of those spots where you're confident in your read that you're beat and you've been right on with your hand reading for a long time and making lots of good folds which is great, but you're getting dangerously close to the point where you're relying too much on your hand-reading and folding ability. based on your description he can still have two pair. you're getting a bajillion to one. you have to call. and you cant get mad at yourself when he shows the set, which he will 9 out of 10 times. not close. folding too much in spots like this is a big leak. [/ QUOTE ] oh yeah and i can't read boards on 2+2 and i didnt realize that JT made a straight so it might actually be a fold. [/ QUOTE ] how much did you drink today? u rule.
|
|
#25
11-06-2007, 10:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Q9s two pairs
[ QUOTE ]
What a noob. Pete you are the best. Come in and give advice. Then back it up with "i might write more about this at some point. i don't think its been addressed in any published articles or books." So very awesome. [/ QUOTE ] that comment was not specific to this hand at all.
|
|
#26
11-06-2007, 10:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Q9s two pairs
[ QUOTE ]
[/ QUOTE ] this is inaccurate, i am not homeless anymore
|
|
#27
11-06-2007, 10:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Q9s two pairs
[ QUOTE ]
statistically speaking, you maximize your expectation by trying to call a little too much in these spots. i might write more about this at some point. i don't think its been addressed in any published articles or books. [/ QUOTE ] having thought this through, i realize this isn't necessarily true. it depends on assumptions about the distribution of the error in your ability to evaluate the odds you need to call. and there's no reason why that distribution has to be such that calling more often than you think you should is correct - but i suspect that is the case more often than not for good players. whether or not that hypothesis is correct is irrelevant though. knowing what your tendencies are is important. if you can analyze which way your "gut instincts" are skewed, you can improve your winrate. i might make some mathy post later this week if i'm feelin it.
|
|
#28
11-06-2007, 11:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Q9s two pairs
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] statistically speaking, you maximize your expectation by trying to call a little too much in these spots. i might write more about this at some point. i don't think its been addressed in any published articles or books. [/ QUOTE ] having thought this through, i realize this isn't necessarily true. it depends on assumptions about the distribution of the error in your ability to evaluate the odds you need to call. and there's no reason why that distribution has to be such that calling more often than you think you should is correct - but i suspect that is the case more often than not for good players. whether or not that hypothesis is correct is irrelevant though. knowing what your tendencies are is important. if you can analyze which way your "gut instincts" are skewed, you can improve your winrate. i might make some mathy post later this week if i'm feelin it. [/ QUOTE ] this was actually discussed a while ago in an archived SS thread where some now OG poster folded KK (overpair) in a gigantic pot for one on the river on a mostly nonscary board. The argument for calling was basically that even though according to the range you are putting him on, you aren't getting the odds to call, you still need x% confidence in the range you give him. Like if according to the range you give a guy, you are like 8% to win, and you are getting 9-1, then you should fold, but if your confidence in your own ability to give him a range is below 100%, then a call could be appropriate. I remember tommy popped up somewhere in the thread and said something to the effect of "I don't fold because I am getting 19:1 and I think I am only 3% to win. I fold because I know that I am 0% to win and I am always beaten" or something like that. So don't totally forsake the voodoo element in your game either [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
