New Tysen Streib Book: Kill Everyone

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What I never understood about game theory in Hold'em was that a correct calling frequency also means that you have to have a bluffcatcher a certain amount of times. In contrast to draw poker where most examples for game theory come from, it's tough to make a hand in Hold'em, even a bluffcatcher, and very often the opponent is bluffing with the best hand. Let's say your math tells you that you are required to call in x% of the cases, but your mix of hands has you fold most small pairs on the flop and take a lot of busted draws to the river, so in many cases you don't even have a hand to call with. Are you adressing such things in the book?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not really sure I'm understanding your question correctly, but I don't see how you think you would have gotten to the river with a distribution that has no calling hands. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] Maybe you can come up with a concrete example?

Tysen

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's say I get 4:1 odds for a call on the river. If I remember correctly then game theory says that I am supposed to call 75% of the time. I simply find it very hard to play a distribution that contains 75% hands with showdown value. Very often I am sitting on a busted draw like 6-5s or Q-To and even if fold all these and decide to call with any pair or even any ace to make up for it, I'll still be way below 75%.

I know that Chen/Ankenman write in Math of Poker that calling frequencies change a lot on multi-street games because of draws, but for the sake of the argument, let's just assume it was a dry board and a way ahead/way behind situation all the way.

[chucky]

4 to 1 pot odds means call if you expect to win hand at least 20% of time. So, if you have 6 high on river you probably shouldnt call because you wont win 20% of time.

[fraac]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What I never understood about game theory in Hold'em was that a correct calling frequency also means that you have to have a bluffcatcher a certain amount of times. In contrast to draw poker where most examples for game theory come from, it's tough to make a hand in Hold'em, even a bluffcatcher, and very often the opponent is bluffing with the best hand. Let's say your math tells you that you are required to call in x% of the cases, but your mix of hands has you fold most small pairs on the flop and take a lot of busted draws to the river, so in many cases you don't even have a hand to call with. Are you adressing such things in the book?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not really sure I'm understanding your question correctly, but I don't see how you think you would have gotten to the river with a distribution that has no calling hands. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] Maybe you can come up with a concrete example?

Tysen

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's say I get 4:1 odds for a call on the river. If I remember correctly then game theory says that I am supposed to call 75% of the time. I simply find it very hard to play a distribution that contains 75% hands with showdown value. Very often I am sitting on a busted draw like 6-5s or Q-To and even if fold all these and decide to call with any pair or even any ace to make up for it, I'll still be way below 75%.

I know that Chen/Ankenman write in Math of Poker that calling frequencies change a lot on multi-street games because of draws, but for the sake of the argument, let's just assume it was a dry board and a way ahead/way behind situation all the way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this a problem with tenses? By Chen and Ankenman you should have called 75%, rather than should call 75%.

[trojanrabbit]

[ QUOTE ]
4 to 1 pot odds means call if you expect to win hand at least 20% of time. So, if you have 6 high on river you probably shouldnt call because you wont win 20% of time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, when you're facing a distribution of hands, this is how you should think about it. Pot odds dictate that you should be calling with hands that have a certain chance of winning, not that you should call a certain % of the time.

The situation you're thinking of when you need to call a certain % of the time is when you've got a made hand and he has a draw that will miss sometimes. You need to call with the made hand a certain % of the time so you won't be taken advantage of when he misses his draw and bluffs. Note that the % could be 0 or 100, depending on the pot odds and how likely you think it is he hit his draw. But there’s no need to call with a busted draw. That’s not part of this scenario.

Tysen

[Shandrax]

Made hand vs. draw is where my example comes from. Actually I got the whole theory from Nesmith Ankenys book about draw poker. The problem for me always was the application of these basic concepts in Hold'em.

I give you an example for a 2:1 situation for a potsize raise where you need to win 33% to break even. Let's assume you start with unpaired cards. The chances that you have a made hand by the river are in the 60% range. That means in 40% of the cases you got nothing and can fold to a river bet right off the bat. In the other 60% of the cases, you may have bottom pair with maybe 2 high cards on board or other scary situations. Still from these 60% of your hands you need to win 55% just to break even, simply because you folded 40% of your hands already. Your remaing made hands are the ones where your wins have to come from and 33% as indicated above won't be enough. This is why I have a problem with the common assumption that you need to win just enough to cover the potodds with your made hand to do fine.

Many times both players don't have a hand and you cannot just give up in these situations only because your opponent has the courage to bet. With not giving up I don't mean to call him with trash, but to lower your standards for calling with made hands to compensate for it. It may sound paradox, or maybe I am simply wrong.

[Wubbie075]

my local Barnes & Noble told me today this book is not out til January.. is that true?? [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[Upright Bill]

October 20 is the currently expected date.

[RowdyZ]

I got email from amazon.com saying the book would be out Sept 30th.
[ QUOTE ]

Rodney,

We've noticed that customers who have purchased or rated Sit 'n Go Strategy by Collin Moshman have also purchased Kill Everyone: Advanced Strategies for No-Limit Hold 'em Poker Tournaments and Sit-N-Go's by Lee Nelson M.D.. For this reason, you might like to know that Kill Everyone: Advanced Strategies for No-Limit Hold 'em Poker Tournaments and Sit-N-Go's will be released on September 30, 2007. You can pre-order yours at a savings of $10.18 by following the link below.

Kill Everyone: Advanced Strategies for No-Limit Hold 'em Poker Tournaments and Sit-N-Go's
Lee Nelson M.D.
List Price: $29.95
Price: $19.77
You Save: $10.18 (34%)

Release Date: September 30, 2007

[/ QUOTE ]

[trojanrabbit]

The date keeps getting pushed back. There was a small problem getting all my detailed charts and graphs to look good in the book format. I think the Oct 20 date looks like the most likely.

Tysen

[HajiShirazu]

I didn't think Kill Phil was all that great (although it's a beginner book and was good for that purpose) but anyway, looking at the TOC, if the content of this book is decent at all it makes me very unhappy because SNG's are going to get a lot worse.