Review: Winning in Tough Hold 'em Games by Stox/Zobags - Page 17

londomollari · #**161** 05-20-2007, 04:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the 2h is replaced by an ace or king, it looks like the 50% estimate that hero is still behind is about right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting.
If the 2 were an A then hitting 9 or 8 would put you behind 50% of his range?
That starts to make a bit more sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this were the case the whole section would be redundant since there are several mention of the overcard outs. I think the 0.50 needs replacing with ~ 0.25/0.75 which would make the implied odds much more attractive.

MicroBob · #**162** 05-20-2007, 05:15 PM

good point. if it's an A then your 9 and 8 are not overcards.

uDevil · #**163** 05-20-2007, 06:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]

If this were the case the whole section would be redundant since there are several mention of the overcard outs.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right.

[ QUOTE ]
I think the 0.50 needs replacing with ~ 0.25/0.75 which would make the implied odds much more attractive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again negating the point of this section, which is that you have a close decision on the flop. Even the original numbers don't make sense since you are getting about 9-1 (including the originally calculated implied odds of ~0.5 BB) to call a flop bet when you have 10 outs. It's not close. So I'm still confused.

Zobags · #**164** 05-21-2007, 08:15 PM

I took me a while to figure this one out. An earlier iteration of this chapter, had a more complex example where we considered our equity against hands which our opponent would probably take to showdown. Assuming our opponent will take any pair or any Ace to showdown, you will be ahead of that range roughly 50% of the time when you hit an overcard. When we simplified the example, I neglected to correct that calculation, so it is incorrect as it is written. Sorry for the confusion.

karpov · #**165** 05-21-2007, 08:42 PM

Hi Stox, when I study the statistics I can help thinking that you are the high limit player and Zobags the grinder. It's a secret or you can tell us if I'm right or wrong?

stoxtrader · #**166** 05-21-2007, 09:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Stox, when I study the statistics I can help thinking that you are the high limit player and Zobags the grinder. It's a secret or you can tell us if I'm right or wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

the identity of all three players will remain anonymous.

MicroBob · #**167** 05-22-2007, 01:02 AM

[ QUOTE ]
our equity against hands which our opponent would probably take to showdown

[/ QUOTE ]

aha!!!

uDevil · #**168** 05-22-2007, 01:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]
When we simplified the example, I neglected to correct that calculation, so it is incorrect as it is written.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the explanation. May I suggest rewriting that section and submitting it to the 2+2 magazine? You'll have to fix it for the 2nd printing anyway.... [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

jeffnc · #**169** 05-22-2007, 11:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess it's human nature to talk about money/winrates, but for our purposes with the text, higher winrate did not mean better book. I'm curious if anyone disagrees, and if so, why.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, for the obvious reason - the bigger the winrate, the better the strategy, weighted by sample size. The better the strategy, the better the book. Not that it's a big deal, since Harvey Penick who probably couldn't swing a club could still give good golf advice. But as I said, the rationale is pretty obvious.

[/ QUOTE ]

not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? Since the game of poker hasn't been "solved", then win rate is the only evidence we have of successful strategy (other than simple situations, such as all-in, where the math can be more helpful.)

Higher winrate does not necessarily mean better book (repeat Harvey Penick example above.) But there is an obvious correlation. There is a tendency for the strategy to be better for players with higher win rates. There is a tendency for books espousing better strategies to be better books. That seems pretty obvious to me.

jeffnc · #**170** 05-22-2007, 11:16 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, for the obvious reason - the bigger the winrate, the better the strategy, weighted by sample size.

[/ QUOTE ]

I ran this by a five year old I know

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you should run it by someone who understands poker, and logic.

[ QUOTE ]
and his reply was that this statement isn't necessarily accurate. A couple of easy ways to increase your win rate would be to drop down in limit and play in easier games, or just be extremely game selective at the higher limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously it isn't necessarily accurate. Standard "all else being equal" is implied, obviously. Sometimes I think you're the 5 year, trapped in an old man's body.