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

[uDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
^Well the other thing to add is that on smaller limit $3/6 or 2/4, generally speaking, its not as easily stealing blinds. So in our example would A7o raise against a loose player UTG still provide you enough equity to raise?

[/ QUOTE ]

If your plan is to isolate but the blinds are loose enough that you likely won't be able to isolate, then it's time for a new plan.

[sethypooh21]

[ QUOTE ]
The tools in the book are *supposed* to span game and player types.

this is where there are so many If/Then scenarios.

If passive then...

if aggro then....

if loose then....

if tight then....

but yes, not much on multiway postflop pots but then again in those hands player specific reads decrease in value (not to zero), tho there are a few parts on this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the response. Two things, loved the book. Absolutely loved it.

Second, I guess my point is, given the strong empirical basis for much of the book, it is a little surprising that we are left with nebulous categories.

[MicroBob]

Sorry if this has already been covered.

I'm looking at page 217 on weighted implied odds and the 2nd full paragraph just seems weird to me.

50% of the time you hit a 9 or 8 overcard you're going to be behind to his range?

Hands within the listed range you will be behind if you catch the wrong out include:
- All the 66+ pairs (except 77..and 88 when you catch a 9)
- A8s and A9s when you catch the card where you're dominated
- A9o
- K9s

Note that in all these (except the pocket-pairs) you have to catch the 'wrong' out to still be behind. You still have a chance to catch the 'right' out.
In other words, your 98 will be good if you catch an 8 while he's holding A9o.


There are a lot of overcard type hands where you will still be ahead regardless of which overcard out you catch including stuff like:
- A7s and ATs+
- KTs+
etc, etc


I can try to figure out how that poker-stove type stuff works to confirm that this is all correct.

But I thought I would continue the discussion about the book here by bringing up this section because I think it's a particularly surprising an interesting one.
So much so that I'm having a tough time believing it.

[MicroBob]

Back of the envelope math:

If I catch a 9 then I'm trailing vs.
66, 99, TT, JJ, QQ, KK, AA, A9s, A9o, K9s.

I would be ahead vs.
88, A7s, A8s, ATs, AJs, AQs, AKs, KTs, KJs, KQs, QTs, QJs, JTs, ATo, AJo, AQo, AKo, KTo, KJo, KQo, QJo


If I catch an 8 then I'm trailing vs. a similar range that would now also include 88 and A8s but would not include the A9 and K9 hands.

Considering how many more combinations there are with overcards vs the pocket-pairs I am really struggling to see how hitting one of my overcards still has me trailing to 50% of his range.


Am I just misinterpreting this whole section?
Help please.

[uDevil]

[ QUOTE ]

Am I just misinterpreting this whole section?


[/ QUOTE ]

If so, I am too. Using PokerStove, 9s8d would have about 72% equity against villain's range on a board of 6c5d2h when an 8 comes on the turn.

Using this equity value rather than the method in the book, the weighted implied odds are

0.4*1.5+0.6*0.72*1= 1.03 big bets.

I.E. when you hit your draw, 40% of the time you make a straight and earn 1.5 big bets, and 60% of the time you make a pair and have 72% equity in 1 big bet.

I think another way to look at it is that your overcard outs are worth ~72% of 6 outs, or ~4 outs against the villain's range. So you have roughly 8 outs total and are getting 8 to 1 to call a flop bet. You'd also be getting 5.5 to 1 on the turn if the villain bets. Assuming the turn is a blank and these numbers are right, it is a close decision as to whether or not to call to see the river.

[stoxtrader]

I did not write this section so I will let zobags chime in here if he wants. I think estimate is based on the the assumption you get action, which is what determines implied odds. In other words, many of the losing hands will not give you action so you have to adjust your range according to actin recieved. I'm not sure this is it and im pretty sure it is not very clear, otherwise two good players who work at this (microbob and udevil), would not have this type of murkiness in understanding...

[karpov]

I did not write this section so I will let zobags chime in here if he wants.

Please Stox, can you tell us which chapters did you right and which ones not? Thanks

[uDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
I did not write this section so I will let zobags chime in here if he wants. I think estimate is based on the the assumption you get action, which is what determines implied odds. In other words, many of the losing hands will not give you action so you have to adjust your range according to actin recieved.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it possible the board is wrong? 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 ]

I'm not sure this is it and im pretty sure it is not very clear, otherwise two good players who work at this (microbob and udevil), would not have this type of murkiness in understanding...

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, confusion is a common state of mind for me, but I'm printing this out and saving it before anyone comes along to dispute it.

If you need a testimonial for your next project, let me know. Since I started implementing changes inspired by this book, my results have been spectacular. Though I might have coincidentally started to run good, the difference is definitely significant.

[stoxtrader]

[ QUOTE ]
I did not write this section so I will let zobags chime in here if he wants.

Please Stox, can you tell us which chapters did you right and which ones not? Thanks

[/ QUOTE ]

unfortunately, even if I had wanted to I could not. Zobags is a better writer than I am and I was more of the concept guy. The book took approximately a full year for us to write and for most chapters is a pure collaboration. Zobags did write the weighted implied odds chapter, jsut as I wrote the hands with stox section, but for most of the other stuff I would be hard pressed to attribute it. Also, if one of us wrote something you can be sure the other edited it, so if there is a mistake in the weighted chapter - as it looks like there might be, or at least it may be unclear, then there is certainly equal blame for it.

I'm not sure why it would be important, unless you are implying that my stuff might be more valuable. Hopefully the concepts stand on their own, regardless of the pedigree but you can attribute the whole book to both of us, in written or edited form.

[MicroBob]

[ 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.