Professional No-Limit Hold 'em Volume 1 Review Thread

[Sunny Mehta]

X-Post from 1p0kerboy's Full Ring Forum thread:


All,

I will just make a couple points, as I feel this debate is starting to run its course.

First off, let's say you want to play a certain range in EP and would ideally love to get, say, 10bb into the pot, but feel that everyone would fold most of the range you want to play against to a 10bb raise. Then you realize that the button has the tendency to raise a wide range if you limp AND will call a small reraise on top of that. So you plan to exploit him by limping and making a small reraise to 10bb. Those of you saying button is somehow justified in his isolated decision to call your reraise based on his initial decision (mistake) to raise after you limped UTG, is globally shortsighted imo.

Secondly, I believe many of you are way overestimating the implied odds required by your opponent to play this situation profitably, even given the isolated decision. Almost no one in this thread has cited anything in the way of math to back up some of the implied odds assertions made. (Save for CMAR who did give a little bit of implied odds math, however he missed/overestimated a few things in what is a very complicated decision tree.)

We will have more to say in V2, but allow me to give a few observations...

You estimate implied odds by looking at what you stand to make on average in a given situation over all possible outcomes, not *the most you can possibly make in one particular outcome*. So, saying "OMG the raise is ten percent of my stack therefore I'm getting 10-to-1 in implied odds!" is incorrect. When you call 10 percent of your stack, your implied odds are usually much less than 10-to-1. I know many of y'all know all that. But perhaps what you don't know is that, even if you held the BEST POSSIBLE implied odds hand (pocket sixes) in terms of preflop-to-flop play, and your opponent held the BEST POSSIBLE hand to pay you off (pocket aces) and you both did in fact get all-in EVERY TIME you flopped a set, you STILL wouldn't have enough equity to make 10-to-1 profitable.

Do the math. You'll be surprised. (The things most people get surprised at is how much set-over-set cuts into equity, as well as how much the sucking-out-equity an overpair has even when the underpair flops a set.)

In addition to the above, if we then pile on the fact that ranges are almost always wider than AA and 66, the implied odds situation is even more grim.


[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

-S

[fraac]

Fascinating, Sunny. I don't play cash games but from what you've said I'll definitely try applying your book to tournaments.

[1p0kerboy]

Sunny,

[ QUOTE ]
Those of you saying button is somehow justified in his isolated decision to call your reraise based on his initial decision (mistake) to raise after you limped UTG, is globally shortsighted imo.


[/ QUOTE ]

He's justified because of his pot odds, implied odds, and information that he has now obtained about our hand. The fact that he originally raised isn't really relevant at this point, other than the fact that the pot odds have changed because that money is now in the pot. Nobody said anything different than this.

[ QUOTE ]
Secondly, I believe many of you are way overestimating the implied odds required by your opponent to play this situation profitably, even given the isolated decision. Almost no one in this thread has cited anything in the way of math to back up some of the implied odds assertions made.

[/ QUOTE ]

I started to do the math but it's actually an extremely long process factoring everything in. But it's definitely +EV against a range of AK+ KK+, which Matt said is what he would have in this spot. As I have said before, if your LRR range in EP is too much bigger, there are other easier ways to exploit it than trying to set-mine.

[ QUOTE ]
You estimate implied odds by looking at what you stand to make on average in a given situation over all possible outcomes, not *the most you can possibly make in one particular outcome*. So, saying "OMG the raise is ten percent of my stack therefore I'm getting 10-to-1 in implied odds!" is incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

??? Nobody said this.

[ QUOTE ]
When you call 10 percent of your stack, your implied odds are usually much less than 10-to-1.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe this is where your logic is flawed. The button isn't calling 10 percent of his stack. He's calling 6%.

[ QUOTE ]
(The things most people get surprised at is how much set-over-set cuts into equity, as well as how much the sucking-out-equity an overpair has even when the underpair flops a set.)


[/ QUOTE ]

This is one of the reasons I stopped short on mathing-out the equation earlier. There is a lot (distribution %, winning %, etc.) that goes into a problem of this sort. Maybe I'll get bored and work on it.

[1p0kerboy]

Sunny,

perhaps you are making the same mistake of viewing everything that happens preflop as being one action.

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
(mistake) to raise after you limped UTG

[/ QUOTE ]

Mistake in what sense?

If the button happened to have aces here, would you say it is a mistake for us to LRR?