|
|
#21
02-22-2007, 08:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Fundamental Theorem of Poker vs. Pot Odds
[ QUOTE ]
And yes, as a 55-45 favorite you should be happy to get your money in on the flop. [/ QUOTE ] In a cashgame; yes. In a tournament; only if you are short or late in a tournament and you are playing for first or nothing. Early and halfway a large tournament you don't want to be doing coin flips for a large part or all of your stack. It happenes too often and you can't win em all most of the time, so you are taking too much risk in my opinion. 
|
|
#22
02-22-2007, 11:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Fundamental Theorem of Poker vs. Pot Odds
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] A 33% draw indicates 15 outs for one card. With two cards to come, your draw jumps to about 66% for a full board. [/ QUOTE ] Your math is wrong. Two 33% chances do not result in a 66% chance. Just as two 50% chances do not mean you have 100% chance and win every time. [/ QUOTE ] I was flying by the seat of my pants (see my moniker). The actual percentages with 15 outs are 31.91% for one card and 54.12% for two cards. I believe this still meets the needs of my point.
|
|
#23
02-25-2007, 09:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Fundamental Theorem of Poker vs. Pot Odds
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] And yes, as a 55-45 favorite you should be happy to get your money in on the flop. [/ QUOTE ] In a cashgame; yes. In a tournament; only if you are short or late in a tournament and you are playing for first or nothing. Early and halfway a large tournament you don't want to be doing coin flips for a large part or all of your stack. It happenes too often and you can't win em all most of the time, so you are taking too much risk in my opinion. [/ QUOTE ] Yes. This is the whole reason you don't see the pros racing around like madmen on the first day of the WSOP. You avoid coinflips, and look for better opportunities in a Tournament until circumstances (ie the blinds compared to your stack) dictate otherwise. This idea that you should put your stack in as a small favorite is common among those that never make it deep, because you can't win every coinflip. Cash game, yes, tourney, no.
|
|
#24
02-25-2007, 01:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Fundamental Theorem of Poker vs. Pot Odds
But underlying that concept is the notion that the pros expect to have an advantage over everyone else in the tournament, so by avoiding marginal edges they expect to get a longer-lasting edge. If you're in a tournament with a bunch of opponents of equal ability, you shouldn't knowingly pass up a 51-49 edge.
All that said, I don't think even the pros are going to pass up a 55-45 edge. (If you have QQ facing a decent player's 4-bet in a deep-stacked phase of a tournament, it's foolish to think you're against specifically AK or that you're 55-45 against the range.) And as Sklansky wrote years ago in his tournament book, if your expectation is the same in cash games (or nowadays, the online tournament starting in 15 minutes) then you don't mind busting out with a marginal advantage.
|
|
#25
02-25-2007, 04:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Fundamental Theorem of Poker vs. Pot Odds
[ QUOTE ]
All that said, I don't think even the pros are going to pass up a 55-45 edge. [/ QUOTE ] Interestingly MOP's Theory of Doubling Up calculates that someone with an equity 3 times the average equity in the tournament, would be correct to decline a 57-43 situation. (p. 325)
|
|
#26
02-25-2007, 05:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Fundamental Theorem of Poker vs. Pot Odds
It depends a lot on the risk to take. I'm not passing a 50.1 to 49.9 edge in the first hand of a tournament if it's about a small pot compared to my stack size. But I won't call a preflop allin move with a small pocket pair if I KNEW he had two overcards. At least not in the early stages of the tournament. Not because I think I'm a better player than the rest, but because I rather see other players do crazy stuff like that, while I slowly gather chips watching the other players take risks to bust each other out of the tournament. I'm guaranteed to be in the top 30% unless I get very unlucky. All the coinflip players have to be lucky to get there. They are the ones getting me there, because they insist on trying to commit suicide on coinflips all the time.
What I think is an even better strategy is even to fold every hand. You end up in the last 25% of the tournament about anytime, but unfortunately without enough chips to win without huge gambles here. Of course this last strategy is rediculous. But an in-between strategy is what I think is best. Picking up the pots you can safely pick up and winning the pots where you are a big favorite. Once the blinds are really kicking in I'm playing like I'd play in a cashgame. Anyways, I think coinflips are like russian roulette. Trying to win 6 coinflips for all your money (which is not very rare) gives you a chance of 1/128 = 0.78% to survive. Of course if you win at first you probably are not risking your tournament life anymore, but still you'd have to be really lucky to advance deep into the tournament. Like "big pots are for big hands" I think in early stage tournament play it should be "big pots are for big odds". And it rhymes [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] GL
|
|
#27
02-26-2007, 11:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Fundamental Theorem of Poker vs. Pot Odds
the fundamental theorem of poker means crap online because online poker is so obviouly fixed, you could know your opponets exact two cards everytime and still be a loser over the long run online but oh no its not rigged lol
|
|
#28
02-26-2007, 07:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Fundamental Theorem of Poker vs. Pot Odds
[ QUOTE ]
the fundamental theorem of poker means crap online because online poker is so obviouly fixed, you could know your opponets exact two cards everytime and still be a loser over the long run online but oh no its not rigged lol [/ QUOTE ] Lol... You need to want to lose to do so when you can see your opponents cards. And how does the fundamental theorem of poker mean crap exactly?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
