Donkey Test

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry I haven't updated this in a while. It seemed for a while that this thread had lost interest, and I hadn't checked back with it. I can continue posting questions if people are interested.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[mikever]

Maybe there was more interest than I thought, so I will keep it up, and I will try to add a new question a day. Here are the next two questions. If you write in your answer and analysis, then please tell us what question you are referring to.

[mikever]

Donkey Test

[Fishonaquest]

[ QUOTE ]

I took the test and got 111, mean is 100 so i'm better than average, and also according to the breakdown i am a winner at 100Nl and below and this is very accurate... i am trying to move up to 200Nl and having mixed results.

[/ QUOTE ]

Got 111, but I only play NL10, maybe it is time for me to move up?!

[pureklas]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I took the test and got 111, mean is 100 so i'm better than average, and also according to the breakdown i am a winner at 100Nl and below and this is very accurate... i am trying to move up to 200Nl and having mixed results.

[/ QUOTE ]

Got 111, but I only play NL10, maybe it is time for me to move up?!

[/ QUOTE ]

If you have the right bankroll then of course! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[KipBond]

Question #9:

If button is good, he is trying to isolate the passive MP player. You have great implied odds to hit a set -- so never fold here. You will want to raise some portion of the time: 25% seems good to me.

Never semi-bluff all-in with 200BB stacks.

[cheburashka]

I admit that I generally suck at this game, but as this is a beginner's forum, I won't feel bad about posting. I got an 89, although I took about two hours to do the test (I was simultaneously writing a presentation for work), and I understand that I may have been punished for taking so much time.

In any case, I'll post my answers and reasoning as we go along in the hopes of raising interest and keeping mikever engaged in the process.

On Question 8, I was the one who voted to min raise. My logic was that UTG's bets made sense if he has AK, less likely AQ, even less likely AA or KK. If he has AA or KK, we're screwed no matter what, so let's assume AK. It seems to me that if we min raise (or even call, which wasn't an option) instead of all-in, we increase the chances of getting action and maintain position for the rest of the hand. The downside is the risk of hitting an A or K on the turn or river (~20%).

Can someone explain why all-in is better?

On question 9, I went call with the majority, assuming an immediate fold if we don't hit a set on the flop. However, on another thread, someone posted a general rule of thumb that one shouldn't defend the blinds with less than a big pair. Anyone care to comment?

[mikever]

Re. Question 8: min raising is bad here IMO. It lets your opponent know that you are already committed to the hand, but looks like you don't want to scare him away. It's too obvious. Pushing it looks more like it could be a bluff. If he's going to call the 800, then he's going to call the $1,000, and he will feel slightly better about his AK (if that's what he has) than if you minraise. Minraise is too, suspicious.

Saying you should defend blinds with less than a big pair is dumb. This is so player dependent, and there are meta-game considerations. As a general rule, however, you shouldn't worry too much about defending a blind. Just give it up, no big deal. If you notice a player constantly stealing, well then you can try to play back at him some, but this is mostly to set up a confrontation down the line where you have the nuts.

Anyway, Question 9 has nothing to do with defending the blind. The key part to this question is that there is a passive player left to act behind you. That means,he will likely call, meaning you can see a flop with nice implied odds on your set if you hit. If there were an aggressive player behind, this could be a fold, since he is apt to 4-bet.

[negtv capability]

#9
I feel that the key to this question is the double deep stacks of $2000. When I took this test, I answered to fold, not because of the button, but because of the 1st raise, who I assumed is likely to reraise and knock me off my hand. But, maybe the chance at $2000 is worth risking $70. I'm not very good at putting percentages to this, however, and coming up with an expected value. I'm rereading the Sklansky book on no-limit and just starting in getting aquainted with pokerstove. What else should I be taking into consideration here?
I feel like calling is the right play, even though it's not the one I chose, but I'm not 100 percent why.
I'm not sure what to think about how the middle pos. raiser being passive adds to the question either. It says he/ she's passive, but he/ she just raised. That's not passive. I would think this indicates that they have a real hand. Am I to believe that because they're passive they're going to freak out after I call the 70 and just call passively themselves? I don't know what percentage of the time a passive player would do this? I suppose a player like this would act this way with AK/ JJ/ TT. In this way, it's looking like a pokerstove question/ expected value/ implied odds all the way.

I came up with this on poker stove:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 44.156% 43.14% 01.01% 4647219206 108975065.67 { 99+, AQs+, AQo+ }
Hand 1: 29.791% 28.66% 01.13% 3087371132 121543371.67 { 66+, AJs+, KQs, QJs, JTs, T9s, 98s, 87s, 76s, 65s, AJo+, KQo }
Hand 2: 26.053% 25.83% 00.22% 2782418152 23858004.67 { 8c8s }

Then I need to figure how often I'll get blown off the hand, something I'm not sure I can put percentages to. Also, if I do get to play, how often will I win enough to make calling worth my while. This type of figuring, or lack of, is probably what's keeping me from moving up in limits.

[cheburashka]

Thanks! Appreciate your taking the time to answer my questions.