|
|
#281
11-14-2007, 01:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: High Stakes Poker thread (11/12 - 500k Buyin - Part 2 Spoilers aho
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] On season 1 and 2 running it three times meant that one player will scoop the whole pot. That's how I understood it. This was explained by Eli Elezra in one of the episodes where they ran it twice. Running it twice was better according to Eli has it gave to "even it out". I guess I understood the concept wrong. [/ QUOTE ] This doesn't make much sense to me. If you deal three times, each one should be for 1/3 of the pot. That seems like the best way to minimize the variance. [/ QUOTE ] It actually makes no sense at all unless it's exactly a 50/50 proposition. If it's not, and you make it a best of 3 proposition, the guy who's ahead has an even better chance of scooping. For example, if we assume PA has a 75% chance of winning on each river, and they go for a best of 3, then PA wins 54/64 (84%) and JG wins 10/64 (16%). Which means it's a really good way to go if you're ahead and your opponent is bad at math. [/ QUOTE ] FAIL [/ QUOTE ] I dare you to try to explain how what I said was wrong. Just so that we're clear, we're talking about a scenario where you run it three times and whoever wins 2 or more scoops the whole pot. If you still think I'm wrong, then ... well, let's just say that people like you make poker fun. [/ QUOTE ] Your calculations are correct, but wrong. When dealing rivers, the hits change the propabilites for the next river cards, so your constant odds analogy is wrong for this purpose. 
|
|
#283
11-14-2007, 01:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: High Stakes Poker thread (11/12 - 500k Buyin - Part 2 Spoilers aho
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] On season 1 and 2 running it three times meant that one player will scoop the whole pot. That's how I understood it. This was explained by Eli Elezra in one of the episodes where they ran it twice. Running it twice was better according to Eli has it gave to "even it out". I guess I understood the concept wrong. [/ QUOTE ] This doesn't make much sense to me. If you deal three times, each one should be for 1/3 of the pot. That seems like the best way to minimize the variance. [/ QUOTE ] It actually makes no sense at all unless it's exactly a 50/50 proposition. If it's not, and you make it a best of 3 proposition, the guy who's ahead has an even better chance of scooping. For example, if we assume PA has a 75% chance of winning on each river, and they go for a best of 3, then PA wins 54/64 (84%) and JG wins 10/64 (16%). Which means it's a really good way to go if you're ahead and your opponent is bad at math. [/ QUOTE ] FAIL [/ QUOTE ] I dare you to try to explain how what I said was wrong. Just so that we're clear, we're talking about a scenario where you run it three times and whoever wins 2 or more scoops the whole pot. If you still think I'm wrong, then ... well, let's just say that people like you make poker fun. [/ QUOTE ] Your calculations are correct, but wrong. When dealing rivers, the hits change the propabilites for the next river cards, so your constant odds analogy is wrong for this purpose. [/ QUOTE ] It was an approximation. The small changes due to the effect of hits is relatively trivial. If you still doubt it, using the exact numbers in my above post ... Conventional running the three times: PA scoops 34*33*32/(44*43*42) = 35904/79464 PA wins twice 3*34*33*10/(44*43*42) = 33660/79464 JG wins twice 3*34*10*9/(44*43*42) = 9180/79464 JG scoops 10*9*8/(44*43*42) = 720/79464 PA's equity = 35904/79464 + (2/3)*33660/79464 + (1/3)*9180/79464 = 61404/79464 = 34/44 (77.3%) Weird, probable misunderstanding of Elezra method, where PA scoops if he hits 2/3 and busts if he hits 1/3: PA's equity = 35904/79464 + (3/3)*33660/79464 + (0/3)*9180/79464 = 69564/79464 = 38.52/44 (87.5%)
|
|
#284
11-14-2007, 01:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: High Stakes Poker thread (11/12 - 500k Buyin - Part 2 Spoilers aho
This COULD have been interesting.
Antonio Esfandiari: Opens to 4000 with JsTs Sammy Farha: Calls 4000 with QhJh Patrik Antonius: Re-raises to 21000 with 4s4d in position Antonio is in pain and folds. Sammy Calls. Flop 9h8hJd. Sammy c-r all in. Antonio right after Antonius folding: You and I would have gone all in. I had JT. If he (PA) wasn't raising I would have gone all in the flop. Sammy: You can have your hand. Is this an angle shoot on Antonio's part to fish information. I believe he wouldn't have gone all in on the flop, I think he was playing a little scared money. He would have been in big trouble against Sammys hand. (Sammy a 80% favourite)
|
|
#285
11-14-2007, 01:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: High Stakes Poker thread (11/12 - 500k Buyin - Part 2 Spoilers aho
[ QUOTE ]
It was an approximation. The small changes due to the effect of hits is relatively trivial. If you still doubt it, using the exact numbers in my above post ... Conventional running the three times: PA scoops 34*33*32/(44*43*42) = 35904/79464 PA wins twice 3*34*33*10/(44*43*42) = 33660/79464 JG wins twice 3*34*10*9/(44*43*42) = 9180/79464 JG scoops 10*9*8/(44*43*42) = 720/79464 PA's equity = 35904/79464 + (2/3)*33660/79464 + (1/3)*9180/79464 = 61404/79464 = 34/44 (77.3%) Weird, probable misunderstanding of Elezra method, where PA scoops if he hits 2/3 and busts if he hits 1/3: PA's equity = 35904/79464 + (3/3)*33660/79464 + (0/3)*9180/79464 = 69564/79464 = 38.52/44 (87.5%) [/ QUOTE ] Ah, we are talking about different things. I thought you were claiming that the overdog gets better equity when running thrice than his share should be when running once, and used incorrect analogy to prove that. (Using the method of running it each time for partion of the pot) Obviously that Eli method favours the overdog.
|
|
#286
11-14-2007, 03:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: High Stakes Poker thread (11/12 - 500k Buyin - Part 2 Spoilers aho
[ QUOTE ]
Is this an angle shoot on Antonio's part to fish information. I believe he wouldn't have gone all in on the flop, I think he was playing a little scared money. He would have been in big trouble against Sammys hand. (Sammy a 80% favourite) [/ QUOTE ] I find it laughable that he would get it all in on the flop. He called down 3 streets with top set and agonized over a river call when the flop was only 3 to the flush, but hes going to get $250K in the middle with JT on that flop? Its a nice flop but he could be in trouble.
|
|
#287
11-14-2007, 04:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: High Stakes Poker thread (11/12 - 500k Buyin - Part 2 Spoilers aho
[ QUOTE ]
...I find it laughable... [/ QUOTE ] Seriously, you do? I find it pretty standard amongst poker players to b1tch and moan about flops they could have seen [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] No - you are right of course.
|
|
#288
11-14-2007, 04:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: High Stakes Poker thread (11/12 - 500k Buyin - Part 2 Spoilers aho
[ QUOTE ]
I mean how is it that a guy who has it all like PA, who basically should be the one boasting and being loud (because he has it all) comes off so modest and gentlemanly, while a total piece of trash like Gold is so damn obnoxious. And as other people said hats off to PA for his calm composure. [/ QUOTE ] Empty barrell makes the most noice as they say.
|
|
#290
11-14-2007, 05:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: High Stakes Poker thread (11/12 - 500k Buyin - Part 2 Spoilers aho
I think Gold played this hand badly and this really sums up the difference between a top cash game player like PA and Gold. That turn bet of PA absolutely screams AJ in a deep stack high stakes cash game like this. He check calls the undersized bet on the flop and then comes out betting- what else does he have? AK? Unlikely, he would exercise pot control. Gold should have called the turn and wait to see if he filled up. Obviously if he had he would have won the hand; it would then have been very interesting to see if Patrik could get away.
Gold's play basically vindicates the call PA made on the flop.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
