QQ from upfront early in Warmup...Is this ok?

[ASPoker8]

Just read this thread

Cliff notes:

[x] Baltosar wrong
[x] Baltosar tries to make up for his wrong by writing long, awful, incorrect posts
[x] Baltosar claims he is right and the rest of the world is wrong and the reason he is right is the reason us successful MTTers have such and such misconceptions and leaks
[x] Baltosar derails an interesting thread, gg any chance of good discussion

[baltostar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In the 2nd scenario, the correct implied odds calculation is 1105/120 = 9.2:1 and so you fold (albeit the re-raiser probably brought the necessary odds down to around 13:1).

[/ QUOTE ]

You should have accounted for the chance that Button or Blinds would raise when you called the first bet of 60. If you thought it was going to be raised too often to cut down your implied odds, then you fold the first time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats what makes his post interesting. The vulnerability to a reraise isnt something which is easily quantifiable in terms of pot odds og lost/gained EV.

So basically if you go by his reasoning, when you get to the next decision point, and you realise you messed up in the first place, you fold.

Almost like coding a bot. Take the solution, which is not maximal by any means, but one that could work reasonably in quite a few situations.

That is if he intended it that way, and does not believe the math is accurate as he painted it.

Definitely food for thought.

[/ QUOTE ]


In risk analysis / game theory, this is an area known as "event risk".

You are not primarily basing your decision to play for set value on you perception of opponent's hand, or you ability to outplay them post-flop. You are primarily basing you decision on the outcome of an event, namely the flop.

In my Scenario 2 above, part of the risk of calling for set value is that you will be raised by the button. This risk should be built into the multiplier that primarily accounts for likelihood of stacking (I used 2:1).

In Scenario 2, if you are raised you should fold because you don't have the necessary maximum payout odds for the event risk, and this should not bother you: Your original call was correct based on assumptions accounted for in your multiplier but now the scenario has changed.

This type of analysis is also why raising a bunch of limpers with a big pair tends to be such a profitable strategy. Very often, you are enticing one or more of those limpers who call to overpay for their event risk. In the long run, this increases your avg reward/risk while it reduces that of those opponents who incorrectly call.

For those who quickly dismiss what I'm saying, please offer an explanation for why a rational player would play in the following manner:

You have a small PP and are sandwiched between two bigger-stack opponents who min-re-raise each other until they are all in. You choose to make each successive call because basing your calculation of implied odds given on cost-to-call at each decision point you find that they exceed your calculated requisite implied odds. In this manner you eventually committ all of your chips, so that across the event (the flop) you have accepted ~2:1 odds to play for set value only.

It is true that the multiplier you use to calculate your requisite implied odds should gradually decrease to 1 as your opponents incrementally commit their stacks to the pot, but nonetheless your accepted payout odds of ~2:1 are far below even the base odds of hitting your set of ~8.5:1.

[gobboboy]

It doesn't work like that because there would be two reraises back to you and you wouldn't call those two cold. Try again.

EDIT: And even if you still get odds facing the raise/reraise then you should fold because a good player recognizes the fact that it's very possible there's going to be a reraise since hero isn't closing the action.

[Astyanax]

Wow if thread goes to show one thing, it is that gobbo you're a bit of an a$$. I already knew this by watching your total absence of class when losing to Hansen at the Aussie Millions.

Grow the fk up and let someone express their opinions without shooting them down in flames.

You are a good poker player.

[Rocco]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow if thread goes to show one thing, it is that gobbo you're a bit of an a$$. I already knew this by watching your total absence of class when losing to Hansen at the Aussie Millions.

Grow the fk up and let someone express their opinions without shooting them down in flames.

You are a good poker player.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you are not reading HSMTT forum every day? If so, you would clearly understand why Gobbo is reacting this way. This is not the first time 'baltostar' has come up with stuff like this, and every single time he has refused to admit he's wrong. Believe me, we've tried to explain this to him in a mildly manner, but it doesn't work.

[Rocco]

[ QUOTE ]
balto,
the time to worry about the issues you bring up is before you put the first chip in the pot. So, in this hand for example, when you raise QQ to 600 you need to consider the possibility that you will be putting in more chips than just the 600 and its implications for playing the hand. After you have put the 600 in, and the action comes back to you facing a reraise, you need to consider your immediate odds, which is the amount of money in the pot now vs how much you now have to put in. Part of that consideration of course is how likely you will be to lose chips after the flop (negative implied odds), and how likely it is you will make additional money (implied odds). You are right in that many players make mistakes BEFORE they put the first chip in the pot because they dont consider how many more chips will continue to go as action progresses. That does not change the fact that at the current decision points you cant use the money you've already put in to calculate your odds because you dont get that money back. In this example right now you have to put 1200 more and see a flop (with no risk of putting anything more in the pot before the flop), or fold and put in zero more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Baltostar,

Did you actually read this post by MLG? It explains thoroughly why your line is wrong. Just wanted to highlight it again in case you missed it.

[gobboboy]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow if thread goes to show one thing, it is that gobbo you're a bit of an a$$. I already knew this by watching your total absence of class when losing to Hansen at the Aussie Millions.

Grow the fk up and let someone express their opinions without shooting them down in flames.

You are a good poker player.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you get 10% of the information and flame me. Awesome. Glad you're getting the story straight.

[JammyDodga]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
balto,
the time to worry about the issues you bring up is before you put the first chip in the pot. So, in this hand for example, when you raise QQ to 600 you need to consider the possibility that you will be putting in more chips than just the 600 and its implications for playing the hand. After you have put the 600 in, and the action comes back to you facing a reraise, you need to consider your immediate odds, which is the amount of money in the pot now vs how much you now have to put in. Part of that consideration of course is how likely you will be to lose chips after the flop (negative implied odds), and how likely it is you will make additional money (implied odds). You are right in that many players make mistakes BEFORE they put the first chip in the pot because they dont consider how many more chips will continue to go as action progresses. That does not change the fact that at the current decision points you cant use the money you've already put in to calculate your odds because you dont get that money back. In this example right now you have to put 1200 more and see a flop (with no risk of putting anything more in the pot before the flop), or fold and put in zero more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Baltostar,

Did you actually read this post by MLG? It explains thoroughly why your line is wrong. Just wanted to highlight it again in case you missed it.

[/ QUOTE ]

+1

Baltostar. Can you please respond to this argument. (By respond I dont mean just repeat what you've already said)

[Confused1]

[ QUOTE ]
Balto you're completely wrong but its quite obvious you're very happy basking in your own ignorance.


[/ QUOTE ]

Balto - please write a book, you could start another 'poker boom' all by yourself.

[Astyanax]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow if thread goes to show one thing, it is that gobbo you're a bit of an a$$. I already knew this by watching your total absence of class when losing to Hansen at the Aussie Millions.

Grow the fk up and let someone express their opinions without shooting them down in flames.

You are a good poker player.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you get 10% of the information and flame me. Awesome. Glad you're getting the story straight.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not being rude but i have to say the way you acted towards Hansen was appalling. He admitted he got lucky and you just had to stick the knife in, even though he offered you an admirable defeat without patronising you one bit.

I understand this a high stakes forum but as gp has said the guy is trying his hardest and does want to learn off people like you. He may not show it but it must be the case or otherwise he wouldn't be playing this game (compliment).

Rant over.