|
|
#31
02-23-2007, 04:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Razz past and present
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] You are not factoring reverse implied odds. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] You lost me here, you will have to explain your point a bit better. Sounds like more implied odds junk to me [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] That can't be it, since there are no implied odds in Razz. [/ QUOTE ] Ummm, at a loss here. I know that TT is well into the debate with you, but you need to go back and look up the definition of implied odds again. After you've done that, use logic to determine if it can apply to all forms of poker or not. (Hint: yes) This quote kind of reminds me of Ed Miller's interview that basically said a lot of players mis-apply concepts they read in books. In this case, it's what they don't read. All that to say, you're reading books wrong. You gotta' do some thinking beyond what's in print and use knowledge gained from other sources. You can't read them like a cookbook with an exact recipe to be found. If I sound smug, my bad, but I was the exact same way when I first started my reading. [/ QUOTE ] No prob 7n7, and thanks for your input. You have every right to be smug after reading that, just like I have a right to be facetious [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] Check out the rest of the thread for further explanation if you haven't already... [/ QUOTE ] Yah, but 95% of your points have been knocked down so far, bad time to be facetious [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Please further explain the part that confused me, I think it was just your writing not the math. Sounds like your on to something there. TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 
|
|
#32
02-23-2007, 04:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Razz past and present
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] You are not factoring reverse implied odds. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] You lost me here, you will have to explain your point a bit better. Sounds like more implied odds junk to me [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] That can't be it, since there are no implied odds in Razz. [/ QUOTE ] Ummm, at a loss here. I know that TT is well into the debate with you, but you need to go back and look up the definition of implied odds again. After you've done that, use logic to determine if it can apply to all forms of poker or not. (Hint: yes) This quote kind of reminds me of Ed Miller's interview that basically said a lot of players mis-apply concepts they read in books. In this case, it's what they don't read. All that to say, you're reading books wrong. You gotta' do some thinking beyond what's in print and use knowledge gained from other sources. You can't read them like a cookbook with an exact recipe to be found. If I sound smug, my bad, but I was the exact same way when I first started my reading. [/ QUOTE ] No prob 7n7, and thanks for your input. You have every right to be smug after reading that, just like I have a right to be facetious [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] Check out the rest of the thread for further explanation if you haven't already... [/ QUOTE ] I've read the entire thread and guess I will have to concede that you disguise your facetiousness well. 7n7 out.
|
|
#33
02-23-2007, 05:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Razz past and present
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Maybe we can understand his tight play a little better by considering that he's figuring his odds to call a single raise in the 15/30 game as 28:15 and in the 30/60 games as 70:30. This is only a 25% increase, but it's also mathematically wrong since he completely neglects the bring-in in the 30/60 game! The actual pot odds are 80:30 in the 30/60 game for a 43% increase over the 15/30 game. It's a natural mistake though since he makes the same error on p. 107 in claiming that an ante steal at 30/60 is risking $30 to win $40 (should be $50), and again on p. 112 when calculating the odds to defend your bring-in. Here he states that when you're only getting 2.8:1 in the 15/30 game, you'd be correct to fold 100% of the time against a probable steal but the 7:2 odds you get in the 30/60 game could swing it to a call if you hold the best possible hole cards. Except that your pot odds in this spot are actually 4:1 in the 30/60 game. Might this change the correct strategy a little? [/ QUOTE ] You lost me here, you will have to explain your point a bit better. Sounds like more implied odds junk to me [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] Sorry TT, I thought YOU were being facetious when you said you were lost on this comment. It's just simple arithmetic: In the 30/60 game, the 8 antes total $40 in a full ring and the bring-in is another $10 on top. So if one player completes in front of you the pot odds are ($40+$10+$30) to $30 for you to call, or 80:30. Sklansky calculated them as 70:30 which leads to me believe he forgot about the bring-in. The pot odds in this spot in the 15/30 game are 28:15 (which he got right), so by the calculation in SOR the pot odds in the 30/60 games are 25% greater than in the 15/30 game and he explains how to adjust for that. In reality though, the 80:30 pot odds are 43% greater that the odds in the 15/30 game. My question was whether or not this error could affect the correct strategy or the range of hands you should call with in this spot? The error originates on p. 107 when figuring the odds you are getting to try to steal the ante, and is also repeated on p. 112 when figuring the odds to defend your bring in against a player in the steal position. To defend against a single player in the 15/30 game you're getting 2.8:1 odds, but in the 30/60 game the odds are 4:1 (not 7:2 as calculated in SOR). Some structures, like the Stars 1/2 tables, have bring-ins 1/2 the size of the SB and offer a massive 4.6:1 to defend, but Sklansky couldn't have known that then.
|
|
#34
02-23-2007, 05:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Razz past and present
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Maybe we can understand his tight play a little better by considering that he's figuring his odds to call a single raise in the 15/30 game as 28:15 and in the 30/60 games as 70:30. This is only a 25% increase, but it's also mathematically wrong since he completely neglects the bring-in in the 30/60 game! The actual pot odds are 80:30 in the 30/60 game for a 43% increase over the 15/30 game. It's a natural mistake though since he makes the same error on p. 107 in claiming that an ante steal at 30/60 is risking $30 to win $40 (should be $50), and again on p. 112 when calculating the odds to defend your bring-in. Here he states that when you're only getting 2.8:1 in the 15/30 game, you'd be correct to fold 100% of the time against a probable steal but the 7:2 odds you get in the 30/60 game could swing it to a call if you hold the best possible hole cards. Except that your pot odds in this spot are actually 4:1 in the 30/60 game. Might this change the correct strategy a little? [/ QUOTE ] You lost me here, you will have to explain your point a bit better. Sounds like more implied odds junk to me [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] Sorry TT, I thought YOU were being facetious when you said you were lost on this comment. It's just simple arithmetic: In the 30/60 game, the 8 antes total $40 in a full ring and the bring-in is another $10 on top. So if one player completes in front of you the pot odds are ($40+$10+$30) to $30 for you to call, or 80:30. Sklansky calculated them as 70:30 which leads to me believe he forgot about the bring-in. The pot odds in this spot in the 15/30 game are 28:15 (which he got right), so by the calculation in SOR the pot odds in the 30/60 games are 25% greater than in the 15/30 game and he explains how to adjust for that. In reality though, the 80:30 pot odds are 43% greater that the odds in the 15/30 game. My question was whether or not this error could affect the correct strategy or the range of hands you should call with in this spot? The error originates on p. 107 when figuring the odds you are getting to try to steal the ante, and is also repeated on p. 112 when figuring the odds to defend your bring in against a player in the steal position. To defend against a single player in the 15/30 game you're getting 2.8:1 odds, but in the 30/60 game the odds are 4:1 (not 7:2 as calculated in SOR). Some structures, like the Stars 1/2 tables, have bring-ins 1/2 the size of the SB and offer a massive 4.6:1 to defend, but Sklansky couldn't have known that then. [/ QUOTE ] Good analysis, I understand now. I have my opinion, but I'd like to hear David's opinion since it's his work. I suggest you post that last two paragraphs in the Sklanksy Special Forum and hope he addresses the question. If he does not I will respond in 1 week (someone kick me if I don't). IMHO although you haven't shown a scenario where the book is antiquated by the modern game, you have however shown a flaw in the book - and a good one. Yet its not as it seems, hence why David should respond. nice catch! TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]
|
|
#36
02-24-2007, 12:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Razz past and present
[ QUOTE ]
If you're going to make posts like this, you should explain what was wrong with my original statement and why. [/ QUOTE ] He can't. You guys are arguing two different points. You are saying there isn't much affect on your hand selection, he is saying it affects your win rate all other things being equal. And it will, although everyone kicks in more money, good player are are going to win statistically fewer pots so you are not going to get equal share of the pre-flop pots. The good players are making their money on later streets. Andy I agree with you 100%. I have seen people say that you must play looser in a high ante game, but I have never seen anyone quantify it. We are probably talking a few % of starting hands.
|
|
#37
02-24-2007, 04:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Razz past and present
[ QUOTE ]
And it will, although everyone kicks in more money, good player are are going to win statistically fewer pots so you are not going to get equal share of the pre-flop pots. The good players are making their money on later streets. Andy I agree with you 100%. I have seen people say that you must play looser in a high ante game, but I have never seen anyone quantify it. We are probably talking a few % of starting hands. [/ QUOTE ] Obviously quantifying the difference is the key to this issue, and it must be somehow related to the relative difference in ante size. I mean in the extreme, say you had two limit games with 1/2 limits. Game A has a penny ante, and in Game B it's $0.50. There will be a huge difference in the correct selection of starting hands, regardless of how good a player you are later in the hand.
|
|
#39
02-24-2007, 06:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Razz past and present
OK, we've got to divide up some of these points or each post will become as long as Skalnsky on razz itself!
[ QUOTE ] Your contention has been that Sklansky is inappropriate for today's structure. If people are calling more often here, it's not because the structure causes looser play, it's because people are looser now than they used to be. Note that the next item advises to adjust your steal frequency based on how likely you are to be called. [/ QUOTE ] I think you misconstrued my contention. Today's structures have a range of ante sizes just like years ago, with the largest antes comparable to the 30/60 game in SOR. The smallest available now are still larger than the 15/30 game he describes, but at least that game gives us a lower bound. My contention is that today's games seem to be looser than he describes REGARDLESS of the ante size. Those playing too loosely in low ante games may be foolish, but they do it anyway. The portions of the text that I pointed out read as if other players are likely to be playing tightly, and that's no longer a good assumption. My other contention is that Sklansky doesn't always differentiate between the 15/30 and 30/60 games when giving advice, but says himself that the ante structure is EXTREMELY important in determining correct strategy. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] In fact, there are several other examples of advice that disregards how the pot odds created by high antes should change your starting requirements. Like on p. 116 when the author categorizes a 752 starting hand as "weak" if three other babies are gone. [/ QUOTE ] Of course, you miss the context. Look at this in conjunction with the preceding page. He advices raising with "all playable hands" except for a few exceptions, but gives the 752 as an example of a weak but playable hand that would now prefer to play for just a limp if possible in the 15-30 structure. [/ QUOTE ] In what context is a 752 a "weak" starting hand?? In the 15/30 game that's no longer played? Weak is a relative term, implying that it is significantly worse than other probable hands involved in the pot. When most players are very loose and will be playing 3-card 8s, 9s, and often with paint in the hole, a 752 will be a significant FAVORITE over most starting hands, even with two 4's and an A gone. As a matter of fact, even if we assume that we're playing the 15/30 game and other players are playing very tightly, how would a 752 fare against other probable starting hands? Well, would a 643 qualify as a good starter even in an ultratight game? I'll assume that it is. Without any dead cards out, our 752 has 47% equity HU vs. an opponent's 643. Does he have us crushed? Now say there are an A and another 4 dead (and our opponent has his 4 in the door). Now our "weak" hand has only 45% equity. Are we crushed now?
|
|
#40
02-24-2007, 06:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Razz past and present
[ QUOTE ]
define huge. Unless you play excellent player on the later rounds or the equity you think you gained by playing junk early will be lost later. [/ QUOTE ] huge = larger than large I agree with this much: if you choose the correct starting hands, and play like crap later, you will lose. If you are a bad player, you're probably better off playing tight and going with only premium hands. That way you'll be in fewer pots with fewer chances to screw up.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
