How do you rationalize this?

[mvdgaag]

Nice post pzhon, nothing much to add, except that bluffing is quite important here as well on low, but drawy flops. If you get checked to on the turn you can often put him on two overs and take it down. If you are second barreled when the turn completed an obvious possible draw you can often take it down with a raise against some opponents (although this quickly gets spew against looser opponents). Of course you sometimes need to call flop/raise turn with real draws or sets too and need to get this balanced nicely so he can't start picking off your bluffs here.

[drzen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are more ways to win than by making the best hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

correct.

Against any reasonable opponent, playing your hands purely based on pot equity and showdown value would be grossly -EV. Unless you're playing against uberdonks, you're going to have to scrape out equity from your low-medium pps and scs when you miss.

[/ QUOTE ]

Playing small pairs on the assumption that you will be able to "scrape out" equity with them is -EV for most players, who, if they took your advice, would be calling far too loosely with them, and losing more money trying to make up for it by working them too hard in the wrong spots. There's a ton of difference between saying "play small pairs only if you have the right pot odds" and "play small pairs only if the implied odds you are counting on are reasonable".

[/ QUOTE ]

lol wtf [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Sir, you are making alot of assumptions.

[/ QUOTE ]


I am working only on the assumptions implicit in your post, sir.

[ QUOTE ]
All I'm saying that is you can't always play fit-or-fold with these hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it is much wiser to play basically fit or fold and take anything else more or less as cream.

[ QUOTE ]
I never said you have to overplay your hands when you miss in order to maximize their value.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then how else are you "scraping out equity"?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Playing small pairs on the assumption that you will be able to "scrape out" equity with them is -EV for most players, who, if they took your advice, would be calling far too loosely with them, and losing more money trying to make up for it by working them too hard in the wrong spots.

[/ QUOTE ]

So my original statement leads you directly into this conclusion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. You suggested that playing these hands soley for their pot-odds value would be wrong, and that you can make up equity by winning in other ways.

[ QUOTE ]
Where did I say you have to call loosely with them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you understand poker at all? Learned how to play yesterday or something?

If you are calling on the basis that you can "scrape out equity" with small pairs, you are calling loosely.

I am not suggesting that this is always wrong. I play small pairs tightly, but that doesn't mean I don't think other players can make money playing them looser.

[ QUOTE ]
Where did I say you have to "work them hard?"

[/ QUOTE ]


"Scraping out" equity is easy?


[ QUOTE ]
Are you seeing things?

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Only after the third pipe, old chap, if I'm very lucky.

[jackaaron]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are more ways to win than by making the best hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

correct.

Against any reasonable opponent, playing your hands purely based on pot equity and showdown value would be grossly -EV. Unless you're playing against uberdonks, you're going to have to scrape out equity from your low-medium pps and scs when you miss.

[/ QUOTE ]

Playing small pairs on the assumption that you will be able to "scrape out" equity with them is -EV for most players,

[/ QUOTE ]

lol wtf [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Sir, you are making alot of assumptions.


[/ QUOTE ]
You're giving him too much credit. You said something that disagreed with him, so of course he had to post that you were wrong. No new assumptions were necessary.

Here is a way to express what you said more mathematically when you have a pair.

Calling is better than folding if your expected return is greater than the size of your call. Your expected return is the sum of the expected return from two cases.

[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] Case 1 is that at least one card of your rank is on the flop. This is fun, although you only win about 80% of the time, given that your opponent started with an overpair.
[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] Case 2 is when you miss. This is usually uncomfortable, but you might miss with a straight-flush draw and 17 outs against an overpair without a card of that suit.
[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] Case 3 is that you don't get to see a flop, perhaps because there is a big reraise after you. Your return should be 0 for this case, but it can't be ignored because its probability affects the probabilities of Cases 1 and 2. This slightly decreases the return from a speculative call when you are not last to act, particularly in an aggressive game.

The expected return from Case 2 is not negative if you play properly, since you can do at least as well as folding to no bet, 0. So, if your expected return from Case 1 is greater than the amount you invest by calling, then you know that you can profitably call. Quite commonly, the expected return from Case 1 is not enough, so you either need to find enough equity in Case 2, or the hand isn't profitable.

How you go about extracting some equity is from Case 2 is complicated. Some opponents will check the flop through, giving you more chances to spike a set, pick up a big draw, or determine that your hand is good. Against some opponents, you can profitably call the continuation bet on some boards, then check it down or find a value/protection bet. Against some, you might find many profitable raises, sometimes as a semi-bluff with 6+ outs, such as 44 on a board of 763. In some circumstances, you may find profitable floats. None of these are as easy as flopping a set, but they are a normal part of playing winning poker when your opponents stop mindlessly stacking off against sets.

To answer the OP, sometimes you make a call which is profitable on average, and your opponent pays off less than average. However, if this keeps happening, you should review how much you expect to get paid off when you hit. You may be overestimating it.

[/ QUOTE ]

pz, great post.

But, I'm probably ignorant here...are you assuming that your opponent in Case 1 & 2 is a good or at least equal opponent? I ask because often we talk about finding opponents who make the most mistakes while playing, and exploiting those mistakes. I think that Case 1 & 2 change depending on your ability to exploit bad player's mistakes, or whether you're up against a smart player.

Hope I'm getting the point across [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[iveyleague24]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are more ways to win than by making the best hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

correct.

Against any reasonable opponent, playing your hands purely based on pot equity and showdown value would be grossly -EV. Unless you're playing against uberdonks, you're going to have to scrape out equity from your low-medium pps and scs when you miss.

[/ QUOTE ]

Playing small pairs on the assumption that you will be able to "scrape out" equity with them is -EV for most players, who, if they took your advice, would be calling far too loosely with them, and losing more money trying to make up for it by working them too hard in the wrong spots. There's a ton of difference between saying "play small pairs only if you have the right pot odds" and "play small pairs only if the implied odds you are counting on are reasonable".

[/ QUOTE ]

lol wtf [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Sir, you are making alot of assumptions.

[/ QUOTE ]


I am working only on the assumptions implicit in your post, sir.

[ QUOTE ]
All I'm saying that is you can't always play fit-or-fold with these hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it is much wiser to play basically fit or fold and take anything else more or less as cream.

[ QUOTE ]
I never said you have to overplay your hands when you miss in order to maximize their value.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then how else are you "scraping out equity"?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Playing small pairs on the assumption that you will be able to "scrape out" equity with them is -EV for most players, who, if they took your advice, would be calling far too loosely with them, and losing more money trying to make up for it by working them too hard in the wrong spots.

[/ QUOTE ]

So my original statement leads you directly into this conclusion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. You suggested that playing these hands soley for their pot-odds value would be wrong, and that you can make up equity by winning in other ways.

[ QUOTE ]
Where did I say you have to call loosely with them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you understand poker at all? Learned how to play yesterday or something?

If you are calling on the basis that you can "scrape out equity" with small pairs, you are calling loosely.

I am not suggesting that this is always wrong. I play small pairs tightly, but that doesn't mean I don't think other players can make money playing them looser.

[ QUOTE ]
Where did I say you have to "work them hard?"

[/ QUOTE ]


"Scraping out" equity is easy?


[ QUOTE ]
Are you seeing things?

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Only after the third pipe, old chap, if I'm very lucky.

[/ QUOTE ]


Save the last answer, your logic is completely inverted. You're finding inherent definitions where there aren't any and where they weren't intended, and in the process sculpting my original statement to be wrong in exactly the way you saw it being wrong before you even read it. All I have to say is: Since when is the phrase "scrape out" so narrowly and well-defined. For all I know, it could mean this. You're funny. Thnks Fr Th Lghs

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Calling is better than folding if your expected return is greater than the size of your call. Your expected return is the sum of the expected return from two cases.

[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] Case 1 is that at least one card of your rank is on the flop. This is fun, although you only win about 80% of the time, given that your opponent started with an overpair.
[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] Case 2 is when you miss. This is usually uncomfortable, but you might miss with a straight-flush draw and 17 outs against an overpair without a card of that suit.
[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] Case 3 is that you don't get to see a flop, perhaps because there is a big reraise after you. Your return should be 0 for this case, but it can't be ignored because its probability affects the probabilities of Cases 1 and 2.

[/ QUOTE ]
pz, great post.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks. This approach is much more common in backgammon analysis than in poker. In backgammon, you may need to find 25% to take a double (a 1/2 pot bet), and you might get hit immediately 14 times out of 36. A common technique is to count your wins out of the 14 hits (gammon losses are -1/2), and your wins out of the 22 misses. You try to come up with the 9 wins out of 36 you need to take. Usually, you have to consider both cases. I think this method is effective for reducing the complexity of evaluations, and could be applied to poker more.

For example, if you are thinking of completing the small blind with a hand like T4o in a family pot, there are 3 cases again. Case 1 is that the flop brings 2 or 3 cards of your ranks, which happens about 3.5% of the time. Case 2 is that you hit the board at most once (including the times you have a 1 card draw). Case 3 is that the big blind raises, and you never see the flop. To expect to get your completion back, you need to find enough value from a combination of Case 1 and Case 2, and usually you can't.

Here is another example.

In poker, it is common for people to assume implicitly that they are dead in Case 2. If you have an OESD on the flop, you don't know that your opponent will fire again on a blank turn, or that he will bet enough that you will not have at least a profitable call.

[ QUOTE ]
are you assuming that your opponent in Case 1 & 2 is a good or at least equal opponent? I ask because often we talk about finding opponents who make the most mistakes while playing, and exploiting those mistakes. I think that Case 1 & 2 change depending on your ability to exploit bad player's mistakes, or whether you're up against a smart player.

[/ QUOTE ]
You can and should combine this with assessments of your opponent's mistakes, and how well you believe you can exploit them. An opponent who will stack off too often will increase the value of Case 1, while decreasing the value of Case 2. A looser opponent may pay off less in Case 1, while giving you more in Case 2.

While you may want to tailor your evaluations to your opponent, it would be nice to see overall statistics. I don't know how to extract these from PokerTracker, but it would be a useful feature.