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

[MLG]

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.


To be fair to you, you are not bad at pointing out mistakes players commonly make. However, and this is why everybody including myself is losing patience with you, you constantly attribute your observations to your own brilliance at spotting the communities problems, instead of learning the fundamentals of poker well and coming to understand that the issues you are spotting have been brought up before, and talked about, and are generally grasped by good players.

[AragornX151]

What do people do with TT/JJ here if they're considering mucking QQ to the rr? How about AK?

[baltostar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't matter if you are closing the action or not. Your risk is the total amount of chips you must commit to continue play past the event (in this case the flop).

Misunderstanding this is exactly how so many players get pulled into playing for set value when they don't have the necessary implied odds. They limp, someone min-raise, they re-calc their odds based on cost to call, and call again, even though their true implied odds are no longer their.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you a troll or do you really just not understand at all? The amount you're committing to continue is 1200, FORGET ABOUT THE ORIGINAL RAISE AMOUNT, its completely irrelevant to the mathematical portion of determining implied odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I'm not a troll, I am a human.

In a tournament context, basing implied odds across a non-betting event (such as the flop) on cost-to-call arises from mis-applying cash-game principles to tournaments.

Please allow me to explain.

Consider the following proof based on two scenarios:

(For simplicity, assume you know that the blinds will both fold in both scenarios. Also assume that if you don't hit the flop you always choose to c/f and your opponent always bets.)

Scenario 1: Blinds 15/30. Stack 1000. You are on button with 22. All fold to big stack MP1 min-raises to 60 then folds to you. Your implied odds to play for set value are 1045/60 = 17.5:1 Your required implied odds are in the neighborhood of 17:1 or so (8.5:1 * 2:1). You call.

Scenario 2: Blinds 15/30. Stack 1000. You are in CO with 22. All fold to big stack MP1 who min-raises to 60 and then folds to you. As in Scenario 1, you call. Now, button min-raises to 120. All fold to you. If you base your implied odds on cost-to-call you are getting (1000 + 60 + 45)/60 = 1105/60 = 18.5:1, so you call.

What's the problem?

The problem is that Scenario 2 involves twice as much risk to your stack as Scenario 1. If you miss the flop you have lost 120 chips in Scenario 2 as opposed to 60 in Scenario 1.

However, in Scenario 2, you can only win 60 more chips than in Scenario 1 -- you can win only win 5% more.

In Scenario 2, your stack-utility risk is double for only marginally more stack-utility reward.

To play optimally, you cannot approach stack-utility risk in this manner in a tournament context. You can not utilize a criteria which instructs you to assume twice the stack-utility risk for approximately the same stack-utility reward across two otherwise near-identical scenarios.

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).

In a cash game, when you lose in Scenario 2, the twice-as-large loss is not material to your future ability to capitalize on opportunities (assuming you have more buy-ins available). Therefore, in cash games, implied odds may be based on cost-to-call.

However, in a tournament context, when you lose in Scenario 2, you have lost twice as much stack-utility, which (due to the escalating blinds structure) translates to a materially larger impact on your ability to capitalize on future opportunities than losing in Scenario 1.

[gobboboy]

[ QUOTE ]
Please allow me to explain.

[/ QUOTE ]

NO.

NO ONE HERE WANTS TO LISTEN TO YOU.

[kleath]

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

[gobboboy]

Not to mention your example is ridiculously wrong in every way.

[RandALLin]

I can't even read HSMTT anymore because baltostar puts me on tilt.

[Bakes]

guys, its really easy. just click on the name "baltostar" on one of those long-winded posts, and select "ignore this user".

Voila!

[Pudge714]

I really want Admo to create a photoshop of Baltostar like his StephenNUTS, Wolfund and olivert robots.

[uphigh_downlow]

For someone who seems to come to rational deductions, this is quite a weird line to take.

I'm pretty sure, the implied odds are based on cost to call.

You could reconstruct the second example with 60 chip antes from the 3 players involved instead of the min raises and evaluate it like that.

If on the other hand, you claim that the odds on the original 60 chip call, when you were not closing the action, are lower than calculated because of the possibility of reraise behind you, thats agreeable.

If anything, your odds are better in scenario 2( Express + implied)

-------
After rereading a bit of what you have to say, it makes sense, but it is just an approximation you are making for your convenience.

Yes post-facto, you can say that the situation you got yourself into did not warrant getting into because of the odds involved

You want to have a standard way of evaluating situations like that, you'll be better served by reducing implied odds on actions where you don't close the action. That would be a lot closer to the truth, albeit hard to compute.

ps: I have to admit that this 'heuristic' approach of yours isnt worthy of complete dismissal, and is mildly interesting.