A side note to the Fundamental Theory of Poker

[Dan Bitel]

I just want to make sure every1 realises quite how important knowing your opponents tendancies are:

HAND 1: I was having a discussion with amoeba (in which he completely pwned me) about this hand:

UTG+2 ($21.37)
MP1 ($51.51)
MP2 ($66.24)
MP3 ($49.35)
CO ($35)
Hero ($51.40)
SB ($55.70)
BB ($25.22)
UTG ($42.75)
UTG+1 ($48.65)

Preflop: Hero is Button with A [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], Q [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]. SB posts a blind of $0.25.
6 folds, CO calls $0.50, Hero raises to $2.5, 1 fold, BB calls $2, CO folds.

Flop: ($5.75) 6 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 9 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 9 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (2 players)
BB checks, Hero bets $5, BB calls $5.

Turn: ($15.75) Q [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (2 players)

The discussion based aroud what we should do if our opponents has 10d10x. Now, by the FTOP, we make a mistake everytime we do something different to what we would do if we could see our opponents cards. Well, if we could see his cards are 10d10x, then what should we do? Surely the answer is bet? Well thats what I thought, but look at this:

<u>Assumptions:</u> Opponent will call a 2/3 pot bet on turn or a 2/3 pot bet on river, but not both.

<u>River a non-diamond:</u> Whether we check turn or bet turn, we win a 2/3 pot bet and the entire pot

<u>River a diamond:</u> If we check turn, we lose whats in the pot now and nothing more. BUT, if we bet turn, we lose whats in the pot AND our 2/3 pot bet on the turn.

SO, as you can see, if we know his hand, then checking is actually best!!

HAND 2:

This is a theoretical hand, but here we go: 6max game, and a player opens from CO for 3BB, button calls and you call in the BB with A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]2 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img].

Flop: 4 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 9 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], Q [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img].

Now, imagine that the CO here has K [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]Q [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] and that button has a hand he's going to fold. Whats our move? Even though we can see our opponents hole cards, we still don't know. What we need is to know his tendancies. Will he fold to a C/R AI? Will he pay us off if we hit? if we go for a b/3b, will he actually raise us on the flop? etc.

What I want you to take out of this post is that the FTOP is all well and good, and having a read on your opponents cards is all well and good, but the most important read to have, is how your opponent plays his cards.

[K-mac]

Dbitel, I understand the point of your post, but I remember reading something by Abdul Jalib in which he said that the FTOP is a bit off. He has his own version called the probabilistic fundamental theory of poker (or something along those lines) where he states that you should play someone based on the RANGE of their hands rather than one specific hand. I guess the argument is that playing based on one hand really pigeon holes you into playing a hand in one way rather than playing what is best for the range.

If Jalib's statement is correct, how does it change your thoughts on these hands?

My guess is the first hand wont change too much as most likely the villain does have some sort of diamond draw (maybe a pocket pair including a diamond, or two over cards with a diamond)

-OR-

Are we assuming we KNOW the villains hands, and we are playing based on tendencies?

Edit: the only reason i brought up the PFTOP is because i had had an AIM convo with Izmet Fekali in which he stated that playing based on your opp having one single hand is a bit results oriented.

[NL Newbie]

What?

hand 1 - if we bet 2/3 of the pot given him 2.5:1 he IS MAKING A MISTAKE and should fold. Therefore in theory we should be.

Why are you trying to save 2/3rd pot bet because you feel you'll get sucked out on?

Please explain.

Also why is he calling the river bet if we dont bet turn? Because he feels we're bluffing?

[NL Newbie]

Ok i reviewed the hand again. I think i may have figured out what you're saying here.


In short:
Bet when we're 100% favourite, not when we have 75% equity

Its based on those major assumptions, so more theory IMO than a concept that can be readily applied.


---------------------------
Text results appended to pokerstove.txt

94,339,557 games 54.312 secs 1,736,992 games/sec

Board: 6d 9s 9d Qd
Dead:

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 75.0027 % 75.03% 00.00% { AcQc }
Hand 2: 24.9973 % 25.01% 00.00% { TcTd }
--------------------------


I'm from limit background, and i hate giving free cards. In the heat of the battle i'd be betting here and taking my $15 * 75% chance to win the hand = $$$ to the bank.

Id be happy my opponent made an error chasing without odds.

Edited to add: Also 75% of $10 bet = $7.50 per bet vs 100% of $10 = $10, however 1 time in 5 he hits his flush, do we bet this in this theory post or not? If not ok, but if so we dont make AS MUCH profit as expected. We win $10 the 4 times he doesnt hit the flush but calls, then we lose the pot then next time. so its $40/5 =$8. Only a small difference in EV.

Id rather bet.


Correct me if i misunderstood pleas or if my calculations or assumptions are off [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[4_2_it]

[ QUOTE ]
Only a small difference in EV.

Id rather bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are advocating taking the line that produces a lower EV? Very interesting.

That's like the car dealer who says that he loses $50 on every car he sells, but makes up for it in volume.

[thirteen]

Aren't we making a big assumption in hand 1. That an opponent willing to draw to the 4th nut flush(on a four flush) will not call a river value bet if a small non-diamond card falls? I think if a 5 of spades falls some villains are willing to call a river value bet holding the tens(maybe not 2/3 pot but probably 1/2 pot)

[Dan Bitel]

[ QUOTE ]
Aren't we making a big assumption in hand 1. That an opponent willing to draw to the 4th nut flush(on a four flush) will not call a river value bet if a small non-diamond card falls? I think if a 5 of spades falls some villains are willing to call a river value bet holding the tens(maybe not 2/3 pot but probably 1/2 pot)

[/ QUOTE ]

are you really going to "value bet" your queen though once villain has call your turn bet? I think you'd be veryt happy to check behind!

[NL Newbie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Only a small difference in EV.

Id rather bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are advocating taking the line that produces a lower EV? Very interesting.

That's like the car dealer who says that he loses $50 on every car he sells, but makes up for it in volume.

[/ QUOTE ]

no its not at all.

As said in theory of poker, when you make mistakes in theory. I.e. not reraising a donk bet on 3flush board fearing the flush - sure it may be a mistake or less EV because if you could see all the cards you would raise. However its not a bad play.

You're really taking the +EV route huh? So your betting this river 100%?

I dont see how it compares to a car dealer at all. Please explain.

[Dan Bitel]

NL Newbie,

look at the calculations I've done. If he's still calling the same bet on the river after missing as he was calling on the turn, its MUCH better to check turn and bet river

[NL Newbie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Aren't we making a big assumption in hand 1. That an opponent willing to draw to the 4th nut flush(on a four flush) will not call a river value bet if a small non-diamond card falls? I think if a 5 of spades falls some villains are willing to call a river value bet holding the tens(maybe not 2/3 pot but probably 1/2 pot)

[/ QUOTE ]

are you really going to "value bet" your queen though once villain has call your turn bet? I think you'd be veryt happy to check behind!

[/ QUOTE ]

Will you value bet river dbitel? If not, why are we not betting the turn.

As i said in my reply to 4_2_it, i'll be betting the turn all day long.

Giving a free card when your the favourite i find absolutely crazy, even though i understand interms of EV this is the SLIGHTLY incorrect play.

Anyhow this post is based on crazy assumptions such as him always calling 2/3rd river bet &amp; knowing his cards precisely.