EV for tournament hold 'em

[moo321]

As a further illustration . . .

Playing ionline for pennies yesterday evening, and third hand in. I have A7o in the hole, with a BB call to see the flop. Flop falls A,7,4, so two pair with tops. Turn gives up a 4. Risk is that someone may be holding a 4, but with 10 people at the table, and 8 of them folded, its not unreasonable to assume that if it ever turned up it may have gone already. River can't remember but no impact. So I'm playing two pairs, aces and sevens with a lower pair on the board. Other player calling through but no raise at the last opportunity, despite their being 50+ BBs in the pot.

Showdown? Cards shown are a pair of fours. Thank you God. Odds on that happening anyone?

:-(

26 to 1.

 

[UK-21]

26-1, serious?

Not quite as extreme the previous example that wiped me out the week before - when someone flopped quads; 407-1.

Now tell me it's all about skill . . . . . .

 

[moo321]

26-1, serious?

Not quite as extreme the previous example that wiped me out the week before - when someone flopped quads; 407-1.

Now tell me it's all about skill . . . . . .

No, I just made that up.

 

[callipygian]

Odds on that happening anyone?

It's about 11:9 FOR. That is, you were an underdog going in.

Preflop, you're going in with A7o vs. 44 - this is a very simple case of small pair vs. two overcards, and the small pair actually has the advantage, about 54%. You're already beat on the flop - 444 beats AA77 - and at this point your opponent is a 83% favorite. That he pulled quads is irrelevant, he didn't need it to beat you.

A7o is NOT a hand you want to be pushing all-in with. In a limit game, A7o is a throwaway hand from early through middle positions. I'd never even raise A7o from late position or even call a raise with that hand - it's too easily dominated by hands like AK and AQ, and then you lose your stack to a AK7 or AQ7 flop.

You have to tighten up. You shouldn't be calling 10x bb raises preflop unless you've got a legitimate hand. You should fold your fair hands earlier and save your money for pushing your stronger hands. By doing so, you actually reduce your variance because you're not fishing as often.

If you think of it in terms of blackjack, it's not unlike waiting for a TC of +6 before you put your whole stack at risk. 80% of the time you're just putzing around waiting for the count to get appropriately high. 19% of the time the count is high enough to venture a moderate bet, but you don't want to push your big guns out. It's that 1% of the time where everything locks in place that you want to put it on the line - and even then, you're going to lose frequently. You have to have confidence that you're playing a winning game to cover those bad beats.

Now compare this to someone who's shoving his bankroll at TC's of +2 or +3. He has some small, slim advantage, but making big bets at such low advantages make for really big swings and high variance.

Think about this in terms of the Kelly criteria - you want your bet to be proportional to your advantage. You don't want to throw your whole stack into the middle when you've got a 55%-45% advantage on your opponent, you want about 20% of your stack to go in. Instead, you want to push all-in when you've got top set on an uncoordinated (no straights, no flushes possible) board or with the nut flush / nut straight on an unpaired (no full houses, no quads) board. You want to be a 99%-1% favorite or 90%-10% favorite before you go all-in (or pot commit yourself, which is essentially the same thing).

 

[UK-21]

No, I just made that up.

Thought so.

 

[UK-21]

It's about 11:9 FOR . . .
You have to tighten up . . . .

You are, again, correct in your summation. But I would say if I knew the other guy had a pocket pair and had hit his 15-1 set on the flop, I probably wouldn't have played it. I wouldn't have played it if it'd meant calling a raise either, but this was calling the BB to see the flop. Can't see how that can't be a good value call. It's easy to be wise after the event. Playing two pair, with aces, seemed a fair punt to me, and with 8 chances from 29 remaining cards (less than 5-1 ish? ) of making a FH I can't think too many people would throw that in. Now you can see why I don't buy a lottery ticket too often. Being rumped regularly (far more often than the maths suggest it should happen over the longer term) with 12-1 draws, 15-1 draws and higher is certainly taking the fun out of learning the game. I've read the odds of hitting a quad with a pocket pair are over 50-1, although as you point out this wouldn't have affected the results. I've been on the receiving end of three of these in the last 150 or so hands I've played. Reminds me of the story of Napoleon when he was considering appointing an officer to his general staff - "yes I know he's a brilliant tactician, but is he lucky?". I somehow don't think I would have got the job.

I've sought counsel from someone who plays at many levels above me, and I've been advised to take a break and not play for 6 weeks - more to avoid the risk of playing more, and for longer, than I normally would in chasing an "upswing", than because this will have an effect on my longer term results. Seems good advice to me - the poker table will still be there in six week's time.

:-(

 

[callipygian]

if I knew the other guy had a pocket pair and had hit his 15-1 set on the flop, I probably wouldn't have played it.

Well, obviously. That's part of the game - it's not strict probability because you gain information from the way people bet (or act, in live games). On that flop of A74, it's more likely that your opponent has 44 than KK (even though only 3 fours are unseen) because if he had KK he would have raised before the flop.

this was calling the BB to see the flop. Can't see how that can't be a good value call.

It depends on what position you're at. The late positions (on the button, or OTB) and the two seats to the right of OTB are the best, since you get to see what everyone else will do before you have to decide (you have the most information). As a result, you can profitably play more hands from late position than early position (the three seats to the left of the big blind, or BB), where you have to act without knowing what people will do.

(As an aside, the blinds are weird because they act last before the flop but first from then on.)

If you limped from early position, your biggest fear is that someone with a better ace (AA through A8) will raise and you'll be "dominated" (referring to your top card matching their top card but they have a better second card, which drastically reduces your chance of winning anything.

Here's a color-coded chart if that helps.

(Dead link: http://www.freepokermoney.com/site/cms/?page=hand_charts)

Being rumped regularly (far more often than the maths suggest it should happen over the longer term) with 12-1 draws, 15-1 draws and higher is certainly taking the fun out of learning the game. I've read the odds of hitting a quad with a pocket pair are over 50-1, although as you point out this wouldn't have affected the results. I've been on the receiving end of three of these in the last 150 or so hands I've played.

That sounds like bad luck, for sure, but just because you've had bad luck doesn't mean that everything else is fine. Good players minimize their losses when they encounter bad luck and maximize their wins when they encounter good luck.

I'm in the middle of a downturn myself - got 2-outed (22:1 draws) three times in one hour by the same guy! But in the long run he pays me 1 bet for each of the 22 times he fails and I pay him 10 for his wins. Sucks, but you get used to it.

I've been advised to take a break and not play for 6 weeks - more to avoid the risk of playing more, and for longer, than I normally would in chasing an "upswing", than because this will have an effect on my longer term results. Seems good advice to me - the poker table will still be there in six week's time.

Sounds like good advice.

If you're mad, sad, drunk, high, or distracted, don't play.

 

[UK-21]

That sounds like bad luck, for sure, but just because you've had bad luck doesn't mean that everything else is fine. Good players minimize their losses when they encounter bad luck and maximize their wins when they encounter good luck.

That's the other part of the dilemma for me - the proportion of my losses that are down to poor play, and the proportion that are just down to plain old bad luck? It seems to me the only way I'm going to overcome this disastrous run is to put in a lot more time in studying the game in order to reduce my losses at the outset and, hopefully, see an upswing at some stage. The problem is though that, unlike when learning BJ, I haven't the interest in the game to make the time to do it - and thinking about it, I don't really enjoy it to the same degree I do playing BJ and sitting at a table with others taking on the house. So time to take a break me thinks.

As a final line on this thread, yesterday evening I lost the final balance of my last online buy-in (sat through 7 laps of a 6 player table and played around 1 hand in 4 for pennies) to someone who had a much bigger stack, called my "all in" (only $1.50-ish although for them it was around 15% of their chips) and went on to make the straight on the river from his starting hand of x4o (pulling A,3,5-6-2, about a 13-1 shot). WTF's all that about?

The game sucks . . . .

:-(

Postscript: From Mrs Newb; "I thought you said you played for fun?". "I do". "Well you're no fun to be around after you've been playing poker, so for f-cks sack jack it in!"

 

[callipygian]

I haven't the interest in the game to make the time to do it - and thinking about it, I don't really enjoy it to the same degree I do playing BJ and sitting at a table with others taking on the house. So time to take a break me thinks.

Absolutely. Good luck with BJ.

 

[bruisedlee]

A little off subject BUT:

Is there a forum of this quality for Hold'em??


I am especially interested in reports on various Southern California poker rooms:
Limits,
Quality of players,
Rake, etc.

Of course I'm looking for a medium limit room with low rake and HORRIBLE PLAYERS.

Thanx for any help, Bruisedlee

 

[Cherry7Up]

A little off subject BUT:

Is there a forum of this quality for Hold'em??

...

Of course I'm looking for a medium limit room with low rake and HORRIBLE PLAYERS.

Thanx for any help, Bruisedlee

This raises a key difference between blackjack and poker--because blackjack APs play against the house, publicity of the game only risks drawing so much attention that the game will be shut down (as long as a good game continues to be offered, the advantage is roughly the same whether 1 AP knows about it or 100 APs know).

However, if a poker player finds a game filled with horrible players, then s/he doesn't have much incentive to advertise that game to good players because that undercuts a key aspect of the 'advantage' that exists.

 

[callipygian]

Is there a forum of this quality for Hold'em?

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com

I am especially interested in reports on various Southern California poker rooms:
Limits,
Quality of players,
Rake, etc.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/27/brick-mortar/

The search function should yield a few good threads, even if they're a little dated. I've found that B&M isn't actually that helpful in the regard you're looking for. Try the actual poker forums.

Of course I'm looking for a medium limit room with low rake and HORRIBLE PLAYERS.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/53/medium-stakes-limit/

 

[CoolMike]

I hate to buck the trend here, but I think you need to play looser not tighter Newb. I know a few ultra tight players like yourself, and they do well against a table full of knowledgable and tight-aggressive players.

I routinely beat these guys against a table full of loose, borderline crazy players. They bet big on the flop with AA, get 3 callers. Flop comes 4-7-J and they think, great my Aces will stand up to this, "Who calls with 4-7?"

Well, these guys call with 4-7 all the time

Anyways, for your low limit games I would play loose-agressive. See a lot of flops. When you land a hand like tripple 7s or ace high flush then stick it to em. These loose players will call 3 bets no problem. Sometimes you will get 2 callers when your hand is unbeatable. If you use this strategy you have to get good at folding when you don't hit your hand. Also, it helps to focus on what you think your opponent has, when your not in the pot. If your constantly surprise as they show down junk after betting big then you know you should be able to take em next time you get something sweat like a high two pair.

Two things to think about for these games:

Try and only loose small hands, while winning really big hands.

Remember, its not the player with the best starting hand that wins! Its the player with the best hand after all the cards are played that wins

"But I had aces!" Doesn't do you any good when your opponent's 7-2 has become a full house

Anyways, just some thoughts. Have fuN!

 

[callipygian]

I hate to buck the trend here, but I think you need to play looser not tighter Newb. I know a few ultra tight players like yourself, and they do well against a table full of knowledgable and tight-aggressive players.

No offense, but if you think waiting for 8 hands and then playing A8o is "ultra tight" you're either crazy or playing in some fantastically loose games.

I consider A8o to be a trash hand in a FR game. The only way I'm playing that is if I'm in the CO or BTN and everyone folds to me preflop and the blinds are tight; I'm then raising for a blind steal.

You're right that if you're at a table of tight players, loosening up is necessary. But for small stakes games opponents are generally loose, not tight.

 

[CoolMike]

No offense taken.

I wasn't refering to any specific hand in particular. I was just offering an opinion

 

[UK-21]

Thanks for those later comments gents.

I've only played once in the last month or so and frankly haven't missed it. On that occasion the "critical" hand I lost was to someone with better hole cards who played them well and where my flush draw, justified by the odds, didn't happen. C'est la vie.

However, I've been reflecting upon my three months induction and concluded that as I don't have the interest to make the time to improve my game (in both studying and putting the time in at the tables - online or in live games) it's time to call it a day. It doesn't mean I'm never going to play again, but I see little point in regularly continuing to pay for the privilege of taking part in something that I've lost interest in. It was never my intention to make money playing poker, but for it to be some other enjoyable adult entertainment where the win/losses would cancel themselves out and therefore it paid for itself. Naive perhaps, but there you go. It's clear now that with the greater variance in the game, and at my current level of knowledge, that's unlikely to happen. The entertainment value in watching others walk away with some of my money as a result of "luck" rather than consistent skilled play has now worn down to zero.

As to the profound question of whether it's a game of skill or a game of chance, it depends really. For those like myself who played once a week for a couple of hours it's never going to be more than a game of chance - especially when you're playing with a group of people who will play out 8,4o - the hand I was told by someone they played last week and on which they pulled 8,4 on the flop (around 18-1?), went on to win the hand, and subsequently the kitty of some eightly quid. Regardless of how skilful one is, there's no getting around that unless you're prepared to put in billions of hours in an attempt to even out that sort of variance. I'm not.

So, in summary, this is one fish that has decided to swim away . . . .

 

[callipygian]

I don't have the interest to make the time to improve my game (in both studying and putting the time in at the tables - online or in live games) it's time to call it a day.

Hope you find something you enjoy! If you ever want to give poker another shot just start a thread and I'll find you.