Izmet Fekali

An interesting dilemma from 2+2 fora…

-Izmet

To skp: re. flat call w/2nd nuts
Posted By: J-D
Date: Sunday, 26 November 2000, at 2:47 a.m.
In Response To: Re: Top Players: How Many Re-Raises? (Louie Landale)

In a recent session I was on the wrong end of set-over-set when the
flop came. I flopped a set of queens, to a board of:

King, Queen, Seven - with two clubs.

Five of us capped it on the flop; I was absolutely certain I had the
best hand since I had put in the second (and last) raise pre-flop and
the holder of "KK" was a very aggressive player whom I was sure would
have capped it with "AA", "KK", - probably even with "AKs".

When a blank fell on the turn and he NOW decided to cap it, I was 99%
sure of what he had. I called on the basis of the 1% I was wrong, and
the fact that the fourth Queen would put the flush out giving me
excellent implied odds. (Looking back, I may have even been getting
45-1 without future bets; it was a BIG pot.)

Of course the Queen landed on the river.

I checked, the Ace high flush bet, "KK" raised, sevens full and another
flush just called. When it got back to me, I three-bet it;

I got paid off by everyone EXCEPT "KK", who flashed me his hand before
he mucked it.

There were well over 50 big bets in the pot and he wouldn't pay one
more bet to see it to the end - and his call would have almost
certainly closed the action; this was no group of rocket scientists,
but even they knew they were beaten - none of them were about to cap
the betting.

In order for this to be a good laydown on his part, he would have to be
more than 98% sure that he was beaten.

Looking at it from his perspective, he figured to win this hand
approximately one time in a thousand.

IMO, and I am not a fan of laying down big hands on the river for one
more bet in huge pots, I don't think he could win it that often.

P.S. Having said all that, I would have probably paid off; perhaps the
day will come when I will be able to make such a laydowny, but it
hasn't come yet. It doesn't really matter how good your hand is, or the
size of the pot.

Sometimes even second nut isn't worth one more bet.

Just my opinion,

J-D

Re: To skp: re. flat call w/2nd nuts
Posted By: Izmet Fekali
Date: Sunday, 26 November 2000, at 7:02 a.m.
In Response To: To skp: re. flat call w/2nd nuts (J-D)

J-D writes: 
> perhaps the day will come when I will be able to make such a laydowny

Aaaarghh!!!

Someday you will make such a fold, it will be a good one and you will
be happy. You will be able to afford a shrimp cocktail at Binions with
the saved bet and maybe even treat a friend.

Feeling like a champ, you will do it again someday. But, this time a
guy with Q2s will drag your pot, buy the cocktail waitress a fur coat
and fuck her blue for a week. Now which guy do you want to be? The
smart one with the shrimp cocktail or the stupid one with the sore
dick?

From an old Albanian song:

"I was told by David Duchowny
ya' won't get rich by good laydowny!"

--
Izmet Fekali (I have a filthy mouth, Mason, please bear with me...)
Burek Experts Ltd.
Catering the World Since 1389!
Albania, Slovenia, Europe

Re: To skp: re. flat call w/2nd nuts
Posted By: David Sklansky
Date: Sunday, 26 November 2000, at 1:01 p.m.
In Response To: Re: To skp: re. flat call w/2nd nuts (Izmet Fekali)

Unfortunately, when I wrote my Eight Mistakes In Poker and contrasted
the mistake of folding when you should call with its opposite number, I
did not have Izmet's explanation available to me. It will be included
in my next edition.

David Sklansky

Technorati Tags: Izmet Fekali, poker, texas holdem

Comments(0)

(by Abdul Jalib)

I've said that you should raise preflop when you will win more than your fair share of pots. For example, if there are 5 limpers in the pot, you're on the button, and you expect the blinds to call with any two cards, then if you will win more than 1/8 of the time, you should generally raise.

To get a better idea for the threshold for raising versus loose limpers, here are the hands that win 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, 1/6, 1/7, and 1/8 of the time against 7 opponents with random hands in a no fold'em game:

No Fold'em Hand Rankings for 7 Opponents with Random Hands

Wins AA AKs KQs QJs JTs T9s 98s 87s 76s 65s 54s AK KQ QJ JT T9 98 87
= == === == == == == == == ==
1/3+ AA ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
1/4+ JJ AQs ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
1/5+ 99 ATs KTs QTs JTs ... ... ... ... ... ... AQ KQ .. .. .. .. ..
1/6+ 66 A2s K5s Q8s J8s T7s 98s 87s ... ... ... AT KT QT JT .. .. ..
1/7+ 55 K2s Q4s J6s T6s 96s 86s 75s 64s 54s A3 K8 Q9 J9 T9 .. ..
1/8+ 22 Q2s J2s T2s 93s 83s 73s 63s 53s A2 K5 Q7 J8 T8 97 87

Each hand listed also includes all the hands between it and the column heading. For example, K5s means K5s through KQs. K5s is on the 1/6+ line, so that means it wins 1/6 of the time or better (but less than 1/5 of the time.) Now, it's not true that you could profitably raise with the hands on the 1/8 win rate line, even though they include hands with win rates close to 1/7. Nor could you profitably raise with most of the hands on the 1/7 win rate line. Your raise requirements must be tighter for the following reasons:

1. Your opponents are not playing any two random cards, only close, though this is mostly offset by the fact that they would have raised with their best hands rather than limping.
2. There is a risk of a reraise behind from a superior hand left to act.
3. The game is not actually no fold'em, and so hands that will often be folding before the river will win less often in reality than in no fold'em (e.g., 22.) So where should the line be drawn? Full blown Turbo simulations(not no fold'em) of raising on the button after 5 loose limpers (and loose players in the blinds) suggest…

… minimums of:

66 A2s K5s Q5s JTs T9s 98s 87s 76s 65s ... A9 KT QJ .. .. .. ..

This is very similar to the 1/6+ line…

1/6+ 66 A2s K5s Q8s J8s T7s 98s 87s ... ... ... AT KT QT JT .. .. ..

…but with more emphasis on suited connectors. A gapped hand like T7s has less chance of flopping a draw than a hand like T9s, and so should be more inclined to see the flop cheaply upon which it will often fold. Suited connectors are very likely to flop something that causes them to stay in for the turn, and once on the turn they are likely to see the river, and once on the river they may have won. So, you actually can raise with very weak suited connectors like 76s and sometimes even 65s. Raising with them has the additional benefit of building the pot and tying others in for your draw.

After limpers, common wisdom is to not raise after limpers with AQ, never mind KJ or KT. This thinking is generally wrong. Big offsuit hands like AQ and KJ should not be afraid to raise preflop after loose limpers, as such hands are indeed very likely to be best at the moment and to win, even if they are likely to get tortured late in the hand and not win very much on average. AQ wins 1/5 of the time in 8-way no fold'em, probably considerably more than that in real games since AQ is extremely likely to take a card off with overcards on the flop, whereas your opponents with J7 are likely to fold on the flop. So you are getting the difference in equity of 1/8 and at least 1/5 from each player when you raise. It amounts to at least 60% of a small bet, probably closer to a full small bet, which is a big chunk of your hourly win rate.

However, if your raise would cause all 7 opponents to see the turn, whereas only 3 would see the turn otherwise, this is one case where you might not wish to raise with AQ. The reason is that you can't usually call on the flop with overcards versus 7+ opponents. (For one thing, you can't count on making a pair on the turn and then having the board pair low on the river and winning with aces up or queens up, because your opponents might already have paired every card on the board.) So, this is one strange case where by raising AQ might so harm its chances of winning that it would turn itself into an implied odds hand that would prefer to have not raised. Few games would fall into this category, however, and normally you should raise preflop after limpers if you feel you have the biggest cards.

IMO. Comments and criticisms are welcome.

Abdul

Technorati Tags: Abdul Jalib, poker, texas holdem

Comments(0)

(by Abdul Jalib M'hall)

I am not taking a position on the integrity of online poker games; I just want to discuss the logic governing online collusion.

Colluding online is trivial. You can make free long distance calls via the Internet and your computer.

"If" people were colluding online, what would we expect to see? They can't do too much second best hand mucking, as it would be too easy to catch by the site. However, they could ram-n-jam when one of them has the nuts or close to it. So, you should see a lot of jamming and then folding, and a fair number of bad beats with nonsensical holdings.

For example, when one of a pair of partners has AA, the other could raise under the gun with 62. Most people think this has negative EV, because they reason that the partners are paying two to one, but this is not the case in a loose game. The AA has about 50% equity in a loose game, so even if the 62 had 0% equity, they are making a ton of money capping it preflop against several opponents. Additionally, the guy who raised preflop with 62 may get some additional profit on later hands, when people misplay against him based on their memory of this event. The next time the guy raises under the gun, he may get extra action, and he may even have 62 again, and he'll just love it, because his partner has AA again.

Now, of course what sometimes happens here is that the flop comes A94, and so the 62 and AA cap it again, getting action because they seemed to be crazy on previous hands. The turn comes a 3 and they jam, the river is a 5, and the 62 wins with the second nuts. A lot of hands go down like that, apparently, so they don't raise any big red flags. The EV for this type of collusion is much bigger than what Ed thinks, I think.

Some of the victims might jump up and down after being bad beat repeatedly, accusing the online site of some sort of problem with their random number generator or site security. Others dismiss the complaints based on the apparent fishiness of the players. However, the apparently psychic plays need not require psychic powers, fishiness, or hacks of the data/servers. It is merely exactly what you would expect if there were collusion.

The level of collusion could be at an insignificant level, making healthy profits possible, but the level of collusion could quickly increase in a short time. If that were to occur, you might see several good players dump back their winnings all at once.

You might also see this, however, as a result of either variance or sloppiness. The standard deviation of two tables of $10-$20 online is about $350 per hour, compared to about $150 per hour for a tight real world game. (The $350 per hour s.d. comes from my back of the envelope extrapolations from real world loose game s.d., and also from a friend's spreadsheet of his results using Mason's formula.) So, you're going to have swings of $700 in an hour. I guarantee that a lot of the balking is due to this high standard deviation, which comes both from the increased hands per hour and the guys jamming, for whatever reason, with 62. As for sloppiness, I heard one guy saying how his girlfriend plays two games, watches TV, and talks on the phone all at the same time. The sloppiness encouraged by early success could creep in and turn a pro into a fish without his realizing it, conceivably.

So, again, I don't have any position here. I just wanted to point out that if people were colluding then we would expect to see this higher than normal bad beat incidence, and also that the profitability of the games could drastically change in a short time according to the number of colluders. However, just because there is this high level of observed bad beats does not mean that people are colluding, as there could be other reasons for it, with the most obvious alternate explanation being just plain fishiness.

By the way, I agree with Ed that if the online rooms are going to charge $3 per hand, the players should insist the online room have several experienced poker players hired full-time as game "police."

Abdul Jalib

Technorati Tags: Abdul Jalib, online poker, poker, texas holdem

Technorati Tags: Abdul Jalib, online poker, poker, texas holdem

Comments(0)