Posted Tue Jul 19, 2005 2:31 am GMT by Silhouette
An example of a tough situation I've found myself in several times the last few days, in HE and 7cs. NL/PL, 8-10 handed. This has happened to me twice in cash games and once in a tourney.
Here's an example from a middle stage of an SnG I was in earlier.
I get 10  J in LP and min raise with one caller before me. It's myself, SB, BB, and the MP player.
Flop J  6 10 
Min raise to me. I raise to bet pot. SB calls, BB calls. MP folds.
Turn: 5
Now, my problem here is that I'm short stacked. If I push all in, It's about 1/2 the pot. Sklansky says that the correct play for either/both of them w/ the flush draw or straight draw is to call, because pot odds justify, and it makes money in the long run. That has to mean that I'm losing money by playing this in the long run. But if I check, I'm giving a free card and that gives them infinite odds to hit the straight or flush, which is also an incorrect play according to Sklansky.
What is a correct play here? I can't make them fold according to pot odds becasue I don't have the chips. Even if I did, each of them calling is giving the other one proper odds to chase. If one of them has an over, he has more outs (as far as he knows). Including implied odds of hitting, it's a definite call. As far as I can see it, it's a rock and a hard place for the player w/ 2 pair.
What would you do/What is the proper play according to theory?
Did you know that participating in a poker forum can help you improve your own game? Be it by sharing experiences or simply asking for help, participation in a forum helps you focus and keep 'on topic' which will help you improve your game. You can learn from other players feedback and from their experiences. Why the THP poker forums? We offer one of the best managed texas holdem poker forums available, and the community within is far more friendly than those typicaly found on other sites. We've made a 'lurkers edition' of the poker forum available here on Holdem Poker Online, but we encourage all visitors to register and join in on the conversations on TexasHoldem-Poker.com
Posted Tue Jul 19, 2005 3:49 am GMT by age_of_sages
if I'm shortstacked, i push that flop. That's the only time you're going to (possibly) create pot odds that make it incorrect for them to call, really they'll still probably call anyway if you're shortstacked anyhow, so might as well get those chips in while you're ahead.
Posted Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:58 am GMT by Muck
Sklansky also says choose the best action available even if it’s not optimistic. I think he uses a blackjack example of splitting 8’s.
Posted Tue Jul 19, 2005 9:31 am GMT by Skribbles
I know that the majority of people here know pot odds and use it during a game, some more than others. But do you seriously think that many others also do? I would take a guess that no more than 25% of online players have a clue about pot odds, especially at $10 SnGs and other low limit games.
Saying that, I would definitly push here. Stack size would also come into play however. Would calling your all-in leave them with only a couple hundred chips? Do they have deep stacks and not have to worry about it?
Posted Tue Jul 19, 2005 9:50 am GMT by NickFlynn
The other reason to push the turn is because if they don't hit their draws, they probably will fold on the river. This should be considered a value bet, not a bet to win the pot.
- Nick
Posted Tue Jul 19, 2005 10:04 am GMT by howzit
You can both make good decisions and after that, it's just luck.
you're forgetting the most important part, though. . get your money in good.
Posted Tue Jul 19, 2005 11:08 am GMT by 1988 TR
| Silhouette wrote: |
Sklansky says that the correct play for either/both of them w/ the flush draw or straight draw is to call, because pot odds justify, and it makes money in the long run. That has to mean that I'm losing money by playing this in the long run.
|
Just because they have pot odds, doesn't mean you will lose money in the long run - Not sure what you are thinking there. You need to push here.
Posted Tue Jul 19, 2005 12:30 pm GMT by BeerWench13
| Quote: | | But do you seriously think that many others also do? I would take a guess that no more than 25% of online players have a clue about pot odds, especially at $10 SnGs and other low limit games. |
I agree with this. Even in a casino, there are players who will call pot-sized bets with gutshots. Most players (at least 60% of them) don't do any calculating of pot odds, implied odds or otherwise.
Either way, you have to push here. You can't be afraid to bet because someone may draw out on you. Sure, it's going to happen, but scared money usually becomes lost money. You have two pair. Push.
Posted Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:36 pm GMT by lilitu
Something to add real quick
Pot odds work real well in cash games. Their application in tournaments can be misleading. Pot odds assume $1 won is the same as $1 lost, in terms value. In a freeze out situation pot odds will give you guide, however doubling up from a middle stack is not the same win/loss as busting out as you approach the money.
Posted Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:47 pm GMT by red_pen
1988 TR hit it right on the head here.
I think your confusion arises because you equate good pot odds for your
opponent(s) with poor pot odds for yourself. This is not necessarily true,
and in the case where you have the best hand almost never true because it ignores the fact that the pot money is "dead" money.
Decisions based on pot odds alone, whether Sklansky's or anyone else's,
relate to the odds you get from the pot "at the time you make the
decision". The money already in the pot is nobody's yet.
So the concept of pot odds is not a full representation of all the ideas involved - but it does serve to help you make the correct decision. I find it useful to think of the following rule: if you think you are behind calculate pot odds - if they are favourable call. If you are ahead bet for value. Occasionally situations arise where everybody will do the right thing and you showdown.
To help to fix the idea in your mind, imagine a deluded millionaire had
sweetened the pot by putting an extra $500,000 in there after the heart 5
hit the board. This means that both your opponents (unless drawing dead) are almost certainly getting odds to call your bet and they will do.
Now ask yourself, while holding the best hand, would you rather the
millionaire hadn't put the money in the pot ?
Posted Tue Jul 19, 2005 6:36 pm GMT by supafrey
Where's snoooogins when we need him.
Posted Tue Jul 19, 2005 9:10 pm GMT by Silhouette
| 1988 TR wrote: |
Just because they have pot odds, doesn't mean you will lose money in the long run - Not sure what you are thinking there. |
If you're getting appropriate odds to chase, you're making money in the long run. Since money is never created or destroyed, it only changes hands, that means that the other player is losing money in the longrun, maybe not on the whole play, but certainly on that call.
That's my basic question: If one player is making money with a call when he's behind, how can the other player ensure he's making money even though he's ahead?
In addition, it is irrelevent whether or not the other player knows anything about pot odds. Whether or not they know if they are making a correct/incorrect play isn't as important to me. If I had the chips to make sure it was an incorrect play, then I wouldn't much care if they made it because at least then I know that I'm the one coming out ahead in the long run.
If the don't know pot odds, which means they're inexperienced and even more likely to chase, then they would probably call if it was outside of the odds (incorrect play), or if it was within the odds (correct play). My goal is to make money in the long run because I know the odds, whether or not they do.
Keep in mind this is a theory question. I want to know what makes money in the long run for the player with two pair. The conclusion I have come to is to push harder on the flop. That is the only point in play where the 2pair player has enough chips to push (probably all in) and make a statement against the pot that would either scare the two players (if they know nothing about pot odds), or make the pot odds bad enough. I think my play in these situations should either be all in on flop, or a fold.
Sklansky also says that the correct play is one you make when you know what your opponent has (essentially). Since I'm sure that I'm ahead of everyone and that at least one, probably more, has a draw, what is the correct play that makes money for the two pair in the long run. I think by the turn it's already decided that since 2 pair is ahead and pot is getting large that 2 pair is committed. Correct action must come before this, when play isn't automated by the odds.
Posted Tue Jul 19, 2005 9:16 pm GMT by Silhouette
| red_pen wrote: |
Now ask yourself, while holding the best hand, would you rather the
millionaire hadn't put the money in the pot ? |
Theoretically, I have to say no, I wish he hadn't.
Assuming the other two players are go for broke chasers, which is how this discussion has been focused, their play is still correct to call, and they are making money in the long run.
If they are making money, I am losing it.
I don't want to lose any money, a half million, or the $10 SnG.
Posted Tue Jul 19, 2005 9:24 pm GMT by suitedaces84
| Silhouette wrote: | | If you're getting appropriate odds to chase, you're making money in the long run. Since money is never created or destroyed, it only changes hands, that means that the other player is losing money in the longrun, maybe not on the whole play, but certainly on that call. |
While your oppoents' may be making money by calling your all-in as opposed to folding to it, they will make more money if you don't go all-in. So there is no way for you to make them make a losing play, but you can make them make a play that wins less.
Here's some overkill: I get pocket aces UTG in a ring game, I've got $50 the blinds are $.25/.5 and the entire table has me covered. I flip them face up preflop and say "I'm all-in". This move will without a doubt, make me money. Either someone will make a terrible call or I'll scoop the blinds. Would you consider playing aces like this? Just because a play makes money does not make it correct. The correct play is the one that makes the most money.
Posted Tue Jul 19, 2005 11:29 pm GMT by snoogins47
| Quote: | Theoretically, I have to say no, I wish he hadn't....
Assuming the other two players are go for broke chasers, which is how this discussion has been focused, their play is still correct to call, and they are making money in the long run. |
Let me preface this, by saying that I interpreted this statement to mean that you think it's better for you if the millionaire pot-sweetener stayed away, because with the extra money in the pot, it makes your opponents correct to chase.
If this is the case, you are very, very wrong. This pot sweetener changes things in a very important way, but you are missing the point.
If your opponents are getting proper odds, you make more by them folding. If they're not, you make more by them calling. But, them playing correctly, can still make you money. And does, often.
Let's fudge some numbers here. Ignore any actual hand examples, and pretend you've reasoned out that you will win the pot 80% of the time, and your opponent has a 20% chance to draw out. Note that I'm not using standard "expectation" numbers here, but instead just showing you what "on average" your stack will end up being. This means that any play that has a nonzero chance of winning will show as a positive number. Compare that to the size of the bet to see who is making a mistake.
Lets say you both have 1k in your stacks, and we'll do a few examples.
1) Pot is 5k before you push your last 1k in. Opponent is getting favorable odds, and calls.
Simple math here now. 7k in the pot, 80% to you, 20% to him.
You: +5600 Him +1400
2) Pot is 5k before you act, and you check. We'll ignore future action, and just say he checks behind.
You: +4000, Him + 1000. But look, you both have 1k left. So, end result:
You: 5000, Him 2000
So, even with the caveat that you must check down the river, and despite the fact that he IS CORRECT in calling, you are handing him money by checking.
3) Pot is 5k before you act, and you push your 1k in, and he folds.
You: +5000, with your stack, this puts you at 6000
Alright, now the flip side, if he isn't getting odds. Same 80/20 scenario. DO NOT compare these absolute figures to above, they won't matter because the pot size is different.
1) Pot is 1k. You bet 1k. He calls.
You = +2400, Him = +600
Since he had to call 1k, we see he's losing money on average here.
2) Pot is 1k, you check, he checks.
You = 1800, Him = 1200
Again, checking is handing your opponent money.
3) Pot is 1k, you bet 1k, he folds.
You = 2k, him = 1k
Summary and conclusions to be made:
1)The only significant difference in the two scenarios was that in the first, your opponent was playing correctly if he called, and in the second, he was making a mistake by calling.
2)In the first scenario, when he should mathematically call you, and you bet, you do better when he folds.
3)In the second, when his call would be a mistake, you do better when he calls.
2 and 3 are just a long way of saying one of those lines that everybody loves to quote from Sklansky: "You make money from your opponents' mistakes."
But that's not the whole story.
4)In either case, giving a free card (if we assume no further action) is significantly worse than betting, even if you know your opponent will play correctly.
It is true that when your opponents play incorrectly, you make more money. But you can't ignore the simple fact that if you are an odds-on favorite to win the pot, you are making money on every single dollar that goes into the pot, whether or not they're going in "mistakenly" or "correctly."
Money doesn't purely come from opponents mistakes. You also win money on every dollar that's pot into the pot when you have an equity edge.
Now, to go back to the millionaire thing. Let's say the pot is 5k. You're betting 5k. And your opponent has the same 80/20 draw we worked with earlier. And we'll say some rich banker decides to throw in an extra 50,000 to this pot, and this pot only.
If he doesn't throw it in, you want your opponent to call. If he does throw it in, you pray that your opponent folds. But you're BOTH, and yes, this includes you, making a LOT more money if he puts the extra money in the pot. This specific example doesn't have a lot of applications, but it can easily be extrapolated to show how many stages later in a hand (and sometimes early, but I don't want to get into specifics) can go by and every player in the pot could be playing profitably. The millionaire's addition is nothing more than an interesting form of dead money.
When you say
| Quote: | Assuming the other two players are go for broke chasers, which is how this discussion has been focused, their play is still correct to call, and they are making money in the long run.
If they are making money, I am losing it. |
You are entirely missing the concept of dead money. And that's the key here.
To bring it back to where we started...
| Quote: | | Sklansky also says that the correct play is one you make when you know what your opponent has (essentially). Since I'm sure that I'm ahead of everyone and that at least one, probably more, has a draw, what is the correct play that makes money for the two pair in the long run |
So, if you have the two pair on the turn in the initial hand, you know your opponent has a flush draw, and you know that he will (correctly) call your all in, the most profitable play is an all-in, and it's not close.
Posted Wed Jul 20, 2005 1:30 am GMT by Silhouette
Thinking about this some more I've come to a bit of a different conclusion.
The chaser is making money by calling. But the money he is making isn't from me, because I'm ahead of him and pushing is my correct move. The money he and I are both making with correct plays is the money from the other players at the table.
Their play is incorrect, and it profits both of us.
Now to readdress the millionare scenario..
I maintain that I don't want him to put the money in, and given what I just said at the beginning of this post, here is why. All of the extra money that he has put into the pot gives even more players a reason to chase. That is to say, all that extra money makes their call correct while I am still limited in my options because I am short stacked.
Consider:
Player has TPTK with AJ. I have him with two pair, he has 3 outs with A's to beat me. 3 outs isn't justified in chasing with only 3 players in, but with an extra half a million dollars, it is worth chasing.
Player has a gutshot straight draw. He has fewer outs than the flushdraw, but his play is correct because he is making money in the longrun by calling.
That is to say, once you put that much money in the pot, almost every player is justified in calling. That reduces the odds that I win that pot significantly, and I would rather win the smaller pot with proper odds than lose the bigger one because four other players had garbage hands but the odds to play them.
Even worse, the other players are making an incorrect play by folding with all this money in the pot. Whether or not they do fold, they should in reality play the hand for the odds they're given.
Posted Wed Jul 20, 2005 1:45 am GMT by snoogins47
| Silhouette wrote: | I maintain that I don't want him to put the money in...
That reduces the odds that I win that pot significantly, and I would rather win the smaller pot with proper odds than lose the bigger one because four other players had garbage hands but the odds to play them.. |
Well if realize that you're, in essence, saying you'd prefer to have a much lower expectation than a higher one, then you can stick to this, but I sincerely hope you don't like money.
Posted Wed Jul 20, 2005 7:20 am GMT by red_pen
| Quote: | Thinking about this some more I've come to a bit of a different conclusion.
The chaser is making money by calling. But the money he is making isn't from me, because I'm ahead of him and pushing is my correct move. The money he and I are both making with correct plays is the money from the other players at the table.
|
I don't see how you can understand this, and not understand the sweeetened pot thing. Maybe the millionaire idea was so fanciful that it obscured the point I was trying to get across, namely that the pot money belongs to no-one - who puts it in is irrelevant. After the blinds are posted one hand of poker is not a zero-sum game. (In fact it is not "zero sum" before the blinds are posted and if you understand why you have pot odds and expectation down pat)
Rather than think of the extra money in the pot being donated by a benevolent millionaire, think of it as money put in the pot by a third player who called while drawing dead. This is "money from the other players at the table" and is directly analogous to the millionaires donation. It can't do anything but increase your expectation and you should encourage this.
|
|
