THE FORUMS


German ForumsGeneral DiscussionStrategyFrench Forum

Go Back   PokerTips.org Forums > Strategy > No-Limit Hold'em Ring Games

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 29, 2007, 9:06pm   #11
TWLLM
100
 
TWLLM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,271
Reputation: 957
TWLLM is a splendid one to beholdTWLLM is a splendid one to beholdTWLLM is a splendid one to beholdTWLLM is a splendid one to beholdTWLLM is a splendid one to beholdTWLLM is a splendid one to beholdTWLLM is a splendid one to beholdTWLLM is a splendid one to behold
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by seedload View Post
Seriously, Hero is not proud of himself, hero was having a good time and acted ... well... goofy. So it was not results-oriented from Hero's standpoint.

Yes, villain called. Hero had the flush. Qh6h.

Villain said, "Sick"

Hero said, "Sorry"
I know you're not bragging or making the usual style of 'results-oriented' post.

But this still looks to me like a results-oriented post, although not in the normal, annoying form of 'I lost a pot, where did I make the error which caused the loss' when it was something totally standard like midset vs topset on a dry board, or when the hero was ahead and played it fine but got unlucky.

This thread is results-oriented in that the basis of the post is the fact that you had him beat THIS time that he called. Certainly you don't always have him beat - if you donk-push with Q6hh, you probably do it with 87hh, and so if we switch results you don't post it. Of course you're not being results-oriented in the usual sense that drives some of us nuts and that's the reason we're not flaming you to death right now. I think this kind of post is totally forgiveable as well, and maybe useful as well, so don't think I'm trying to berate you, I'm just hoping to inform.

To give another example, I recently posted a hand where I folded KK preflop against an opponent who happened to have AA, as I suspected was most likely the case:
- Concluding from the fact that he had AA this time that I should fold would be results-oriented. Alternatively, concluding that I should call from the fact that he turns over QQ or AK this time, if that happens, would be results-oriented.
- Concluding that I should fold (or should call) from a logical/mathematical/strategic analysis of the spot would be non-results oriented.

My reason for posting was that I always like challenging assumptions, and I thought this was a perfect spot to fold KK long-run against an unknown midstakes player, and so I felt it was a worthy example for challenging the theory that you should never fold KK preflop. If he shows QQ or AK, I probably still post the hand for the sake of discussion (only reason I might not is because I might have glossed over it and not thought about the real significance, and just blamed myself for a mistake).

Do you post this hand in strategy if you have 36hh, he calls, and wins?

EDIT - I see you added a few things about your 'post-hand analysis', and this is definitely useful, but I still think this post as a whole is results-oriented.

And about your numbers, don't forget you have to re-orient your figures to the relatively likelihood of each hand in the range in light of your action! This means you can't just say he needs me to have something less than the winning flush X% of the time, unless you also assume you're as likely to push with the winning flush as you are with other hands, relatively speaking. Given how you think your play was ridiculous and totally non-standard, I think you're several times more likely to push here without the winning flush, meaning that % goes way down (probably less than 20%, if even that). Now it becomes an insta call, right?
__________________
If I were Vietnamese my name would be Kno Nguyen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleU
Oh, and obviously, TWLLM, we'd all rather you just ruled with an iron fist of nittiness and made all decisions without consultation, but that goes without saying, right?

Last edited by TWLLM; May 29, 2007 at 9:11pm.
TWLLM est déconnecté   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Don't like this ad? Register to make it go away!

Old May 29, 2007, 9:35pm   #12
seedload
Grinder
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: nj
Posts: 971
Reputation: 10
seedload is on a distinguished road
Default

I guess you could say it was result-oriented if at any time I was talking about the strategy of me pushing, which I didn't. I was always talking about whether he should call. In fact, whether he should call was the only potentially interesting part of this post (beyond the story).

And, since I am back and forth (obviously) on whether he should call, I guess I thought it might help me to get some other feedback. Thus, I posted to a forum to get that feedback.

If it is not worthy of a strong berating, might I suggest that you consider witholding the mild berating also. It might make it more comforable to post here.

Regards
seedload est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old May 29, 2007, 10:01pm   #13
ComradeSAL
Brunson
 
ComradeSAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 196
Reputation: 0
ComradeSAL
Default

In my view this certainly isn't an insta-call because of the stack-sizes and history of the player (people are less likely to bluff when they're on friendly terms).

That said, I still think this is a tougher fold than call. I mean, the villain flopped a flush!
ComradeSAL est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old May 29, 2007, 10:08pm   #14
TWLLM
100
 
TWLLM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,271
Reputation: 957
TWLLM is a splendid one to beholdTWLLM is a splendid one to beholdTWLLM is a splendid one to beholdTWLLM is a splendid one to beholdTWLLM is a splendid one to beholdTWLLM is a splendid one to beholdTWLLM is a splendid one to beholdTWLLM is a splendid one to behold
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by seedload View Post
I guess you could say it was result-oriented if at any time I was talking about the strategy of me pushing, which I didn't. I was always talking about whether he should call. In fact, whether he should call was the only potentially interesting part of this post (beyond the story).

And, since I am back and forth (obviously) on whether he should call, I guess I thought it might help me to get some other feedback. Thus, I posted to a forum to get that feedback.

If it is not worthy of a strong berating, might I suggest that you consider witholding the mild berating also. It might make it more comforable to post here.

Regards
I don't think I was really 'berating' you, even in a milder form, as I was only trying to inform. Berating would have been 'don't post results-oriented BS' and left it at that, without any other info, explanation of why it's results-oriented (as it's not the usual form).

It's unfortunate that you don't accept that this approach to the hand is still results-oriented, because it's much easier to think about/discuss hand ranges and correct play when you don't assume that a person's play (not your own, any person's) can be judged at all by the results of the hand. I like that you did eventually give a numbers analysis, and this is very useful, but the origins of the hand are still results-oriented (this is why I and 6Aces, if not others as well, wondered if it was a trick). Please re-read my post, and do not take offense, but just understand there are more ways to be results-oriented than the usual 'how did how I played my hand cause the good/bad result?' form.

You weren't being results-oriented about your own hand and your own play, but were about the hand and it's significance/results/lessons. Think about my example, and how Skeptix suggested I might be being results-oriented, and how his useage of the terms is similar to what I'm saying your post exhibits. (see here: http://www.pokertips.org/forums/show...1&postcount=25 - the idea that 'I made a wrong fold that ended up being right, and I look good for it but it's wrong long-term', to paraphrase).
I disagreed with him that I was being results oriented and posting a bad fold that 'looks good', but he's identified a possible error in judgment, if I post the KK hand because 'he had AA', not because I think it's right to fold AA in this spot long-term. So you have to ask yourself, do you post this hand and suggest the fold is correct if you actually had 36hh or some other, lesser hand than at least the 9 high flush?

In response to your analysis, I would be shocked if you re-vamped your numbers to the relative likelihood of each hand in the range based on your play (I can help with that if you like, I'm not just here to criticize) and then still thought that a fold was correct. This also makes me think your post is results-oriented.

And once again, I'm sorry if this comes across as berating you, but I don't intend to berate you. Most people would not even think that what I'm describing above (whether or not you actually thought this way) was results-oriented because they only see/understand the more prevalent form of bad beat/bad outcome style, and couldn't conceive of a results-oriented post where the OP wins.
__________________
If I were Vietnamese my name would be Kno Nguyen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleU
Oh, and obviously, TWLLM, we'd all rather you just ruled with an iron fist of nittiness and made all decisions without consultation, but that goes without saying, right?
TWLLM est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old May 30, 2007, 12:02am   #15
Frogboy4L
spewing station
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Fading the flush draw
Posts: 1,497
Reputation: 0
Frogboy4L
Send a message via AIM to Frogboy4L
Default

Quote:
In response to your analysis, I would be shocked if you re-vamped your numbers to the relative likelihood of each hand in the range based on your play (I can help with that if you like, I'm not just here to criticize)
I'd be interested in seeing this so I'd have a better idea how it's done.

FWIW, I think this is a pretty quick call, but 3h6h is thinner because with 8h7h you know Hero isn't holding any suited connector with the 7h or 8h, which would comprise a fair amount of Hero's range.

But yeah, like, Hero can have a set, NFD, TP, TT+ with a heart, etc, etc.
__________________
Blogging again, updated frequently. Annotations of spew:

(the link works now)

frogboy4Lpoker.blogspot.com
Frogboy4L est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old May 30, 2007, 12:14am   #16
Gus
Professional
 
Gus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,753
Reputation: 346
Gus is a jewel in the roughGus is a jewel in the roughGus is a jewel in the roughGus is a jewel in the rough
Default

insta call with fist pump.
Gus est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old May 30, 2007, 2:36am   #17
TWLLM
100
 
TWLLM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,271
Reputation: 957
TWLLM is a splendid one to beholdTWLLM is a splendid one to beholdTWLLM is a splendid one to beholdTWLLM is a splendid one to beholdTWLLM is a splendid one to beholdTWLLM is a splendid one to beholdTWLLM is a splendid one to beholdTWLLM is a splendid one to behold
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogboy4L View Post
I'd be interested in seeing this so I'd have a better idea how it's done.

FWIW, I think this is a pretty quick call, but 3h6h is thinner because with 8h7h you know Hero isn't holding any suited connector with the 7h or 8h, which would comprise a fair amount of Hero's range.

But yeah, like, Hero can have a set, NFD, TP, TT+ with a heart, etc, etc.
I may move this to a new thread after giving Frogboy a chance to read it, since this is such a massive hijack, and deserves it's own thread anyway.

Here's the principle:

A peice of software like Pokerstove can take the range you imput to it, and tell you what your 'average' equity is against that range, but it does it based on the probability of the cards coming out of the deck. It does nothing for the idea that certain cards in that range are more likely based on the play of your opponent - this is another level of Baesian inference that software like pokerstove (and 1st level hand analysis) lack.

This time as an example let me use a purely new hand. You have QQ on the c/o, you 3 bet an mp raised in a 6-max game (yes, I know there's less distinction between positions in 6-max, but w/e). The effective stacks are 100bb, it's your average midstakes game, and your opponent is an aggressive player but not LAGtarded. When it gets back to him, he 4-bets allin.

You can identify the hands which he raises with and those he 4-bet/pushes with. Let's say that he will 4-bet/push with AA, KK, AK, and QQ, and essentially never with less than this (although obviously he doesn't autofold JJ or TT pf, but he likes to see the flop with those, and pretty much never 4-bet/shoves them against players like you). This is pokerstove's range - you enter each of those hands and your holding, and you get back your equity in the pot based purely on the odds of the cards coming out of the deck.

But if you think about it another level deeper, you realize that he makes this move (as opposed to other moves, like calling, folding, or raising more/less if applicable) a different amount with each hand.

For example, let's say your opponent is aggressive but never tricky. We now know that he pushes 100% of the time with aces (can't let them suck out, you know ), and 95% of the time with KK (let's say he very rarely folds it, but doesn't follow the 'no fold KK pf' rule completely). We'll also conjecture that he's more inclined to 'overplay' (as in play very hard) with AK than he is with QQ. He shoves AK in this spot against you 60% of the time, and shoves QQ against you in this spot 45% of the time. The rest of the % are taken up by call, and very very rarely by fold (or if you want, always by call, it's not important right now).

You can now construct a better, higher thinking level range. You now take the 'odds based' range and multiply it by the relative likelihood of each hand in light of the action taken by the opponent (which, in the OP's case, was the relative likelihood of each of his holdings in light of his play - the openshove).

So if the card-odds probablity of AA in this spot was X, and for KK it was Y, and for AK it was Z, and for QQ it was W, it becomes a weighted range where:

AA = 100X/(95Y+60Z+45W)
KK = 95Z/(100X+60Z+45W)

and so on.

This is a very, very simplified form of the proper Baesian method of calculating the new probability of each hand in light of new evidence, and so I don't literally think that you can get 'exact' probability values in this way, and there is so much conjecture that it doesn't matter much that I'm oversimplifying. But at the same time, you probably can't do a true Baesian calculation while sitting at the poker table, whereas you can probably think of it in terms of how often your opponent chooses each action with each hand, and therefore estimate what the action means about his/her true weighted range.

To relate this back to something you and I (and others) are already familiar with, when I made my argument for folding KK preflop in the other thread (forget whether you buy it or not) it was based on this principle of re-evaluating the range based on the actions. I figured that an unknown player in the spot he was in, would have AA ~3/4 of the time when factoring in (1) the basic card-based odds, (2) the fact that I had KK, reducing the odds that he had KK to near nil, and reducing the odds of what I feel was his most likely to overplay hand (AK) somewhat as well, which collectively makes up the pokerstove odds, plus (3), the idea that he makes this move with each of his reasonable range hands (AA,KK,AK,QQ) a different % of the time, such that (1), (2), and (3) combine to give an evidentially weighted range of AA=75%, KK/AK/QQ/XX=25%. After this I re-weighed the range, I then took into consideration the pot odds and my relative chances against each side of the range as normal.

Pokerstove can never give you those (3rd) numbers, and whether or not you happen to agree with them (or me) on any one hand, you should agree it's better to think at this level whenever possible (or, as usually happens, incorporate it into your instinctual thinking that just because a number of hands are of a certain probability, it does not mean they are as likely as that probability in light of further evidence (the betting).
__________________
If I were Vietnamese my name would be Kno Nguyen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleU
Oh, and obviously, TWLLM, we'd all rather you just ruled with an iron fist of nittiness and made all decisions without consultation, but that goes without saying, right?
TWLLM est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old May 30, 2007, 3:25am   #18
seedload
Grinder
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: nj
Posts: 971
Reputation: 10
seedload is on a distinguished road
Default

Not to be a pain, but i just skimmed your posts in this thread. I am aware of poker stove and of the math involved in a lot of poker situations. More so than you probably imagine. You are right that this should be posted to another thread. I would consider intentionally derailing a thread a little more aggregious than posting something that may be interpretted as, dare I say, results-oriented by the wrong reader.

You did lecture whether you believe so or not. Just read it again.

Any hand can be viewed in a result-oriented manner. It is a matter of the intent of the poster when posting the hand. I have been questioned on intent several times while posting what I felt was appropriate content to this board. I continue to be advised on my supposed intent even after denying that it was my intent. Please be aware that there exist people in this world who are intellectually capable of dispassionately distancing themselves from the tempting alure of results oriented thinking. They exist. I just might be one. Or I might not.

It doesn't really matter though because you are ignoring my main argument... I wasn't commenting on my play. I was commenting on the villain's situation. On whether he should have called. It had nothing to do with my results or his for that matter. Just, should he call. And I initially argued that he should call, which was counter to the results. It is ridiculous to suggest that that is somehow results oriented when I am arguing against the results. Why even bring it up, again and again, ad nausium. So very boring.

Where should I put all of my posts, please, since they may all potentially be viewed as results oriented I need a proper forum to stick em. Or is it necessary to successfully navigate the results-oriented obsticle course before your posts are accepted as having any bit of integrity.

Regards

EDIT - One other comment. The forum rules clearly state that bad beat posts should not be posted here. I get that. It makes sence. The rules say nothing about "results-oriented" posts. If there is a results-oriented rule then please post it in the rules because I am really confused. I have literally been told that my post is result-oriented when things went bad for me and also told that my post was results-oriented when things went well for me. Every hand has either good results or bad results so what is a guy to do. Should I only post the split pots? This is silly.

Last edited by seedload; May 30, 2007 at 4:15am.
seedload est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old May 30, 2007, 3:46am   #19
seedload
Grinder
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: nj
Posts: 971
Reputation: 10
seedload is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TWLLM View Post
And about your numbers, don't forget you have to re-orient your figures to the relatively likelihood of each hand in the range in light of your action! This means you can't just say he needs me to have something less than the winning flush X% of the time, unless you also assume you're as likely to push with the winning flush as you are with other hands, relatively speaking. Given how you think your play was ridiculous and totally non-standard, I think you're several times more likely to push here without the winning flush, meaning that % goes way down (probably less than 20%, if even that). Now it becomes an insta call, right?
Actually, HE has to re-orient his figures. It is about his decision, not mine. But you have a good point.

He should put me on a range of hands that I would push. Then calculate (or estimate given time constraints) how many of these beat him based on this distribution.

I was backwards in my logic there. Got it. I accept my mistake.

A winning flush is actually probably a small percentage of the hands I would push given the ridiculous prospect that I would push any hands at all. So a call is definitely in order.

Good point
seedload est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Old May 30, 2007, 4:06am   #20
TWLLM
100
 
TWLLM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,271
Reputation: 957
TWLLM is a splendid one to beholdTWLLM is a splendid one to beholdTWLLM is a splendid one to beholdTWLLM is a splendid one to beholdTWLLM is a splendid one to beholdTWLLM is a splendid one to beholdTWLLM is a splendid one to beholdTWLLM is a splendid one to behold
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by seedload View Post
Actually, HE has to re-orient his figures. It is about his decision, not mine. But you have a good point.

He should put me on a range of hands that I would push. Then calculate (or estimate given time constraints) how many of these beat him based on this distribution.

I was backwards in my logic there. Got it. I accept my mistake.

A winning flush is actually probably a small percentage of the hands I would push given the ridiculous prospect that I would push any hands at all. So a call is definitely in order.

Good point
Right about the 'HE' point, except to say that we know what villain has, not what hero has, and you're taking the virtual standpoint of the villain, so of course I have to speak as if you were he. It's as if you have reversed roles, and so I say 'you have to do X' because 'you' are now the villain, not the hero. There's no sense in talking about the range of hands when it's 'you' proper - you already know your own hand.

I'm glad you got the second point and we're in agreement now, and sorry for any offense I've caused in getting to this point. This is a huge part of why I thought your post was results-oriented, not because you were intending to be or were acting maliciously, but because your suggested plan of action was SO very out of line with the math/logic of the hand, not to mention what the intuition of most players on here seems to be. I thought there could be no possible way that even your original math was enough to justify folding (let alone if I apply the second level math).

I mean, how often do you open-shove a flush in this spot? Very rarely, and I would have thought that, for a Q high flush, the odds are even lower, approaching never. You confirmed how non-standard your play was in your posts. So the fact that the hand came down the way it did, this time, I thought, 'blinded' your otherwise logical self into saying the better move was to fold, after all considerations. Hence, the 'result-oriented' comment. I did not mean to imply, if I did, that you intended to be results-oriented (whether or not you actually were), but that if you came to this result, you pretty much had to have been influenced by the results. Even if you used some numbers to make your case, those numbers had to be radically affected, I thought, by the result, in order to make folding even thinkable.

Sorry for any offense this may have caused, but I don't know of a separate term for this kind of affect as opposed to just being 'results-oriented' as one would be when one is posting bad beats as strategy. I should probably come up with one so that I don't offend anyone else when I question their logic.

EDIT - I forgot to add, that obviously I also thought you posted the hand because of the results as opposed to because you thought there was real strategy in it. After all, if you had a lower flush and he called, I didn't think we'd get a thread out of it that was all that meaningful. You can easily see how this is related to the idea that you would push with a higher flush so rarely here - and so the thread seemed strategic (read non-standard) for the reason that the matchup was as it was - flush over lower flush.
__________________
If I were Vietnamese my name would be Kno Nguyen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleU
Oh, and obviously, TWLLM, we'd all rather you just ruled with an iron fist of nittiness and made all decisions without consultation, but that goes without saying, right?

Last edited by TWLLM; May 30, 2007 at 4:20am.
TWLLM est déconnecté   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT. The time now is 9:55pm. vBulletin 3.7.4 Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.