DeathMatch for 10K: paisiello v. anonimuss (split from Betting When Small Blind)

Quote: SOOPOO

Enough already! Quit beating around the bush! Make a concrete proposal with the terms YOU would find acceptable. Then we will see if Axel finds them acceptable. If so, we have a bet. I would be willing to serve as the judge for you guys.

It has been so many pages of back and forth drivel, what exactly do you want to bet about, paisiello? Or Axel?

My bet is : well known players would most likely at least complete the small blind with 4 -6 players who just limped in the pot in an average 6 handed no limit cash game .

Quote: SOOPOO

Enough already! Quit beating around the bush! Make a concrete proposal with the terms YOU would find acceptable. Then we will see if Axel finds them acceptable. If so, we have a bet. I would be willing to serve as the judge for you guys.

It has been so many pages of back and forth drivel, what exactly do you want to bet about, paisiello? Or Axel?

You got a better chance of getting dice setters to put money where their mouth is ! *

* honored exception being TUPP

You're changing the terms of the original bet as proposed by Anon. I am not interested in having to consider different terms from every tom, dick, and harry. Sorry, just not worth my time.

I actually don't believe we will ever fully agree to terms that would be favorable to me. So maybe go back to your nap and stop posting in this thread.

Quote: Buzzard

You got a better chance of getting dice setters to put money where their mouth is ! *

* honored exception being TUPP

Gee, I was right, wasn't I ?

Quote: Buzzard

Gee, I was right, wasn't I ?

You were, but in fairness, everyone knew it. Axel just made a last-ditch effort to win some easy money. I was going to try to weasel in on some of the action too, regardless of which of them ended up making the bet :) (I did not like my chances though... it seems that there was a long line of people wanting to get in on it)

It's not going to happen though. As expected, it's all talk, and then all excuses when it comes time to put up the money. I'd have about the same chance of getting gr8 to accept my bet about his supposed 53-54% strike rate at baccarat.

I thought my comments might keep it going a little longer. WRONG again !

Why won't you accept the terms as proposed by Anon which I said I would agree to originally?

Oh that's right, I forgot, you want to change the bet so the terms are in your favor. Sounds like a sucker play to me.

Quote: paisiello

Why won't you accept the terms as proposed by Anon which I said I would agree to originally?

Oh that's right, I forgot, you want to change the bet so the terms are in your favor. Sounds like a sucker play to me.

I didn't see all his terms, I asked you to come up with some terms, its simple.

Lets go back to the OP and what you said about 4 5 and go from there.

I'm not changing the term,s I was telling you what I thought the bet was. We have to start somewhere and you don't know what I will accept.

Obviously if you come up with outrageous terms where its not a fair bet.

I'm asking you to first just tell me what the bet is, then the terms can be worked out. I'm willing to bend on my terms as long as its in the spirit of the bet.


once again, I'm flexible. Please tell me what you think a fair bet would be that's all I'm asking.

Again, for the umpteenth time, Anon was the one who proposed this bet, not me. So please don't tell me I'm do anything here other than stating the original terms of the bet that I agreed to: he was willing to let me pick the pros and he agreed to a $10,000 wager. Do you agree to at least these terms?

Yes or no?

If yes, then I am interested in hammering out the details.

If no, then you are not as foolish as apparently he was and I am not interested in anything else. So let's drop this whole thing and move on to more interesting things.

Thank you.

Quote: paisiello

Again, for the umpteenth time, Anon was the one who proposed this bet, not me. So please don't tell me I'm do anything here other than stating the original terms of the bet that I agreed to: he was willing to let me pick the pros and he agreed to a $10,000 wager. Do you agree to at least these terms?

Yes or no?

If yes, then I am interested in hammering out the details.

If no, then you are not as foolish as apparently he was and I am not interested in anything else. So let's drop this whole thing and move on to more interesting things.

Thank you.

I would like to see your list of top pros, then i can make a decision. I still think any pro worth a dam will find value in 45 ss. Even if a pro wrote a book and talks about suited connectors. I have a feeling he may have been talking in general terms for someone learning poker or as a basic guidline. Once he/she read the OP they would say there are always exceptions to rules. Pros can find value in un-conventional hands in many situations.

I assumed this bet was to prove something. Not sure how hand picking specific people who you feel strongly might support your claim would accomplish this. However, for the reasons I already stated..............

Please post up your list.

Okay, I haven't really paid much attention to the actual content of this thread until now, so let me make sure I have this:

You have 4-5, suited, out of the SB and four limpers before you, if we can safely assume that the BB isn't holding an absolute powerhouse, then he would probably just check it and see what happens on the flop.

The first thing is, before I did anything, I decided how I would play this in a tournament, and this is an insta-call for me. There's just no doubt about it, not only is it going to be easy to read others for a Flush (or draw) if 3-4 other cards in my suit come, but it is very possible that none of the other hands have either of my cards.

You also know what you're playing, you either wants Trips, FH, 2P, Flush, Open-Ended Straight or Four-Flush after the flop, so it's EXTREMELY easy to get away from a less than mediocre hand, if necessary. After all, you're only in it for a small blind, at that point.

To confirm my suspicions, I used:

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-tools/odds-calculator/texas-holdem

And:

9h10h
10sJs
QsQd
AcKc
4c5c
AhKh

And my hand is the third most likely to win at .1461 probability and .0016 to tie, there's some value in tying (as others would fold if it went that far) but we'll just assume anything that is not a win is a loss.

(Blinds at 20/40)

(.1461 * 200) - (40 * .8539) = -4.936

I'd be making the correct decision in this case, and it's not even close. -4.936 is much better than a guaranteed -20, and I could see getting trapped with something like a Flopped Two Pair, and at least that's a hand one can justify being trapped with, but if someone feels One Pair is difficult to let go (assuming they don't have a Four-Flush or Open-Ended Straight simultaneously) they need to pick a different hobby.

Okay, let's go ahead and stack the Odds against the SB even worse:

Qc5c
Kd4d
QhJh
10s10d
5s4s
7d6s

The first thing about this scenario is that I have first and second to act intentionally playing ridiculously (given their position) to make the Odds against the 5s4s SB worse.

Okay, the result is .1085 to win and .0205 to tie, the hand is second to least likely to win (7-6 has the worst of it). Again, let's assume a tie doesn't happen just for fun and:

(.1085 * 200) - (40 * .8915) = -13.96

Which is still better than the -20 from folding.

Obviously, there will also be some lost value in a strong BB making a big move and SB being forced to fold. There will also be theoretical starting card combinations in which the expected value of calling will be worse than -20, but those are few and far between and specifically involve players out of position holding a ton of copy cards against your Two Pair, making FH or 3OaK more unlikely, etc.

It's a snap-call, except I might fondle a largish stack of chips for a second to make the BB think I was considering a substantial pre-flop raise in order to give him second thoughts if he was thinking of doing the same exact thing. Basically, you want to act in whatever way you think will kill the action.

Quote: AxelWolf

Pros can find value in un-conventional hands in many situations.

Yes, they most certainly can but in general are they going to want to play a weak hand out of position the majority of the time? I'm sure there are some out there whose style is to play anything and so that fits with their playing style. I think the play is a leak for their game but perhaps there is a meta-strategy that the cost of the leak allows them to capitalize on other situations. And maybe even there are table specific situations where it might even be a profitable play the majority of the time. But in general, given that you don't know your opponents, is it a profitable play in the long run?

I know for a 100% fact, however, there are pros out there with decades of experience who would NOT usually put themselves or their entire stacks in that spot especially with 3 more betting rounds to come. Now can I readily find 10 of them? I would say I am 90% confident I can.

What does this prove? Probably nothing either way. I suppose the only way you could prove it beyond a reasonable doubt is to do a large meta-survey that was weighted to the verified income of the individuals and show that the statistics of it are true within an accepted confidence interval. The logistics of this would be difficult to say the least and the costs involved would probably exceed the amount of the bet. But if it could be done at no cost to me then I would probably put a smaller wager on this. Maybe only $100 since I think it will probably be a coin flip.

If you read Anon's original posts he initially proposed to just do a popular survey on one of the bulletin boards. As if. When I countered that the opinions should come from qualified experts, not the random public, he then came up with the suggestion of me finding 10 pros. That's when I asked him if he was willing to up the stakes? And he foolishly agreed. I suppose I was and still am being suckered into wasting my time responding to this since I actually don't think he ever was or you now are really serious. Otherwise I have to assume I am somehow being tricked in some elaborate con like when you tried to change the terms on me!

I'll disclose that $10,000 may not be a large sum of money to you but is for me so I am not going to risk it on a coin flip or even a small edge. This is going to end up a pretty sure thing for me before I commit in writing. So interpret that any way you wish.

But for academic purposes if nothing else, let's say I came up with a list. How then would you go about:

1) verifying their credentials?
2) verifying their statements actually come from them and represent their position?

I think their would have to be some overhead costs involved. I would probably ask that you agree to cover this overhead 100% upfront beforehand before I commit any of my money.

Quote: Mission146

Okay, I haven't really paid much attention to the actual content of this thread until now, so let me make sure I have this:

I don't think you have this at all. First of all this is a NL cash game. Second, running one or two hands doesn't prove anything other than you are the sort of player who can be easily convinced to play weak hands the majority of the time and therefore very exploitable.

Quote: paisiello

Yes, they most certainly can but in general are they going to want to play a weak hand out of position the majority of the time?

Who said anything about majority of the time? The OP described a specific situtaion where you find a small suited connector in the small blind to an un-raised pot with 3-4 other limpers already in.

Quote: paisiello

I know for a 100% fact, however, there are pros out there with decades of experience who would NOT usually put themselves or their entire stacks in that spot

What entire stack? If you are reasonably sure the big blind won't raise, the only additional money at stake is the amount needed to complete the big blind! In a 2/5 NL cash game with three limpers ahead of you, you are getting 22-3 odds. Well worth it given the implied odds in the instance you hit the flop, and so easy to get away from too.

Quote: paisiello

or you now are really serious. Otherwise I have to assume I am somehow being tricked in some elaborate con like when you tried to change the terms on me!

I take offence at that statement and almost feel that's a personal insult saying i tried to con you.

I didn't try to change any terms, I had no clue what the terms were I was trying to come up with some and gave suggestions. I have been more then generous with leeway bet amounts. I offered for you to set some terms. ans then negotiate them. I only stated What I thought the gist of the bet was. I have never changed my stance on the bet or the terms.

We all know who has proper credentials. I already pointed out a how a list could be determined. YOUR UNCLE CHESTER WONT COUNT.

Facebook or twitter accounts could work.

Until we have a list of people how will we know how to proceed?

There may not be any cost involved its a simple question most guys would be happy to talk about poker and give their opinion on the subject. We wont know until you get a list. How hard can a list be?

You seem to be trying to make it complicated. Not sure why possibly because you want to save face.

Make the bet for less if its something to significant. As far as the work involved I will be glad to put the extra time in.

If you have to cherry pick people and you think you may only have a small edge,.I can imagine your poker theory as to the OP is at all close to the reality. Both the math and the logic seems to dictate you are way off base.

If you plan on playing poker perhaps the time is well spent for you anyways in leaning there are better ways to skin a cat then what you read in books or think you know.

You will soon have to join the Bac threads with Varm and gr8.

Simple list please.

Quote: paisiello

I don't think you have this at all. First of all this is a NL cash game. Second, running one or two hands doesn't prove anything other than you are the sort of player who can be easily convinced to play weak hands the majority of the time and therefore very exploitable.

To the first part, that makes no difference as it does not alter the expected value of one play or another.

To the second part, try me.

Quote: MidwestAP

Who said anything about majority of the time? The OP described a specific situtaion where you find a small suited connector in the small blind to an un-raised pot with 3-4 other limpers already in.

It seemed to be implied by me and everybody else in this thread except you. But if not the majority then what % did you think it was? 50%?

Quote: MidwestAP

What entire stack? If you are reasonably sure the big blind won't raise, the only additional money at stake is the amount needed to complete the big blind! In a 2/5 NL cash game with three limpers ahead of you, you are getting 22-3 odds. Well worth it given the implied odds in the instance you hit the flop, and so easy to get away from too.

Well, I guess when you lose your entire stack to me or one of the other limpers you'll understand what I meant.

You and everybody else seem to think your only putting $1 in and you push a button and you win or lose and that's it, like's it's only a slot machine. You have three more betting rounds ahead of you with a weak hand and out of position. The same implied odds you thought you were getting pre-flop are now used against you post-flop.

Quote: AxelWolf

...I had no clue what the terms were...

We can agree on that. Why don't you read through the posts by Anon and then you can at least start from there? I want the original terms that Anon gave me. If you don't agree and instead want to change the terms then I am telling you again I am NOT interested.

Quote: AxelWolf

We all know who has proper credentials. I already pointed out a how a list could be determined.

Well, actually we don't. I have no idea what you think are "proper credentials". I would guess that I have a higher standard than you. I already rejected your proposal and stated that I want the original terms that Anon gave me. If you don't agree and instead want to change the terms then I am telling you again I am NOT interested.

Quote: AxelWolf

Until we have a list of people how will we know how to proceed?

We don't unless you agree to the terms that were given to me by Anon. If you don't agree and instead want to change the terms then I am telling you again I am NOT interested.

Quote: AxelWolf

There may not be any cost involved its a simple question most guys would be happy to talk about poker and give their opinion on the subject. We wont know until you get a list. How hard can a list be?

I don't think you are right. If you are a professional of any kind then time is money. It's like asking a lawyer or doctor for free advice and then asking them to put that advice in writing so you can make money off of it. Probably not going to happen. If you really take the time to think about it you will realize that there will be overhead involved unless you trust me 100% which I have to assume you don't. And I don't trust you either.

Quote: AxelWolf

You seem to be trying to make it complicated. Not sure why possibly because you want to save face.

You don't seem to have a grasp of what is really involved here. Any legal transaction is complicated. I at least recognize this.

Quote: AxelWolf

Make the bet for less if its something to significant. As far as the work involved I will be glad to put the extra time in.

I am not interested in anything else other than the terms that were given to me by Anon. If you don't agree and instead want to change the terms then I am telling you again I am NOT interested. (But feel free to do the research on your own time and let us know what you come up with).

Quote: AxelWolf

If you have to cherry pick people and you think you may only have a small edge,.I can imagine your poker theory as to the OP is at all close to the reality. Both the math and the logic seems to dictate you are way off base.

I disagree and will bet you $10,000 that I can find 10 professional players who can support my position. And, yes, I am cherry picking them.

Quote: AxelWolf

If you plan on playing poker perhaps the time is well spent for you anyways in leaning there are better ways to skin a cat then what you read in books or think you know.

If you bothered to read the previous posts you would know I also get knowledge directly from seasoned professionals who do this for a living. These are the guys I would put on "the list". And I think I can find 10 of them.

Quote: AxelWolf

You will soon have to join the Bac threads with Varm and gr8.

Sorry, I don't make -ve EV bets the way that you apparently do.

Quote: AxelWolf

Simple list please.

I already rejected your proposal and stated that I want the original terms that Anon gave me. If you don't agree and instead want to change the terms then I am telling you again I am NOT interested.

lol, the excuses start to pour in.

First it was supposed to be 10 professionals. Now it's 10 "pros" that you can cherry-pick.

This is pretty much an admission that most pros will not support your position. I suspect that you would save more face if you just admitted that you were wrong (or even that you are not sure whether you are right) rather than try to weasel out of it like this.

" To the first part, that makes no difference as it does not alter the expected value of one play or another. "

Can I have a hit off whatever you are smoking ? Or is the green from your name blinding you?

One is a tournament, the other is cash NL, surely you jest !

Quote: Mission146

To the first part, that makes no difference as it does not alter the expected value of one play or another.

I am claiming there is a difference. The EV in a limit game in the end might be +ve enough assuming you can get someone to at least call you all the way to the river. The EV in a no limit game is going to be -ve EV for the reasons I posted earlier in the thread.

As for a NL tournament, I think that it is much more situational but still going to be a -ve EV in the long run.

Quote: Mission146

To the second part, try me.

Try yourself. The next time you sit down to a NL cash game, keep track of the times you called the small blind or called any hand to just "see what the flop is". Add up the money at the end of the night to see how much money it cost you. It can add up to be a big % of your stack

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

lol, the excuses start to pour in.

First it was supposed to be 10 professionals. Now it's 10 "pros" that you can cherry-pick.

This is pretty much an admission that most pros will not support your position. I suspect that you would save more face if you just admitted that you were wrong (or even that you are not sure whether you are right) rather than try to weasel out of it like this.

Oh, I'm sorry then. I promise I won't cherry pick them.

Ever.

I will just plain old pick them instead. If you will allow me to, that is.

Quote: paisiello

Well, I guess when you lose your entire stack to me or one of the other limpers you'll understand what I meant.

You and everybody else seem to think your only putting $1 in and you push a button and you win or lose and that's it, like's it's only a slot machine. You have three more betting rounds ahead of you with a weak hand and out of position. The same implied odds you thought you were getting pre-flop are now used against you post-flop.

That's simply not in any way a true statement. The implied odds pre-flop are the odds of winning a hand and the expected value of making a call based on those odds and how much is going to be in the pot when the flop comes, that's it. Are you better to definitely lose 1/2 of a Big Blind or are you better to play the hand out risking the loss of a full big blind or potentially more.

Okay, so the flop comes, and presumably there aren't going to be five other players to be up against if anyone at all bets. At this point, it's really pretty simple (for me) I either have at least a pair with an open-ended straight draw, a pair with a Four-Flush, or I have something better than that. If I don't have those hands, or better, I'm almost always going to fold.

We've already said this is a cash game, if you can't handle doubling your bet (knowing that you will definitely lose your small blind if you don't) to see the flop in that situation with that hand, then you need to be playing at a smaller table or buy in for more chips. It's really that simple.***

I mean, you make that call and you're acting like we're saying we're married to the hand from that point. I'm not married to that hand, I'm not even taking that hand out for coffee, I'm giving that hand a second glance from the opposite side of a crowded room is what I'm doing with that hand.

In my opinion, to not make that call is reflective of an extremely tight player. Beatable. Extremely time-consuming and extremely tedious, but beatable.

In terms of post-flop play if you hit something strong, it's a beautiful hand. Nobody shy of the greatest of professionals could ever read you for those starting cards.

***If I'm on the bubble in a tournament with a weakish stack, or if I am in the cash in a tournament, but short-stacked, and trying to hold on as long as possible to improve my finish and $$$, then I'd probably toss the hand.

Quote: paisiello

Oh, I'm sorry then. I promise I won't cherry pick them.

Ever.

I will just plain old pick them instead. If you will allow me to, that is.

You are basically turning the bet from:

"most pros support my position"

to:

"given enough time and/or bribe money, I can find 10 people who are poker pros (for some definition of 'poker pros') who will support my position (or claim to support it if I pay them)".

In other words, you know full well that you are wrong, so you are trying to change the terms of the bet so that no one in their right mind would accept it, rather than just admitting that you were wrong.

Quote: Buzzard

" To the first part, that makes no difference as it does not alter the expected value of one play or another. "

Can I have a hit off whatever you are smoking ? Or is the green from your name blinding you?

One is a tournament, the other is cash NL, surely you jest !

I don't jest and don't call me surely. I mean the expected value in chips, not in cash, the chips don't care whether or not they are a direct dollar-for-dollar representation of cash.

Quote: paisiello

I am claiming there is a difference. The EV in a limit game in the end might be +ve enough assuming you can get someone to at least call you all the way to the river. The EV in a no limit game is going to be -ve EV for the reasons I posted earlier in the thread.

It's -EV either way, that's already been demonstrated. The question is whether it is more or less -EV than the alternative.

Let's say you put half of your stack in on a semi-bluff pre-flop being first to act, heads-up, and half of your stack is $50,000, your opponent goes all in and shows you his cards, for whatever reason. Your opponent has 10h10c and you have Js10s, here are the results:

Fold = -$50,000

Tie= 1.84% = $0

All-In = (.3777 * 100000) - (.6039 * 100000) = -22620

Even though your expected value is still negative, you lose more than twice as much in the long run folding to the superior hand even though you are utterly dominated when you make the call. Even if I change the ten to 10d in your hand, you're still much better to call:

(.3404 * 100000) - (.6414 * 100000) = -30100

In the long run, playing good poker is not just about knowing how to take advantage of positive situations, "Hey, I've got AhKd and the flop just came AsAcAd, and my opponent just went all-in, I should probably call," it's also about knowing how to lose the least in the long run in negative situations.

It's that simple, the small blind case and this case: If you call, yes, you will probably lose, but the times you will win improve the times you will lose to such an extent that calling is better than folding.

Quote:

As for a NL tournament, I think that it is much more situational but still going to be a -ve EV in the long run.

Again, it's -EV either way, but so is folding! How is folding not -EV? The expected value of folding is (-)whatever you have in there.

Quote:

Try yourself. The next time you sit down to a NL cash game, keep track of the times you called the small blind or called any hand to just "see what the flop is". Add up the money at the end of the night to see how much money it cost you. It can add up to be a big % of your stack

No, you try me. Are you from around Ohio or Vegas? We can go on-line, in-person, one-on-one, I don't care. Heads-up, starting stack (10,000 chips, not dollars) best of 25 and I'm going to start you out 3-0. Beating you down is going to be a grind with how tight you apparently play, but over a sample size of 25 games, I think I will most likely win.

I don't play NL cash games, doesn't change the math, though. I play tournaments, sometimes.

Quote: Mission146

I don't jest and don't call me surely. I mean the expected value in chips, not in cash, the chips don't care whether or not they are a direct dollar-for-dollar representation of cash.

Yes, but the key is, your goal in a tournament is not to maximize your chip EV. It's to maximize your cash EV at the end.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Yes, but the key is, your goal in a tournament is not to maximize your chip EV. It's to maximize your cash EV at the end.

I understand what you mean, and in a recent post, I gave a couple of tournament exceptions to how I would play something. I believe you guys may be misinterpreting what I mean by EV, or maybe I'm not explaining myself very well.

I'm referring to the EV in chips, not whether or not it is a good play for a very specific purpose in a tournament. It has the same EV in chips whether or not you are in a tournament, whether or not it is a good play given your relative position in the tournament, is an entirely different question. The EV in chips will still be the same, regardless of your position in the tournament, the question is simply, given your position, whether or not that matters.

Quote: Mission146

I understand what you mean, and in a recent post, I gave a couple of tournament exceptions to how I would play something. I believe you guys may be misinterpreting what I mean by EV, or maybe I'm not explaining myself very well.

I'm referring to the EV in chips, not whether or not it is a good play for a very specific purpose in a tournament. It has the same EV in chips whether or not you are in a tournament, whether or not it is a good play given your relative position in the tournament, is an entirely different question. The EV in chips will still be the same, regardless of your position in the tournament, the question is simply, given your position, whether or not that matters.

Ok, I think I understand what you're saying.

FWIW, I think that it's a call in most cash games as well as most tournament situations.

In a cash game, folding is probably right if you are short-stacked, you opponents are short-stacked (same thing), or you are severely outclassed (in which case getting up and leaving is not a bad idea)

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

You are basically turning the bet from:

"most pros support my position"

to:

"given enough time and/or bribe money, I can find 10 people who are poker pros (for some definition of 'poker pros') who will support my position (or claim to support it if I pay them)".

In other words, you know full well that you are wrong, so you are trying to change the terms of the bet so that no one in their right mind would accept it, rather than just admitting that you were wrong.

Not true. I didn't change anything. You eminent ones are the ones trying to change the bet. Please go back and see the terms proposed by Anon that I said I would agree to.

So then you agree that most pros would disagree with your position?

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

So then you agree that most pros would disagree with your position?

No, just not interested in betting a large sum of money on it. And even if most pros would advocate calling it doesn't prove that I am wrong. You'd have to weight the opinions based on experience and life time earnings.

Quote: paisiello

No, just not interested in betting a large sum of money on it.

Well, that at least tells me that you are not very sure that most pros would agree.

Quote:

And even if most pros would advocate calling it doesn't prove that I am wrong.

I do agree with that.

Quote: Mission146

It's -EV either way, that's already been demonstrated....

I think I missed that demonstration.

Quote: Mission146

Let's say you put half of your stack in on a semi-bluff pre-flop being first to act, heads-up....

I'm afraid I didn't follow your example as I don't think folding is -ve EV. It's 0.

Quote: Mission146

If you call, yes, you will probably lose, but the times you will win improve the times you will lose to such an extent that calling is better than folding.

You're leaving out the times you called off your entire stack on bottom two pair or a flush draw. It's -ve EV hand for a reason.

Quote: Mission146

Again, it's -EV either way, but so is folding! How is folding not -EV? The expected value of folding is (-)whatever you have in there...

I don't think you quite comprehend what is meant by EV or maybe your definition is different from my understanding.

Quote: Mission146

No, you try me...

No, try yourself.

A better game I think would be as follows:

1} You ante up $1 to be dealt 2 cards.

2) After looking at your cards you can then decide to fold, in which case I get your ante.

3) Alternatively you can call for another $1 in which case I must immediately ante up $10 and I am dealt five separate hands to play. The flop, turn, and river are then played with the standard betting rounds. I play each hand separately just as if they were a different player for each except they all use the same stack of chips.

4) If a showdown ensues where you reveal your hand to be anything other than suited connectors then you automatically lose and I collect the entire pot. Otherwise the winner is determined by standard poker hand rankings.

5) Play is repeated until you bust.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Well, that at least tells me that you are not very sure that most pros would agree.

Not sure enough to risk $10,000.

Quote: paisiello

I'm afraid I didn't follow your example as I don't think folding is -ve EV. It's 0.

Okay, let me ask you a few questions:

1.) If you fold, do you or do you not definitely lose the hand?

2.) Would you classify losing the hand as a financially positive or financially (or tournament chips) negative event, assuming you had money in the pot at the time you folded?

3.) If you would classify folding as a financially (or tournament chips) negative event, then folding had negative expected value. You may only be presented with two choices, one of them folding, and both choices have a negative expected value, that doesn't change the fact that folding has a fixed negative expected value of (-1) * (whatever you have in the pot)

Quote:

You're leaving out the times you called off your entire stack on bottom two pair or a flush draw. It's -ve EV hand for a reason.

I'm not leaving anything out, that hand is generally going to be -EV no matter what you do. The question is one of minimizing your expected loss.

Here's an example, let's say that you told me that my choices were to either to walk up to a Craps Table and give them $5 for no good reason, or alternatively, I could walk up to the Craps Table and make a $10 Any Seven bet. Both of these options are negative EV. In the first case, my EV is -$5 and my result is fixed at -$5. I cannot lose any more or less than $5 by making that decision.

However, I could make the horrible Any Seven bet for $10 and my EV is:

(.1667 * 40) - (.8333 * 10) = -1.665

As you can see, I have a probability of over 80% to lose $10 rather than my probability of 100% to lose $5, but the possibility of winning, even at reduced odds, 4-to-1 on my $10 makes it a significantly better decision than forfeiting $5 without a fight. In fact, just forking over the $5 is three times worse in terms of expected value.

Okay, so much like that poker hand, both options have a negative expected value, but one has a less negative expected value.

It doesn't matter if the expected value of folding and the actual value of folding are the same thing, (i.e. the value is fixed) you're losing money, so the value is negative, not zero.

Quote:

I don't think you quite comprehend what is meant by EV or maybe your definition is different from my understanding.

I'd go with the latter, though by no fault of "My definition."

Quote: paisiello

Not sure enough to risk $10,000.

Less than $10k = not worth your time.
$10k = too much to bet.

I think Anon is smarter than any of us. He figured that you would be full of excuses and stopped wasting his time with this.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Less than $10k = not worth your time.
$10k = too much to bet.

I think Anon is smarter than any of us. He figured that you would be full of excuses and stopped wasting his time with this.

But you still seem willing to be wasting your time on this?

You just don't seem to get it at all: you can't change the terms of the bet and then call it the same bet. I said I will take the $10,000 bet provided I can have the terms that Anon was willing to give me. Once you change those terms then I am not interested in anything else.

You're certainly wasting my time with your goading.

Quote: Mission146

Okay, let me ask you a few questions:

1.) If you fold, do you or do you not definitely lose the hand?

Neither, you have elected to not play further or not take the bet as it were. You are forgetting that the first decision you made was to sit down and play your small blind. You could have stood up and walked away and not spent the dollar: EV of this decision = $0.

But once you decide to play and commit that dollar you are expecting/hoping a return on your investment at the end of the hand. EV of this decision would be estimated maybe on your skill level relative to the other players at the table. Let's say for example you estimate this to be on average -$0.50 from the small blind position. Then your total EV including the cost of posting the $1 is going to be -$1 - $0.50 = -$1.50.

After you get dealt your two cards it becomes an entirely separate and independent decision what you do next. This should be indifferent to whether you put the $1 in the pot or someone else did.

Quote: Mission146

2.) Would you classify losing the hand as a financially positive or financially (or tournament chips) negative event, assuming you had money in the pot at the time you folded?

I don't think this question makes sense since you assumed that question 1) was correct.

Quote: Mission146

3.) If you would classify folding as a financially (or tournament chips) negative event, then folding had negative expected value. You may only be presented with two choices, one of them folding, and both choices have a negative expected value, that doesn't change the fact that folding has a fixed negative expected value of (-1) * (whatever you have in the pot)

Incorrect. See answer to 1) above.

Quote: Mission146

The question is one of minimizing your expected loss. Here's an example...

I think you are confused on this issue. If you expect to lose the hand then the best decision you can make is to fold.

And I am sorry but I did not understand your Craps example at all.

Quote: Mission146

...though by no fault of "My definition."

I'm afraid your definition of EV makes no sense to me. You might want to re-think this or maybe ask someone else if you don't understand what I said above.

Hello all...been a lurker of this site for quite some time. Very fun and interesting.

Wiz, thank you for all of your analysis. Somewhat of a math/odds player myself. Blows me away to see people play stupid..ie) 0/00 roulette vs a 0 wheel 10 ft away(used to be the case @Grand Victoria in Indiana).

But i digress, this poker argument is ludicrous(sp?). Small blind call is almost automatic in both cash(limit & nl) & tournament. I am a borderline poker pro (not my full time gig). Quite frankly, I can't believe the amount of effort wasted on this discussion.

Simply, put up or shut-up. I guarantee, 8/10(or more) pro's play this hand. Too much on the implied side not to call 1/2 a blind (and i'm a pretty tight player 80%of time)

Once again.. Hi all. I hope i can add to the wealth of info provided here. Thanks for the forum.

Quote: paisiello

Neither, you have elected to not play further or not take the bet as it were. You are forgetting that the first decision you made was to sit down and play your small blind. You could have stood up and walked away and not spent the dollar: EV of this decision = $0.

How did you not lose the hand? You participated in the hand, in this case, you even had money in there. Did someone else not win the hand? Does the hand cease to exist after you fold? Is the game a figment of the small blind's imagination at that point?

You could have not been playing poker to begin with, EV = $0, what is your point?

The question is sort of asked from the perspective of someone who is playing and, in fact, has already thrown money in on the small blind and been dealt 4s-5s with four limpers behind him and the BB to act after he does. At this point, it is completely irrelevant that he could have chosen not to play in the first place, because he is playing and his money is in the pot.

Quote:

After you get dealt your two cards it becomes an entirely separate and independent decision what you do next. This should be indifferent to whether you put the $1 in the pot or someone else did.

No, that's not even close to being correct. If I am the first to act with this hand at a table that has at least six hands (per the example) there is no way I call the amount of the big blind to see the flop. That would be a ridiculous play precisely BECAUSE I do not have any money in the pot at that point. If I have no money in the pot, then I do not want to make any decision that is -EV, if I have money in the pot and must choose between two decisions that are both -EV, then I want to make the least negative one.

Quote:

I think you are confused on this issue. If you expect to lose the hand then the best decision you can make is to fold.

And I am sorry but I did not understand your Craps example at all.

I'm afraid your definition of EV makes no sense to me. You might want to re-think this or maybe ask someone else if you don't understand what I said above.

If the first thing you said is true, then you should never play a game that has more than one other person to begin with, because the expectation for the majority of individual hands will be that you lose, unless your opponents are truly terrible.

I would go back and re-read the Craps example, in that event, that's truly as simple as I can make what I am trying to explain.

Again, it's not my definition of EV, it is the definition of EV, if it were not, someone would have corrected me by now.

Quote: linksjunkie

But i digress, this poker argument is ludicrous(sp?)...Quite frankly, I can't believe the amount of effort wasted on this discussion.

Simply, put up or shut-up. I guarantee, 8/10(or more) pro's play this hand. Too much on the implied side not to call 1/2 a blind (and i'm a pretty tight player 80%of time)

Once again.. Hi all. I hope i can add to the wealth of info provided here. Thanks for the forum.

I emphatically agree with the first statement in the quoted selection above and this post will be my last in this thread unless Paisello chooses to ask something sensible.

I also agree with the second statement, of course.

The main thing that has lost me is the argument in which the referenced individual disagrees that an individual who posts a small blind and folds has lost the hand. When an individual makes a statement such as that, it's really difficult to engage said individual in a meaningful conversation from that point forward.

Mission well put... but laughing cause i'm guessing that you are sitting round with little else to do on a Friday (think we are in the same time zone...Eastern)

Just finished my normal Friday game drinking a beer & unwinding

Quote: linksjunkie

Mission well put... but laughing cause i'm guessing that you are sitting round with little else to do on a Friday (think we are in the same time zone...Eastern)

Just finished my normal Friday game drinking a beer & unwinding

We are in the same time zone, correct, if you're near Meadows Casino in Washington, PA and would be interested in coming to a Forum get-together, shoot me a PM and I will send you a link to the thread. We were originally going to have more than fifteen Forum Members there, but we started losing people due to the weather, however, we should still end up with more than ten. It's Sunday 3/2/2014 (technically, tomorrow) so the notice is kind of short, though we should be doing another one in September sometime.

In any event, I manage a hotel, so there is not much to do around this time of night. Given that I am an Administrator here, I try to entertain discussions as long as possible in case someone legitimately does not understand what is going on, (and I'm in the dark on a good many things, myself, until they are explained to me in multiple ways) but in this case, I probably have devoted too many posts to something that should be very obvious.

Paisiello

The bet mentioned was made to prove you were wrong or right and you dam well know that. How does cherry picking prove anything? what you want to bet is would be considered by most ludicrous and weaselly. Yet you called me a con. ( still not replies about that)

If i claimed the world was flat and we had a bet about the world being flat or not. You and anyone with a half of brain would realize what the bet was about. If I were to then start claiming I can find 10 scientists that say the world is flat. That would be a clear and blatant Con since we know I probably could find 10 scientists that believe this nonsense. This is what people call a weasel bet.


99% of the people who have been reading this thread are wondering if you really are this ignorant or just trying to save face and back out of a bet. You must realize the terms you want are just ridicules and a way to back out and not admit you are wrong or a horrible player.

Its very obvious you gave bad advice and you now probably realize it but are to dam stubborn to admit you are wrong.

You should find a way to get suspended, so this can all be forgotten before you dig yourself into a bigger hole and end up looking like a big time fool.

You keep talking trash as if you will stack people I offered you and opportunity for that. You should have a huge advantage as i will always play ss connectors in early pos if no big raises in front of me.

Quote: Mission146

...someone would have corrected me by now.

I wish someone would. You're just completely wrong on the issue.

Quote: AxelWolf

Paisiello

The bet mentioned was made to prove you were wrong or right and you dam well know that...

The bet was proposed by Anon NOT me.

It's clear that none of you know what you are talking about. Poker is full of bad players like yourselves. That is why people can make a lucrative living playing it.

Quote: paisiello

The bet was proposed by Anon NOT me.

It's clear that none of you know what you are talking about. Poker is full of bad players like yourselves. That is why people can make a lucrative living playing it.

Oh yeah? So you're telling me(skeptical African child meme face here) that calling one half blind in one multiway pot under optimal circumstances makes us bad players?

What would a bad player do in this situation? They generally play way too many hands, always call the blinds, and overplay weak hands. They somehow think that folding is a -ve EV!

I say do the opposite of what the crowd does.

Quote: paisiello

What would a bad player do in this situation? They generally play way too many hands, always call the blinds, and overplay weak hands. They somehow think that folding is a -ve EV!

I say do the opposite of what the crowd does.

You're a legit moron. Dude, we are talking about ONE specific hand in ONE specific circumstance. Just in THIS SPOT, calling is right. If you were UTG here it's fine to fold. But...you're not!