Thread Rating:

Mission146
Mission146
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 132
  • Posts: 15024
July 20th, 2021 at 6:56:38 AM permalink
Quote: unJon

Quote: odiousgambit

I'm finally satisfied that in order to have charts or tables, a simple strategy is going to be it.

'reverse succession' certainly goes into 'not simple' so i am going to drop that, even though I use it myself.

I think that might leave me vulnerable, so in the next version i put out I'm not accepting any bets.

the LVA strategy card keeps to a simple strategy by saying to fold kicker against 4-flushes and 'any' 4 card straight, then count outs for the remaining. You can see with the next examples it's not perfect either

fold:

but change to K, bet, but you don't get here if you fold against any 4-straight



I guess I would have called both at table. Top one is 19 outs and bottom one is 15 right?



5s-3
6s-2
7s-3
9s-3
Ks-4
As-4
8s-4

23 outs
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
unJon
unJon
Joined: Jul 1, 2018
  • Threads: 14
  • Posts: 3001
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146
July 20th, 2021 at 7:05:29 AM permalink
Quote: Mission146

Quote: unJon

Quote: odiousgambit

I'm finally satisfied that in order to have charts or tables, a simple strategy is going to be it.

'reverse succession' certainly goes into 'not simple' so i am going to drop that, even though I use it myself.

I think that might leave me vulnerable, so in the next version i put out I'm not accepting any bets.

the LVA strategy card keeps to a simple strategy by saying to fold kicker against 4-flushes and 'any' 4 card straight, then count outs for the remaining. You can see with the next examples it's not perfect either

fold:

but change to K, bet, but you don't get here if you fold against any 4-straight



I guess I would have called both at table. Top one is 19 outs and bottom one is 15 right?



5s-3
6s-2
7s-3
9s-3
Ks-4
As-4
8s-4

23 outs



Ugh. Thanks. Agree.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
Mission146
Mission146
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 132
  • Posts: 15024
Thanks for this post from:
unJon
July 20th, 2021 at 7:50:35 AM permalink
I want to make a few general statements here that are absolutely not directed at any one person.

For the majority of people, this represents why the mathematically best way to gamble is not to gamble at all. If you think it's fun to try to figure out different games and minimize the House Edge against you (maximize returns), then this statement is either more true, or less true, but doesn't stop being true.

I am going to pay some compliments here. Let's take a look at OdiousGambit---OdiousGambit, from what I can tell and have seen, is a more educated gambler than a very high percentage of gamblers, safely over 90%, just in my non-qualified opinion. In terms of other attributes, OdiousGambit is a very intelligent and perceptive man, to be clear, he's no less than 3x more intelligent and perceptive than I am...and probably several multipliers more than that.

With all of that said, we have statements made here about a game that we have been discussing for weeks. The same exact, "Miss," as was repeated from a post a couple or two weeks ago that unJon, also an extremely intelligent person and gambler, missed.

The problem is that Ultimate Texas Hold 'Em is a fundamentally negative expectation game, so any, beating of it is going to generally rely on comps, mispays, dealer mistakes and that sort of thing. When it comes to online casinos, as permitted, it can also often be one of the better (allowed) games to play on certain promotions. Of course, certain promotions in more recent jurisdictions are such that you could just pick a game blindly (or almost) and still have a big advantage.

The point is, that much thought and many words have been spent trying to figure out a way to lose the least on a game---AND STILL MANAGE TO GET SOMETHING VERY FUNDAMENTAL WRONG!!!!

Straight fills are a fundamental concept in ALMOST ALL poker games, so when you're missing these with all the time in the world to think about it, what are you going to do at the tables?

To be clear, I'm not tooting my own horn. I'm a below average gambling writer, a poor mathematician, a bad poker player and also an idiot.

And, yet, I GLANCED at that board and immediately identified the missing piece of the puzzle. Second nature. Instant.

And, as ever, it remains a negative expectation game.

Even the, "BEST," Ultimate Texas Hold 'Em players---not that there's any way to be the, "Best," at losing---are going to miss things and not realize the full value of the game. Hell, some people are going to go out there and try to make, 'Informed,' decisions based on the cards of other players that they have seen and, as often as not, make a decision THAT'S EVEN MORE WRONG!

Ultimate Texas Hold 'Em is a negative expectation game. But, I have developed a simple and cohesive strategy that you may use to optimize value without missing too many dealer outs:

Don't play it. With perfect execution, this strategy reduces the House Edge to 0%.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
odiousgambit
odiousgambit
Joined: Nov 9, 2009
  • Threads: 312
  • Posts: 8653
July 20th, 2021 at 8:32:01 AM permalink
Quote: Mission146



5s-3
6s-2
7s-3
9s-3

these are the initial board outs if you separate looking at these first, then add the outs that have 4 cards each. There is no set way generally, but for the tables I made this is their basis. Makes 11 Initial Board Outs.
Quote:

Ks-4
As-4
8s-4

23 outs

and these are the remaining outs in the one example, making 23. In the other example, only the 8 outs for Aces and 8s count, making 19. So the person using the LVA strategy card could get the right answer by counting outs, but is directed to dismiss both cases as a previous step.

Using the tables on a simple basis, K is bettable as you are not going to be directed to dismiss 4-straights with a gap. However, you could conclude the Q is bettable too, without using an advanced strategy [reverse succession]. I have concluded that it's a convoluted mess to try to just make tables that fit everything.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
Mission146
Mission146
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 132
  • Posts: 15024
Thanks for this post from:
odiousgambit
July 20th, 2021 at 8:38:10 AM permalink
Just don't play the game and the House Edge is 0%.

Or, do play the game, make more or less the right decisions, and have fun. Only gamble what you can EASILY afford to lose.

Why rake your brain over the coals to try to figure out a near-optimal way to play the game when a good enough one has already been figured out? It's July. There's fishing, kayaking, canoeing, lazy days on the porch sipping iced tea and brushing up on your Kant.

This doesn't matter. As long as you are not playing this game a ton, and I mean, A TON...the value that you will gain by making the right decisions and recreating a strategy chart that works better for you will NEVER be realized as compared to the time wasted spent doing this. How many hands would you have to play to be getting added value of, let's say $5 per hour, studying a handful of specific calling decision points that already have a good enough strategy that you can use anytime?
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
Mission146
Mission146
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 132
  • Posts: 15024
July 20th, 2021 at 8:40:16 AM permalink
Or, maybe I'll do it one day because I will be getting paid to do it. And, I will still almost never use it at the tables because the only way I will play this game is if I know, in advance, that the dealer is making one mistake or another. A mistake that makes my Expected Value so phenomenal that I would never care about a few borderline calling decisions.

I mean, sure, online. But with that, I'll just use the UTH calculator on a device sitting on a different IP address.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
odiousgambit
odiousgambit
Joined: Nov 9, 2009
  • Threads: 312
  • Posts: 8653
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146
July 20th, 2021 at 8:58:22 AM permalink
Re: Mission's 'general statements' post.

Thanks for the compliments, but of course that's neither here nor there. You may be wondering why someone who seems to have something going for him, according to Mission anyway, ha, would get so obsessed with this thing. For the record, I was hoping the Wizard was going to be able to use the tables as charts in his page on UTH. At this point it's something I couldn't ask him to look at. I will say, though, that the "can't outkick the board" part of the Grosjean strategy should not be missing entirely like it is [I think] from his "Wizard simple strategy"

For you other points, I speak at least for myself that I am not looking to beat this game or any game. I am interested in making it cheap entertainment, this does depend on Comps partly. Yes, one of the reasons I won't make it even cheaper is due to errors, I do not play error free.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
Mission146
Mission146
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 132
  • Posts: 15024
July 20th, 2021 at 9:05:51 AM permalink
While the WoO game does technically represent a game with a House Edge, it is not possible to lose money playing it.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
odiousgambit
odiousgambit
Joined: Nov 9, 2009
  • Threads: 312
  • Posts: 8653
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146
July 20th, 2021 at 9:12:13 AM permalink
Quote: Mission146

Why rake your brain over the coals to try to figure out a near-optimal way to play the game when a good enough one has already been figured out? It's July. There's fishing, kayaking, canoeing, lazy days on the porch sipping iced tea and brushing up on your Kant.

I hope I answered that question, upthread. At this point I just want to have it the best I can get it, and won't mention it to the Wizard.

I'm still doing some fishing etc , sir. And I brush up on my Cant plenty already, the kind of Cant that doesn't have an apostrophe!
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
odiousgambit
odiousgambit
Joined: Nov 9, 2009
  • Threads: 312
  • Posts: 8653
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146
July 20th, 2021 at 12:59:40 PM permalink
OK, here goes. Will be a blogpost unless someone finds a glaring error. Not accepting bets now.

Presenting here a version of the 18/21 out strategy that allows a player to mostly eliminate the need to count the Dealer Outs to determine whether kickers are 'bettable' in Ultimate Texas Holdem [UTH]. You hopefully will find many of the indicated actions to take become automatic or second nature. You can also just adopt some of them now, then more later.


Bettable Kicker definition In the tables to be just referred to as 'Bettable'. You do bet with such in the 1X river stage. Of course you can still lose, otherwise an out would not be an out! It is a matter of whether the kicker allows the dealer to reach sufficient outs or not, in order to fold or bet as best strategy. 


Initial Board Outs definition The outs that are counted by the cards on the board, which is a maximum of 15 outs coming from 5 cards which would have 3 cards each that could be an out. A pair reduces the Initial Board count to 11, etc. A distinction should be made with this and 'Dealer Total Outs' which take the Initial Board Outs and add the other Outs for cards not on the board and which add 4 outs each. Though you do not count the outs with this strategy, it is derivative from that process.  For the tables I am using the abbreviation Init-Bd for 'Initial Board'


Succession definition Determining a certain card in a certain situation is bettable will be modified by the presence of higher ranking cards on the board. When one out-ranker is present, the succession rule maintains that the next lower kicker is bettable. For example, in hole-card kicker situation 2, I indicate a King is bettable . If an Ace is present on the board that will mean a Queen is now bettable as well. If both Ace and King are present on the board, two out-rankers, the succession rule says now a Jack is bettable, etc. 


This is a simple strategy and incorporates Succession which varies from the LVA simple strategy. The LVA strategy card says to fold if you have only a kicker against a 4-Flush or "Any 4-Straight", then count the outs in the remaining scenarios. This creates some scenarios where the kicker is eliminated before counting these outs, but could have been bettable. Using the Succession strategy, you do not fold against "any" 4-straight, only open-ended ones. This creates some scenarios where the kicker is indicated as bettable when instead you should fold. There is an Advanced Strategy to deal with that once you learn the simple strategy. I have put the Advanced Strategy below the Tables.  


One solution to deal with it all would be to have more tables with all the various scenarios, but I have not made such tables. If unhappy with the compromise you can instead send off for the LVA strategy card, which has no tables like this, or learn a full Grosjean strategy, which must be available somewhere. 


All situations below are for the 1X decision point where you have failed to get a pair or better and your final possibility comes down to kickers. You determine if you can outkick the board using a hole card, or whether you should determine if the board should be bet on its own, your best kicker unable to outkick the board. This is a matter of dealer outs as well. In the former case, which I will call a hole card kicker situation, 21+ outs indicate to fold, while in the other case usually 18+ outs indicate folding. No dealer two-card combinations are counted as dealer outs in the simple 18/21 outs strategy. The below is designed to avoid having to count the dealer outs, though you should note it is derivative of that strategy and in one case I have you count the outs. Such exceptions to the 18/21 Outs rules that might exist are not noted in the tables. 


When using the tables, refer back to the numbered explanations that come first here for fuller explanation. 


You Can Outkick the Board


Hole Card Kicker Situation 1 . Your kicker should not go up against a 4 card flush or open-ended straight on the board, fold instead of using kicker. 


Hole Card Kicker Situation 2. Unpaired Rainbow Board with Initial Board [Init-Bd] representing 15 outs. King is bettable, succession rule is in effect. With a low ranking kicker, a good alternative to the succession rule for situation 2 is to look for the out-ranking cards, there can only be one of that Set missing from the board for your kicker to be bettable. 


Hole Card Kicker Situation 3. Board has One Pair, Initial Board representing 11 outs. Q is bettable, succession rule is in effect. 


Hole Card Kicker Situation 4. Board has Trips, Initial Board representing 7 outs. J is bettable, succession rule is in effect, and we see a pattern here. 


Hole Card Kicker Situation 5. Board has Two Pair, Initial Board representing 7 outs, important. J is bettable, succession rule is in effect. 


Hole Card Kicker Situation 6. Board has Two Pair, Initial Board representing only 4 outs!! This is when the unpaired board card is lower than either pair, thus irrelevant when paired by dealer or player. 10-card is bettable, succession rule is in effect. 


Hole Card Kicker Situation 7. Board has 4 OAK, Initial Board representing 3 outs.  7-card is bettable, succession rule is in effect. note that counting to 21+ outs is not viable strategy here. Memorize this, don't counts outs.


You Can't Outkick the Board


The following is for when your kicker can't outkick the board. The situation is different because a single card can't trump all other outs in some cases. 


Situation 1. If the board doesn't have a pair or better, "don't play the board" per LVA strategy card. 


Most of the other situations below use the 18+ rule. 


Can't Outkick Situation 2. One pair, Initial Board representing 11 outs, and there are 3 cards not in the pair. All 3 need to be Ace through Jack, any combination, otherwise there are 2 cards that the dealer could have that will add 8 more outs = 19. If the pair consists of AA, KK, QQ, or JJ, succession to A through 10, any combination, is in effect. 


Can't Outkick Situation 3. Board has Two Pair, Initial Board representing 7 outs. Q is bettable, succession rule is in effect. 


Can't Outkick Situation 4. Board has Trips, Initial Board representing 7 outs, with two cards not part of the Trips. These two need to be Ace through J, any combo again, to keep the dealer from having enough possible outs. If the Trips consist of AAA, KKK, QQQ, or JJJ, succession to A through 10, any combination, is in effect. 


Can't Outkick Situation 5. Board has Two Pair, with Initial Board representing 4 outs! The one other card is lower again than the pairs, irrelevant when paired by dealer or player. This time the 2 pair need to contain a pair of Jacks or higher, otherwise dealer can have Ace through Jack and 16 more outs. Look for this situation and this time I finally agree to just count the outs! If 18+, fold. 


Can't Outkick Situation 6. Board has 4 OAK, Initial Board representing 3 outs. 10-card, for the other card, is bettable, succession rule is in effect. This seems to be a 21+ outs situation        

       
     

       

               
     
You Can Outkick BoardAction Indicated (see other text also)
1 . Board = 4 card flush, open-ended straight Fold the kicker 
2. Unpaired Rainbow Board K is bettable, succession rule in effect.
3. Board has One Pair Q is bettable, succession rule in effect.
4. Board has Trips J is bettable, succession rule in effect
5. Board = Two Pair, Init-Bd 7 Outs J is bettable, succession rule in effect
6. Board has Two Pair, Init-Bd 4 outs!   10 is bettable, succession rule in effect.
7. Board has 4 OAK 7-card is bettable, succession rule in effect
     
     
     

       

       
             
You Can Not Outkick the Board Action Indicated (see other text also)
1. The board doesn't have a pair or better    "don't play the board" 
2. Board Has One Pair Unpaired 3 board cards, A-J, any comb, bettable, succession to A-10
3. Board has Two Pair, Init-Bd 7 outs Q is bettable, succession rule in effect
4. Board has Trips 2 board cards not in Trips, A-J, any comb, bettable; succession to A-10
5. Board has Two Pair, Init-Bd 4 outs!  Need one pair JJ+, count the outs! If 18+, fold.
6. Board has 4 OAK 10-card is bettable, succession rule is in effect.



Qualified Straight definition [Advanced]: Actually certain 4-card straights and any 3-card straight flush. The 4-card straight is qualified if it has one gap, while the 3-card straight flush could have 2 gaps. 


Reverse-Succession definition [Advanced] The presence of qualified straights on the board is a reverse-succession condition. Instead of expanding the cards that are bettable, the presence of such means going up to the next higher ranking card. 


Strategy Explained [Advanced] For example, these could take the situation of an unpaired rainbow board that you can outkick from determining a Jack is bettable with the presence on the board of an Ace and King, reversing back to Q because there is a qualified straight [as per definition]. Having a K for kicker could also turn into "fold" with Reverse-Succession, since if that reverses to Ace bettable, you should have already played an Ace if you have one.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder

  • Jump to: