Thread Rating:

gordonm888
Administrator
gordonm888
Joined: Feb 18, 2015
  • Threads: 50
  • Posts: 3276
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146odiousgambit
July 20th, 2021 at 3:05:25 PM permalink
I have extensively analyzed all the UTH decisions several years ago and think I know this game very well. However . . .

I have several times tried to read the strategy above, but I just don't understand it. there are too may phrases and words with unconventional meanings. Outkick the board? succession? Referring to two hole cards as "a bettable kicker?"

I guess I'm stupid.
So many better men, a few of them friends, are dead. And a thousand thousand slimy things live on, and so do I.
odiousgambit
odiousgambit
Joined: Nov 9, 2009
  • Threads: 311
  • Posts: 8622
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146
July 20th, 2021 at 5:32:52 PM permalink
Quote: gordonm888

I have extensively analyzed all the UTH decisions several years ago and think I know this game very well. However . . .

feedback appreciated. let's see ...
Quote:

I have several times tried to read the strategy above, but I just don't understand it. there are too may phrases and words with unconventional meanings. Outkick the board?

Comes from LVA strategy card . Means your best kicker has the potential to win if the dealer, and you, wind up having no better hand than a kicker. You bet instead of fold over half the time, at least, I'd say, for best strategy at 1x decision point.
Quote:

succession?

I did come up with this term. You either need this or a table with, I dunno, 50 entries? All I can suggest is reading the definition again and the examples. Try to use the tables with the Wizard trainer game, comparing what the table says to counting dealer outs and that resultant decision. If you play a lot, and count outs, you have to come across realizing the King is nearly always bettable [edit], or a 'raise' as the wizard says, against an unpaired rainbow board. And then the Queen, and when it is. That is the start to realizing what it is about.

Quote:

Referring to two hole cards as "a bettable kicker?"

Now I'm the stupid one because I can't find where I do that.

Quote:

I guess I'm stupid.

Nah, you may just find it isn't fitting how you think. I do suggest going beyond the Wizard simple strategy though. But you can just count dealer outs if it fits you better.
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: 311
  • Posts: 8622
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146
July 21st, 2021 at 4:18:17 AM permalink
Quote: gordonm888

... I have several times tried to read the strategy above, but I just don't understand it. there are too may phrases and words with unconventional meanings. Outkick the board? succession? Referring to two hole cards as "a bettable kicker?"


Quote: me

You can also just adopt some of them now, then more later.

if it continues to be impenetrable, this advice is not to be missed.

Prompted by your feedback, I've added another definition.

>>>

Definitions


Kicker definition The usage here is a little different from the normal usage in a poker game, where a kicker is a tie breaker in a showdown between otherwise equivalent hands. The usage here includes that, but also can mean the highest ranking card in what is usually referred to as a "high card only hand". Also, to determine you "can't outkick the board" means to dismiss your hole cards as if they don't exist, instead you "play the board". This means a decision about whether the board is likely enough to be a push so that you don't want to fold.

[the other definitions follow]
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
ThisIsMyJam
ThisIsMyJam
Joined: Oct 22, 2019
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 12
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146gordonm888
July 22nd, 2021 at 12:58:02 AM permalink
Quote: gordonm888

I have extensively analyzed all the UTH decisions several years ago and think I know this game very well. However . . .

I have several times tried to read the strategy above, but I just don't understand it. there are too may phrases and words with unconventional meanings.



I agree, just plain too much to look at. I can't even get through it all. Perhaps I'm just too familiar with the game and strategy already.
odiousgambit
odiousgambit
Joined: Nov 9, 2009
  • Threads: 311
  • Posts: 8622
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146unJon
July 22nd, 2021 at 3:23:44 AM permalink
Well, you can see why I can't ask the Wizard to wade through it. Remember when you were a kid, you always loved to learn a new game? Then one day you realize it wears you out to learn a new game all the time, and you start to groan at the idea of it . I think that's the case here.

The funny thing is, I thought there would be a few people who stumbled across the same thing I did, which was to realize that in the one circumstance, the King is almost always good as kicker, the Queen a large proportion of the time. And want to expand on that. If anyone did and appreciated the work I did, they remained silent.

If you find the whole business of 'can outkick, can't outkick' mystifying, then you can blame the LVA strategy card and presumably Mr. Grosjean. And your game has a huge hole in it, I'll say that much.

In any case I posted the whole business as a blogpost so it would be easy to find, and I reworked it so that the tables are near the top, https://wizardofvegas.com/member/odiousgambit/blog/#post2309
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: 311
  • Posts: 8622
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146
July 22nd, 2021 at 3:31:10 AM permalink
K,Q,J,J,10,7

A-J, Q, 10

[condensed version]
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: 14781
Thanks for this post from:
ThisIsMyJamHunterhill
July 22nd, 2021 at 4:16:12 AM permalink
Quote: odiousgambit

Well, you can see why I can't ask the Wizard to wade through it. Remember when you were a kid, you always loved to learn a new game? Then one day you realize it wears you out to learn a new game all the time, and you start to groan at the idea of it . I think that's the case here.

The funny thing is, I thought there would be a few people who stumbled across the same thing I did, which was to realize that in the one circumstance, the King is almost always good as kicker, the Queen a large proportion of the time. And want to expand on that. If anyone did and appreciated the work I did, they remained silent.

If you find the whole business of 'can outkick, can't outkick' mystifying, then you can blame the LVA strategy card and presumably Mr. Grosjean. And your game has a huge hole in it, I'll say that much.

In any case I posted the whole business as a blogpost so it would be easy to find, and I reworked it so that the tables are near the top, https://wizardofvegas.com/member/odiousgambit/blog/#post2309



I think the case is actually a bit the opposite and people who are fundamentally good at a game just don't want to learn a new way to...I guess it's not even a new way to play it, because that hasn't changed, but a new way to think about it.

That's what has been tough about this discussion for me. The whole discussion is predicated upon coming up with a new (to me) condensed strategy for a game that I already know how to play in the first place and, a few very very small decimals of EV here and there aside, pretty much already did play near optimally. So, it's like, "Unless this strategy is going to be condensed, and also result in flawless play what do I need this for?"

With everything that we are fine-tuning with this new strategy and new terminologies, weeks later, we're still missing inside straights the dealer could have when we are counting 21 outs---so what the hell was the point of the strategy? We're still missing one of the most fundamental concepts of poker-based games---inside straight possibilities.

I appreciate the work that you did, definitely, you've poured a large amount of mental energy into this. I understand that you expanded on that and part of your strategy is basically what I would call a," Check down," list. I'm sure people that don't already have the game down (and also their own terminologies for things burnt into their brain) will find this very useful---which is of course the target market anyway! I certainly don't need ANY UTH strategy card for anything.

The big sell is that players can mostly eliminate the need to count the dealer outs. My only concern is that, if they do mostly eliminate that need, then they're probably going to %^$(^% up counting the dealer outs when they do have to do it. Also, the sell doesn't really appeal to me (but, again, I already know how to play the game), because I have dealer outs counted in well under a second after the river comes out:

But yeah, you looked at the LVA strategy card (whatever the hell it says, I have never seen it) and said, "Hey, let's put this in a situational framework. Here is the situation, this is what you do."

That might be very helpful to new players looking at this game. It's good work. It's impressive even to try. You'll just forgive me if it does nothing for me personally because counting 21 outs is so automatic for me in the first place. It would take me longer to look it up on the chart than it would for me to just count the outs. I probably have the outs counted before the dealer has fully retracted his hand.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
Mission146
Mission146
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 132
  • Posts: 14781
July 22nd, 2021 at 4:29:51 AM permalink
I guess my point is just that most people should ignore the strategy chart, not because it's not good (it is good), but because MOST people should never play UTH in the first place if they think they have any prayer of even sniffing the full value of the game which, by the way, is negative anyhow.

The only way they should play the game is if they can, 'Cheat,' using the WoO calculator because they are playing it online one way or another AND it is the best game available to them for a particular promotion. It's just a difficult game.

They also almost certainly still screw up even with the chart. Three-Card Poker is probably a better game for most people, play Q64, or better, even then Wizard's page says:

https://wizardofodds.com/games/three-card-poker/

Quote:

Many people have asked me what I mean by queen/6/4, wondering for example whether queen/7/3 is greater than queen/6/4. In any poker based game hands are scored first according to the highest card, then the second, and then the third, and so on if there are more. So a queen/7/3 would beat queen/6/4. The queens tie so the second highest cards are used to break the tie, and a 7 beats a 6. The third card does not matter in this case because the hand was resolved by the second card.



See that?

They don't know that Q73 is better than Q64, which can only mean that they should never gamble as long as they live. I had general poker hand rankings completely down at the age of seven years old. I'm not being sarcastic; I literally knew how poker kickers worked at the age of seven years old. They put it on a little card that came in some Bicycle decks of cards, for one thing.

Oh....well, what about A52 is that better than Q64? A five and a two are lower than a six and a four. /sarcasm

But, most people are not intellectually bested by, "Play Q64, or better," and should play 3CP because, even using the strategy chart, I tend to think most people will make enough UTH mistakes that 3CP effectively becomes the better returning game for them.

Actually, they ought just play Craps because they would get a low house edge without the need to ever think about anything. (I know you play Craps, so that's not directed at you)---I'm talking about people who could never attempt to make comprehensive strategy charts for semi-complicated games.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
odiousgambit
odiousgambit
Joined: Nov 9, 2009
  • Threads: 311
  • Posts: 8622
July 22nd, 2021 at 4:48:29 AM permalink
BTW Aceside gave me some dap along the way, I want to thank him. And for all who agree with the below points, and let me know, I do thank you for your feedback.
Quote: Mission146

I think the case is actually a bit the opposite and people who are fundamentally good at a game just don't want to learn a new way to...I guess it's not even a new way to play it, because that hasn't changed, but a new way to think about it.

That's what has been tough about this discussion for me. The whole discussion is predicated upon coming up with a new (to me) condensed strategy for a game that I already know how to play in the first place and, a few very very small decimals of EV here and there aside, pretty much already did play near optimally. So, it's like, "Unless this strategy is going to be condensed, and also result in flawless play what do I need this for?"

You evidently are able to count the outs without even realizing you are counting them. I'm serious. It's a 3 step process for newbies. Step one, you note the outs on the initial board. Step 2, note cards missing from the board that are 4-card outs. Step 3, count. OK, even I soon was melding step one and two together, but evidently all 3 steps meld together as one function for you. I never got there.

Quote:

With everything that we are fine-tuning with this new strategy and new terminologies, weeks later, we're still missing inside straights the dealer could have when we are counting 21 outs---so what the hell was the point of the strategy? We're still missing one of the most fundamental concepts of poker-based games---inside straight possibilities.

The Wizard's Simple Strategy skips over it too, though I guess he'd defend himself and say he doesn't tell you to skip inside straights with one gap, he just doesn't mention them. The LVA strategy card says to dismiss 'all' 4-card straights at the outset when you just have the kicker decision. I looked into that, and can't exactly remember why that makes sense, but it does for simple strategy. Your ease with recognizing them makes you a little blind I think.

Quote:

I appreciate the work that you did, definitely, you've poured a large amount of mental energy into this. I understand that you expanded on that and part of your strategy is basically what I would call a," Check down," list. I'm sure people that don't already have the game down (and also their own terminologies for things burnt into their brain) will find this very useful---which is of course the target market anyway! I certainly don't need ANY UTH strategy card for anything.

The big sell is that players can mostly eliminate the need to count the dealer outs. My only concern is that, if they do mostly eliminate that need, then they're probably going to %^$(^% up counting the dealer outs when they do have to do it. Also, the sell doesn't really appeal to me (but, again, I already know how to play the game), because I have dealer outs counted in well under a second after the river comes out:

The one time you have to count dealer outs with this one is so rare you can play the Wizard trainer game for I don't know how long, days maybe, and not run into it fully qualified with JJ+ as part of the pairs. But, OK, I agree you need to know how to count outs, but you won't need to. [Does it make sense to makes a distinction between 'do need' and 'won't need'? ha ha]

Quote:

But yeah, you looked at the LVA strategy card (whatever the hell it says, I have never seen it) and said, "Hey, let's put this in a situational framework. Here is the situation, this is what you do."

That might be very helpful to new players looking at this game. It's good work. It's impressive even to try. You'll just forgive me if it does nothing for me personally because counting 21 outs is so automatic for me in the first place. It would take me longer to look it up on the chart than it would for me to just count the outs. I probably have the outs counted before the dealer has fully retracted his hand.

I'd like to see you in action, how fast you play.
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: 14781
July 22nd, 2021 at 5:22:13 AM permalink
Quote:

I'd like to see you in action, how fast you play.



I just did a five minute test and did 41 hands in five minutes on WoO.

Of course, there's some variance on that. I had 14, "Insta-Raise," hands, so I might get more or less than that if I did it again. Actually, if the 14 Insta-Raise hands, four of them were in a row which---while not extremely unusual, is notable. 14 Insta-Raise hands is roughly expected in that sample size as it's expected to happen something like 37-39% of the time...I forget exactly what.

I don't know if I was trying to play as fast as possible, because I imagine I'd make mistakes if I did. The hand that took me the most time was a pair of eights on the board with K J 10 because I had to think about the push, but decided the dealer had too many straights.

Board: 8, 8, K, J, 10

So, if you count outs for this hand, you have:

8's-2
K's-3
J's-3
10's-3
A's-4
Q's-4

With that, the out count gets you to nineteen. No flushes on the board. Queen beats me anyway, so now I have to worry about 9-7 and inside pairs. Three-Flush with it is an obvious insta-fold, but not the case this time.

Each inside pair with cards that I don't have in my hand is about 0.6%, based on the cards I know, so that's going to include your 2's, 3's 4's 5's and 9's...(I had 6, 7) because remember, a single Queen or Ace is beating you anyway.

So, those five ranks combine for about 3% probability, give or take a little...and is actually giving a little. By itself, that's the equivalent of roughly 1.3 outs.

I've got 6's and 7's blocked, but dealer could still have those pairs wired and some 9-7 straights. I basically had to ask myself if that was the equivalent of 0.7 outs, or more, took a guess and decided that it probably was---correctly folded.

Will respond to the rest next post.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219

  • Jump to: