UTH - Playing aggressive 4X
Considering UTH is initially a game of two players in a heads up contest at even footing when dealt their hole cards (two random cards vs two random cards), would it make sense to use net win advantage, i.e. your win % is greater than your loss % to decide on whether to bet 4X or not? The decision should be based on the likelihood of being in a win position. If so, the player should make the bet. If your chances to win more than you lose, it’s a pretty good position and if you have a ‘do not lose’ position, not bad either.
Looking for the resources available for analysis, I found the Texas Holdem two player heads up pre-flop tables at CANIWIN for all 169 starting hands. The tables include a win % and tie % for each hand. So I thought about combining the win % plus tie % to find the hands that statistically ‘do not lose’. I’m sure using ties is a bit wonky (they work both ways), but it made sense to me that if I win or tie, I do not lose.
There are 100 hands that fit this ‘do not lose’ situation, i.e. statistically the player is in a ‘do not lose’ position 50% or more of the time with these hands. That’s over 59% of the hands that could be dealt. But, some of these hands are so marginal, I would be very nervous if not terrified of betting them 4X just like a most players are too timid to bet the BS.
The 69 BS hands are a statistical 51%+ to win. So I decided to look at the 53% ‘do not lose’ positions that have a 2%+ advantage when taking the difference between win% and lose%. Yes, very arbitrary, but I had to draw a line somewhere that made some sense to me. There are 13 of these hands (see below) in addition to the 69 BS hands. I figured maybe I could add these hands to the 69 BS hands to bet 4X. Too aggressive? Probably.
I’m just curious if these hands are worthy of a 4X bet pre-flop (if your heart and bankroll can take it) or should I consider the above a flawed concept for UTH.
Here are the 13 hands - K3o, K4o, Q6o, Q7o, Q3s, Q4s, Q5s, J8o, J9o, J7s, T9o, T8s, and T9s.
wizardofodds.com for example
regarding having enough heart, IMO you do trust the standing strategy especially on the 4x bet, since I believe the odds are in your favor on those bets ... in any case, lowering the bet generally has been said to jack up the HE
sometimes there is a reasonable decision in some game to introduce more variance at the expense of HE. In UTH you might go with 4x on 'any King', for example. However, IMO UTH has very high variance already and the best idea is to stick with the known strategy as close as possible
Quote: CharmedQuarkAs I understand UTH Basic Strategy, it is determined by long term EV computational analysis. The analysis indicates the player is to bet 69 hands 4X pre-flop. I accept that and play them without hesitation. But I’m wondering if I’m not aggressive enough preflop.
Considering UTH is initially a game of two players in a heads up contest at even footing when dealt their hole cards (two random cards vs two random cards), would it make sense to use net win advantage, i.e. your win % is greater than your loss % to decide on whether to bet 4X or not? The decision should be based on the likelihood of being in a win position. If so, the player should make the bet. If your chances to win more than you lose, it’s a pretty good position and if you have a ‘do not lose’ position, not bad either.
Looking for the resources available for analysis, I found the Texas Holdem two player heads up pre-flop tables at CANIWIN for all 169 starting hands. The tables include a win % and tie % for each hand. So I thought about combining the win % plus tie % to find the hands that statistically ‘do not lose’. I’m sure using ties is a bit wonky (they work both ways), but it made sense to me that if I win or tie, I do not lose.
There are 100 hands that fit this ‘do not lose’ situation, i.e. statistically the player is in a ‘do not lose’ position 50% or more of the time with these hands. That’s over 59% of the hands that could be dealt. But, some of these hands are so marginal, I would be very nervous if not terrified of betting them 4X just like a most players are too timid to bet the BS.
The 69 BS hands are a statistical 51%+ to win. So I decided to look at the 53% ‘do not lose’ positions that have a 2%+ advantage when taking the difference between win% and lose%. Yes, very arbitrary, but I had to draw a line somewhere that made some sense to me. There are 13 of these hands (see below) in addition to the 69 BS hands. I figured maybe I could add these hands to the 69 BS hands to bet 4X. Too aggressive? Probably.
I’m just curious if these hands are worthy of a 4X bet pre-flop (if your heart and bankroll can take it) or should I consider the above a flawed concept for UTH.
Here are the 13 hands - K3o, K4o, Q6o, Q7o, Q3s, Q4s, Q5s, J8o, J9o, J7s, T9o, T8s, and T9s.
I think you have to consider a couple things in your analysis. When you win with less than a straight, you're only winning 5/6 of your bet. When you win with less than a straight, and the dealer doesn't qualify, you're only winning 4/6 of your bet. However, when you lose, you lose 6/6 of your bet, when the dealer qualifies, and 5/6 of your bet when the dealer doesn't qualify but still beats you. And you only get a straight or better about 8% of the time if I recall correctly, so over 90% of the time, you're subject to a short payout.
So, it's not an equal transaction, to win or lose. That makes it -EV to play 50% or marginal hands (the 31 or so you're considering in addition to the 69 recommended under optimal strategy, or even the 13 extra you list). I would recommend against broadening your range this much, anyway; I think it would be like a slow leak in a tire. You'd get more action, but find yourself losing your BR faster than you expect, because they underpay your wins compared to your losses.
Quote: CommishSorry beach bums but I do not agree with your explanation. The discussion here is whether to bet 4x or not and has nothing to do with the other wagers being paid or not. That being said I believe that the original question of wagering 4x is to not bet on these because the information revealed on the flop and subsequent is significant to make it a eventual wager or not. Without additional cards these would probably be a loser.
You're welcome to disagree. My point is that, without the Blind bet, the game is +EV. That's its purpose; to balance out the ante/play bets, where it doesn't get paid on a simple win, so hands that might be worth pursuing in a player-banked THE game become undesirable as pre-flop bets. You have to look at what effect the Blind bet has on the game. It's rare that any of the marginal hands will generate a Blind bet win, though certainly they can, but not at a high enough %age to justify playing them as part of an overall strategy. Maybe there could be an index developed that, if you "happen" to see a dealer's HC or a neighbor or two's hands, and those hands contain certain cards related to yours, you might be more aggressive with your 4x bets. Otherwise, it's a -EV strategy. All IMHO.
Quote: beachbumbabsYou're welcome to disagree. My point is that, without the Blind bet, the game is +EV. That's its purpose; to balance out the ante/play bets, where it doesn't get paid on a simple win, so hands that might be worth pursuing in a player-banked THE game become undesirable as pre-flop bets. You have to look at what effect the Blind bet has on the game. It's rare that any of the marginal hands will generate a Blind bet win, though certainly they can, but not at a high enough %age to justify playing them as part of an overall strategy. Maybe there could be an index developed that, if you "happen" to see a dealer's HC or a neighbor or two's hands, and those hands contain certain cards related to yours, you might be more aggressive with your 4x bets. Otherwise, it's a -EV strategy. All IMHO.
Winning or losing on the blind has nothing to do with whether you 4× or not.The reason you don't 4x some hands is because you have higher ev by waiting for the flop.
You must take into account the blind. Strategies are made going both ways: From the beginning going forwards and from the end going backwards. Your strategy after the river (1x or fold) definitely takes into account the blind bet. By throwing away your hand, you also throw away your blind bet. But lots of the strategy is simply hoping for a push so you do not lose your ante and blind. If it makes sense to 1x at the end, then the analysis goes backwards to see if it would have been smart to bet 2x pre-river. If that would have made sense, then of course, the analysis goes back to see if betting 4x pre-flop is the best idea or not.
For example, not entirely related to UTH but it's got the same concept. If you look up BJ hole-carding strategies, you'll see something interesting. If the dealer has a hard 17 and the player has an 11, can you guess the proper strategy? Well let's think about it for a second. If you catch a 7, 8, 9, T, J, Q, K you win, 6 is a push, A-5 is a loss. That's 7 ways to win, 1 way to push, and 5 ways to lose. The EV is +2/13 which is about 15% (of your original + doubled) wager. That sounds pretty good. But guess what -- the proper strategy is actually to HIT! Yes, you hit 11vs17. YOU DO NOT DOUBLE!! The reason is because by doubling, you limit yourself to only one card. But instead, by hitting, you can now take multiple cards [if desired]. So if you catch an A-5, you can keep hitting.
So, just because you have an advantage if you bet more right now, does not make it the best play.
Which doesn't mean that you can't play your cards however aggressively or conservatively as you want to. But it does mean that there aren't any hidden loopholes in the arithmetic.
Quote: MoscaThe whole point of any carnival game strategy is to maximize your wager when you have an advantage, and minimize your exposure when you do not have an advantage. Anything else is wrong, from the position of best play.
Which doesn't mean that you can't play your cards however aggressively or conservatively as you want to. But it does mean that there aren't any hidden loopholes in the arithmetic.
This is what I'm talking about. Betting 4x on a marginal play is too much exposure, because of the blind. If it were a 50% play, and you got a full pay on a simple win (like you do on BJ), then yeah, bet 4x. But you don't get a full pay on a simple win, so that moves the -EV up a little on everything, and makes those plays too expensive. If they improve on the flop or river, or work as kickers (which K's virtually always do, for example), then you can bet them 2x or 1x, and only fold when forced by the full hand info.
I played 900 hands (30 sessions of 30 hands) on an online practice game and tracked the outcome of each two card starting hand I identified as possible aggressive 4X bets in my OP.
There were 82 playable hands out of the 900 played.
There were 50 winning hands, 30 losing hands and 2 ties. A win rate of 62.5% vs a loss rate of 37.5% based on 80 hands since the two ties are a wash.
OK – not a very large sample. The results are statistically meaningless, but provide food for thought about betting these hands 4X when you have that statistical (do not lose) advantage.
The breakdown on each hand (Specific hand – occurrences – win vs loss)
K3o 3 1-2
K4o 7 5-2
Q6o 12 6-6
Q7o 7 5-2
Q3s 1 1-0
Q4s 2 2-0
Q5s 6 3-2-1
J8o 11 5-6
J9o 9 5-3-1
J7s 4 3-1
T9o 12 8-4
T8s 7 5-2
T9s 1 1-0
Quote: CharmedQuarkMy OP only addressed the heads-up two player position when dealt hole cards. Where does a player stand at this point? I contended that if the player has a statistical win (not lose) position versus losing that they should make the bet at that time all the time. Why wait for more information? You have enough information already knowing you are in statistical advantage. UTH limits you to making only one bet and I think if the player has an advantage they make the bet. Period.
I played 900 hands (30 sessions of 30 hands) on an online practice game and tracked the outcome of each two card starting hand I identified as possible aggressive 4X bets in my OP.
There were 82 playable hands out of the 900 played.
There were 50 winning hands, 30 losing hands and 2 ties. A win rate of 62.5% vs a loss rate of 37.5% based on 80 hands since the two ties are a wash.
OK – not a very large sample. The results are statistically meaningless, but provide food for thought about betting these hands 4X when you have that statistical (do not lose) advantage.
The breakdown on each hand (Specific hand – occurrences – win vs loss)
K3o 3 1-2
K4o 7 5-2
Q6o 12 6-6
Q7o 7 5-2
Q3s 1 1-0
Q4s 2 2-0
Q5s 6 3-2-1
J8o 11 5-6
J9o 9 5-3-1
J7s 4 3-1
T9o 12 8-4
T8s 7 5-2
T9s 1 1-0
Read:
Quote: RSFor example, not entirely related to UTH but it's got the same concept. If you look up BJ hole-carding strategies, you'll see something interesting. If the dealer has a hard 17 and the player has an 11, can you guess the proper strategy? Well let's think about it for a second. If you catch a 7, 8, 9, T, J, Q, K you win, 6 is a push, A-5 is a loss. That's 7 ways to win, 1 way to push, and 5 ways to lose. The EV is +2/13 which is about 15% (of your original + doubled) wager. That sounds pretty good. But guess what -- the proper strategy is actually to HIT! Yes, you hit 11vs17. YOU DO NOT DOUBLE!! The reason is because by doubling, you limit yourself to only one card. But instead, by hitting, you can now take multiple cards [if desired]. So if you catch an A-5, you can keep hitting.
Quote: CharmedQuarkMy OP only addressed the heads-up two player position when dealt hole cards. Where does a player stand at this point? I contended that if the player has a statistical win (not lose) position versus losing that they should make the bet at that time all the time. Why wait for more information? You have enough information already knowing you are in statistical advantage. UTH limits you to making only one bet and I think if the player has an advantage they make the bet. Period.
I played 900 hands (30 sessions of 30 hands) on an online practice game and tracked the outcome of each two card starting hand I identified as possible aggressive 4X bets in my OP.
There were 82 playable hands out of the 900 played.
There were 50 winning hands, 30 losing hands and 2 ties. A win rate of 62.5% vs a loss rate of 37.5% based on 80 hands since the two ties are a wash.
OK – not a very large sample. The results are statistically meaningless, but provide food for thought about betting these hands 4X when you have that statistical (do not lose) advantage.
The breakdown on each hand (Specific hand – occurrences – win vs loss)
K3o 3 1-2
K4o 7 5-2
Q6o 12 6-6
Q7o 7 5-2
Q3s 1 1-0
Q4s 2 2-0
Q5s 6 3-2-1
J8o 11 5-6
J9o 9 5-3-1
J7s 4 3-1
T9o 12 8-4
T8s 7 5-2
T9s 1 1-0
On hands when you have a simple win (less than a straight) and the dealer qualifies you only win the ante/play. On hands with a simple win and the dealer doesn't qualify, you only win the ante. On hands where the dealer wins, you lose ante, play, and blind. So the MONEY odds override the CARDS odds. The advantage of playing those marginal hands doesn't override the cost if they lose.
Quote: MoscaOn hands when you have a simple win (less than a straight) and the dealer qualifies you only win the ante/play. On hands with a simple win and the dealer doesn't qualify, you only win the ante. On hands where the dealer wins, you lose ante, play, and blind. So the MONEY odds override the CARDS odds. The advantage of playing those marginal hands doesn't override the cost if they lose.
Mosca - I think you are trying to argue ‘pot odds’. You can’t play ‘pot odds’ in UTH. As I said, the player gets one bet. You can’t bluff – your bet is your raise and that’s it. He/she should make the best of it when the opportunity it there (4X – 2X – 1X).
What difference does it make win/lose any of the BS 4X bets and win/lose any of the marginal bets? You get the same results either way. All these bets (4X and marginal) have a cost if they lose. If you lose with AA and lose with a Q3s, you still lose the same amount of money. And if you win with AA and win with Q3s, you still win the same amount of money. Granted you have a greater advantage to win the BS 4x bets but you still have an advantage playing the marginal bets. It’s the Expected Win (EW) and I will take EW on a 53% win (not lose) advantage all day long.
Quote: CharmedQuarkMy OP only addressed the heads-up two player position when dealt hole cards. Where does a player stand at this point? I contended that if the player has a statistical win (not lose) position versus losing that they should make the bet at that time all the time. Why wait for more information? You have enough information already knowing you are in statistical advantage. UTH limits you to making only one bet and I think if the player has an advantage they make the bet. Period.
I played 900 hands (30 sessions of 30 hands) on an online practice game and tracked the outcome of each two card starting hand I identified as possible aggressive 4X bets in my OP.
There were 82 playable hands out of the 900 played.
There were 50 winning hands, 30 losing hands and 2 ties. A win rate of 62.5% vs a loss rate of 37.5% based on 80 hands since the two ties are a wash.
OK – not a very large sample. The results are statistically meaningless, but provide food for thought about betting these hands 4X when you have that statistical (do not lose) advantage.
The breakdown on each hand (Specific hand – occurrences – win vs loss)
K3o 3 1-2
K4o 7 5-2
Q6o 12 6-6
Q7o 7 5-2
Q3s 1 1-0
Q4s 2 2-0
Q5s 6 3-2-1
J8o 11 5-6
J9o 9 5-3-1
J7s 4 3-1
T9o 12 8-4
T8s 7 5-2
T9s 1 1-0
You're still counting wins and losses as fully equivalent. They're not. The larger question on these hands is, what was the total money made? To know that, you'd have to track whether the dealer qualified, and whether the starting hand resolved into a blind pay (as well as what you tracked). Then take your wins x4/6 (no qual) or x5/6(qual), or x6/6 or more (blind pay) and your losses x6/6. Yes, you're going to lose the blind on anything from 4x to fold, but you need to minimize your Play exposure on hands where you're more likely to lose your Blind. EDIT: I should add that when you lose, but the dealer doesn't qualify, that's a 5/6 loss as well.
The first 5 columns below are in your format. The rest accounts in dollars for what I got paid for those wins.
If it were a simple win, like in BJ, you'd be at $+24 with 12 wins, 8 losses, $6 bets (ante/blind/4xplay).
Instead, you're at $+11, less than half that, even with a 60% win rate. And as your hands norm (since these are ~50%EV and I'm running good at the moment on them), you're going to show a net money loss, rather than a money win.
The next step, whether and how these hands should be played under optimum strategy, I didn't track. But I trust the guidance in the Wizard's and JG's Kicker and optimal strategy guides to make the best of them, so I wasn't concerned with it. The point is that you're overexposed by betting them 4x; you want to minimize your losses, and only bet them if they improve, or as kickers, for the best use of your money.
| Hand | Played | Win | Lose | Tie | $Blind Win | $W:DQ=Y | $W:DQ=N | $L:DQ=Y | $L:DQ=N |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| K3o | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 4 | -6 | 0 |
| K4o | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | -6 | 0 |
| Q6o | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | -12 | 0 |
| Q7o | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | -6 | 0 |
| Q3s | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Q4s | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Q5s | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| J8o | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| J9o | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -6 | 0 |
| J7s | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -6 | 0 |
| T9o | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 10 | 0 | 0 | -5 |
| T8s | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| T9s | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| TOTALS | 21 | 12 | 8 | 1 | $1 | $45 | $12 | $-42 | $-5 |
What You're missing is that you have aQuote: CharmedQuarkMosca - I think you are trying to argue ‘pot odds’. You can’t play ‘pot odds’ in UTH. As I said, the player gets one bet. You can’t bluff – your bet is your raise and that’s it. He/she should make the best of it when the opportunity it there (4X – 2X – 1X).
What difference does it make win/lose any of the BS 4X bets and win/lose any of the marginal bets? You get the same results either way. All these bets (4X and marginal) have a cost if they lose. If you lose with AA and lose with a Q3s, you still lose the same amount of money. And if you win with AA and win with Q3s, you still win the same amount of money. Granted you have a greater advantage to win the BS 4x bets but you still have an advantage playing the marginal bets. It’s the Expected Win (EW) and I will take EW on a 53% win (not lose) advantage all day long.
greater advantage by waiting for the flop to 2x some hands. By all means if you want to 4× the hands you listed go ahead just don't fool yourself by thinking it's the best way to play.
Quote: PokeraddictWhat about if you're on a video machine paying points? At 0.2% cash back, any 49.8% flips to the other side.
Thats no excuse to gamble away the incentive by improper play/aggressive play. Why turn a net -1.984% into a -2,184% game???
+1
Quote: 98ClubsThats no excuse to gamble away the incentive by improper play/aggressive play. Why turn a net -1.984% into a -2,184% game???
I think you totally misunderstood my question.
I played just like I play at the casino - $1000 BR - $15-$15 ante-blind – no trips.
Total sessions: 30 – hands per session 30 – total hands 900
Total BS 4X bets: 314 – avg per session 10.47 - I did not count the BS 4X wins or losses.
Total Marginal 4X bets: 82 – avg per session 2.73
Total 4X bets: 396 – avg per session 13.2
Total BR: $30,000 ($1000x30)
Balance at end: $24,892 – Avg session balance after 30 hands: $830
Highest session balance: $1457 - Lowest session balance: $182 - - Interesting that I never busted out in a session.
Winning sessions: 10 Losing sessions: 20 - Note I used the game suggested plays on 4X – 2X – 1X and Fold decisions except for the marginal 4X bets. Some 2X and 1X decisions I would have played differently since I normally don’t chase straights and flushes at the 2X level and some of the 1X fold hands (I use the 20 and 22 out rule most of the time).
This is just information – nothing of value.
Quote: CharmedQuarkMosca - I think you are trying to argue ‘pot odds’. You can’t play ‘pot odds’ in UTH. As I said, the player gets one bet. You can’t bluff – your bet is your raise and that’s it. He/she should make the best of it when the opportunity it there (4X – 2X – 1X).
What difference does it make win/lose any of the BS 4X bets and win/lose any of the marginal bets? You get the same results either way. All these bets (4X and marginal) have a cost if they lose. If you lose with AA and lose with a Q3s, you still lose the same amount of money. And if you win with AA and win with Q3s, you still win the same amount of money. Granted you have a greater advantage to win the BS 4x bets but you still have an advantage playing the marginal bets. It’s the Expected Win (EW) and I will take EW on a 53% win (not lose) advantage all day long.
No, I was saying the same as 98Clubs, in fact I'd even written that it was better to hold back two or three units to see if the position improved, but deleted that. Bottom line is that the expected value can be calculated from the deck and the rules, and there is no secret loophole in the arithmetic. It just is what it is.
That isn't to say you can't play the way you enjoy the most; heck, the smartest move from that perspective is to not play at all! But you can't rationalize it the way you are trying to, because you are leaving out the unequal win/loss, and that it is sometimes better to wager a lower amount with more information, than a higher amount with less information.
Quote: CharmedQuark
I played just like I play at the casino - $1000 BR - $15-$15 ante-blind – no tips.
fyp
Quote: djatcQuote: CharmedQuark
I played just like I play at the casino - $1000 BR - $15-$15 ante-blind – no tips.
fyp
Djatc - - Thank you. I'm sorry I offended you or anyone else. You offend me.
I was just trying to put those numbers in perspective and I meant to type 'no trips'. Just a typo.
Quote: HunterhillWhat You're missing is that you have a
greater advantage by waiting for the flop to 2x some hands. By all means if you want to 4× the hands you listed go ahead just don't fool yourself by thinking it's the best way to play.
Yes, there are hands where making the 4x raise is a play with positive expectation, but not the best play.
Let's say you have a hand which is 51% to win preflop, but somehow you'll be either 100% or 0% after the flop, and you'll know which is the case. Then if you wait for the flop, you are trading a small edge at 4x for a MASSIVE edge at 2x.
Obviously you can't know this for sure at UTH, but the point is that if you have more information, you can make a decision for 2x which is enough better than the 4x decision that it's worth waiting.
This concept comes up in live holdem sometimes, where you have a hand that is likely best, but the turn card will greatly impact your equity. In those cases, it's often better to forgo raising your small flop edge in order to see the turn.
Quote: MrGoldenSunYes, there are hands where making the 4x raise is a play with positive expectation, but not the best play.
Let's say you have a hand which is 51% to win preflop, but somehow you'll be either 100% or 0% after the flop, and you'll know which is the case. Then if you wait for the flop, you are trading a small edge at 4x for a MASSIVE edge at 2x.
Obviously you can't know this for sure at UTH, but the point is that if you have more information, you can make a decision for 2x which is enough better than the 4x decision that it's worth waiting.
This concept comes up in live holdem sometimes,
where you have a hand that is likely best, but the turn
card will greatly impact your equity. In those cases, it's
often better to forgo raising your small flop edge in
order to see the turn.
I think you misunderstood what I said. We are saying the same thing.
Quote: HunterhillI think you misunderstood what I said. We are saying the same thing.
I know, I was just trying to add to your posts with some details and a contrived example in case someone didn't understand yours. I think it's a somewhat tricky concept.
Is your April 1st start date a pure coincidence?
You keep posting, I'll keep reading. 2F
Quote: TwoFeathersATLMrGolden,
Is your April 1st start date a pure coincidence?
You keep posting, I'll keep reading. 2F
Heh, not sure exactly how to take this comment! :) But yeah, I noticed that too. Ah well. Is April Fools Day a holiday outside the US? Maybe the non-Americans on the board will take me seriously. :)
