Mosca
Joined: Dec 14, 2009
• Posts: 3824
October 2nd, 2015 at 9:48:58 AM permalink
The 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.
NO KILL I
beachbumbabs
Joined: May 21, 2013
• Posts: 14232
October 2nd, 2015 at 2:45:18 PM permalink
Quote: Mosca

The 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.
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
CharmedQuark
Joined: Apr 28, 2015
• Posts: 56
October 2nd, 2015 at 11:59:27 PM permalink
My 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
RS
Joined: Feb 11, 2014
• Posts: 8623
October 3rd, 2015 at 12:27:47 AM permalink
Quote: CharmedQuark

My 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

Quote: RS

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.

Mosca
Joined: Dec 14, 2009
• Posts: 3824
October 3rd, 2015 at 7:56:46 AM permalink
Quote: CharmedQuark

My 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.
NO KILL I
CharmedQuark
Joined: Apr 28, 2015
• Posts: 56
October 3rd, 2015 at 9:33:13 AM permalink
Quote: Mosca

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.

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.
beachbumbabs
Joined: May 21, 2013
• Posts: 14232
October 3rd, 2015 at 12:22:37 PM permalink
Quote: CharmedQuark

My 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.
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
beachbumbabs
Joined: May 21, 2013
• Posts: 14232
October 3rd, 2015 at 3:41:51 PM permalink
So, I did 200 hands to add to your database, betting \$1 increments. Out of that 200, 21 were those you were testing.

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.

HandPlayedWinLoseTie \$Blind Win \$W:DQ=Y \$W:DQ=N \$L:DQ=Y \$L:DQ=N
K3o42110 5 4 -6 0
K4o21100 5 0 -6 0
Q6o31200 5 0 -12 0
Q7o21100 0 4 -6 0
Q3s00000 0 0 0 0
Q4s00000 0 0 0 0
Q5s22000 5 4 0 0
J8o11000 5 0 0 0
J9o10100 0 0 -6 0
J7s10100 0 0 -6 0
T9o32101 10 0 0 -5
T8s00000 0 0 0 0
T9s22000 10 0 0 0
TOTALS 21 1281\$1\$45 \$12 \$-42 \$-5
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
Joined: Feb 21, 2012