horribly played hand leads to weird river decision.

[mrdannyg 274]

Hi, what's the limit?If it's higher than .05/.10 you're playing way too high.good luck.

3/6.I know my winrate is not as good as it could be. That's why I post hands, and why I felt I played this one like censored. But I really don't know what better line to take against such a passive player. Bet/fold the flop? Bet/call down unless a diamond or an ace hits? All I've heard so far is bet the flop. Nothing else really. No one has bothered to put villian on a range, and no one has bothered to give me a good line. I don't know. Enlighten me.

see above post for suggested line. really, it's a standard hand.as for hand range, we can't provide one since we don't have enough information. I would guess AJ,AQ, JJ, QQ, KK (freeroll!), AA, 88, but really anything is possible. 40 hands is not enough since he obviously has had a cold run of cards. mostly though, our hand is too good not to show down.Daniel

[Shimmering Wang 1]

I haven't read replies.Based on the villians stats, your only goal is to get to showdown as cheaply as possible. When he checks the turn, I think I check/call the river. I gave some thought to bet/folding the river, but it's too easy to put in a river bluff-raise here, given the way you played the hand.If you had river-aggression stats for him over a few more hands, you would be right to go ahead and bet/fold the river. Given his likely hand range, you're almost never ahead on that flop. His possible holdings areAK 8AA 6KK 1QQ 3JJ 3 TOTAL- 21When this flop comes, we're ahead of exactly AcKh, AsKh, AhKh. That's it. Those are the only hands we're beating of the 21 total permuatations he might feasibly play like this. Any hand with a diamond in it has us as something like a 55-45 dog, and against a set we're drawing to 2 outs or running back-door straight cards or running diamonds for a split.Basically, on this flop we're a 3-1 dog against his rangeWhen the turn comes, we're now 2-1ish favorites over diamond drawing hands. But we're still drawing nearly dead against many hands. We've improved to a 70-30 dog against his range.Even if we suggest he might 3-bet preflop with TT, we're STILL more than a 2-1 dog once this flop comes.Since the played the turn so weird and the sample we have on him isn't huge, I think we can safely bet/call this river. We only have to be good here ~ 1/11 times to be okay. He played the turn so weird I think it's an autocall.To be perfectly honest, I wish I could say I would've played the hand like this, but I probably would have raised the flop, been 3-bet, and hated myself. NHWang

[mrdannyg 274]

I haven't read replies.Based on the villians stats, your only goal is to get to showdown as cheaply as possible. When he checks the turn, I think I check/call the river. I gave some thought to bet/folding the river, but it's too easy to put in a river bluff-raise here, given the way you played the hand.If you had river-aggression stats for him over a few more hands, you would be right to go ahead and bet/fold the river. Given his likely hand range, you're almost never ahead on that flop. His possible holdings areAK 8AA 6KK 1QQ 3JJ 3 TOTAL- 21When this flop comes, we're ahead of exactly AcKh, AsKh, AhKh. That's it. Those are the only hands we're beating of the 21 total permuatations he might feasibly play like this. Any hand with a diamond in it has us as something like a 55-45 dog, and against a set we're drawing to 2 outs or running back-door straight cards or running diamonds for a split.Basically, on this flop we're a 3-1 dog against his rangeWhen the turn comes, we're now 2-1ish favorites over diamond drawing hands. But we're still drawing nearly dead against many hands. We've improved to a 70-30 dog against his range.Even if we suggest he might 3-bet preflop with TT, we're STILL more than a 2-1 dog once this flop comes.Since the played the turn so weird and the sample we have on him isn't huge, I think we can safely bet/call this river. We only have to be good here ~ 1/11 times to be okay. He played the turn so weird I think it's an autocall.To be perfectly honest, I wish I could say I would've played the hand like this, but I probably would have raised the flop, been 3-bet, and hated myself. NHWang

i disagree with the whole idea of using permutations, but even if you do, we have KK, so we are ahead of any AK except Ad, Kd. and i don't think we have enough hands to put him on such a narrow range. i've had 40-hand and longer stretches where i went 10/0, and my usual stats are 18/9, and would 3-bet from the button there with AQ, AJ, 10-10. as for using permutations, that method suggests that JJ/QQ are almost as likely as AK, and that Ad, Kd is just as likely as As, Kc. I think AK/AQ, with possibly one diamond is by far the most likely, while JJ, QQ and Ad, Ax are extremely unlikely.daniel

[screech 0]

but even if you do, we have KK, so we are ahead of any AK except Ad, Kd.

I think you missed the gutshot AK has. We are behind to any AK combo that contains 1 diamond.

I think AK/AQ, with possibly one diamond is by far the most likely, while JJ, QQ and Ad, Ax are extremely unlikely.

I guess you must be talking about the river. I'm looking for a play from the flop on.

[Shimmering Wang 1]

i disagree with the whole idea of using permutations, but even if you do, we have KK, so we are ahead of any AK except Ad, Kd. and i don't think we have enough hands to put him on such a narrow range. i've had 40-hand and longer stretches where i went 10/0, and my usual stats are 18/9, and would 3-bet from the button there with AQ, AJ, 10-10. as for using permutations, that method suggests that JJ/QQ are almost as likely as AK, and that Ad, Kd is just as likely as As, Kc. I think AK/AQ, with possibly one diamond is by far the most likely, while JJ, QQ and Ad, Ax are extremely unlikely. daniel

You DISAGREE with the idea of "permutations?" That's like disagreeing with fractions, or the planet venus.... Explain or I shall cut you. Would you kindly explain how AdKc is BEHIND our hand on the flop? I'm curious to see if you disagree with "basic mathematics, too." Before you write out your answer, make sure you use the correct definition of "ahead."I agree that the range we put him on is narrow, but I added TT to be optimistic. Adding AQs doesn't really change all THAT much, either, considering there's only 3 perms. I don't think many people who go 40 hands w/o raising 3-bet on the button with AJ0 all that much. It's very, very, very unlikely. I'd bust out a chi squared test or something to test for significance, but it's boring.And, finally, please explain why AdKx or AxKd is "by far the most likkely" hand and JJ/QQ/AdAx are "extremely unlikely." Wang

[screech 0]

Wang,thanks for putting some thought into this besides a simple, "bet the flop fish" type comment. I agree with most of what you say, especially the planet venus.Another comment I keep getting is that the range is too small for 40 hands. That may be. But where do we draw the line? Occassionally someone with a 7% pfr% may go 40 hands without raising, but this happens so rarely, we can neglect it. It's the same as saying he raises AQs or KQs 0.5% of the time, or some other small fraction that would incorporate the error present for the small sample size. We can't just assume his 3-betting range is the same as most posters here because we have a small sample size and we have occassionally had similar runs ourselves.

[Abbaddabba 0]

I think what he's getting at is that each permutation is not equally probable based on the information we have and that we shouldn't weight them equally.I also think that your range of hands is far too narrow. 40 hands isnt big enough to conclude that his range is so limited.

[Shimmering Wang 1]

Wang,thanks for putting some thought into this besides a simple, "bet the flop fish" type comment. I agree with most of what you say, especially the planet venus.Another comment I keep getting is that the range is too small for 40 hands. That may be. But where do we draw the line? Occassionally someone with a 7% pfr% may go 40 hands without raising, but this happens so rarely, we can neglect it. It's the same as saying he raises AQs or KQs 0.5% of the time, or some other small fraction that would incorporate the error present for the small sample size. We can't just assume his 3-betting range is the same as most posters here because we have a small sample size and we have occassionally had similar runs ourselves.

I agree completely, and if I had a stat or combinatorics book in front of me (and weren't too lazy to figure it out), I feel the math would bear that out. Even if he IS 3-betting with a hand like AQs, TT, AJs, AQ, etc, we can discount the odds of that happening significantly. Just because something COULD happen, doesn't mean that we should find some way to mathematically represent the chances it WILL happen. Our model is off a little if we ignore AJs, 99, and AQo after only seeing him play 40 hands, but I'd wager it's off by such a small margin as to be almost pointless to worry.Interesting hand.Wang

[Abbaddabba 0]

Another comment I keep getting is that the range is too small for 40 hands. That may be. But where do we draw the line? Occassionally someone with a 7% pfr% may go 40 hands without raising, but this happens so rarely, we can neglect it. It's the same as saying he raises AQs or KQs 0.5% of the time, or some other small fraction that would incorporate the error present for the small sample size. We can't just assume his 3-betting range is the same as most posters here because we have a small sample size and we have occassionally had similar runs ourselves.

You should be accounting for the fact that the estimate is an unreliable one. That doesnt mean you discredit the information. It just means that you should not allow it to completely define your impression of the villain.If you want to draw arbitrary lines, you can assume him to be 1 part mouse, 1 parts average/random. But really, i dont know how much weight you should give to a 40 hand sample. I do know some of the people in this thread have been giving _too_ much weight to it, though.Just like night on a 2/4 table (with zachFCP at the table actually) i had a 120 hand stretch where i was 8/2/0.5 (normal stats are 21/13/3.1).

[mrdannyg 274]

i disagree with the whole idea of using permutations, but even if you do, we have KK, so we are ahead of any AK except Ad, Kd. and i don't think we have enough hands to put him on such a narrow range. i've had 40-hand and longer stretches where i went 10/0, and my usual stats are 18/9, and would 3-bet from the button there with AQ, AJ, 10-10. as for using permutations, that method suggests that JJ/QQ are almost as likely as AK, and that Ad, Kd is just as likely as As, Kc. I think AK/AQ, with possibly one diamond is by far the most likely, while JJ, QQ and Ad, Ax are extremely unlikely. daniel

You DISAGREE with the idea of "permutations?" That's like disagreeing with fractions, or the planet venus.... Explain or I shall cut you. Would you kindly explain how AdKc is BEHIND our hand on the flop? I'm curious to see if you disagree with "basic mathematics, too." Before you write out your answer, make sure you use the correct definition of "ahead."I agree that the range we put him on is narrow, but I added TT to be optimistic. Adding AQs doesn't really change all THAT much, either, considering there's only 3 perms. I don't think many people who go 40 hands w/o raising 3-bet on the button with AJ0 all that much. It's very, very, very unlikely. I'd bust out a chi squared test or something to test for significance, but it's boring.And, finally, please explain why AdKx or AxKd is "by far the most likkely" hand and JJ/QQ/AdAx are "extremely unlikely." Wang

first off, i disagree with fractions. they are shifty and i just don't trust them. either you're a number or you aren't, no halfway shit.ok i should've clarified that i dont disagree with permutations, but using permutations in the way that you did to estimate his hand range. i do not disagree with the concept of permutations in general.using them as you did implies that each permutation is equally likely. i don't think i need to elaborate on why this is a faulty assumption.Ad, Kx vs Kx, Kx on 4d, Jd, Qd flop:i really thought that one overcard + gutshot + flush draw was behind the overpair. i ran it through the odds calculator. i was wrong.equity-wise, AKo with a diamond is ahead on this flop. my mistake.technically, KK would be "ahead" on this flop since it currently has the better hand. in this case, another player easily might not realize that their AKo (with a diamond) is ahead on this flop, and hence the question of whether we are currently leading does have some validity. but really, i'm just trying to defend myself, and since i think most of us agree equity is more important, i'll acknowledge that for intents and purposes (whew) we are behind to that hand on this flop.AJo:ok, AJo is not his most likely holding. but i don't think you can estimate with any sort of accuracy how likely it is he would or wouldn't raise from the button with AJo from those stats. then again, i don't really understand a Chi-Squared test (don't tell my econometrics prof), so i could be wrong.screech has clarified he is really looking for help on flop play, so I cannot suggest that AK is any more or less likely than JJ or QQ, since i feel most people are approximately as likely to 3-bet those from the button. i was thinking that his river play was poor, given that the turn check indicated (to me) how unlikely AK (with a diamond), JJ or QQ was.advice on the flop play seems easier, since it is more or less a standard hand. we should be bet/raising that flop. i know people hate playing hands standardly, but there's a reason standard is standard. i don't think we have enough of a read to suggest deviating. the turn play will depend on flop play, but as i said, i probably bet/call a non-diamond and bet/fold a diamond.well, i think i deserved most of those flames - i hope i explained myself without backtracking too much. actually what i was most afraid of was that I misspelled "likely" when actually I did not. whew.daniel

[mrdannyg 274]

Wang,thanks for putting some thought into this besides a simple, "bet the flop fish" type comment. I agree with most of what you say, especially the planet venus.Another comment I keep getting is that the range is too small for 40 hands. That may be. But where do we draw the line? Occassionally someone with a 7% pfr% may go 40 hands without raising, but this happens so rarely, we can neglect it. It's the same as saying he raises AQs or KQs 0.5% of the time, or some other small fraction that would incorporate the error present for the small sample size. We can't just assume his 3-betting range is the same as most posters here because we have a small sample size and we have occassionally had similar runs ourselves.

this brings up an interesting point in terms of variations.if it isn't too difficult, maybe someone who doesn't suck at math could come up with some kind of chart which would show the likelihood after X number of hands, a person with long-term preflop raise percentage Y would have a certain PFR%.i think i have too many axis there, but maybe something simpler, like the likelihood of someone with a 6% PFR having 0% PFR after 50 hands.cool beans

[Smasharoo 0]

this brings up an interesting point in terms of variations.if it isn't too difficult, maybe someone who doesn't suck at math could come up with some kind of chart which would show the likelihood after X number of hands, a person with long-term preflop raise percentage Y would have a certain PFR%.i think i have too many axis there, but maybe something simpler, like the likelihood of someone with a 6% PFR having 0% PFR after 50 hands.http://www.pokerstove.com/I find it pretty usless, but if you're into that sort of thing...good luck.

[Shimmering Wang 1]

first off, i disagree with fractions. they are shifty and i just don't trust them. either you're a number or you aren't, no halfway shit.ok i should've clarified that i dont disagree with permutations, but using permutations in the way that you did to estimate his hand range. i do not disagree with the concept of permutations in general.using them as you did implies that each permutation is equally likely. i don't think i need to elaborate on why this is a faulty assumption.Ad, Kx vs Kx, Kx on 4d, Jd, Qd flop:i really thought that one overcard + gutshot + flush draw was behind the overpair. i ran it through the odds calculator. i was wrong.equity-wise, AKo with a diamond is ahead on this flop. my mistake.technically, KK would be "ahead" on this flop since it currently has the better hand. in this case, another player easily might not realize that their AKo (with a diamond) is ahead on this flop, and hence the question of whether we are currently leading does have some validity. but really, i'm just trying to defend myself, and since i think most of us agree equity is more important, i'll acknowledge that for intents and purposes (whew) we are behind to that hand on this flop.AJo:ok, AJo is not his most likely holding. but i don't think you can estimate with any sort of accuracy how likely it is he would or wouldn't raise from the button with AJo from those stats. then again, i don't really understand a Chi-Squared test (don't tell my econometrics prof), so i could be wrong.screech has clarified he is really looking for help on flop play, so I cannot suggest that AK is any more or less likely than JJ or QQ, since i feel most people are approximately as likely to 3-bet those from the button. i was thinking that his river play was poor, given that the turn check indicated (to me) how unlikely AK (with a diamond), JJ or QQ was.advice on the flop play seems easier, since it is more or less a standard hand. we should be bet/raising that flop. i know people hate playing hands standardly, but there's a reason standard is standard. i don't think we have enough of a read to suggest deviating. the turn play will depend on flop play, but as i said, i probably bet/call a non-diamond and bet/fold a diamond.well, i think i deserved most of those flames - i hope i explained myself without backtracking too much. actually what i was most afraid of was that I misspelled "likely" when actually I did not. whew.daniel

Well explained, but I think if we look at his flop action, it's very difficult to rule OUT many hands in the range we put him on before the flop.For example, when it's our turn to act, we have exactly zero extra information, except that we're now behind even more hands (JJ, QQ, AK w/diamond). When he DOES take some action (in this case, betting) it's very difficult to rule out ANY hands. If you were to make an argument, we could probably discount a few AK holdings slightly, but MOSTLY we'd be discounting the AK hands we're ahead of. So, if we wanted to get really nit-picky, once he bets, he's MORE likely to have a set, flush, or flushdraw + gutshot + overcard combo than the permutation-based calculations say he is.Our hand is actually worse! But the amount of information we have is probably too small to determine how he's going to play on this flop, so I just ignore it completely. Besides, I think you might have considered his turn play (weirdo check-back) when considering how to play the flop (seemingly super-tight-passive player 3-bets preflop). I think 40 hands is enough to suggest his three-betting range is narrow-ish (or, maybe more accurately, not looser than average). It's DEFINITELY significiantly (in the statistical sense) more likely to be narrow than it is to be wide. Which I think makes this a hand we can slow waaaaaaay down with. Wang

[Shimmering Wang 1]

this brings up an interesting point in terms of variations.if it isn't too difficult, maybe someone who doesn't suck at math could come up with some kind of chart which would show the likelihood after X number of hands, a person with long-term preflop raise percentage Y would have a certain PFR%.i think i have too many axis there, but maybe something simpler, like the likelihood of someone with a 6% PFR having 0% PFR after 50 hands.http://www.pokerstove.com/I find it pretty usless, but if you're into that sort of thing...good luck.

I don't think pokerstove does that... If I'm wrong, I'd be very happy to be corrected.You could probably google something like "statistical significance test" and find something if you looked a bit.

[Abbaddabba 0]

I also dont think that pokerstove handles that, but ill check that later.

I think 40 hands is enough to suggest his three-betting range is narrow-ish (or, maybe more accurately, not looser than average). It's DEFINITELY significiantly (in the statistical sense) more likely to be narrow than it is to be wide. Which I think makes this a hand we can slow waaaaaaay down with.

It suggests that it's more likely to be narrow than wide, but not by how much.

if it isn't too difficult, maybe someone who doesn't suck at math could come up with some kind of chart which would show the likelihood after X number of hands, a person with long-term preflop raise percentage Y would have a certain PFR%.

Pfft, i thought you were interested in doing the MTAX program. Doesnt that require senior level stats?

ok i should've clarified that i dont disagree with permutations, but using permutations in the way that you did to estimate his hand range. i do not disagree with the concept of permutations in general. using them as you did implies that each permutation is equally likely. i don't think i need to elaborate on why this is a faulty assumption.

I called it first, bitch :evil:

[Shimmering Wang 1]

I think 40 hands is enough to suggest his three-betting range is narrow-ish (or, maybe more accurately, not looser than average). It's DEFINITELY significiantly (in the statistical sense) more likely to be narrow than it is to be wide. Which I think makes this a hand we can slow waaaaaaay down with.

It suggests that it's more likely to be narrow than wide, but not by how much.

That's kind of a silly thing to say, Abbadabba, and I think the fact that you said it just just... silly and nitty.Of course we don't know EXACTLY how narrow his range his. But we take the numbers we have (exactly o/40 hands did he raise preflop), but him in a category (tight/passive), and from that category we extrapolate his likely range. We'd be MORE sure he's was REALLY tight passive if he were 0/41 or 0/141. But we don't have that info. So we use what we know about statistics and decide it's much more likely he's a Tight Passive player with a very narrow 3-betting range than it is that he's just hit a very cold run of cards.It's not tough, guys. I don't understand why there's so much resistance to the narrow 3-bet range. Someone give me an argument incorporating AQs, 99, AQo, and AJ and 88...Wang

[mrdannyg 274]

I also dont think that pokerstove handles that, but ill check that later.

I think 40 hands is enough to suggest his three-betting range is narrow-ish (or, maybe more accurately, not looser than average). It's DEFINITELY significiantly (in the statistical sense) more likely to be narrow than it is to be wide. Which I think makes this a hand we can slow waaaaaaay down with.

It suggests that it's more likely to be narrow than wide, but not by how much.

if it isn't too difficult, maybe someone who doesn't suck at math could come up with some kind of chart which would show the likelihood after X number of hands, a person with long-term preflop raise percentage Y would have a certain PFR%.

Pfft, i thought you were interested in doing the MTAX program. Doesnt that require senior level stats?

ok i should've clarified that i dont disagree with permutations, but using permutations in the way that you did to estimate his hand range. i do not disagree with the concept of permutations in general. using them as you did implies that each permutation is equally likely. i don't think i need to elaborate on why this is a faulty assumption.

I called it first, censored :evil:

yes it does require senior stats. they were actually some of my best marks, but for the life of me i don't understand them. i'm not sure which emoticon to use here.good memory on that MTAX by the way. i'm still trying to figure out how difficult the entrance requirements are - any ideas?danielp.s. you win on the permutations thing

[Abbaddabba 0]

It's not silly at all.It suggests that he's closer to 10/0/0 than an average/random, but not how close he is.It's not nitty at all. 40 is a very small, unreliable sample.

and from that category we extrapolate his likely range

Your range is exclusively applicable to those who're extremely tight. He is not necessarily extremely tight. You should apply probabilities to a wider range of permutations. Even if they're low, there are so many combinations that their collective impact on your decision would be meaningful.

[Abbaddabba 0]

yes it does require senior stats. they were actually some of my best marks, but for the life of me i don't understand them. i'm not sure which emoticon to use here. good memory on that MTAX by the way. i'm still trying to figure out how difficult the entrance requirements are - any ideas?

I could tell you what the site says. The bare minimum is like what most of our programs require, 75%. But im sure that isnt even close to what you'll need to get in considering the level of competition.It's offered through our school of accounting. They generally set the bar pretty high there.

[Shimmering Wang 1]

You should apply probabilities to a wider range of permutations. Even if they're low, there are so many combinations that their collective impact on your decision would be meaningful.

You vastly underestimate the reliability of a 40 hand sample.Okay. So do it. Give me some weighted probabilities for his 3-betting range. I'd wager there's a 90ish% chance his range is very close to the one I suggested.There MIGHT MIGHT MIGHT be as high as a 20% chance that he's also 3-betting with AQs, and TT as well. And it's probably under 10% that he's adding AQo, AJs, KQs and 99, too. But my model is still enough to play the hand passively and slowly.Wang

[mrdannyg 274]

yes it does require senior stats. they were actually some of my best marks, but for the life of me i don't understand them. i'm not sure which emoticon to use here. good memory on that MTAX by the way. i'm still trying to figure out how difficult the entrance requirements are - any ideas?

I could tell you what the site says. The bare minimum is like what most of our programs require, 75%. But im sure that isnt even close to what you'll need to get in considering the level of competition.It's offered through our school of accounting. They generally set the bar pretty high there.

thanks - not too confident about my chances to be honest, but we'll see how things turn out.

[fckthis 0]

In the actual hand, I called the river even though everything told me to fold it. Villian had AA with the .

YAY I was right. Though, he played it pretty badly, considering he had a diamond.

[Abbaddabba 0]

You vastly underestimate the reliability of a 40 hand sample. Okay. So do it. Give me some weighted probabilities for his 3-betting range. I'd wager there's a 90ish% chance his range is very close to the one I suggested. There MIGHT MIGHT MIGHT be as high as a 20% chance that he's also 3-betting with AQs, and TT as well. And it's probably under 10% that he's adding AQo, AJs, KQs and 99, too. But my model is still enough to play the hand passively and slowly. Wang

Ok. I dont know anyone would go about proving the probability of each permutation... but i think that your probabilities are too low for each of those hands outside your initial range. People can also be erratic. They may be frustrated that the hero raised too many hands in succession, and are putting their foot down.

[Smasharoo 0]

Ok, pointless math masturbation aside, if your decision process involves this level of analysis, you really need to take up chess or something solvable with more complete information.From a game theory standpoint folding this river sucks no matter what.Not close.good luck.

[Shimmering Wang 1]

Ok.  I dont know anyone would go about proving the probability of each permutation... but i think that your probabilities are too low for each of those hands outside your initial range.  People can also be erratic.  They may be frustrated that the hero raised too many hands in succession, and are putting their foot down.

Or, they could be drag queens, look down at Q3, and decide, "Hey, it's my hand! I just have to play it!"Regardless of what you think of my villian range, even if you expand it by a reasonable amount (beyond adding AQs and TT, which I account for in the post that started all this), playing the flop/turn differently still isn't optimal.Oh, and Smash?I suggested bet/calling the river, due to the weirdo-turn play that was weird.My discussion was entirely flop-oriented. The turn plays itself, no matter how you play the flop, methinks.Abbadabba = gay.I am drunk.Wang