Greenstein's Mathematics Of Poker

[hblask 1]

No, you're the one who's wrong. If we assume that no A's or K's are folded, the odds of our AK winning go up. It's pretty simple really, but what should you expect from General.

Don't think so. In the original post, Greenstein was saying the probability of AK goes up if you know there are no As or Ks folded. But when you have no information, AK is an underdogm (as shown by probability calculators). Having no information is the same as having all the As and Ks still live, which is the case he is claiming *improves* probability.

[sloshr 0]

dont people fold hands like K9 and A4 in early position?

not in California!

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Don't think so. In the original post, Greenstein was saying the probability of AK goes up if you know there are no As or Ks folded.

True. I'm with you.

But when you have no information, AK is an underdogm (as shown by probability calculators).

True. Still with you.

Having no information is the same as having all the As and Ks still live, which is the case he is claiming *improves* probability.

Now I'm lost. He claims that people folding suggests that they didn't have A's or K's, which means that there are most likely more A's or K's left in the deck, which improves the odds of AK against a pocket pair. I'm not sure what you're talking about.

[13CARDS 0]

From pg 150 of Ace on the River by Barry Greenstein,"...If several players fold first, Ace-King suited is a favorite over most pairs. (The exceptions are Aces, Kings, and Jacks, and also Tens where one of the Tens is the same suit as Ace-King.) Even Ace-King offsuit is now a favorite against small pairs. The reason for this is that players are more likely to play hands having an Ace or King than those containing smaller cards. Therefore, as players fold, the probability of an Ace or King coming on the board increases"

Basic blackjack cardcounting theory applied to poker.

[simo_8ball 0]

Having no information is the same as having all the As and Ks still live

This is where you have gone wrong.

[Balloon guy 158]

not in California!

QFT

[Zach6668 513]

Isn't this all just Bayesian theory?

[pniblo 0]

Hes right because I win with jj vs any ace 1out of 10 times and Im not lieing

[yergan 0]

QUOTE(hblask @ Tuesday, August 29th, 2006, 7:52 PM) *Having no information is the same as having all the As and Ks still live, which is the case he is claiming *improves* probability.

Now I'm lost. He claims that people folding suggests that they didn't have A's or K's, which means that there are most likely more A's or K's left in the deck, which improves the odds of AK against a pocket pair. I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Without information: 6 outs (3 A, 3 K), 48 Unknown cards - 6/48WIth information: Still 6 outs, now only 40 unknown cards - 6/40 > 6/48He's not saying it changes the number of aces or kings, but it changes the probability of one of them coming out i.e. 6/48 vs 6/40(I know this is simplified but you get the picture?)

[hblask 1]

True. I'm with you.True. Still with you.Now I'm lost. He claims that people folding suggests that they didn't have A's or K's, which means that there are most likely more A's or K's left in the deck, which improves the odds of AK against a pocket pair. I'm not sure what you're talking about.

The probabilities in an odds calculator assume all the ones except the A and K in your hand are live. That doesn't mean there are *more* of them than in the "no knowledge" case (of few limpers), only that it is more likely that all those unknown ones are still possibly there (which is less likely with lots of limpers, since 8-4 limping is less likely than with A-8 limping.

Now I'm lost. He claims that people folding suggests that they didn't have A's or K's, which means that there are most likely more A's or K's left in the deck, which improves the odds of AK against a pocket pair. I'm not sure what you're talking about.Without information: 6 outs (3 A, 3 K), 48 Unknown cards - 6/48WIth information: Still 6 outs, now only 40 unknown cards - 6/40 > 6/48He's not saying it changes the number of aces or kings, but it changes the probability of one of them coming out i.e. 6/48 vs 6/40(I know this is simplified but you get the picture?)

If the information is that some of those 8 are more likely As or Ks, then yes, 4 limpers gives worse odds than no limpers. But that is different than making AK a favorite over a low pair. Or is he saying all the folded cards are more likely the cards that would make the set for low pairs? That seems to be a stretch, but I suppose you could make an argument for that, but I think it is probably statistically insignificant, seeing as how hitting the set is relatively rare anyway.

This is where you have gone wrong.

Explain why no information is no the same as assuming all cards are still live. I'm pretty sure all probabilities are figured based on unknown cards are equally likely to be anywhere.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

If the information is that some of those 8 are more likely As or Ks, then yes, 4 limpers gives worse odds than no limpers.

The information is that no limpers implies that the people who folded didn't have an A or a K (or were less likely to hold an A or a K or whatever).If you believe the assumption that if people don't limp then they for sure don't have an A or K, it's obvious that if everybody doesn't limp, there are a higher percentage of A or K's left in the deck. This is the assumption If there is a higher percentage of A's or K's, then AK does better against a pocket pair.

[hblask 1]

The information is that no limpers implies that the people who folded didn't have an A or a K (or were less likely to hold an A or a K or whatever).If you believe the assumption that if people don't limp then they for sure don't have an A or K, it's obvious that if everybody doesn't limp, there are a higher percentage of A or K's left in the deck. This is the assumption If there is a higher percentage of A's or K's, then AK does better against a pocket pair.

Right, I think we are talking past each other. I agree that information that limpers have A or K means less chance for your AK. But that is a lot different than saying that no limpers makes AK a favorite to a low pair. It just means you can play AK with more confidence without limpers than with limpers. That's all I wuz sayin'.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Right, I think we are talking past each other. I agree that information that limpers have A or K means less chance for your AK. But that is a lot different than saying that no limpers makes AK a favorite to a low pair. It just means you can play AK with more confidence without limpers than with limpers. That's all I wuz sayin'.

Right. Do you get that if we make the assumption that people will ALWAYS limp with any A or K and no one limps, our AK does become a favorite over a pocket pair?

[Aerriza 0]

I think it is safe to say that if there are limpers in front of you, then your AK is probably weaker than probability would dictate, because there are probably some Ax or Kx in there.His theory having no limpers makes AK more of a favorite shows a serious lack of understanding of probability, I believe. The AK being a slight underdog is based on having all unseen cards unknown. Therefore, the other people NOT having As or Ks is already factored in, in effect. He was trying to make a semi-valid point, but appears to have drawn some incorrect conclusions.

I don't really understand what your saying on your second point, but I think your misunderstanding what he is saying.Here are the hands before any action3d 5d - fold2c 8h - fold7h Js - fold2h 2d - fold9s Qs - foldAh Kh4d 4hIf you don't add in the folded cards as "dead cards" AK is a 52 to 48 underdog but when you add in the dead cards AK becomes the favorite (52-48). Although in this example it is a really minor change, still a coinflip.This dosen't seem really reliable until you lable someone as "limp preflop any A or K" which you usualy can't asume right away, unless it's in lower limits where most people will limp in with any A or any K. Now I disagree with using this method to say "If everyone folds you are the favorite" becuase the change in percentages is so little that it really dosen't matter. But if you label a player as "limping preflop with any A or K" and they limp in, you can take a bit off your odds, and make decisions acordingly (if two kings are folded you are a 60-40 underdog). Also this info is alot more usefull postflop where you can be more sure that your opponent has an underpair and you only have two cards to come, if you can asume two of your outs are gone a bad fold (based on pot odds), can turn into a good fold very quickly =P.So it's very conditional, but hell that's what poker is, a bunch of conditional decisions =P.edit...Also you can't asume that a 4 is dead becuase people are folding all low cards, the chances of someone folding a 4 are low becuase two 4s are already out, but you also can't say that a 4 definatly wasen't folded, you have to leave it as an unknown, and thus count the cards that have already been folded when calculating the outs.

[sholden 0]

dont people fold hands like K9 and A4 in early position?

Fold a King? Are you mad!When it comes four cards of the suit you have the second nuts damn it...

[Actuary 3]

pretty worthless info though.

[lilxlazyxboi 0]

pretty worthless info though.

Is it as worthless as your post? Probably.

[Actuary 3]

Is it as worthless as your post? Probably.

about.except it seems some actually think you can use this to impact your decisions.your turn.

[lilxlazyxboi 0]

about.except it seems some actually think you can use this to impact your decisions.your turn.

reply doesn't make sense.

[Actuary 3]

reply doesn't make sense.

great, another tard.welcome to General.Some posters seem to be arguing this as if it would actually affect their play..

[AcesUp46 0]

I wish I had posted Greenstein's title to that paragraph in my original post. sigh...

[SpiderGuard 0]

Fold a King? Are you mad!When it comes four cards of the suit you have the second nuts damn it...

And if one of those cards is the Ace then you have the nuts. How could you possibly lose????????????????????????????????

[yergan 0]

And if one of those cards is the Ace then you have the nuts. How could you possibly lose????????????????????????????????

How are you ever going to get a royal flush if you fold a king or an ace?

[Sefaje 0]

^ lol.you see sort of a reverse application of this theory by Matusow in the WSOP from 2005.iirc, someone raises from MP, then someone else goes all in. Matusow calls with JJ and the initial raiser folds. Matusow put the 2nd raiser on AK and called with his JJ only because he figured the original raiser had at least one of the 2nd raiser's outs, putting him at a large enough advantage for him to be comfortable putting lots of chips at riskedit: he says after the cards are exposed "did you have an ace too? thats the only reason i called, i thought you would fold one of his outs"

[chopper320 0]

Pretty easy theory to understand although I don't know how valuable or accurate it is. There are a lot of assumptions being made just b/c people have folded. There are a lot of variables that could help make this theory more valid such as playing at a very loose table. I just think that all of those folds represent hands that aren't very coordinated. Who plays A3o or K5o from EP at a full table? Hblask I would stop trying to prove yourself right b/c you are dead wrong. If we assume that all folds represent no A's or K's then we have a much higher chance of catching an A or K since we can eliminate all cards that have been folded from our equation.