A Home Game Hand Analysis (Part 1)
I've played some online cash games and have been having the same good results that I've been having over the past month. So far, I've made a little short of $1400 over about 4200 hands of $0.50/$1.00 NL. This is a great win rate. I feel like I'm playing well and running well, so I'm happy with all that. I will be moving to $1/$2 NL when I've won $2000 playing the 'ole $0.5/$1 -- so I'll keep everyone updated on how that goes.
I also played the home game on the last two Thursdays and won both of them. I don't remember anything of note happening last week. This week I was down to about 4400 at the 200/400/25 level. I ended up winning a bunch of pots without showing down, giving me the chip lead when we got to 4 handed. I stole a bunch and never got caught, so things worked themselves out in my favor fairly easy.
I did play a hand tonight against Clark that he asked me to analyze, so here goes. This is the 3rd hand of the tourney and everyone has roughly 25K in chips with blinds at 50/100. Clark limps UTG for 100, all fold to me on the button, I raise to 350 with A8o, all fold to Clark, Clark calls. Flop comes Txy, totally disconnected rainbow. Clark bets 500, I call. Turn comes Q, putting 2 hearts on the board. Clark bets 750, I make it 3500 I beleive (it was a decent-sized raise), Clark calls. River comes some other low card, not filling any draws. Clark bets 1500, I make it 5300, Clark calls and scoops with JcTc. I call him a donkey and such for calling me down, he says it was a good play and that I should analyze it on my blog so that I can figure that it was a good call.
For starters, the main reason I think this hand was played poorly is due to a concept called reverse implied pot odds. In a nutshell, this concept states that if you have a weak made hand (like 2nd pair no kicker on the turn) that won't improve very often, you will often be better off folding to pressure because: 1) you will lose a lot if your opponent has a better hand, 2) you probably won't win much more if your opponent has a worse hand. Furthermore, having an aggressive opponent that has position on you makes this concept even stronger.
Analyzing it from Clark's perspective, we need to decide what hands I could have. For starters, let's assume that I am not semi-bluffing when I raise the turn (i.e., I will never improve on the river) and river. There weren't any real draws out there on the turn unless I had something like Ahxh. I beleive the chances of this are slim enough to ignore.
Now let's look at the probabilities of various events happening.
TM = the probability that I have a monster on the turn and clark is drawing dead
TB = the probability that I am bluffing on the turn
TV = the probability that I am value betting a hand on the turn that can be beaten by Clark's JT by him catching a J or T
RM = the probability that I have a monster on the river. this is effectively equal to the probability that I have a monster on the turn
RB = the probability that I am bluffing the river
RV = the probability that I have a pretty good hand like KK or AQ and I am value-raising. I would say that this is effectively 0, since I tend to be a pussy about raising the river with marginal hands that can get reraised.
When facing a raise on the turn, the value of Clark's hand comes from the following situations in which he wins the pot:
1) Clark calls the bet on the turn with the best hand, then leads on the river and gets me to fold my bluffs.
2) Clark calls the bet on the turn with the best hand, leads the river, then calls when I bluff-raise.
3) Clark calls the bet on the turn with the worst hand, doesn't improve on the river, then bets and gets me to fold the best hand.
4) Clark calls the bet on the turn with the worst hand, improves on the river, leads on the river, where I call with a worse hand.
It's getting too late to finish this tonight. Tomorrow (or in a couple of days), we'll take a guess at some of the chances of these things actually happening and how this effects the value of Clark's hand on the turn.
Maybe Clark would like to speak up and tell me how often he thinks I'm bluffing on the turn and river and the other such things.
I also played the home game on the last two Thursdays and won both of them. I don't remember anything of note happening last week. This week I was down to about 4400 at the 200/400/25 level. I ended up winning a bunch of pots without showing down, giving me the chip lead when we got to 4 handed. I stole a bunch and never got caught, so things worked themselves out in my favor fairly easy.
I did play a hand tonight against Clark that he asked me to analyze, so here goes. This is the 3rd hand of the tourney and everyone has roughly 25K in chips with blinds at 50/100. Clark limps UTG for 100, all fold to me on the button, I raise to 350 with A8o, all fold to Clark, Clark calls. Flop comes Txy, totally disconnected rainbow. Clark bets 500, I call. Turn comes Q, putting 2 hearts on the board. Clark bets 750, I make it 3500 I beleive (it was a decent-sized raise), Clark calls. River comes some other low card, not filling any draws. Clark bets 1500, I make it 5300, Clark calls and scoops with JcTc. I call him a donkey and such for calling me down, he says it was a good play and that I should analyze it on my blog so that I can figure that it was a good call.
For starters, the main reason I think this hand was played poorly is due to a concept called reverse implied pot odds. In a nutshell, this concept states that if you have a weak made hand (like 2nd pair no kicker on the turn) that won't improve very often, you will often be better off folding to pressure because: 1) you will lose a lot if your opponent has a better hand, 2) you probably won't win much more if your opponent has a worse hand. Furthermore, having an aggressive opponent that has position on you makes this concept even stronger.
Analyzing it from Clark's perspective, we need to decide what hands I could have. For starters, let's assume that I am not semi-bluffing when I raise the turn (i.e., I will never improve on the river) and river. There weren't any real draws out there on the turn unless I had something like Ahxh. I beleive the chances of this are slim enough to ignore.
Now let's look at the probabilities of various events happening.
TM = the probability that I have a monster on the turn and clark is drawing dead
TB = the probability that I am bluffing on the turn
TV = the probability that I am value betting a hand on the turn that can be beaten by Clark's JT by him catching a J or T
RM = the probability that I have a monster on the river. this is effectively equal to the probability that I have a monster on the turn
RB = the probability that I am bluffing the river
RV = the probability that I have a pretty good hand like KK or AQ and I am value-raising. I would say that this is effectively 0, since I tend to be a pussy about raising the river with marginal hands that can get reraised.
When facing a raise on the turn, the value of Clark's hand comes from the following situations in which he wins the pot:
1) Clark calls the bet on the turn with the best hand, then leads on the river and gets me to fold my bluffs.
2) Clark calls the bet on the turn with the best hand, leads the river, then calls when I bluff-raise.
3) Clark calls the bet on the turn with the worst hand, doesn't improve on the river, then bets and gets me to fold the best hand.
4) Clark calls the bet on the turn with the worst hand, improves on the river, leads on the river, where I call with a worse hand.
It's getting too late to finish this tonight. Tomorrow (or in a couple of days), we'll take a guess at some of the chances of these things actually happening and how this effects the value of Clark's hand on the turn.
Maybe Clark would like to speak up and tell me how often he thinks I'm bluffing on the turn and river and the other such things.
posted by the_real_zano at 12:40 AM
5 Comments:
I think the math isn't the big thing on this one...I like clarks read. The turn is, i think, the important part. As clark, after the flop of Txy, calling the 500 looks like...well to me it looks like mikey has AK or AQ, ah crap sorry clark i changed my mind after doing more analysis of this.
When I first read this i was thinking it looks like mikey has a small pair the queen certainly couldn't have helped him and he bet like it did, bingo mikey is bluffing. Reading it over and really thinking about it mikey was making a good move that didn't work out (he probably gave away a trademark mikey tell that clark picked up on). for clarks sake the reverse implied odds argument i don't like because by the time you are pressuring him he has probably already put you on a range. in this situation i am guessing he put you on a small pair. your pressure is fine by him he is pretty sure he has you beat (obviously not sure enough, since mikey is a very good player and does creative stuff, to reraise) but alas math is an important factor so lets let me do it this time, to hell with mikey and his "new math"
TM=0 QQ, QT, AA, KK, xx, yy if mikey has any of these he played the flop like shit and should die.
TB=.5 mikey don't have anything
TV=.5 AQ anyone
ie i like clarks call on the river but has room for discussion
RM=0 see TM
RB=1 since RM and RV are 0
RV=0 mikey says it himself
obviously i like clarks call on the river
Anyway, i flipped again and like clarks play.
I agree that in general, slow-playing sets is retarded (and I rarely do it). But this was a totally dry flop, so there isn't any sort of draw that could come in on the turn. If I had a set here, slow-playing it wouldn't have been *that* bad.
And do you really think I am bluffing 1/2 the time here? I bluff a lot, yes. But it's probably something like 1/3 of the time when I'm feeling really saucy.
Also, I won't deny that you should call me down sometimes when you have Clark's hand. If you don't, I'll probably run you over (like can be done to Leo or non-internet-superstar Scott). But it's only a good call in the game theory sense that I need to be kept honest every once in a while. On the other hand, if you call me down every time here I think you will end up losing a lot.
I'll respond more completely and finish this up sometime this weekend.
Here are some links that I believe will be interested
im glad rik approves, i win.
Your site is on top of my favourites - Great work I like it.
»
Post a Comment
<< Home