> 1. Call and lose > 2. Call and win > 3. Fold and Bert Folds > 4. Fold and Bert calls and loses > 5. Fold and Bert wins > > And this model needs to include an estimate of P(Bert > calling) and P(Bert winning). If I have time tonight I > will work on this to see how sensitive the EVs are to > these variables and perhaps find some significant bounds > for them. Yeah, this is what I did when I originally responded. I don't think the overall EV function is very sensitive to changes in P(Bert calls), though. When Bert calls and wins, you lose money (vis-a-vis calling with the sixes). When Bert calls and loses, you gain money. When Bert folds, you lose money. The thing is that Bert's chance of winning is directly related to his probability of calling - the more Bert calls, the less he wins. Also, in the course of this discussion, we've stipulated that the read of "maniac has random cards" is true, but it's worth considering that it might not be - just because J2 is a bad hand, there are still 48 hands that have less equity against a random hand. If the maniac will fold all his 52 and 43 and 62, that changes the equity of both 66 and bert's two random cards. In fact, if the maniac will fold all hands where both cards are six or lower (except pairs), 66's equity falls to 60.68% and the maniac is only folding 10% of his hands. When I analyzed this, I only got a range of about $300 difference between "Bert calls with everything" and "Bert calls with nothing." Of course, assumptions are pretty key here - it's just hard to know what kind of skill adjustments there are when the blinds and antes are 8% of the chips in play. (I did make a skill adjustment, however). One cool feature of doing this analysis is that you get a pretty good sense of how hard it is to adjust your equity substantially by changing your calling ranges against a random hand. There are a few hands that really do well, and then a whole slew of hands that do around the same. 68% of hands are between 40 and 60% against a random hand, and 34% are between 45 and 55%. You just can't call that much and keep your equity high. Jerrod AnkenmanJerrod is correct.
The initial model branches are not
1. Call and lose
2. Call and win
3, Fold
They are:
1. Call and lose
2. Call and win
3. Fold and Bert Folds
4. Fold and Bert calls and loses
5. Fold and Bert wins
And this model needs to include an estimate of P(Bert calling) and P(Bert winning). If I have time tonight I will work on this to see how sensitive the EVs are to these variables and perhaps find some significant bounds for them.
Crunch
Jerrod Ankenman wrote:
> In the end, this may be another one of those situations > where the right play may counteract what the math > dictates........ I hope you mean, "what the mathematical models that have been used here dictate." There are no decisions in poker where the right play is something different than "what the math dictates," for sufficiently robust models. And there is no information that a player can have that can't be modeled mathematically. Anyway, it's a pretty good thing for me if people muck 66 in the small blind, so feel free. Jerrod Ankenman
Hi Steve et al........Let me throw my 2 cents in on this one........Given the "whole situation" as it was laid out from Steve's point of view in his original post, if I were in his shoes, I'd probably have mucked my 66.
Here's why: Given his stack size and position, I'd opt for the option of being the aggressor & pushing my chips in (& forcing the other 2 to make a decision), rather than calling off all of my chips with a fair-only hand as described, and Bert in the BB behind me yet to act.
If you're in Bert's position, and the maniac pushes and Steve calls off all of his chips allin, what hand do you have to hold to make a call for all your chips as the short stack? Remember now, with the 2 of them allin, the net result will be that either Steve loses, and Bert has now advanced to a 2nd place payday (a significant increase!!) or that Steve is now the chip leader and the maniac is virtually down to the felt with only 10K or so left. Knowing Bert as I do, he only calls with AA, KK or QQ here.
Now, let's factor in some other info & complicate this particular situation a bit.......
IMO, Bert is a well below average player. Funny thing about this scenario is that just the other day Greg & I had a conversation specifically about him, and after comparing our experiences, we're both pretty much in agreement. I base my opinion of his skill level upon having played many (50+) tournaments with him over the past 4-5 years. I'm fully aware that he's finished in the $$ enough over the past 2-3 years that if one judges strictly by results, one would have to give him a fair amount of credit for solid play. It is my opinion that his success in this regard is simply based upon the fact that his over-agressive/semi-maniac loose style of play has worked out for him recently, but, anyone who watches his play with somewhat of a critical eye will quickly see through him. Another thing that Bert does really well is to "talk himself up" at the table. To hear him talk about it, he's the only one who knows what's going on at the table. He's actually pretty good at creating a table image for himself that compliments his style. He will use this tactic to bully, bluff and blunder his way through many situations.
Given the above, AND given the specifics of this particular situation, it's my feeling that if one mucks the 6's, Bert will call with such a wide range of hands, that it is positve EV for you to let him do exactly that. Once the SB mucks, Bert is much more likely to defend his BB against another maniac. I'd just as soon get out of the way and let him do that, and be prepared to deal with the resulting dynamic change of the table, regardless of what happens.
In the end, this may be another one of those situations where the right play may counteract what the math dictates........
John DeRose
Gregory Raymer wrote:
Only slightly better than Bert? Then you really must suck, because Bert
makes about as many bad decisions as you can make when playing poker. What
he has going for him is the classic tourney play of aggression. That is why
he can have so many successful results. Also, for some reason, even though
he calls with any piece of the board, and has done so for years, people
still try to constantly bluff him out of pots. It's like, they know their
AK (which has now missed the flop) is better than what Bert started with, so
they deserve to win, and they're going to keep betting until they do (or the
hand is over, whichever comes first).Your comment in another post about Bert folding hands to you where he had
some of the board, or a good draw, is unparalleled. Unless he showed you
his cards, I don't believe he had anything at all when he folded. Because
he doesn't fold those hands to anybody else that I'm aware of.Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Daniel" <stephen.daniel(deleted the rest)>
Cc: "Barge Temporary" <barge(deleted the rest)>; "BayAreaPokerList"
<ba-poker(deleted the rest)>; "SouthernCaliforniaPokerList"
<socal-poker(deleted the rest)>; "FARGO" <fargo(deleted the rest)>
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 10:34 PM
Subject: [FARGO] Is 3:2 Enough? Thanks> This analysis does not take into account my estimate that I am a slightly
> better player than C________________________
PokerStars is the official sponsor of FARGO 2003. Please visit http://wwww.pokerstars.com and patronize our sponsor.
______________________________________________
FARGO mailing list
FARGO(deleted the rest)
http://mail.conjelco.com/mailman/listinfo/fargo