01-14-2014 03:35 PM
#76
| |
01-14-2014 08:04 PM
#77
| |
| |
01-14-2014 08:04 PM
#78
| |
| |
01-15-2014 02:04 AM
#79
| |
|
Did I play it right? |
01-15-2014 02:13 AM
#80
| |
brag thread is this way | |
01-15-2014 10:05 PM
#81
| |
I decided not to set trip tens, what do you think? | |
01-15-2014 11:06 PM
#82
| |
01-16-2014 04:22 AM
#83
| |
Had an interesting decision on the 3rd draw: | |
01-21-2014 05:23 PM
#84
| |
Do you discard the 8 on the first draw the way I did? | |
01-22-2014 11:58 PM
#85
| |
|
In spots like these, you have to ask yourself, "Why did I set the K up there in the first place?" To get to FL, of course. If you're not willing to play the K in this spot, it takes a lot of the point out of setting FL cards on top. Not being able to set the 8 on the bottom isn't that big of a deal. You still have two 8s, three 9s, and two Js to hit with three draws to come. The bigger issue is the mid, which is a naked 4 after this play and must make 2-pair to avoid fouling. As the hand played out, you did, but I'd need MadMojoMonkey to tell me the odds of avoiding a foul after this play. I imagine this line leads to fouling fairly often, but when you make a hand you get that tasty 8-point bonus on top and the bounty of FL. |
01-23-2014 02:28 AM
#86
| |
on my second to last draw the six goes mid. i also put the eight in back for trips but should i have set the ace up front instead for fl? | |
01-23-2014 11:11 AM
#87
| |
|
As you played it, you needed to catch one of the last two aces or two kings on the end to make FL, but your hand was foulprooof. If you had put the Ace on top and mucked the 8, you would have had one 8, two Js, and three 9s as outs. With 6 outs for the last draw, I would set the A on top and go for it. It's all about FL, bro. |
01-25-2014 09:03 PM
#88
| |
|
Did I set it right? |
01-26-2014 12:55 PM
#89
| |
|
Your set is geared toward making FL by catching 8s-up or better in the back and 3s-up or another small 2-pair in the mid. Since I see making FL as the main point of POFC, I think it has a lot of merit, although it sucks some that one of your Ks and one of your 3s are dead. The only other plays that seem reasonable to me are xxx/82/K32, setting the 3-flush, and K/83/22. In the first set, with only one of your clubs gone, the flush is very likely to get there, but it's going to be harder to make an FL hand, and the 4 points you get for making the flush aren't that big of a deal in POFC. Setting the deuces low might be best, since roughly 37% of the time you'll catch at least one more deuce by the end of the hand, and even when you don't, you can usually manage to make 2-pair better than 8s up on the bottom, so your goals are fairly similar to the set you made. |
01-26-2014 01:40 PM
#90
| |
Adding on to what OneByPhi said, I'd probably set it | |
01-26-2014 02:24 PM
#91
| |
|
You may be right about the 8 in the bottom being better. I have been favoring the 8 in the mid there, but I see your point about the relative strength of 8s. I'll try your suggestion for a while, thanks, MMM. |
01-26-2014 04:36 PM
#92
| |
Did I set it right for pine? Some would say both q and k in front. Some might do K / A5 / JQ suited. In regular ofc some would put queen front, king mid and ace back. | |
01-26-2014 11:06 PM
#93
| |
I go back and forth between setting AKQxx hands. Right now, I tend to set KQ/A/xx, with the xx varying on value. | |
01-30-2014 05:29 PM
#94
| |
|
Did I play it right? |
01-30-2014 06:20 PM
#95
| |
01-30-2014 08:52 PM
#96
| |
|
I would have set the hand very differently. I think a strong case could be made that Q/52/77 might be the "best" play. |
01-31-2014 07:41 AM
#97
| |
02-01-2014 01:54 PM
#98
| |
Do you set king mid? | |
02-01-2014 01:57 PM
#99
| |
yeah. | |
02-01-2014 02:08 PM
#100
| |
What about setting the king mid here? | |
02-01-2014 04:53 PM
#101
| |
|
I usually set Q / K / 8 8 7, but I have no argument that it's any better than what you did. Your route gives you 6 live Ks and Qs for FL, leaves the mid open to find 2 small pairs, and has a pair with a live kicker low. That route seems pretty playable, but I'd need somebody better at math than I am to figure out how often you'll make a K or a Q on top and 2 small pair or AA in the mid compared to how often you'll make FL down the other route. |
02-01-2014 06:56 PM
#102
| |
Yeah, we need bots. I like being able to get to fl with any additional Q or K in front. It would be good to see how whyfrontK and whymidK do against each other and against other bots over millions of hands. They'd have to face other bots to see who does better when there are still 3 kings in the deck as opposed to when they play each other and there are only 2. | |
02-01-2014 08:41 PM
#103
| |
pair in back or 3 to a flush in back? | |
02-02-2014 12:03 PM
#104
| |
Well, I mean, maybe not necessarily "ridiculously" hard to solve. Just an order of scale up from asking if you'll draw certain cards. Like, asking the kind of questions about drawing cards can be solved in less than 15 minutes (usually much less once the first solution is found). However, asking how cards are drawn AND played involves the sequence of the draw, not merely the occurrence of the draw. | |
02-02-2014 12:09 PM
#105
| |
Lately, I'd only break a pair to play a 3-flush if it's a 3-card straight-flush that is unblocked. I generally avoid playing the first flush card I draw if it's not a straight-flush out, or my opponent has blocked me. I'm not really certain that this is always best, but it has a lot of options for development as the hand develops. | |
02-02-2014 12:41 PM
#106
| |
| |
02-02-2014 01:37 PM
#107
| |
Yes, I'd set that hand that way, and the first hand the first way. | |
02-03-2014 01:56 AM
#108
| |
|
|
02-03-2014 11:55 AM
#109
| |
Maybe I overvalue the 2 pair escape route but I do value high connected cards more than low connected cards for the back. For example, I am much more comfortable setting 7 9 T in back than 3 5 6. This is because a draw like T 7 gives me a high 2 pair in back such that I can set a lower 2 pair mid. However, the 356 hand is pretty much limited to flush/straight/trips unless I have a pair of aces or something mid. | |
02-03-2014 03:29 PM
#110
| |
My only issue with solving this kind of problem is asking the right question. That starts the ball rolling and creates an idea-space where the appropriate form of tractable questions becomes more and more apparent. | |
02-04-2014 09:11 PM
#111
| |
Setting the boat in back and the flush mid also gives us 6 back plus 4*2 mid or 14 royalties but I think we have a better chance of scooping this way. | |
02-05-2014 04:49 AM
#112
| |
|
Did I set it right? |
02-05-2014 11:16 AM
#113
| |
|
I think the QQ has so much value as an FL pair that it just has to be played on top. I'd set: QQ/6/T9. |
02-05-2014 11:51 AM
#114
| |
02-05-2014 11:55 AM
#115
| |
OneByPhi is correct about the Q's value for a FL hand being too great to ignore. | |
02-05-2014 03:03 PM
#116
| |
this is why I keep the front clear for fl. | |
02-05-2014 03:48 PM
#117
| |
| |
02-05-2014 04:16 PM
#118
| |
It's another hand where WAZZUP fouls on 13th and discards a card that would have prevented foul. In this case, not only prevented foul, but achieved FL, too. | |
02-05-2014 04:19 PM
#119
| |
FWIW, the chances of drawing a wired pair of K's or Q's on the final draw for Eric were something like ~1.8%. While it's def. a good idea to leave the hand open, if it's convenient for the other hands, it's also important have a bit of perspective of the equity. | |
02-05-2014 05:38 PM
#120
| |
02-06-2014 03:10 AM
#121
| |
|
Did I play it right? |
02-06-2014 10:55 AM
#122
| |
|
There are wild disagreements about how to set a hand like this--I would have set it AA/5/J8 because I think that if you're lucky enough to be dealt an FL pair, it should always go on top--but let's just look at the line you took after the set. (I should grant that with the cards that actually came, I would have fouled with my set, but I'd argue that over the long haul it's still likely to be a more profitable line.) |
02-06-2014 12:12 PM
#123
| |
As usual, your analysis is excellent, OneByPhi. | |
02-06-2014 04:38 PM
#124
| |
|
Sorry, I should have worded that something like "at best, you have 5 hearts to hit out of the unknown cards that remain." I get that from the standpoint of figuring the odds, you treat all cards unknown to you (even those that your opponent mucks, and therefore knows, but you have not seen) the same. I also get that both in physics and philosophy you can make a case that "the observer""creates" his experience, but--for no other reason than that it seems to best explain my experience--I presume that once my opponent has seen a card, it has moved from the realm of the unknown to the realm of the known. And even though I don't know what they are, my opponent has mucked some specific cards, so some of my perceived outs might be dead. |
02-06-2014 08:36 PM
#125
| |
| |
02-07-2014 03:33 AM
#126
| |
Where I am right now in my thinking...I am really against splitting up pairs to play draws if it means my middle is totally worthless to start. And I almost never split up pairs to play a draw that involves a FL card unless it's like 4 to a SF or something. Obviously this leads to royalties on bottom less often, but the less frequent boats and having a spot to dump a card along the way when you're basically playing for high 2 pair on bottom is nice. | |
Last edited by baudib; 02-07-2014 at 03:36 AM.
| |
02-07-2014 12:58 PM
#127
| |
|
I'd set this the same way, but I would have set the hand you posted, which has a fairly similar texture, differently. Both in the case of QJ T5 5 and the case of J9554 the basic question is: where should the small pair go? With QJ T5 5, the presence of an FL card for the top and the largish suited connector on the bottom make it easy to see that setting the small pair in the middle is the most flexible set. You don't really mind putting a third 5 in the mid if you can make a straight or a flush low, and you always have the fallback strategy of converting to a FL pair/2-pair/2-pair structure. |
02-08-2014 06:59 AM
#128
| |
Thanks for reply. I think your set has a ton of merit. However, I find it really rough to put the 4 up top, as having the option to set AQ up top (with all of them live) is really important. If I were to play J9 on bottom, I'd probably still go 554 in the middle. | |
| |
02-08-2014 08:13 AM
#129
| |
02-09-2014 02:29 AM
#130
| |
Did I play it right? | |
02-09-2014 10:27 AM
#131
| |
|
I think you're looking for the brags, beats, etc. thread, which is here: |
02-10-2014 01:09 AM
#132
| |
lol, I agree quad aces in the middle and sf in back is something to brag about. | |
02-10-2014 03:58 PM
#133
| |
| |
02-10-2014 07:19 PM
#134
| |
Sorry@ didn't mean to post it here | |
| |
02-10-2014 09:40 PM
#135
| |
baudib, | |
02-11-2014 11:13 AM
#136
| |
|
How would you set this as dealer in a 3-handed game? |
02-11-2014 12:31 PM
#137
| |
| |
02-11-2014 01:18 PM
#138
| |
That fully live 3-flush is super tasty. | |
02-11-2014 08:27 PM
#139
| |
|
Indeed. And I set it as you and baudib would have. Not to be results-oriented, but I ended up catching 4 more spades, but fouling after making AA on top and catching one more 9, but failing to get 2-pair in the mid. If I had set, |
Last edited by OneByPhi; 02-11-2014 at 09:14 PM. | |
02-11-2014 10:54 PM
#140
| |
Interesting. While I obviously would have chosen to do what you did, the fact that your cards are SO SO live makes J4 an interesting play. | |
| |
02-12-2014 04:24 AM
#141
| |
|
Did I play it right? |
02-12-2014 10:17 AM
#142
| |
|
Your hand would be very marginally (probably insignificantly) better if you just flip the 3s on top to the bottom and move the 4s up. However, there are two alternative sets to consider. |
Last edited by OneByPhi; 02-12-2014 at 10:58 AM. | |
02-12-2014 10:53 AM
#143
| |
Splitting quads was a mistake, I think. Whatever the result on this hand, you would get to stay in FL if you played the quads. Unless you could gain 12 points more than quads by breaking the quads... unless that, then you're highest EV is to gain an additional FL by placing quads. | |
02-12-2014 12:11 PM
#144
| |
|
thats why i was wondering ....quads gave me very little else though and it was a fantasy land hand |
02-13-2014 08:48 PM
#145
| |
How do you play the third draw? | |
02-14-2014 02:45 AM
#146
| |
Seems like a pretty straight-forward play, as far as the A is concerned. | |
02-14-2014 03:01 AM
#147
| |
|
As you face the decision on the 3rd draw, you see 9 diamonds, counting the ace in your hand, so if you place the A on top, you have 4 diamonds to catch, and you also need to improve the mid. There are only 4 outs left for the mid: one 8, one 3, and two 2s. You have to hit both 4-outers to make FL, and you foul if you miss. However, if you play the A low, you not only make the flush, you still have the same chance to hit two 4-outers for FL on the 4th draw because you have the same four outs for the mid and 2 As and 2 Ks on top for 4 outs there. It just has to be better to take a sure 4 points and have a virtually foulproof hand that still preserves the same number of outs. |
02-14-2014 09:13 PM
#148
| |
For this pine hand do you set the 3 club flush in back or set the King in front the way I did? | |
02-14-2014 09:46 PM
#149
| |
|
I'd play it xxx/55/K83, but I think your play is fine. The advantage of my set is that the 3-flush will usually get there and the pair in the mid is well on the way to 2-pair or trips; the disadvantage is that I'm not exploiting the FL card. However, there are 3 As, 3 Ks, and 4 Qs still in the deck, and I'd argue that this set is less prone to fouling. The advantage of your set is that it gets the K on top right away and has a pair in the bottom to build on; the disadvantage is that if you make KK up, you have just the bare 3 to start from to build a hand that beats KK. |
Last edited by OneByPhi; 02-15-2014 at 01:43 AM. | |
02-14-2014 10:48 PM
#150
| |
Eric: In post 145, why would you set the in the mid instead of playing 3 diamonds on bottom? | |
| |