Pineapple Strategy Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric

What about setting the king mid here?

OneByPhi
X / 6:d: 3:h: 2:d: / J:s: 5:s:

Eric (dealer)
K:s: Q:d: / X / 8:s: 8:c: 7:c:

---

I usually set Q:d: / K:s: / 8:s: 8:c: 7:c:, 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.

The other way leans heavily on catching a K and a Q down the road. If you do, FL is virtually guaranteed since it's easy to improve the bottom. But if the Q doesn't come, you are dimishingly unlikely to make FL--yeah, you could backdoor AA on top, make Ks-up in the mid and hit trips or better low, but it won't happen often enough. And even when the Q comes, you either need to catch a K, backdoor AA, or make 2 small pair (and, incidentally, often you'll end up in that uncomforatble spot on the 3rd draw when you have 2 open slots in the mid, catch a card that makes you a small pair in the mid, and then have to decide whether to make that pair to try to catch 2 pair on the end or leave that open for a K).

The basic question seems to be that when you're in position with KQ887 and villain holds none of your cards, are you more likely to hit a K or a Q on top and 2 small pair or AA in the mid (what set 1 needs) or a Q on top and a K or AA or 2 small pair in the mid (what set 2 needs)? I know that there are some other longshot possibilites, but I think that solving this would give you a pretty good idea.

But MMM has told me that these kinds of problems (branching in both the top and the mid) are ridiculously hard to solve, and I know you had posted about getting a hand simulator, Eric. This one is probably easier to solve by running large numbers of random hands and comparing results (a la Pokerstove) than by brute force of math. Although if anyone can, that would be awesome.

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.

pair in back or 3 to a flush in back?

Eric
X / 4:s: 2:h: / 7:s: 7:c: T:s:

OneByPhi (dealer)
K:h: / 4:d: 2:s: A:s: / 9:h:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneByPhi

The basic question seems to be that when you're in position with KQ887 and villain holds none of your cards, are you more likely to hit a K or a Q on top and 2 small pair or AA in the mid (what set 1 needs) or a Q on top and a K or AA or 2 small pair in the mid (what set 2 needs)? I know that there are some other longshot possibilites, but I think that solving this would give you a pretty good idea.

But MMM has told me that these kinds of problems (branching in both the top and the mid) are ridiculously hard to solve, and I know you had posted about getting a hand simulator, Eric. This one is probably easier to solve by running large numbers of random hands and comparing results (a la Pokerstove) than by brute force of math. Although if anyone can, that would be awesome.

---

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.

It's not enough to just draw any 2 pairs over the next 9 cards; you have to draw them AND play them. Since you don't get all 9 cards at once, then drawing any 2 pairs is not necessarily (or even likely) a "successful" draw.

I can solve this, but I'd need to solve a bunch of intermediate steps, since the original question is poorly stated. There are a LOT of ways to draw and play cards which can result in a final hand value of 2 pair. In order to solve the equity for that primary case, we need to sum the equities of all the subsidiary cases that lead to the primary case being achieved.

So I'd need to answer a question like, "What is the equity to draw at least 1 K or Q and also making 2-pair in the mid, if I place a wired pair to the mid on the first draw, having NOT drawn a K or Q, then on the 2nd draw I place a kicker and a K or Q, then on either the 3rd or 4th draw I pair my kicker."

So you need to state the entire line for which you want to solve the equity, in order to solve the equity. Then, you have to state every possible line that leads to a successful outcome, and solve for the equity of each line. Then, you sum the equities from all those results.

There is no individual step that is prohibitively hard. The hard part is being creative enough to identify every possible route to success. After that, it's just plugging numbers into a simple formula that has been known for decades.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric

pair in back or 3 to a flush in back?

Eric
X / 4:s: 2:h: / 7:s: 7:c: T:s:

OneByPhi (dealer)
K:h: / 4:d: 2:s: A:s: / 9:h:

---

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.

OneByPhi, what are your thoughts on breaking a 3-flush to make a pair + kicker on the set?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

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.


OneByPhi, what are your thoughts on breaking a 3-flush to make a pair + kicker on the set?

---

For some reason it seems like straight draws have a lot more potential in pine than regular ofc.
Suppose I had the 9:s: instead of the 4:s: so that we could do this set:
X / 2:h: 7:c: / 7:s: 9:s: T:s:


We're utg so we don't know whether this sf is blocked. If I draw any 8 or spade then it probably goes down low. I prefer completing any straight or flush as opposed to waiting for the sf. One reason for this is that all I need is a high 2 pair or better in back to build front and mid for fl.

Yes, I'd set that hand that way, and the first hand the first way.

I feel like the +15 for the straight-flush is worth waiting for on the first draw, as long as it's not blocked. I know that it's a terrible long shot, but not nearly so long a shot as in any other poker game. Like you pointed out, with so many ways to make a straight or flush, not to mention 2-pair and trips, it's a low-risk/high reward play... I think.

I wouldn't let the hand go unimproved, if given the option to improve it, on the 2nd draw.

***
FWIW, when you're first to act with no information about anything but your own cards, nothing is blocked. It's not that you don't know if it's blocked. In fact, you know the opposite... unless you're cheating... but I digress.

Perhaps I'm just nit-picking terminology there. Mathematically, the reason something becomes blocked, i.e. an impossible outcome, is when the probability distribution function collapses due to the revelation of new information. Until that information is revealed, it is still a part of the foreseeable future outcome of the hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

OneByPhi, what are your thoughts on breaking a 3-flush to make a pair + kicker on the set?

---

It's kinda late and I just surfed in and saw this. I probably should think more about this, but here are the first few thoughts that come to mind:

It depends on the texture of the hand. I think 3-flushes have some value in that they will very often make a bottom hand worth 4 points and provide a base strong enough to support 2-pair or trips in the mid and FL on top. I agree that they are especially valuable if they make a straight flush draw. Of course, if the hand has other features that offer a better opportunity to profit, I will happily break a 3-flush.

Eric's set xxx/4:s:2:h:/7:s:7:c:T:s: looks like a good spot to break the 3-flush to me. If he sets the 3-flush, he ends up with
xxx/:2:h:7:c:/7:s:T:s:4:s:, which leaves an ugly mid with one of its outs already gone.

But I'd rather set xxx/5:c:6:c:/6:d:9:d:J:d: than xxx/5:c:6:c:6:d:/9:d:J:d:. The opportunity to make 2 flushes or a flush and a straight is significant enough that I'd rather break the pair.

In general, the more connected the other two cards are, the more likely I am to try to get value out of the 3-flush.

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:c: 9:c: T:c: in back than 3:c: 5:c: 6:c:. This is because a draw like T:h: 7:h: 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

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.

It's not enough to just draw any 2 pairs over the next 9 cards; you have to draw them AND play them. Since you don't get all 9 cards at once, then drawing any 2 pairs is not necessarily (or even likely) a "successful" draw.

I can solve this, but I'd need to solve a bunch of intermediate steps, since the original question is poorly stated. There are a LOT of ways to draw and play cards which can result in a final hand value of 2 pair. In order to solve the equity for that primary case, we need to sum the equities of all the subsidiary cases that lead to the primary case being achieved.

So I'd need to answer a question like, "What is the equity to draw at least 1 K or Q and also making 2-pair in the mid, if I place a wired pair to the mid on the first draw, having NOT drawn a K or Q, then on the 2nd draw I place a kicker and a K or Q, then on either the 3rd or 4th draw I pair my kicker."

So you need to state the entire line for which you want to solve the equity, in order to solve the equity. Then, you have to state every possible line that leads to a successful outcome, and solve for the equity of each line. Then, you sum the equities from all those results.

There is no individual step that is prohibitively hard. The hard part is being creative enough to identify every possible route to success. After that, it's just plugging numbers into a simple formula that has been known for decades.

---

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.

In general, if you present me with a question I can answer, then I'll be too intrigued to NOT solve it.

So guess whatever line you think has the highest equity (or any line, but that gives you some direction) and ask me the equity of achieving that line. Once we know that, we can find the equity for another line. Eventually, we have all the lines, and we sum the equities.

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.

Eric
:ofcset::8c::ofcset::ks::ofcset::kc:
:ofcset::6c::ofcset::6d::ofcset::6s::ofcset::9s::o fcset::ts:
:ofcset::7d::ofcset::td::ofcset::jd::ofcset::qd::o fcset::5d:
Discard: 4:club:


Wazzup (dealer)
:ofcset::2d::ofc7::3h::ofc13::qc:
:ofcset::js::ofcset::5h::ofc7::9d::ofc9::4s::ofc11 ::9h:
:ofcset::ac::ofcset::tc::ofc9::3c::ofc11::kd::ofc1 3::jh:
Discard: 2:spade: 2:heart: 7:heart: T:heart:

Did I set it right?

bandrei17 (dealer)
X / T:h: 6:h: / 9:s: Q:h: Q:d:

Wazzup
Q:s: / A:h: / 3:h: 3:d: 6:c:

I think the QQ has so much value as an FL pair that it just has to be played on top. I'd set: Q:h:Q:d:/6:h:/T:h:9:s:.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric

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.

Eric
:ofcset::8c::ofcset::ks::ofcset::kc:
:ofcset::6c::ofcset::6d::ofcset::6s::ofcset::9s::o fcset::ts:
:ofcset::7d::ofcset::td::ofcset::jd::ofcset::qd::o fcset::5d:
Discard: 4:club:


Wazzup (dealer)
:ofcset::2d::ofc7::3h::ofc13::qc:
:ofcset::js::ofcset::5h::ofc7::9d::ofc9::4s::ofc11 ::9h:
:ofcset::ac::ofcset::tc::ofc9::3c::ofc11::kd::ofc1 3::jh:
Discard: 2:spade: 2:heart: 7:heart: T:heart:

---

I like your set.

WAZZUP fouled on 13th when it played the J on the bottom and discarded a T.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bandrei17

Did I set it right?

bandrei17 (dealer)
X / T:h: 6:h: / 9:s: Q:h: Q:d:

Wazzup
Q:s: / A:h: / 3:h: 3:d: 6:c:

---

OneByPhi is correct about the Q's value for a FL hand being too great to ignore.

In general, I'd say a pair of Q's should always be set up top. If you had trip Q's, that'd be a tough one. I'd consider Q's up top and the 3rd Q to the mid. I'm not sure, but I think this is more powerful as a FL hand than the strength of setting trips on the bottom.

this is why I keep the front clear for fl.

Eric
:ofc11::9d::ofc13::ah::ofc13::ad:
:ofcset::as::ofcset::ac::ofcset::2s::ofc7::5s::ofc 11::5d:
:ofcset::ts::ofcset::8d::ofc7::jd::ofc9::jc::ofc9: :js:
Discard: 4:diamond: K:spade: 8:club: T:diamond:


Wazzup (dealer)
:ofcset::qs::ofc9::qh::ofc11::jh:
:ofcset::kd::ofc7::7s::ofc7::kh::ofc9::6d::ofc13:: 9c:
:ofcset::4h::ofcset::4c::ofcset::8h::ofc11::qc::of c13::9h:
Discard: 7:diamond: 5:heart: 3:heart: 8:spade:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric

this is why I keep the front clear for fl.

---

Amen. Giving yourself extra chances to make FL (or royalties) is an important part of getting all of the value that you can out of your cards.

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.

Also, I think there's a mistake on 11th. WAZZUP played the Q on the bottom, and discarded the 3. Unfortunately, there's no good argument to leave the middle open. Also, the Q is really blocked and the 3 is fully live. Card value is not important in this case, just the best shot at avoiding foul.

7 outs to make 2-pair or trips on the final draw is 61%.

In this case, with this board, the chance to draw a wired pair is 16.6%, which is basically 1/6 ( = 16.7%), our rough guess from another thread. The chance to draw one of 4 outs to make 2-pair or trips is 39.5%. Adding those together is 56.1%, which is an OVER estimate (because sometimes we draw BOTH a pair and an out, and we counted THOSE cases twice)...

So it's once again better to place a live card than to leave it open.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

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.

---

Yes, knowing the odds is key.

Did I play it right?

JUKER1
:ofc7::qd::ofc11::2d::ofc13::jd:
:ofcset::8c::ofcset::ac::ofcset::ah::ofc9::6s::ofc 9::7c:
:ofcset::jh::ofcset::5h::ofc7::3h::ofc11::kh::ofc1 3::th:
Discard: K:spade: 9:diamond: 7:spade: 9:club:


Wazzup (dealer)
:ofcset::2s::ofc11::8s::ofc13::7h:
:ofcset::8d::ofcset::4d::ofc7::8h::ofc9::tc::ofc11 ::td:
:ofcset::qh::ofcset::9h::ofc7::as::ofc9::jc::ofc13 ::5d:
Discard: 6:diamond: 4:spade: 4:heart: 4:club:

There are wild disagreements about how to set a hand like this--I would have set it A:c:A:h:/5:h:/J:h:8:c: 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.)

Anyway, when the first draw brings Q:d:K:s:3:h:, I agree that putting the 3:h: on the bottom is automatic, but putting the Q:d: on top instead of the K:s: doesn't make much sense. WAZZUP is showing you a Q, but the Ks are fully live, so you should play the K:s: up instead of the Q:d: because not only is the K more live than the Q, but it also pays 1 more point in royalties if you make a pair on top. When the next draw brings 9:d:7:c:6:s:, I think it's a better to play 9:d: up and the fully-live 7:c: in the mid (because if another K doesn't come, you can still make 99 up for 4 points, and this play leaves a space in the mid to make trip As or two pair if the flush comes for the bottom). The third draw comes K:h:7:s:2:d:, leaving you with a tough decision. Do you make the FL pair up and 2-pair in the mid (relying on catching 2 hearts on the end), or set the K:h: low and the 7:s: mid, giving you a 4-flush on the bottom and 2-pair in the mid? Since you can see 8 hearts between your hand and WAZZUP's, and WAZZUP may have mucked one or more hearts for all you know, I think playing the K:h: low and the 7:s: mid has to be the better play. When the last draw brings J:d:T:h:9:c:, you play the T:h: low to complete the flush, and the 9:c: on top to finish with this hand:

JUKER1
:ofc7::ks::ofc9::9d::ofc13::9c:
:ofcset::8c::ofcset::ac::ofcset::ah::ofc9::7c: :ofc11::7s:
:ofcset::jh::ofcset::5h::ofc7::3h::ofc11::kh::ofc1 3::th:
Discard: Q:diamond: 6:spade: 2:diamond: J:diamond:

Notice that it is stronger in both the top and the mid, and it pays 4 points more in royalties than the hand you made with the line you played.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneByPhi

[...]Since you can see 8 hearts between your hand and WAZZUP's, and WAZZUP may have mucked one or more hearts for all you know, [...]

---

As usual, your analysis is excellent, OneByPhi.

I have a nit to pick with the bold above. Mostly, because while it's "true", it is unhelpful. The cards you can't see are all the same in terms of equity. It doesn't matter where they are, i.e. in the deck or in an opponent's hand. There is nothing to benefit seeing "monsters" in the discards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

I have a nit to pick with the bold above. Mostly, because while it's "true", it is unhelpful. The cards you can't see are all the same in terms of equity. It doesn't matter where they are, i.e. in the deck or in an opponent's hand. There is nothing to benefit seeing "monsters" in the discards.

---

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.

The only remote value of this comes in some rare late-hand situations. If I face a 50-50 decision on the last draw (especially in a 3-handed game that allows me to see a lot of the deck), I will sometimes make decisions influenced by whether my opponents are likely to have mucked a specific card. Say I have

A:s:Q:d:A:c:
3:h:4:h:3:c:
T:c:9:c:T:d:

and I catch K:h:4:d:5:h:. I quickly play the 4:d: to the mid, and then look around to see that only one K and one 5 remain, and my opponents' top hands are AK and KQ. From the standpoint of making FL, it doesn't matter which card I set as a kicker because Ts-up is good enough to qualify my hand. But if either of my opponents had seen the case K, they would have played it, whereas 5s are often highly muckable cards, so I play the K:h: on the bottom, confident that my out is still in the deck.

:goldstar:
I agree that you can make a broad assumption about your opponent avoiding discarding values that help them.

Also, you can generally assume that discards are "low values" more often than not. I'd love to see a statistic about how often each card value appears in the discard pile.

I don't know that you could say this about suits, except under the case of your opponent going for a flush in the same suit.

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.

If I get something like :5c: :5d: :jc: :tc: :qd: I'd probably go Q/55/JT. I could see where dumping :5d: in middle with live A/Ks out could work, but making a small 2 pair when starting with a pair in the middle is so common, it seems like a waste. And JTcc is obviously still a fine drawing hand on bottom.

This hand was sort of debatable, but I wanted at least a live card in the middle with the 4 so dead.

Did I play it right?

baudib (dealer)
:ofc9::8d::ofc9::qc::ofc13::qs:
:ofcset::4c::ofcset::9s::ofc7::7d::ofc7::7c::ofc11 ::9d:
:ofcset::jc::ofcset::5c::ofcset::5h::ofc11::ad::of c13::jd:
Discard: 3:club: 3:heart: 6:diamond: 2:heart:




Wazzup
:ofcset::2c::ofc11::5d::ofc13::js:
:ofc7::th::ofc9::8s::ofc9::ah::ofc11::8c::ofc13::t c:
:ofcset::kh::ofcset::kd::ofcset::4h::ofcset::4s::o fc7::ks:
Discard: 3:diamond: 6:club: 2:spade: 8:heart:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baudib

If I get something like :5c: :5d: :jc: :tc: :qd: I'd probably go Q/55/JT. I could see where dumping :5d: in middle with live A/Ks out could work, but making a small 2 pair when starting with a pair in the middle is so common, it seems like a waste. And JTcc is obviously still a fine drawing hand on bottom.

---

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 Q:d:J:c: T:c:5:c: 5:d: and the case of J:c:9:s:5:c:5:h:4:c: the basic question is: where should the small pair go? With Q:d:J:c: T:c:5:c: 5:d:, 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.

Setting the pair low significantly increases your chance of making a monster on the bottom, but in my experience it can also make it harder to make a mid good enough to beat an FL pair. And since I make getting to FL, not maximizing royalties on the bottom, the first priority on the vast majority of hands, I almost always set pairs 66 or smaller in the mid as long as I have 2 cards in the 8-J range to set low (and especially if they are suited).

I'd have set the hand you posted as 4:c:/5:c:5:h:/J:c:9:s: for similar reasons. The goal with this hand is to make FL pair/2-pair/2-pair, with some chance of lucking into a straight on the bottom. UTG, the 4:c: would go in the middle with the 55, but after WAZZUP shows you two 4s, I think setting it up is a little better, as much as I loathe putting anything but FL cards on the top on the set. This set is less favorable than the previous one because the bottom is one-gapped rather than truly connected and it isn't suited, and you will more frequently have to muck your trip card for the mid if you catch it (especially if you catch it early when the bottom hasn't resolved). But considering that maximizing the chance of making FL is one of the primary goals of every set, I'd argue that this set is better than the one you made.

Granted, you ended up making FL, and even though you never caught another 5, your set gave you a decent chance to make a big hand on the bottom. But, as you pointed out, the 4 you set in the mid had only 1 out, and the 9 in the mid is somewhat problematic because it is bigger than the pair on the bottom if you hit it early but don't hit Js or 5s.

As an exercise, look at how the hand plays out down the other branch: when the first draw brings 7:d:7:c:3:c:, you set 77 in the mid and you have 2-pair made. The next draw is Q:c:8:d:3:h:, Q to the top to establish an FL draw, 8:d: on the bottom to set up a bigger 2-pair draw or backdoor straight draw. The third draw comes A:d:9:d:6:d:, 9 low to make a pair, A in the mid to seal off the mid. Last draw is Q:c:J:d:2:h:, Q on top to make FL pair, J low to make 2-pair, and you're off to the land anyway.

baudib (dealer)
:ofcset::4c::ofc9::qc::ofc13::qs:
:ofcset::5c::ofcset::5h::ofc7::7d::ofc7::7c::ofc11 ::ad:
:ofcset::jc::ofcset::9s::ofc9::8d::ofc11::9d::ofc1 3::jd:
Discard: 3:club: 3:heart: 6:diamond: 2:heart:

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.

Quote:

---

9 in the mid is somewhat problematic because it is bigger than the pair on the bottom if you hit it early but don't hit Js or 5s.

---

I don't think this is really a problem; even in regular OFC, I figure if I don't get trip 5s or Jacks up on the bottom, I'm probably getting scooped anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

:goldstar:
I agree that you can make a broad assumption about your opponent avoiding discarding values that help them.

Also, you can generally assume that discards are "low values" more often than not. I'd love to see a statistic about how often each card value appears in the discard pile.

I don't know that you could say this about suits, except under the case of your opponent going for a flush in the same suit.

---

It would be interesting to look at our data and show the number of times each card was discarded (2 to A ignoring suits).

Did I play it right?

baudib
:ofcset::qh::ofc11::jd::ofc13::9d:
:ofcset::6c::ofc7::as::ofc7::ah::ofc11::ac::ofc13: :ad:
:ofcset::4d::ofcset::8d::ofcset::6d::ofc9::7d::ofc 9::5d:
Discard: 3:heart: 6:spade: 7:club: 2:club:


Wazzup (dealer)
:ofc9::2s::ofc11::5h::ofc13::qc:
:ofcset::5c::ofc7::6h::ofc7::9h::ofc9::8h::ofc11:: 9c:
:ofcset::kc::ofcset::qd::ofcset::js::ofcset::9s::o fc13::th:
Discard: 2:diamond: 2:heart: 4:heart: T:spade:

I think you're looking for the brags, beats, etc. thread, which is here:
http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...5D-196144.html

lol, I agree quad aces in the middle and sf in back is something to brag about. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric

lol, I agree quad aces in the middle and sf in back is something to brag about. :)

---

And since the poster clearly wasn't looking for help with strategy but wanting to share a big hand, it would be more appropriate in the other thread.

Sorry@ didn't mean to post it here

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baudib

Sorry@ didn't mean to post it here

---

baudib,

Don't worry about it. I'd rather have members be active and post in an inexact thread than not post at all.

Congrats on that awesome hand!

I'm also glad that OneByPhi brought it up. If we get too many non-strategy posts in this thread then I'll move them where they need to go.

Cheers,
Eric

How would you set this as dealer in a 3-handed game?

Opp1
K:h:
6:d:5:d:
T:h:T:c:

Opp2
Q:c:
2:h:
8:d:8:h:7:c:

You have J:s:9:c:5:s:5:c:4:s:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneByPhi

How would you set this as dealer in a 3-handed game?

Opp1
K:h:
6:d:5:d:
T:h:T:c:

Opp2
Q:c:
2:h:
8:d:8:h:7:c:

You have J:s:9:c:5:s:5:c:4:s:

---

x
:9c: :5c:
:js: :5s: :4s:

That fully live 3-flush is super tasty.

OOP, I think the set X/554/J9 is probably strongest. However, the revealed info about the T's, 8's and 5's changes things.

Your pair of 5's has only 1 out left. The J9 is blocked for a straight by pairs of T's and 8's and the fact that a Q is not a good straight card, due to value of FL pairs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

That fully live 3-flush is super tasty.

---

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,
xxx
9:c:5:c:5:s:
J:s:4:s:
I would have made FL.

Was that a remotely reasonable set? With 10 spades still out, should I have reasoned that I was likely enough to catch 3 more spades or backdoor Js-up or better that setting the pair of 5s in the mid was the superior play? What do you think, MMM?

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.

Did I play it right?

Keith (dealer)
:ofcset::ad::ofcset::3c::ofcset::3h:
:ofcset::6d::ofcset::7c::ofcset::8c::ofcset::9s::o fcset::ts:
:ofcset::4d::ofcset::4c::ofcset::8h::ofcset::8d::o fcset::8s:
Discard: K:diamond:


Wazzup
:ofcset::qs::ofc11::th::ofc11::js:
:ofcset::jh::ofc7::7s::ofc7::jd::ofc9::qh::ofc13:: 7h:
:ofcset::5h::ofcset::5d::ofcset::9c::ofc9::as::ofc 13::jc:
Discard: 6:heart: 2:spade: T:club: 3:spade:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith

Did I play it right?

---

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.

You make 4 points more in royalties by setting

Keith (dealer)
:ofcset::7c: :ofcset::9s::ofcset::ts:
:ofcset::ad: :ofcset::kd::ofcset::8d::ofcset::6d::ofcset::4d:
:ofcset::8h: :ofcset::8s::ofcset::8c::ofcset::3c::ofcset::3h:
Discard: 4:club:

As the hand turned out, WAZZUP fouled anyway, so the extra royalties would have paid off in this spot, but often you might lose the top with T-high when 44 would allow a scoop, so the 5 points you lose by not getting the scoop make the difference in royalties not worth it. The "right" play shouldn't be evaluated on the basis of what happened in a specific case, but on what the most profitable play is in the long run, and I'm not sure how often you would win the top with 44 (which will beat any hand without a pair and 22 or 33) compared to T-high (which mostly will only win when opp fouls).

However, setting the quad 8s in the bottom is best, even though it makes 4 points less in royalties than the T-high/flush/boat set did because it lets you stay in FL. Furthermore, with 2-pair in the mid and AKT on top, your hand still has decent scoop potential.

Keith (dealer)
:ofcset::ad: :ofcset::kd::ofcset::ts:
:ofcset::4c::ofcset::4d::ofcset::3c::ofcset::3h::o fcset::9s:
:ofcset::8h: :ofcset::8s::ofcset::8c::ofcset::8d::ofcset::7c:
Discard: 6:diamond:

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.

I've only broken quads once... it was to place a straight flush.

thats why i was wondering ....quads gave me very little else though and it was a fantasy land hand

How do you play the third draw?

Eric
:ofcset::ah::ofc11::kc::ofc13::ts:
:ofcset::3c::ofcset::2d::ofc9::8h::ofc9::3h::ofc13 ::6h:
:ofcset::7d::ofcset::6d::ofc7::8d::ofc7::3d::ofc11 ::ad:
Discard: 7:heart: 7:spade: 9:club: 5:heart:


Wazzup (dealer)
:ofcset::kh::ofc11::5s::ofc11::tc:
:ofcset::jd::ofc7::td::ofc7::th::ofc9::8c::ofc13:: js:
:ofcset::7c::ofcset::jc::ofcset::2c::ofc9::qd::ofc 13::jh:
Discard: 4:diamond: 6:club: 2:heart: 2:spade:

Seems like a pretty straight-forward play, as far as the A:d: is concerned.

I feel like the 3rd draw is the fulcrum of the round. After the 3rd draw, there is only 1 draw left... so whatever you have at this point, you might be stuck with it.

So playing the 3rd draw in the safest possible way is generally my go-to plan. If my opponent is FL-ing, I may reconsider... you know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric

How do you play the third draw?

---

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:d: 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:d: 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.

For this pine hand do you set the 3 club flush in back or set the King in front the way I did?

Eric
K:c: / 3:c: / 8:c: 5:d: 5:s:

Wazzup (dealer)
2:d: / 6:c: 4:h: / A:s: 9:d:

I'd play it xxx/5:d:5:s:/K:c:8:c:3:c:, 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.

This is another one of those spots that it would help to have a hand simulator to play tens of thousands of hands to see which set works out best, but I imagine either set should do pretty well over the long haul.

Eric: In post 145, why would you set the :2d: in the mid instead of playing 3 diamonds on bottom?

In many cases, in order to get there on bottom you'll be going for diamonds, and it's not like 32o is an amazing draw in the middle. I could see it if it were the :ad:

Splitting 2 pairs got me to fl early here.


Eric
:ofc9::qh::ofc9::qd::ofc11::th:
:ofcset::8h::ofcset::8c::ofc7::6h::ofc11::8d::ofc1 3::ts:
:ofcset::9d::ofcset::9h::ofcset::7s::ofc7::9c::ofc 13::4d:
Discard: 2:diamond: 4:heart: 4:club: 3:club:


Wazzup (dealer)
:ofcset::kh::ofc11::qs::ofc13::td:
:ofcset::js::ofc7::tc::ofc9::6c::ofc11::as::ofc13: :jh:
:ofcset::2c::ofcset::2s::ofcset::5c::ofc7::5h::ofc 9::5d:
Discard: 2:heart: 3:heart: 7:diamond: 5:spade:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric

Splitting 2 pairs got me to fl early here.

---

I know this is eastsidejohnny's preferred set, and this hand demonstrates why.

What do you think about the way I got there on this one? I'm thinking maybe it is better to set AA mid than front.

Eric
:ofc9::qd::ofc9::kd::ofc13::qc:
:ofcset::ad::ofcset::ac::ofcset::2c::ofcset::6c::o fc7::4c:
:ofcset::js::ofc7::7c::ofc11::6d::ofc11::7h::ofc13 ::jc:
Discard: 2:spade: A:heart: 5:spade: 2:heart:


Wazzup (dealer)
:ofcset::3c::ofc11::4d::ofc13::qs:
:ofcset::8s::ofc7::9h::ofc9::6h::ofc9::th::ofc11:: 9s:
:ofcset::5d::ofcset::5h::ofcset::2d::ofc7::ks::ofc 13::td:
Discard: 3:spade: 3:diamond: 4:spade: 9:club:

Here's one where I didn't make it with AA mid.

Eric
:ofcset::ks::ofc11::qs::ofc11::qc:
:ofcset::ad::ofcset::ac::ofcset::5s::ofc7::7c::ofc 13::8d:
:ofcset::td::ofc7::jc::ofc9::7s::ofc9::7d::ofc13:: qh:
Discard: A:spade: J:spade: 2:club: 3:spade:


Wazzup (dealer)
:ofc11::kh::ofc13::6s::ofc13::kd:
:ofcset::9h::ofcset::8s::ofc7::8c::ofc9::jh::ofc11 ::kc:
:ofcset::6c::ofcset::9c::ofcset::tc::ofc7::qd::ofc 9::th:
Discard: 3:heart: T:spade: 2:spade: 4:club:

How do you guys set this?

Eric
X / 5:c: / 4:d: 4:c: T:s: 9:d:

Wazzup (dealer)
Q:c: / 7:d: / K:d: K:s: 2:h:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric

How do you guys set this?

Eric
X / 5:c: / 4:d: 4:c: T:s: 9:d:

---

This is my standard choice:
X / 4:d: 4:c: 5:c: / T:s: 9:d:
It has it's trouble spots... I'm not convinced this is best.

Sometimes I play it like this:
X / 9:d: 5:c: / 4:d: 4:c: T:s:
It has the bonus of keeping the pair on the bottom, so I'm happy to make trips if the opportunity comes.

My only critique of your play is that you've blocked yourself from boats/quads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

This is my standard choice:
X / 4:d: 4:c: 5:c: / T:s: 9:d:
It has it's trouble spots... I'm not convinced this is best.

---

This is my preferred set, too. I'll grant that it will sometimes miss out on big hands when one or both of the other 4s comes later, but I like it best because it often makes 2 small pair in the mid and the bottom can make Ts-up, 9s-up or some backdoor straight. I'm not absolutely convinced this is best, but I'd be happy to put my money on this set if you run out 1000 hands each, starting with xxx/5:c:/4:d:4:c:T:s:9:d:, xxx/9:d:5:c:/4:d:4:c:T:s:, and xxx/4:d:4:c:5:c:/T:s: 9:d: and see what they can make.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Sometimes I play it like this:
X / 9:d: 5:c: / 4:d: 4:c: T:s:
It has the bonus of keeping the pair on the bottom, so I'm happy to make trips if the opportunity comes.

---

I'm not insisting that I'm right about this, but this seems weaker than the set above. Yes, it does put the made pair low, but the mid is harder to work with. My instinct is that this set will either lead to fouling or a nothing top hand much more often than the previous set.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

My only critique of your play is that you've blocked yourself from boats/quads.

---

Okay, I'll grant that this is pretty harsh, but I think setting xxx/5:c:/4:d: 4:c:T:s:9:d: is indefensible. Sure, the bottom will almost always make Ts-up, 9s-up, or trip 4s, but it can't make anything better than that, and the mid is much weaker than when you set 4:d: 4:c: 5:c: there.

We'll have to get some bots going on this. I don't think my set is that much worse than the others because our main goal is fl as opposed to royalties. It's true that my set limits us to trips in back but it also leaves us a lot of room in the middle.

My 4th draw was a tease.

Eric
:ofcset::kh::ofc7::qh::ofc9::qd:
:ofcset::ah::ofcset::3d::ofc11::as::ofc11::8h::ofc 13::8d:
:ofcset::5s::ofcset::5d::ofc7::9c::ofc9::jd::ofc13 ::js:
Discard: 3:heart: 4:heart: 3:club: A:club:


Wazzup (dealer)
:ofcset::4d::ofc11::9h::ofc13::8s:
:ofcset::jh::ofcset::7h::ofc9::td::ofc9::tc::ofc13 ::6d:
:ofcset::qs::ofcset::2s::ofc7::kd::ofc7::kc::ofc11 ::qc:

These spots happen. They suck bad.

Did I play it right?

Sleepy20_98 (dealer)
:ofc9::ac::ofc11::as::ofc13::9h:
:ofcset::8h::ofc7::8c::ofc9::7h::ofc11::3c::ofc13: :3s:
:ofcset::2c::ofcset::2d::ofcset::5d::ofcset::5c::o fc7::5h:
Discard: 9:diamond: 3:heart: J:diamond: A:diamond:


Wazzup
:ofcset::5s::ofc11::7c::ofc13::ah:
:ofcset::9c::ofcset::6h::ofc7::tc::ofc11::qc::ofc1 3::9s:
:ofcset::qd::ofcset::jc::ofc7::qh::ofc9::qs::ofc9: :kc:

I definitely think you'd be well served to split 2-pair hands on the set. Otherwise, it looks good.

I think your only real decision was on 11th. You had to decide whether to play the A to the top or mid. I think there's a good argument for both cases, but when everything in the middle is as live as can be, then I think that tips it to playing the A up top.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

I think your only real decision was on 11th. You had to decide whether to play the A to the top or mid. I think there's a good argument for both cases, but when everything in the middle is as live as can be, then I think that tips it to playing the A up top.

---

When you play the A up and the 3 to the mid, you have 8 live outs (three 3s, three 7s, two 8s) for the last draw. So, you not only are a significant favorite to make your hand on the last draw, the implied odds of your expectation in FL are giving you a huge overlay to make this play. Yes, you can safeguard your hand by not playing the A up on the thrid draw, but you are giving up 9 points for the AA on top and the bounty of FL when you are something like a 3:2 favorite to get there on the last draw. That's not the way to win at POFC.

Did I play it right?

denzel_dnzl
:ofcset::qs::ofc9::qd::ofc11::6s:
:ofcset::6c::ofcset::5h::ofc7::7d::ofc7::4d::ofc9: :3s:
:ofcset::2d::ofcset::2s::ofc11::9c::ofc13::5c::ofc 13::kd:
Discard: 8:spade: T:club: 5:spade: 6:diamond:


daniel.minciu (dealer)
:ofcset::kc::ofc7::qc::ofc13::qh:
:ofcset::as::ofc9::ad::ofc11::3d::ofc11::ac::ofc13 ::9d:
:ofcset::2h::ofcset::3h::ofcset::jh::ofc7::7h::ofc 9::th:

denzel_dnzl,


I think the 5 card set out of position is ok.


On the first draw I would put the highest live card (8:s:) down on the bottom with the deuces and one of the lower cards in the middle. I don't like the fact that you put 7:d: and 4:d: in the middle on your first draw. Now you must get a straight in the middle and a full house or quads on the bottom. This is not easy - it is better to leave more paths open such as 2 pair over 2 pair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneByPhi

When you play the A up and the 3 to the mid, you have 8 live outs (three 3s, three 7s, two 8s) for the last draw. So, you not only are a significant favorite to make your hand on the last draw [...]

---

Yes, you are right. My point is that it's quite common to have less than 8 outs. Notably when you can't afford to make trips in the mid, which is more common than not. With 6 outs, you have ~55% equity in catching at least 1 out on the final draw. If you have 5 outs, then your equity is ~47%

Now, it is a common misconception that equity is as important as EV... which is false. Equity is only the chance of something happening, but EV combines the chance of something happening with the value of that occurrence.

We can make a simple model for value by assuming that when an out is drawn, the value is 9 + 6 = 15. That assumes that when the draw comes in, Hero wins and sweeps. If we assume the value of missing the draw to be -6, then we have somewhere to start. Now, we're assuming that Villain does not foul, and that we will sweep if we win... so those are rather important assumptions, that don't apply to all cases.

We want to know the minimum equity we need to make a +EV play when we pair the A's on top.
Let this value be E. We want to solve for E.

E*(15) + (1 - E)*(-6) > 0
15E + 6E - 6 > 0
21E > 6
E > 6/21
E > ~29%

So, when protecting A's up top (value 9), Hero wants to have at least 29% equity, which translates to at least 3 outs. If Hero is protecting K's instead of A's (value 8), then 3 outs is too few; Hero would want at least 4 outs to make a +EV gamble.

Again, this assumes that Villain does not foul, so this is an approximation, since the actual value of Hero fouling is greater than -6. Also, this assumes that Hero will sweep when Hero does not foul, which is rather a big deal. There is a swing of 5 - 7 points in there, and it all depends on the actual board to determine whether a sweep is likely.

denzel, I should have clarified that in this case quads are impossible since he has one of the four deuces. You must get a boat and that is tough.

Did I play it right?

OneByPhi
:ofcset::as::ofcset::9h::ofcset::9d:
:ofcset::5c::ofcset::jh::ofcset::ks::ofcset::th::o fcset::td:
:ofcset::3d::ofcset::3c::ofcset::3s::ofcset::6d::o fcset::6s:


dawgboy (dealer)
:ofcset::qc::ofc9::5h::ofc11::8s:
:ofcset::2s::ofcset::js::ofc7::ts::ofc7::2d::ofc13 ::4c:
:ofcset::6c::ofcset::ac::ofc9::9s::ofc11::ah::ofc1 3::6h:
Discard: 7:diamond: 3:heart: 7:club: 2:club:

This is a tourney hand, so some things come into consideration that don't affect cash-game decisions. Because of the score and the late-game situation, you absolutely needed to make FL, so playing with that as the sole goal is the key.

Therefore, setting the Q on top instead of setting a 3-flush is clearly correct. Your goal on the set is to make qq/flush/flush, but any qq/2 pair/ 2 pair or qq/kk/2 pair or qq/kk/aa hand would do. The first draw isn't what you want, but you set a pair and a card that was live as far as you knew in the mid, which is your best play, I think. The second draw was just horrid. I would have set the 9 up and the 5 low, but it was such a bad draw that you were drawing ultra-thin anyway. The third draw kills your chance to make FL no matter how you play it. You did the best you could by setting the A low and bricking the top. The fourth draw was another set of bricks.

I don't think you could have played the hand any better than you did for the situation you were in. This hand was sort of a microcosm of the match. You made pretty good decisions, the cards just didn't come for you. Better luck in your remaining games.

Quote:

---

The first draw isn't what you want, but you set a pair and a card that was live as far as you knew in the mid, which is your best play, I think.

---

1st Draw: I agree setting the pair of decues mid is a good play. I would have set the 7:d: mid instead of the T:s: mid. This is because it is much easier to beat 2277 in back than 22TT if we have to abandon the back flush and set 2 pairs there.

I switched gears in this pine hand, what do you think?

Eric
:ofcset::kd::ofcset::kh::ofcset::js:
:ofc7::9h::ofc9::ah::ofc9::4s::ofc11::ac::ofc13::5 d:
:ofcset::6c::ofcset::8c::ofc7::9c::ofc11::7d::ofc1 3::tc:
Discard: Q:spade: 9:spade: 6:spade: J:diamond:


Wazzup (dealer)
:ofcset::7s::ofc9::7h::ofc11::8h:
:ofcset::9d::ofcset::8s::ofc7::8d::ofc9::4d::ofc13 ::6h:
:ofcset::kc::ofcset::qh::ofc7::jh::ofc11::as::ofc1 3::5c:

You'll have to run me through your thoughts, because there are a couple things that I don't really see the motivation for... so I don't know if I'm missing something in your strategy... perhaps something I should learn.

Why did you play the J up top on the set?

On 7th:
Having played the 9:c: on the bottom for a FD, why discard a Q and play the 9 to the mid? The Q is both larger, and more live.

On 9th:
Why pass on the pair of 9's and play a 4 to the mid?

On 11th:
I think this is the best play, as the A in the mid secures the top. You can't be relying on 2 clubs on your final draw to complete a flush on the bottom at this point... also, 8's and 9's are dead, and the OESD is wide open.

Did I set it right?

miroslav.genchev.35
T:c: A:s: J:d: / 6:s: 6:d: 3:d: 3:c: 4:s: / 9:h: J:h: 8:h: Q:h: 2:h:

Sleepy20_98 (dealer)
2:c: / 4:d: K:d: / A:h: A:c:

People might disagree about how to play this set, but I'd argue that there is almost never a reason to play AA in the bottom on the set. Remember, the main goal of POFC is to make FL.

From the way you presented this, I'm going to assume your opponent is in FL, so you are setting without any information about what cards are live. With that in mind, I'd set this K:d:/A:h:A:c:4:d:2:c:/xxx. The goal is to catch another K on top (although if you catch a Q before you catch a K, you'd place it there, and have the chance to make either KK or QQ on top), and to make any hand that beats AA on the bottom.

Some good players might set K:d:/A:h:A:c:/4:d:2:c:, but I'm not as fond of this option because it gives you much less flexibility with the bottom hand. The advantage of this line is that it lets you throw bricks into the mid--it's always nice to have a place to get rid of useless cards without hurting your chance to make FL. The disadvatage is that you're pretty much limited to making some combination of 4s and/or 2s (2-pair, trips, boat) or a baby straight, but if you catch only one of those cards on the first draw, it can close the door on the other options.

My set lets you adapt to what the first draw brings. Say you get a lucky first draw like T:s:9:s:3:d:. Putting the T:s:9:s: in the bottom leaves you open for the 2-pair/trips/boat line, or a straight draw, or a flush draw. But even if you draw something like Q:h:8:s:7:d:. you can put the Q on top, play the 8:s: low and have a lot of flexibiltiy for the second draw.

Phi and Vegas Dave are right, AA doesn't go in back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneByPhi

People might disagree about how to play this set, but I'd argue that there is almost never a reason to play AA in the bottom on the set. Remember, the main goal of POFC is to make FL.

From the way you presented this, I'm going to assume your opponent is in FL, so you are setting without any information about what cards are live. With that in mind, I'd set this K:d:/A:h:A:c:4:d:2:c:/xxx. The goal is to catch another K on top (although if you catch a Q before you catch a K, you'd place it there, and have the chance to make either KK or QQ on top), and to make any hand that beats AA on the bottom.

Some good players might set K:d:/A:h:A:c:/4:d:2:c:, but I'm not as fond of this option because it gives you much less flexibility with the bottom hand. The advantage of this line is that it lets you throw bricks into the mid--it's always nice to have a place to get rid of useless cards without hurting your chance to make FL. The disadvatage is that you're pretty much limited to making some combination of 4s and/or 2s (2-pair, trips, boat) or a baby straight, but if you catch only one of those cards on the first draw, it can close the door on the other options.

My set lets you adapt to what the first draw brings. Say you get a lucky first draw like T:s:9:s:3:d:. Putting the T:s:9:s: in the bottom leaves you open for the 2-pair/trips/boat line, or a straight draw, or a flush draw. But even if you draw something like Q:h:8:s:7:d:. you can put the Q on top, play the 8:s: low and have a lot of flexibiltiy for the second draw.

---

K:d:/A:h:A:c:2:c:/4:d:

Get the bottom started early. Having burn slots in the mid is hugely valuable. It would be preferable to start the bottom with a 5,6, or 7 for maximum straight options, but that means playing a 4 is equivalent to playing an 8... and I see you like placing an 8 on the bottom, so...

If our opponent isn't in fl and we get to see his cards then Phi's K:d:/A:h:A:c:4:d:2:c:/xxx line allows us to see more cards as we decide about the back.

We're blind here and I'd set at least the 4:d: in back like MMM said and maybe both the 4:d: and the 2:c:.

The important thing is that we set the aces in the middle and the king on top. Those are the major decisions we have to get right. These other decisions are less important imo.

Did I play it right?

3rd draw I was tempted to set Q front and J back. I would have gotten to fl. What do you think?

Eric
:ofcset::kc::ofc13::qd::ofc13::8s:
:ofcset::as::ofc7::2h::ofc7::3s::ofc9::3d::ofc9::2 s:
:ofcset::8d::ofcset::8h::ofcset::7h::ofc11::js::of c11::jc:
Discard: 5:diamond: 4:spade: Q:club: 4:club:


Ctrevino (dealer)
:ofc9::kh::ofc11::td::ofc13::7s:
:ofcset::ad::ofcset::5h::ofc7::3h::ofc11::9h::ofc1 3::6c:
:ofcset::2c::ofcset::7c::ofcset::9c::ofc7::ac::ofc 9::3c:

I think securing against foul on 11th is far better than having "extra" outs up top. Having the bottom secured is points in the bank, and there's still a chance for the top to complete.

If you'd have played the Q top and J bottom, then you have 5 outs up top and 7 outs on the bottom. Either one is OK, but needing both on the final draw is not going to work out in your favor too often. A rough estimate puts 5 outs as 47% and 7 outs as 61%. You need both to occur, so multiplying them together is the approximation. That's less than 30% to hit FL, with a ~40% chance of foul.

Did I set it right?

zaggs67
7:h: 9:c: Q:c: / A:h: K:d: Q:s: J:d: T:d: / 8:s: T:s: 5:s: 2:s: J:s:

Wazzup (dealer)
3:s: / 9:h: 6:d: / A:c: 2:c:

zaggs67, what was your 14th card that was discarded?

Should I have set that ace mid on the 2nd draw? The other ace ended up coming later.

Eric
:ofcset::kc::ofcset::kd::ofc11::5h:
:ofcset::4h::ofcset::6d::ofc9::8s::ofc9::8h::ofc13 ::as:
:ofcset::7s::ofc7::tc::ofc7::td::ofc11::qs::ofc13: :qh:
Discard: 3:heart: A:diamond: 2:diamond: 9:club:


Wazzup (dealer)
:ofc7::2h::ofc11::9h::ofc11::ks:
:ofcset::6s::ofcset::5d::ofc7::th::ofc9::ts::ofc13 ::6c:
:ofcset::js::ofcset::jh::ofcset::3d::ofc9::ac::ofc 13::ah:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric

Should I have set that ace mid on the 2nd draw? The other ace ended up coming later.

---

If you set the A in the mid, you have 3 outs to a pair of Aces.
If you set the pair of 8's in the mid, you have 6 outs to 2-pair, and 2 more outs to trips.

So setting the 8's gives you 2 x the chances to cover the K's up top, and even has a backdoor to a stronger hand, if the bottom catches a T.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

So setting the 8's gives you 2 x the chances to cover the K's up top, and even has a backdoor to a stronger hand, if the bottom catches a T.

---

Cool, I'm glad I played it right. :)

I've been evolving on how I set some kinds of hands. I'm revisiting one hand type that I have been playing one way for a while. I'd love hearing how (and especially why) other people set these hands, which are very similar.

Hand 1: :2d::2s::3d::4c::qs:

Hand 2: :2d::2s::3d::4c::7s:

Hand 3: :2d::2s::3d::4c::as:

Assuming all hands are played OOP, or IP with no blockers.

Hand 1) Q/34/22
Q up top for FL possibilities.
Pair goes to the bottom for max chances at trips+
Kickers are too small to give any strength to the bottom. They can't cover much if I get 2 pair in the mid, since first pair on the bottom is 2's, I need a strong kicker. Small live cards in the mid is a key component to pulling off a beatable 2-pair to cover the potential Q's+ up top.

Hand 2) X/34/227
Leave top open to improve or catch a burn card when no FL card comes on the set.
Pair goes to the bottom for max chances at trips+
This time, the 7 goes to the bottom. It's less than ideal as a kicker, implicitly drawing the line for "big cards" as J - 7,2 leaving 6 - 3 as "small cards". I generally prefer to have a more balanced play, but I don't like dropping 3 to the mid with no pair, and I don't like leaving the bottom w/o a live kicker, so I put the 7 there.

If the 7 were a 6, I'd strongly consider playing as a burn to the top.
If the 7 were a 5, I'd set the OESD on the bottom, and drop the extra 2 in the mid.

Hand 3) A/34/22
FL card up top
Same logic as hand 1.

I typed this up before looking at what MMM said:


1: Q / 34 / 22


2: X / 34 / 722


3: Either A / 34 / 22 or X / A34 / 22


It is interesting that it came out the same.


I think you guys are right that there will be some luck in our league since we all kind of play the same way.

on the third draw do u set the king in front for fl and risk losing the ten pt quads royalties with a foul?

Eric
:ofcset::kh::ofc7::ac::ofc11::kc:
:ofcset::3s::ofcset::6d::ofc9::3h::ofc9::8d::ofc13 ::8s:
:ofcset::5d::ofcset::5c::ofc7::5h::ofc11::5s::ofc1 3::jh:
Discard: 2:heart: Q:club: Q:spade: K:diamond:


Wazzup (dealer)
:ofcset::2d::ofc11::qh::ofc13::6h:
:ofc7::ad::ofc9::ts::ofc9::as::ofc11::ks::ofc13::6 s:
:ofcset::th::ofcset::9d::ofcset::8c::ofcset::7h::o fc7::jd:
Discard: 4:spade: 9:heart: J:spade: 6:club:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric

on the third draw do u set the king in front for fl and risk losing the ten pt quads royalties with a foul?

---

When you made the play, you had 7 outs with one draw to come, so you were just a shade less than 58% to make 2 pair or better in the mid. KK on top is 8 points and FL (I think we are assuming this value) is about 13 more. You're risking 10 points for a potential gain of 21 and you're 58% to get there. In a cash game, going for it is an easy decision. In a tourney, it would depend on the game situation.

Did I play it right?

ben.neimqn
:ofcset::as::ofcset::ac::ofcset::kd:
:ofcset::7d::ofcset::7h::ofcset::ts::ofcset::3c::o fcset::3d:
:ofcset::5s::ofcset::5h::ofcset::qs::ofcset::qc::o fcset::js:


zaggs67 (dealer)
:ofcset::jd::ofcset::jh::ofc9::6h:
:ofc9::4h::ofc11::9c::ofc11::th::ofc13::9h::ofc13: :tc:
:ofcset::2c::ofcset::4s::ofcset::5d::ofc7::6s::ofc 7::3s:
Discard: 8:heart: 2:heart: 8:spade: 7:spade:

Did I set it right?

ben.neimqn
A:s: A:c: K:d: / 7:d: 7:h: T:s: 3:c: 3:d: / 5:s: 5:h: Q:s: Q:c: J:s:

zaggs67 (dealer)
J:d: J:h: / X / 2:c: 4:s: 5:d:

Did I play it right?

ben.neimqn
:ofcset::qh::ofc11::kh::ofc13::6c:
:ofcset::kc::ofcset::ks::ofc9::ts::ofc9::3d::ofc11 ::9s:
:ofcset::8c::ofcset::8h::ofc7::4c::ofc7::4s::ofc13 ::8s:


zaggs67 (dealer)
:ofcset::td::ofcset::qd::ofc9::qc:
:ofcset::8d::ofc7::jc::ofc9::7d::ofc11::ac::ofc13: :ad:
:ofcset::6h::ofcset::7h::ofc7::9h::ofc11::4d::ofc1 3::7s:
Discard: 2:spade: A:spade: 3:club: 5:spade:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zaggs67

Did I set it right?

ben.neimqn
A:s: A:c: K:d: / 7:d: 7:h: T:s: 3:c: 3:d: / 5:s: 5:h: Q:s: Q:c: J:s:

zaggs67 (dealer)
J:d: J:h: / X / 2:c: 4:s: 5:d:

---

Our opponent is in fl so we need to be aggressive. JJ in front is aggressive and we're being rewarded with 6 royalty points if we don't foul but I think it is the wrong play. I would try a set that leaves the door open for us to get to fl.

I would probably set X / 2:c: 4:s: / J:d: J:h: 5:d:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zaggs67

Did I play it right?

ben.neimqn
:ofcset::qh::ofc11::kh::ofc13::6c:
:ofcset::kc::ofcset::ks::ofc9::ts::ofc9::3d::ofc11 ::9s:
:ofcset::8c::ofcset::8h::ofc7::4c::ofc7::4s::ofc13 ::8s:


zaggs67 (dealer)
:ofcset::td::ofcset::qd::ofc9::qc:
:ofcset::8d::ofc7::jc::ofc9::7d::ofc11::ac::ofc13: :ad:
:ofcset::6h::ofcset::7h::ofc7::9h::ofc11::4d::ofc1 3::7s:
Discard: 2:spade: A:spade: 3:club: 5:spade:

---

Our opponent has a strong set with Q / KK / 88. He has no diamonds and we have 3. Also, there is only 1 more queen left.

I would set the 3 flush on bottom: X / 6:h: 7:h: / 8:d: T:d: Q:d:

Did I play it right?

HellRaiser81 (dealer)
:ofc11::kh::ofc11::8d::ofc13::7h:
:ofcset::9h::ofc7::jh::ofc7::qh::ofc9::js::ofc13:: jd:
:ofcset::9s::ofcset::th::ofcset::8c::ofcset::6d::o fc9::7s:
Discard: 8:spade: 3:club: 4:diamond: 2:heart:


adrian.bln
:ofcset::jc::ofc00::ofc00:
:ofcset::as::ofcset::2d::ofc00::ofc00::ofc00:
:ofcset::3h::ofcset::3s::ofc00::ofc00::ofc00:

HellRaiser81,


For some reason this hand history didn't come through correctly.


We don't see what cards your opponent displayed after the first 5.


Do you have the table number so we can look in more detail?


I probably would have done the 5 card set like this:
X / 8:c: 6:d: / 9:h: 9:s: T:h:


Beyond the 5 card set, it would be good to see the cards shown by your opponent to give good advice.


Cheers,
Eric

one of my fav games, does anyone play irish poker. You get 4 cards and you get rid of one after the flop and then
another after the turn. Wild game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ttwarrior1

one of my fav games, does anyone play irish poker. You get 4 cards and you get rid of one after the flop and then
another after the turn. Wild game.

---

No, I haven't tried Irish. Sounds cool though.

Adjustments. Seeing a three in his hand, I don't want to set 33 in back. Setting 33 mid, I now set the ace in front instead of mid. What do you think?

Eric (dealer)
:ofcset::as::ofc7::qh::ofc13::ac:
:ofcset::3h::ofcset::3d::ofcset::4d::ofc7::4h::ofc 11::8s:
:ofcset::7c::ofc9::td::ofc9::9s::ofc11::8d::ofc13: :6h:
Discard: J:spade: K:heart: 5:club: J:club:


Wazzup
:ofcset::qs::ofc11::tc::ofc13::ah:
:ofcset::jh::ofc7::6c::ofc7::6s::ofc9::7h::ofc11:: th:
:ofcset::2c::ofcset::2d::ofcset::3s::ofc9::qd::ofc 13::kc:
Discard: 4:spade: 5:spade: 8:heart: 4:club:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric

What do you think?

---

If there was any way to have played this better at any stage of the hand, I don't see it.