Breathweapon's 3-bet thread

[breathweapon]

TPTK=Felt, I'm sure.

How do you deal with some one who 3Bets you, or some one who is a light 3Better? Do you even bother trying to deal with them, or do you just walk away?

[Fnord]

How do you deal with some one who 3Bets you, or some one who is a light 3Better? Do you even bother trying to deal with them, or do you just walk away?

If I think someone is 3-betting light, then I just increase my push range.

3-betting light doesn't work as well because hands like AK/AQs/JJ are easier to play.

[breathweapon]

How do you deal with some one who 3Bets you, or some one who is a light 3Better? Do you even bother trying to deal with them, or do you just walk away?

If I think someone is 3-betting light, then I just increase my push range.

3-betting light doesn't work as well because hands like AK/AQs/JJ are easier to play.

Pushing the big cards isn't the problem, what happens with TT-22 after a raise, re-raise situation? Call to set? Push TT-88? The odds for set mining aren't that great, but call, check/push on a Jack high board is an interesting line with 77-22 if the hand fails to set.

[Fnord]

Pushing the big cards isn't the problem.

Per hand histories people post, it is.

[breathweapon]

Pushing the big cards isn't the problem.

Per hand histories people post, it is.

Pre-flop it's automatic, post flop it's automatic if you hit, if you don't hit you can turn it into a semi-bluff drawing hand out of position by pushing your stack. It's easy to get your stack in with these hands, the difficulty is not getting yourself stacked with these hands deep, which is what you alleviated.

I'm still at a loss for PP vs 3Bet OP, do you have the odds to call to set?

[Fnord]

I'm still at a loss for PP vs 3Bet OP, do you have the odds to call to set?

Being 100-200ish deep doesn't solve this problem. You need to fight back.

[breathweapon]

I'm still at a loss for PP vs 3Bet OP, do you have the odds to call to set?

Being 100-200ish deep doesn't solve this problem. You need to fight back.

Huh?

Being that deep gives you the implied odds to call to set and the folding equity to fold your hand if you miss. Being shallow doesn't necessarily give you the implied odds to call to set, and if you miss, it's 36 to 48$ in the pot and 82 to 76$ behind you, which doesn't necessarily give you the folding equity to fold.

I think you can still call to set, and I think you can bluff at the pot, but it's not clear how being shallow effects calling in 3Bet pots. Not that it's going to happen that often, but when it does ... bleh.

It gets even more interesting at 25BB in 200NL. You can terrorize the table and get your stack in by the turn every time. I think the more extreme this strategy is, the better it works. At least that's what I'm finding out for myself.

[Fnord]

Being that deep gives you the implied odds to call to set

You're assuming the other guy will stack off every time and not give up on the flop or after a flop bet.

[breathweapon]

Being that deep gives you the implied odds to call to set

You're assuming the other guy will stack off every time and not give up on the flop or after a flop bet.

Obviously, but the results aren't relevant, all you can do is put your cards in position to do the most damage and pray.

[Fnord]

Obviously, but the results aren't relevant, all you can do is put your cards in position to do the most damage and pray.

It IS RELEVENT. You're calling expecting at least a certain pay-off size when you hit (minus suck-out equity.) If you're not on average getting paid off for enough money you're just making a spite call.

[breathweapon]

If I'm getting re-raised: I call, I hit the set, I check, he bets, I re-raise or I call, I bet, he re-raises and I push I'm still getting a return even if I'm not getting his stack. The point is that the potential gains diminish when short stacked, and that has to be taken into consideration when deciding whether or not calling to set in a 3Bet pot is worth it. Considering the results of implied odds over the long run and using them to justify decisions of implied odds over the short run isn't practical, because it's read dependent.

I don't know whether or not I can stack some one with 54s until I have a read or I try it, but I do know that suited connectors and small pocket pairs are my most profitable hands over time. Implied odds have too much variance, we can all agree that AA is a profitable hand over the long or the short run thru' PT, but suited connectors and small pocket pairs are either hit or miss for different people, let alone suited connectors and small pocket pairs in 3Bet pots.

We're getting off track, do you think calling to set in a 3Bet pot at 50BB is worth it? I could base the decision on instinct or results, but there has to be another objective opinion with sound reasoning.

[Fnord]

All I'll add is that I disagree and my numbers say otherwise. AA, KK and QQ have always been my most profitable hands. I play big pots with over-pairs just about every time and usually get the best of it. Probably followed by AQ, maybe some day I'll wise up a little more with AK. If the small stuff works for you and people pay it off, be happy.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Breathweapon i assure you it isnt profitable to call reraises with small pp's even versus super tight reraising ranges (though it can be versus looser ones, but there aren't any loose threebettors at your stakes).

[jyms]

I'm still at a loss for PP vs 3Bet OP, do you have the odds to call to set?

Being 100-200ish deep doesn't solve this problem. You need to fight back.

Being that deep gives you the implied odds to call to set and the folding equity to fold your hand if you miss. Being shallow doesn't necessarily give you the implied odds to call to set, and if you miss, it's 36 to 48$ in the pot and 82 to 76$ behind you, which doesn't necessarily give you the folding equity to fold.

I think you can still call to set, and I think you can bluff at the pot, but it's not clear how being shallow effects calling in 3Bet pots. Not that it's going to happen that often, but when it does ... bleh.

It gets even more interesting at 25BB in 200NL. You can terrorize the table and get your stack in by the turn every time. I think the more extreme this strategy is, the better it works. At least that's what I'm finding out for myself.

I think everything about this paragraph is wrong.

[zook]

We're getting off track, do you think calling to set in a 3Bet pot at 50BB is worth it?

As ISF mentioned, calling a 3bet solely to set isn't even worth it at 100bb, so no it's not profitable at 50bb.

And just fyi, I think you're misunderstanding fold equity. It's equity you gain when you bet b/c your opponent might fold. It doesn't apply when you're folding.

[breathweapon]

@Fnord

It just depends on your risk adversity. Think of it this way, if you stack some one with small PP or SCs, you bank roll that money into high risk/reward hands and free roll with it. You'll either lose a buy in trying, break even, show a small profit in the long run or get rich at some point.

@ISF

There are a lot of loose 3Betters at 200NL 6Max, in my experience, it's where you start to see the other thinking players. I don't see how calling against a loose 3Better to set is more profitable than calling against a tight 3Better tho'. Loose 3Betters in 6Max are cowardly bullies, they pick on the table until some one challenges them. They either drop their hand or take a look at the flop and play one, maybe two streets at most. It's easier to steal the pot from them, but unless they're a maniac, you're not getting paid off. TAGGs get attached to at least AA-QQ and most of them can't drop JJ, AK and AQ, so they're usually the ones that will pay you off, or at least the ones that pay me off any way.

@TJ

Care to be more specific? You included three paragraphs.

@Zook

I think you can apply FE both ways, when I look at IV hands like SC, I look at FE backwards, because there's no reason to get involved with them when they don't hit, and if you choose to get involved with them when they don hit, then you're just making your decisions based on initiative, position, stacks, board, image, reads etc. with ATC aggro. Calling with smaller PP in a 3Bet pot is similar, because you put your opponent on a range of AA-JJ and AK to start, and if you didn't hit your set you should fold. There's no reason to bluff here against that range, because the only cards you could bluff with on the board are in their range, and if it's a low board, you're either dominated or they're drawing live at best.

If you have a better term for this, or there is a term for this already, let me know. I couldn't find a term for "why you shouldn't continue with SC and PP if you miss," so I just inverted one. It was probably a bad idea, but it made sense to me at the time.

[Warpe]

..I do know that suited connectors and small pocket pairs are my most profitable hands over time...

O RLY?

Post some PT stats to back this up pls. Otherwise I call bullshit.

[grnydrowave2]

..I do know that suited connectors and small pocket pairs are my most profitable hands over time...

O RLY?

Post some PT stats to back this up pls. Otherwise I call bullshit.

NO WAI!

Lies or small sample.

[martindcx1e]

..I do know that suited connectors and small pocket pairs are my most profitable hands over time...

O RLY?

Post some PT stats to back this up pls. Otherwise I call bullshit.

lol for real. if anything is more profitable than AA you are doing something very very wrong.

[grnydrowave2]

Was this split from the half-stack thread?

[Fnord]

Was this split from the half-stack thread?

Yes, I almost moved it to the Beginner's Circle as well...

[breathweapon]

Posted from the previous thread, thanks for reading my mind Fnord

Really, I built my bank roll on drawing hands and set mining at 10Max 2ooNL IRL before I understood/cared about proper bank rolling, you can read about it in my first thread. Recently, I was still making more on these hands by 4 Tabling 6Max 2ooNL online, and I think the reason for it was I can take them further than 9 +Tabling 10Max 200NL TAGGs can by concentrating on fewer tables, which recouperates initial investments on the flop/turn and scores on the river.

If you're playing poker by volume, then high cards and position are going to be the major sources of your net income (or your major source of spewing), if you're playing poker by quality (and by quality I mean at high stakes vs tight players) then your LAGG/HAGG abilities become factors. I don't see why it would be unreasonable for some one to state that I make most of my money off of SCs and small PP, if you consider I play them more often than you, I play them further than you and I may/may not play them differently than you, then there's going to be variance on what is already a high variance hand. I think the first thing people learn on the net is that set mining is profitable, so there should be no questions there, and there are a lot of firm believes in SCs at the professional tournament/cash game levels. I honestly started playing with SCs because I saw Daniel Negreanu, Sammy Farha, Freddy Deeb and Antonio Esfandiari doing it on TV, but it didn't take long for me to figure out that SCs are essentially the high risk stocks of poker and are extremely flexible hands.

I'll see if I have anything in PT that can back this up, I'm still a PT nOOb so there's not much I can offer at the moment, but I will get back to you when I switch from SNGs to cash games. It really comes down to whether or not you're a micro small baller or a big home run hitter. If you evaluate your approach to the game, then it's easy to see why some hands are more profitable according to their style(s).

@Any Mods

Would you mind splitting this thread and renaming it "Implied Value Hands" or something to that effect? I totally side tracked the thread, and the conversation really isn't relevant to the subject. Sorry about that, Fnord.

[breathweapon]

..I do know that suited connectors and small pocket pairs are my most profitable hands over time...

O RLY?

Post some PT stats to back this up pls. Otherwise I call bullshit.

lol for real. if anything is more profitable than AA you are doing something very very wrong.

Just because AA is the most winningest (sp?) hand doesn't make it the most profitable hand. If I compared the number of times I've stacked some one with a re-raised AA to the number of times I've stacked some one cold calling with SC or TT-22 the returns from AA would be lower. It's one 3Bet hand compared to an entire range of cold calling hands, if you're making more money off of AA than an entire range, then you're the one that's doing something very wrong.

Step back and get some perspective, look at it from an investors point of view. It's simple to see that investing (100 - age)% in high risk stocks and (age)% in low risk stocks results in higher gains than some one who invests 100% in low risk stocks over time, right? I have a low risk adversity with SCs and small PP from any position on the table, from the flop/turn and in 3Bet pots. I'm going to lose small with these hands in the short term, score big with these hands in the short term and then reinvest them in even more high risk hands or coin flip hands, break even/show a small profit in the long term or get rich at some point.

I look at these hands from an Investor/Chess angle, you have a low risk adversity stock portfolio, and you use line theory, aggro, bluffing whatever to "cheat" back your initial investment if the stock crashes. The money making potential for these hands is there, and I think most multi tabling/set mining drones and high stakes cash game players would agree with me.

If you don't, cest la vie.

[Silly String]

Forget the broadways: I will give you JTs ---> 32s and I will out earn you everyday with AA. Find me a PT database that says otherwise over a large sample and I'll Xfer you $50 on Pstars. I don't care how well you play SC's. Small PP's are a different story. That is why you don't see any Suited Connector Hunters.

Oh yeah, and since when does profit not equal winningest hand?

[Warpe]

Any reasonably representative sample size (20K hands+)will show AA, KK etc. win the most money, in that order, in net $ in hand and in BB/100 hands, therefore they are the most profitable. Unless you can prove otherwise, I suggest you stop wasting your breath.

[martindcx1e]

I just realized breath may be saying that his sc's and small pp's all combine for more profit than AA. If so then that just shows how awesome AA if it takes that many hands to out-profit it. All I'm saying is that if you sort your individual hands by total profit and AA isn't #1 over a reasonable sample size then you are doing something very very wrong.

[Warpe]

Just because AA is the most winningest (sp?) hand doesn't make it the most profitable hand. If I compared the number of times I've stacked some one with a re-raised AA to the number of times I've stacked some one cold calling with SC or TT-22 the returns from AA would be lower. It's one 3Bet hand compared to an entire range of cold calling hands, if you're making more money off of AA than an entire range, then you're the one that's doing something very wrong.

I just realized breath may be saying that his sc's and small pp's all combine for more profit than AA.

That makes the argument even dumber.

[spoonitnow]

Just because AA is the most winningest (sp?) hand doesn't make it the most profitable hand. If I compared the number of times I've stacked some one with a re-raised AA to the number of times I've stacked some one cold calling with SC or TT-22 the returns from AA would be lower. It's one 3Bet hand compared to an entire range of cold calling hands, if you're making more money off of AA than an entire range, then you're the one that's doing something very wrong.

I just realized breath may be saying that his sc's and small pp's all combine for more profit than AA.

That makes the argument even dumber.

I can't help it:
lol

[breathweapon]

Forget the broadways: I will give you JTs ---> 32s and I will out earn you everyday with AA. Find me a PT database that says otherwise over a large sample and I'll Xfer you $50 on Pstars. I don't care how well you play SC's. Small PP's are a different story. That is why you don't see any Suited Connector Hunters.

Oh yeah, and since when does profit not equal winningest hand?

Even tho' I was considering SC + TT-22 vs AA, I'll take SCs vs AA in either/or 3Bet or cold called pots if,

1)You are playing 6Max
2)You are multi tabling 4-
3) You are opening, cold calling or three betting from the last 4 positions. I can't consistently play my range compared to your hand, so you have to weight by where's it's reasonable for me to open, 3Bet or cold call.
4) No Limping
5) No open pushing. If you 3Bet or 4Bet them all in, that's fine, but I can't take easy money with my hand preflop.
6)We compare PT spread sheets at = or weighted stakes. I don't know what your limit/skill level is, but if it's less than mine I'm willing to account for it in your favor.
7)We agree to ignore lost coin flips (monster draws), ignorant straights and counterfeited flushes on my end and any suck outs or bad beats on your end.
8)We play the same number of hours
9)We begin with new spread sheets
T)Some one actually shows me how to use PT/PAHUD effectively

I think no limping and opening from the cut off is a handicap in your favor, in case anything else seems unreasonable.

I said the most winningest (sp) hand isn't necessarily the most profitable hand. Even tho' one hand is % more likely to win, it's not necessarily % more likely to make the same amount of money as other hands. Think of it as commodity vs tech stocks, even tho' commodities will consistently earn money in the long term, they wont make as much money as tech stocks in the short term or the long term (altho' to be fair they wont lose as much money in the short term either), because the risk vs reward aren't equal. Commodity investment is to control variance in your stock portfolio.

In poker terms, AKu is a steady, profit making hand. JTs isn't a steady, profit making hand, but it is a variable fortune making hand. If you can count on something winning more often than not, then you can expect to make less money off it than something you can't count on winning. This is the reason you see the returns on horse races weighted in favor of the "upsets," because no one would bet on them unless there was a greater risk vs reward.

[spoonitnow]

You're thinking way too hard on this, imo.

[martindcx1e]

Just because AA is the most winningest (sp?) hand doesn't make it the most profitable hand. If I compared the number of times I've stacked some one with a re-raised AA to the number of times I've stacked some one cold calling with SC or TT-22 the returns from AA would be lower. It's one 3Bet hand compared to an entire range of cold calling hands, if you're making more money off of AA than an entire range, then you're the one that's doing something very wrong.

I just realized breath may be saying that his sc's and small pp's all combine for more profit than AA.

That makes the argument even dumber.

I can't help it:
lol

oh i agree 100%...definitely not trying to defend him.

[martindcx1e]

If you can count on something winning more often than not, then you can expect to make less money off it than something you can't count on winning.

LOL

[Warpe]

breath, you understand the stock market about as well as you understand poker.

Commodities as a stand alone investment are generally considered be an inherently higher risk investment than other traditional asset classes. You are correct, however, in saying that they reduce volatility in a portfolio, but not for the reason stated. They reduce volatility because they generally have a low to negative corellation (do not move in lockstep/move in the opposite direction) to the movement of other asset classes.

If you can count on something winning more often than not, then you can expect to make less money off it than something you can't count on winning.

This is true in the stock market (higher risk = higher potential gain/loss) but risk in poker is an entirely different animal. Compare getting a/i preflop with AA and getting a/i preflop with JTs (you wouldn't, but we'll use your example). Your risk (potential for loss or gain) is exactly the same in monetary terms, even though the former can be expected to win much more often than the latter.

[breathweapon]

I just realized breath may be saying that his sc's and small pp's all combine for more profit than AA. If so then that just shows how awesome AA if it takes that many hands to out-profit it. All I'm saying is that if you sort your individual hands by total profit and AA isn't #1 over a reasonable sample size then you are doing something very very wrong.

Exactly, its comparing AA against an entire range of hands, because the hands in that range are almost identical. If you put AA up against small PP or SC, the winning% of each of those hand doesn't change (much), so when your comparing SC and PP against a specific hand, it doesn't make sense to treat them differently (much). Some hands are there own range, for instance AA-KK, QQ-JJ and AK are a lot more different from each other than JT-J9s, TT-99, AJ/Ts-AXs etc.

If you wanted to get into a EV vs IV argument, it'd be like comparing AA-JJ +AK vs small PP + AXs + SC that would be really interesting. Yeah, I make a lot of $ with AA, but it isn't where the bulk of my $ is coming from.

@Warpe, I think I've been patient/gracious enough explaining this, so is there a particular reason why you think comparing one hand against a range (which is what I compared it to in the first place) makes the argument "stupid?" How does AA vs TT or 99, or AA vs JTs or J9s differ (much)? It doesn't make sense to compare a single hand against AA, so wouldn't that be the "stupid" argument?

[Warpe]

@Warpe, I think I've been patient/gracious enough explaining this, so is there a particular reason why you think comparing one hand against a range (which is what I compared it to in the first place) makes the argument "stupid?" How does AA vs TT or 99, or AA vs JTs or J9s differ (much)? It doesn't make sense to compare a single hand against AA, so wouldn't that be the "stupid" argument?

b/c you said:

breathweapon wrote:
..I do know that suited connectors and small pocket pairs are my most profitable hands over time...

Adding up your winnings from every winning sc/small pp hand in your database and comparing that number to your AA winnings is like comparing a box of oranges to an apple. It is statistically meaningless.

[spoonitnow]

Adding up your winnings from every winning sc/small pp hand in your database and comparing that number to your AA winnings is like comparing a box of oranges to an apple. It is statistically meaningless.

This is true, but I couldn't help myself.

From one of PokerRoom's charts or some shit from millions and millions of hands:

Cards EV(bb) Count
AA 2.32 521,324
KK 1.67 522,652
QQ 1.22 520,663
JJ 0.86 521,866
TT 0.58 520,705
99 0.38 522,454
88 0.25 521,972
77 0.16 524,345
66 0.07 520,946
55 0.02 521,945
44 -0.03 523,398
33 -0.07 522,632
22 -0.09 524,131

AK s 0.78 348,364
KQ s 0.39 346,772
QJ s 0.23 348,870
JT s 0.15 348,235
T9 s 0.05 348,264
98 s 0.00 348,759
87 s -0.02 348,348
76 s -0.03 347,540
65 s -0.07 348,590
54 s -0.08 348,260
43 s -0.13 348,802
32 s -0.15 349,794

AA averaged an EV of 2.32bb.

The total EV of all suited connectors AKs-32s plus PPs comes to 1.81bb.

/thread

[breathweapon]

breath, you understand the stock market about as well as you understand poker.

Commodities as a stand alone investment are generally considered be an inherently higher risk investment than other traditional asset classes. You are correct, however, in saying that they reduce volatility in a portfolio, but not for the reason stated. They reduce volatility because they generally have a low to negative corellation (do not move in lockstep/move in the opposite direction) to the movement of other asset classes.

If you can count on something winning more often than not, then you can expect to make less money off it than something you can't count on winning.

This is true in the stock market (higher risk = higher potential gain/loss) but risk in poker is an entirely different animal. Compare getting a/i preflop with AA and getting a/i preflop with JTs (you wouldn't, but we'll use your example). Your risk (potential for loss or gain) is exactly the same in monetary terms, even though the former can be expected to win much more often than the latter.

1)

I'm not going to get into an argument over the stock market, but when I think of commodities I think of unrewnewable resources like Crude Oil, Natural Gas, Coal, Precious Metals, Raw Materials etc. I think your thinking of commodities in the sense of futures i.e Sugar, Salt, Spices, Wheat, Rice, Corn, Apples, Oranges, Pairs etc. or renewable resources.

2)

That wasn't what I meant, read the 10 point chart posted and look at the terms/conditions of the challenge, it takes into account preflop All-Ins and position. If you put an EV hand up against an IV hand on its terms/conditions, then the IV hand loses regardless. If you compare an EV hand and an IV hand against a field from the last 4 positions across 5 cards with 4 rounds of betting, then you're being realistic. If you take any analogy to an extreme, it doesn't apply any more.

@Spoonitnow

If you get rid of broadway, add gappers and weight it by position it's actually not that bad.

Point taken tho'.

[martindcx1e]

Adding up your winnings from every winning sc/small pp hand in your database and comparing that number to your AA winnings is like comparing a box of oranges to an apple. It is statistically meaningless.

exactly. breath, saying that does not prove/show anything. it means absolutely nothing.

[spoonitnow]

Don't miss my post above, the thread already ended.

[martindcx1e]

Don't miss my post above, the thread already ended.

breath will just say you don't play sc's and small pp's the right way.

[spoonitnow]

Don't miss my post above, the thread already ended.

breath will just say you don't play sc's and small pp's the right way.

Get on AIM so we can do important math shit.

And those values can't be argued with since all hands are from the same sample of players.

[spoonitnow]

@Spoonitnow

If you get rid of broadway, add gappers and weight it by position it's actually not that bad.

Point taken tho'.

No, sorry, you're done.

Give me a few minutes and I'll own that argument too.

[Warpe]

I'm not going to get into an argument over the stock market, but when I think of commodities I think of unrewnewable resources like Crude Oil, Natural Gas, Coal, Precious Metals, Raw Materials etc. I think your thinking of commodities in the sense of futures i.e Sugar, Salt, Spices, Wheat, Rice, Corn, Apples, Oranges, Pairs etc. or renewable resources.

No, I'm not.

Reference:

http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...=327641#327641

/thread

Agree.

[breathweapon]

Don't miss my post above, the thread already ended.

breath will just say you don't play sc's and small pp's the right way.

Get on AIM so we can do important math shit.

And those values can't be argued with since all hands are from the same sample of players.

Just going to repost this,

"Uncle"

If you cut broadway (JT down), you add 1 gappers, you cut SCs with a 3 or 2 and you weight AA and SC by the last 4 positions do you know what you actually get?

@Martin

Don't be a dick, I never used add hominem in this thread once, the least you can do is return the favor. If that's what PT's database says, with the adjustments I mentioned, I'll believe it whole sale regardless of my personal experience with the hands.

[spoonitnow]

Don't miss my post above, the thread already ended.

breath will just say you don't play sc's and small pp's the right way.

Get on AIM so we can do important math shit.

And those values can't be argued with since all hands are from the same sample of players.

Just going to repost this,

"Uncle"

If you cut broadway (JT down), you add 1 gappers, you cut SCs with a 3 or 2 and you weight AA and SC by the last 4 positions do you know what you actually get?

@Martin

Don't be a dick, I never used add hominem in this thread once, the least you can do is return the favor. If that's what PT's database says, with the adjustments I mentioned, I'll believe it whole sale regardless of my personal experience with the hands.

Source: http://www.tightpoker.com/hands/ev_position.html


From UTG, AA scores 2.49bb

From the button, TT-22 score 1.3bb combined.

From the button, T9s-32s score 0.10bb combined.

From the button, J9s-42s score 0.27bb combined.

1.3 + 0.1 + 0.27 = 1.67 < 2.49

You done yet?

[breathweapon]

I'm not going to get into an argument over the stock market, but when I think of commodities I think of unrewnewable resources like Crude Oil, Natural Gas, Coal, Precious Metals, Raw Materials etc. I think your thinking of commodities in the sense of futures i.e Sugar, Salt, Spices, Wheat, Rice, Corn, Apples, Oranges, Pairs etc. or renewable resources.

No, I'm not.

Reference:

http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...=327641#327641

/thread

Agree.

Alright, I'll consider myself PWNed for the moment. It's an interesting thread and I'm going to read it in full before I comment further. But off hand, since when has Crude Oil, Natural Gas, Coal and Timber, Building Materials and Titanium/Platinum/Gold/Silver ever hit a down turn since the 80s? I have never thought of these investments as high risk, since I started investing in 98. Considering the geo political issues for oil and gas, the rise of third world industrial powers and the IT consumption of precious metals, they seem like one of the safest/lucrative places to put your money. I've never regretted, and I'm not going to stop by any means, but I'm always interested in pointers from any one older than me in investing.

@Spoonitnow

Whether or not I'm wrong I'd love to see it.

[spoonitnow]

@Spoonitnow

Whether or not I'm wrong I'd love to see it.

You just did. AA from the least favorable position beats PPs, SCs and 1-gappers in the most favorable position by a considerable amount.

If you want any other calculations feel free to follow the source I gave above and have at it, but it's a very unimportant and less than trivial argument.

[breathweapon]

Don't miss my post above, the thread already ended.

breath will just say you don't play sc's and small pp's the right way.

Get on AIM so we can do important math shit.

And those values can't be argued with since all hands are from the same sample of players.

Just going to repost this,

"Uncle"

If you cut broadway (JT down), you add 1 gappers, you cut SCs with a 3 or 2 and you weight AA and SC by the last 4 positions do you know what you actually get?

@Martin

Don't be a dick, I never used add hominem in this thread once, the least you can do is return the favor. If that's what PT's database says, with the adjustments I mentioned, I'll believe it whole sale regardless of my personal experience with the hands.

Source: http://www.tightpoker.com/hands/ev_position.html


From UTG, AA scores 2.49bb

From the button, TT-22 score 1.3bb combined.

From the button, T9s-32s score 0.10bb combined.

From the button, J9s-42s score 0.27bb combined.

1.3 + 0.1 + 0.27 = 1.67 < 2.49

You done yet?

Almost, so that accounts for using AA in all positions, doesn't account for TT-22 OP (does it make sense to cut that entirely from the CO/Blinds?) and includes the negatives from 43s, 32s, 53s, 42s. Even 2.49*2/3 in 6Max, with out removing the SCs with a 3 or a 2 in them and accounting for PP OP, results in about 1.67 > 1.66 if you weight AA for the positions SC can't open from, so it looks like they're breaking even?

Edit: You keep beating me to the post, I'll look it up for myself.

[spoonitnow]

Almost, so that accounts for using AA in all positions

No, it doesn't, that's only from UTG on a 10-handed table, the least favorable position.

doesn't account for TT-22 OP (does it make sense to cut that entirely from the CO/Blinds?)

As per your request I've taken these hands from the most positionally favorable position so stop arguing in circles.

and includes the negatives from 43s, 32s, 53s, 42s.

This doesn't nearly make up the difference.

Even 2.49*2/3 in 6Max

This makes no sense and shows that you probably have no idea what you're even arguing about at this point.

with out removing the SCs with a 3 or a 2 in them and accounting for PP OP, results in about 1.67 > 1.66 if you weight AA for the positions SC can't open from, so it looks like they're breaking even?

Edit: You keep beating me to the post, I'll look it up for myself.

I'm done with this because you've obviously lost objectivity and aren't going to stop replying with bullshit until you feel like you're right, so whatever.

[Warpe]

Alright, I'll consider myself PWNed for the moment. It's an interesting thread and I'm going to read it in full before I comment further. But off hand, since when has Crude Oil, Natural Gas, Coal and Timber, Building Materials and Titanium/Platinum/Gold/Silver ever hit a down turn since the 80s? I have never thought of these investments as high risk, since I started investing in 98. Considering the geo political issues for oil and gas, the rise of third world industrial powers and the IT consumption of precious metals, they seem like one of the safest/lucrative places to put your money. I've never regretted, and I'm not going to stop by any means, but I'm always interested in pointers from any one older than me in investing.

Commodities have been on a bull run for the past several years because of demand for them from emerging markets, but they are nevertheless extremely volatile and therefore high risk. They have definitely been lucrative but they are by no means safe. Look at the run-up in oil prices in the last little while, ditto gold. What goes up so fast can go down just as quickly.

[biondino]

Just checking my stats for this year - here are the results:

JJ-AA, AKs, AKo = +4350 big bets @ 2.15ptbb/hand
22-TT, A2s-AQs, 54s-JTs = +2700 big bets @0.33ptbb/hand

I have received over 4 times as many of the latter hands as the former; the former are 7 times more profitable per hand than the latter.

[Dislexsik]

breathweapon stop being stuborn.(if thats the right word, english is not my first language)

[breathweapon]

Almost, so that accounts for using AA in all positions

No, it doesn't, that's only from UTG on a 10-handed table, the least favorable position.

doesn't account for TT-22 OP (does it make sense to cut that entirely from the CO/Blinds?)

As per your request I've taken these hands from the most positionally favorable position so stop arguing in circles.

and includes the negatives from 43s, 32s, 53s, 42s.

This doesn't nearly make up the difference.

Even 2.49*2/3 in 6Max

This makes no sense and shows that you probably have no idea what you're even arguing about at this point.

with out removing the SCs with a 3 or a 2 in them and accounting for PP OP, results in about 1.67 > 1.66 if you weight AA for the positions SC can't open from, so it looks like they're breaking even?

Edit: You keep beating me to the post, I'll look it up for myself.

I'm done with this because you've obviously lost objectivity and aren't going to stop replying with bullshit until you feel like you're right, so whatever.

No, I didn't ask for those hands in position, I asked for those hands in the last 4 positions of the table where it's most sensible to open/call with them. It doesn't make sense to compare the results of opening AA in the first six/two positions to SCs because SCs shouldn't be opened from those seats. It's bundled data, there's no reason to give credit to a +EV decision to open AA from the first 6 positions and then count it against a -EV decision with a different hand from the same seat.

Basically this requires,

AA in position and out of position vs TT-22 in position and out of position in all seats.

AA in position vs SCs in position in all seats after UTG down to the button. This is the most difficult one to figure out because AA can put itself in position or out of position by raising in the first six seats, but SCs require some one else to open the hand in order to enter the pot.

AA in position/out of position vs SCs in position/out of position in the last 4 seats.

I'm not trying to be a dick, I just want to know the answer to the question and make the data as balance/relevant as possible. If you account for AA in position, it may dwarf everything else by comparison. I am, and always will be, more than willing to recognize when I'm wrong. Don't worry, I'm more than happy to do it myself, and thank you for the links.

[grnydrowave2]

Worst thread evar?

[breathweapon]

More of a brain fart, I'll just have to come back to after awhile to see where it was leaking. You can't have accomplishments with out failures. Most people don't have the balls to make their failures public or the brains to learn from them afterwards. If it prevents some one from making the same mistake, or it encourages some one to re-evaluate the dogma, it's useful in that sense.

I don't regret in the slightest

[Ash256]

[boost]

srsly?

[IowaSkinsFan]

I will say this with absolutely no sarcasm (seriously)

1. Breathweapon, your thoughtfulness and time into you posts are truly awesome. Your ability to keep your cool is also incredibly commendable.

But i will tell you that everyone is right, your really overthinking this whole thing and i assure you, you don't need to reinvent the wheel, the math has been done.

2. Jesus christ guys if someone comes in here and wants to take the time to make this long of a post and you want to just say lol its fucking ridiculous. There was no reason to berate him, he didn't make some completely ignorant argument, and actually was thinking about concepts. Who gives a shit if he's wrong, but if your not going to respond with equal thoughtfulness don't respond at all. He didn't flame any of you, he was actually rather courteous.

[martindcx1e]

edited by me...i'll play nicer i guess

[thizzSantaCruz]

why are a lot of the responses to OP reminding me of that other bullshit site that I don't like.

[martindcx1e]

I'm sorry but I really don't think we've been out of line guys. We were just refuting his argument and trying to explain that the comparison really doesn't mean a whole lot in the first place. I'll go ahead and edit my last post though.

[littleogre]

If we try really hard we can turn this into the next nwp.

[IowaSkinsFan]

I'm sorry but I really don't think we've been out of line guys. We were just refuting his argument and trying to explain that the comparison really doesn't mean a whole lot in the first place. I'll go ahead and edit my last post though.

Yeah like 30% of the posts have been this.

[Warpe]

This discussion has been reasonably civil, I think.

[Chopper]

2. Jesus christ guys if someone comes in here and wants to take the time to make this long of a post and you want to just say lol its fucking ridiculous. There was no reason to berate him, he didn't make some completely ignorant argument, and actually was thinking about concepts. Who gives a shit if he's wrong, but if your not going to respond with equal thoughtfulness don't respond at all. He didn't flame any of you, he was actually rather courteous.

this is all ive ever tried to say in regards to short answers. i just havent been that eloquent.

breath, i love your passion, man. i'm sorry i cant come to your defense here...i think the premise was flawed when comparing a specific holding to a range.

it seems you are doing what i love to do: argue a point so far off-track by being stubborn that you run yourself into circles just trying to prove yourself right. not that these guys are making it easy on you...everyone is just all fired up with all the dick-swinging going on.

its just that its like 5 dicks against yours. and no matter how big/profitable yours may be, how can it be compared against 5 other swinging dicks? its simply outnumbered by all the other dicks in the group. (do you see what i did there?)

back to your OP, though. how do you handle light 3bettors? 4bet them! but, most of the time, at my stakes, i just walk away. if i cant be doing the 3betting, i find a table where i can.

[Ash256]

Fair enough ISF.

Breathweapon, soz if I've misinterpreted your arguments (I'll happily admit the head asplode pic was flaming; a picture tells a thousand words and that).. I saw it as an ego thing - arguing the toss for the sake of covering you being incorrect.. It was 5am though, forgive me if I was wrong. :P

Probs it's that we think differently, I'm a fairly abstract bigger-picture type, and getting caught up and repeatedly tripping over small strange things like whether AA makes more money than all SCs combined really does make my head feel like asploding.

But srsly, FTRers know what they're talking about, and whilst disagreeing is cool I think everyone disappearing up their own urethras is a waste of time.

[breathweapon]

I'm not too concerned about it. I expect people to behave like this on the internet and have to reprimand/fire people for it on a regular basis. You wouldn't believe the turn over rate for people who breach the etiquette rules for electronic communication in service/sales. Not that I think that the tone in this thread was that bad, but people seem to believe that it's more arrogant to write a page of text (which both exposes yourself to their critique and presumes you may not be right from the start) than write a single sentence and post a link to an article/database and act as if it were unchallengable/irrefutable or I should take it at face value. Writing a one line sentence to make fun of some one else on the internet is a waste of your time, and their time, and you should get out of the habit of it altogether.

I don't mind being "torn apart," I've been desensitized to it from work and have had to defend a thesis/stand trial/submit a business plan against people who were far less "right" and far more "threatening." There's a reason I remain calm/polite at all times tho', it's because you can lose your credibility, your job, your friends, your freedom or your life from a single slight. It's not a lesson you want, or can even afford, to learn the hard way.

Courtesy is + EV, you can take that to the bank.

[Chopper]

Socrates for President.

man, you get deep sometimes. you are correct, but deep. nicely stated.

[snugglez88]

against a light 3bettor occassionally 4-bet all in

[snugglez88]

you can try taking more flops in position and floating against their c-bet.