HSP season 5

BigCityBanker

how does Doyle check back his rivered flush?

why does Dwan play his 99 so passively?

tm2204

RedJoker wrote: »

Just to simplify the running it twice problem. Say we have 10 cards, 2 are good, 8 are bad and we have to pick one card. So we're in an 80/20 situation.

Take a $200 pot. If we run it once our EV is 20% x $200 = $40.

Now let's run it twice.

On the first run a good card will come up 20% of the time. When it does the equity will change on the second run. There is now 1 good card and 8 bad, so we have 11.11% equity on the second run.

So 20% of the time we'll win $100 and have an 11.11% shot at the second $100:

20%[$100 + (11.11% x $100)] = $22.22

If a bad card comes up on the first run, which will happen 80% of the time, our equity on the second run changes. There's 2 good cards and 7 bad, so we have 22.22% equity on the second run.

So 80% of the time we win nothing and have a 22.22% shot at the second $100:

80%[$0 + (22.22% x $100)] = $17.78

When we sum these two expectations we get:

20%[$100 + (11.11% x $100)] + 80%[$0 + (22.22% x $100)]

= $22.22 + $17.78

= $40

Which is the exact same EV as running it once.

So, even though our equity changes on the second run, the probability of those changes balance each other.

What it does do is change the variance.

When running it once there's a 20% probability of being +$200 and an 80% of having $0:

V = p1(x1 - E(x))^2 + p2(x2 - E(x))^2

V = 20%($200 - $40)^2 + 80%($0 - $40)^2

V = 5120 + 1280

V = $6,400

When running it twice there's a (0.2 x 0.111) = 2.22% chance of being up $200. There's (0.2 x 0.889) + (0.8 x 0.222) = 0.1778 + 0.1776 = 35.54% chance of being up $100. And a (0.8 x 0.778) = 62.24% chance of having $0.

V = p1(x1 - E(x))^2 + p2(x2 - E(x))^2 + p3(x3 - E(x))^2

V = 2.22%($200 - $40)^2 + 35.54%($100 - $40)^2 + 62.24%($0 - $40)^2

V = 568.32 + 1279.44 + 995.84

V = $2843.6

So it more than halves the variance by running it twice.

Thanks, brilliantly explained.

Theresalwaysone

BigCityBanker wrote: »

how does Doyle check back his rivered flush?

why does Dwan play his 99 so passively?

He doesnt check it back?

He checks into Durr and Benyamine.

Flushdraw

Nice post RJ...you can simplify it even further.

RedJoker wrote: »

Which is the exact same EV as running it once.......it more than halves the variance by running it twice.

People not understanding the difference between EV and variance is the problem

shano_88

zigmund really is a loose cannon. I read an article on him recently where he said he was a fish at nlhe. It really shows in this episode. Hes all over the place. Bluffing in wierd crazy spots and not continuing and not bluffing at all when he has taken the innitiave. It doesnt make any sense.

Tight Ted

This is the best poker show I've ever watched, by absolute miles.

Hectorjelly

Tight Ted wrote: »

This is the best poker show I've ever watched, by absolute miles.

Have you watched the other seasons? They are good too

Hectorjelly

Hectorjelly wrote: »

Have you watched the other seasons? They are good too

I remember you wrote a while back that you thought the game was very easy, that a simple TAG approach that Laak was using was super profitable, do you think the standard of the game has improved with Dwan et al? Or does the presence of players like Elezra keep the value in that game?

Hectorjelly

BigCityBanker wrote: »

how does Doyle check back his rivered flush?

why does Dwan play his 99 so passively?

1 - He checked it to two aggro players, obv hoped one of them would make a stab at it (Durr nearly did), and also didn't want to stack himself it they had a higher flush

2 - Multiway pot, very bad board (I think KJ is already the nuts) and he has bottom set. He must of thought the best way to play the hand was induce bluffs from Eli/hope the board pairs

NickyOD

Hectorjelly wrote: »

He didn't

Yeah nice cover up there. Have to use that excuse the next time I make a donkey call. "It was for charity!!!.... oh and math is idiotic....there I have to say that you see because I was told to and the charity gets money if I do"

Hectorjelly

Deleted User wrote: »

I remember you wrote a while back that you thought the game was very easy, that a simple TAG approach that Laak was using was super profitable, do you think the standard of the game has improved with Dwan et al? Or does the presence of players like Elezra keep the value in that game?

My opinion, (which is just based on the small sample of hands shown) is that a good/average TAG would do well, even now provided he did a few things:

a) buy in short. whatever you do you don't want to have more than 100bbs against durr

b) stay away from durr

c) don't let the stakes affect you (easier said than done!)

Hectorjelly

Hectorjelly wrote: »

My opinion, (which is just based on the small sample of hands shown) is that a good/average TAG would do well, even now provided he did a few things:

a) buy in short. whatever you do you don't want to have more than 100bbs against durr

b) stay away from durr

c) don't let the stakes affect you (easier said than done!)

While I 100% understand points b) and c) I happily confess that I might not totally understand point a). Is it just that having that many bb's lets him pile pressure on you and he is just always going to play better than you that deep?

NickyOD

I think most winning 1/2 players would be very comfortable on that table sitting with half a million dollars.

RichieLawlor

NickyOD wrote: »

I think most winning 1/2 players would be very comfortable on that table sitting with half a million dollars.

Ya course they would 250k BB, totally comfortable

Hectorjelly

Deleted User wrote: »

While I 100% understand points b) and c) I happily confess that I might not totally understand point a). Is it just that having that many bb's lets him pile pressure on you and he is just always going to play better than you that deep?

The deeper you are, the deeper and more complicated a game is. 300bb poker is much more complicated than 100bb poker. Also with only 100bbs you protect yourself from a number of nasty situations. Eastgate wouldn't of made the fold he did with trips with only 100bbs, because Durr couldn't of put the pressure on him.

Hectorjelly

NickyOD wrote: »

I think most winning 1/2 players would be very comfortable on that table sitting with half a million dollars.

lol, most winning 1/2 players (myself included) wouldn't be comfortable walking to the bank with that much cash, never mind playing poker

Hectorjelly

Hectorjelly wrote: »

The deeper you are, the deeper and more complicated a game is. 300bb poker is much more complicated than 100bb poker. Also with only 100bbs you protect yourself from a number of nasty situations. Eastgate wouldn't of made the fold he did with trips with only 100bbs, because Durr couldn't of put the pressure on him.

That's more or less what I thought but wasn't sure so said I'd ask. Cheers.

NickyOD

Next time I'll include the sarcasm tags. You all know what i'm getting.

Negreanu, Ziggy, Eli, even Greenstein would be value in any game the way they have played in this series.

Slash/ED

You have to remember you're shown a tiny sample of hands, it's hard to gauge how anyones really playing and playing one big pot bad makes you look like you're playing terrible. Eli is a fish, and I don't know anything about Ziggy, but Greenstein and Negreanu could have just made some big mistakes in big pots. Negreanu less so because it does look like he's tilting and playing crap but Greenstein we've not really seen much of to make that judgement.

BigCityBanker

Hectorjelly wrote: »

a) buy in short. whatever you do you don't want to have more than 100bbs against durr

i was thinking about this earlier also. so many spots pop up with like AJ where you would comfortably 3bet and let it be profitable. but with 500bb ur just opening the noose for yourself

i think there is a minimum buyin to the game tho - so your always gonna be 100+bb deep.

ianmc38

Another very good episode. Durr has made it into a great show. The hand against Barry was brilliant. To see someone that experience and level headed get so tilted by Durrs constant raising and his previous AA fold was fascinating to watch.

Ziigmund's play has been absolutely pathetic. His thought process appears to be, hmm i think he's bluffing. I'm not giving one seconds thought to what he might have or what i'm representing, but I'm raising.

I thought the hand where Doyle rivered the flush with J9s was a very interesting hand.

ianmc38

BigCityBanker wrote: »

i was thinking about this earlier also. so many spots pop up with like AJ where you would comfortably 3bet and let it be profitable. but with 500bb ur just opening the noose for yourself

i think there is a minimum buyin to the game tho - so your always gonna be 100+bb deep.

There's rarely a good time to 3bet AJ with 100BB stacks let alone anything bigger. With 20 BBs it's a fine hand to shove against most opens, but even with 40BBs, it's not going to be a great hand to 3bet or shove preflop.

cuterob

ziigmund seems uncomfortable with the whole thing.. seems shy or something.. he's def a keyboard warrior though

NickyOD

ianmc38 wrote: »

I thought the hand where Doyle rivered the flush with J9s was a very interesting hand.

I can't say I liked his river check or his check raise with the 9 high flush either. he's winning well in this series but he's been the biggest card rack he's shown a complete lack of understanding about what Durr is doing and calling everyones hands wrong. Don't like some of his flat calls with ace-rags either. Also LMFAO @ Eli calling doyles hand and running 99 into KK. wtf?

ianmc38

His checkraise with the nine high flush is very good. The bad thing about it is the sizing. It's a ridiculous overbet. If he makes it 18-21k there's a small chance he may get called. But if he leads the river into Durrr, Durr might well even fold a hand as strong as AJ for a small bet as Doyles image was nitty and he's betting a card that hits Dwans range in terms of the way he played the rest of the hand. I think a cr is by far the best play on the river, just he made it the wrong size imo, though I dont think given his imahe he'd even have gotten paid with a minraise.

NickyOD

Eastgate not happy about the editing on HSP apparently.

mormank

Hectorjelly wrote: »

2 - Multiway pot, very bad board (I think KJ is already the nuts) and he has bottom set. He must of thought the best way to play the hand was induce bluffs from Eli/hope the board pairs

wasnt the flop 3 spades?? sometimes the definition on my laptop isnt great but i wouldve thought on a 3 spade flop of 9 10 q you wouldnt wanna be going crazy with bottom set. standard play by durr here i think.

ocallagh

ianmc38 wrote: »

I thought the hand where Doyle rivered the flush with J9s was a very interesting hand.

I don't really get Durr's call on the flop or turn in that hand. Was he floating them both? Bit optimistic I thought but I might have missed something. The flop hits a lot of medium suited connectors so maybe Durr was considering taking them off 2 pair/1 pair+combo hands on the river but too many draws hit and he backed down???

Greenstein's J9 was painful to watch.

Tight Ted

ianmc38 wrote: »

There's rarely a good time to 3bet AJ with 100BB stacks let alone anything bigger. With 20 BBs it's a fine hand to shove against most opens, but even with 40BBs, it's not going to be a great hand to 3bet or shove preflop.

You're better off 3-betting marginal hands with stacks bigger than 100BB. More BB means more room for play, so it means a skilled player like Tom Dwan can play his junkier hands more profitably.

BigCityBanker

ianmc38 wrote: »

There's rarely a good time to 3bet AJ with 100BB stacks let alone anything bigger. With 20 BBs it's a fine hand to shove against most opens, but even with 40BBs, it's not going to be a great hand to 3bet or shove preflop.

If people are opening tons in 9 max with 100bb they obviously are not adjusting their opening range relative to the stacks. 3 betting AJ in spots like that has $$ signs rolling around my head.