Quote:
Originally Posted by RagingOwl
Yeah but he's failed to account for all the money we lose with a dominated hand,
or when our hand is outdrawn,
or when we call with a draw and lose.
He's assuming that we can play this hand passively, 4-ways, from out of position, after flopping something less than 2pair or a 12+out draw, and make a profit. That's a really bold assumption for which there is no evidence or mathematical justification. It's just an imagined EV calculation that basically goes like this....."*shrug*, I think I'm so ****ing good that I think I can overcome all the -EV conditions in this hand and turn a profit". That's not a strategy. It's bull****.
You are pretty scathing about the possibility of adding any extra EV from the times we end up winning when we make a pair or we flop an OESD/naked FD and get there. One thing we can say about this EV number is that it is strictly greater than zero (as we can just open fold whenever we don’t flop a monster or a 12+ out draw)
I’ve done some rough math in my head that suggests we could have a few extra $s of EV from those situations. My thoughts are too sketchy at the moment to start typing them out on this forum but they seem reasonable to me. I think we can construct some logic and math fairly easily to do this and it’s not just a matter of just shrugging/making up numbers.
If we can get only a few $ of EV from the call pre flop play, then, although a few $ doesn’t seem like much, it can add up in the long term. If we get this spot happening once every hour or two then a few extra $s of EV could raise our win rate per hour quite significantly.
(I appreciate that you have raised issues around being dominated and being up against bigger flush draws etc. and how that could change the math of AllTheCheese’s workings. I haven’t had time today to get into that in detail, so I’ll put that on the back burner for the moment)
I haven’t read the Flynn/Mehta/Miller book PNLH vol 1 that you mentioned. It sounds interesting. I’d like to read it.
I’ve been having a look at reviews of it on PokerNews and on amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk. On the latter two, there are some interesting reviews which offer some challenges around the SPR theories expounded in the book. These theories sound interesting - they seem quite new/unusual in terms of poker theory, I have not seen them in other literature. It seems they argue for manipulating pot sizes preflop, to create low SPRs (in single digits?) to allow us to make money when flopping hands like TPGK against worse hands that will call us. To my mind (but without much thinking from me atm) this could make a lot of sense with short stacks like <40bb. But with the more typical stacks of ~70-100+ bbs I would think that the aspect of the game involving playing SCs and other speculative hands to make ‘big’ hands becomes a larger part of the game. Anyway, it sounds interesting, I’m interested in finding out more about it. I think Miller is good in general.
If you are taking this Flynn/Mehta/Miller material and coming to conclusions such as folding pre in the spot discussed in the OP here, then I am starting to worry that maybe you have misinterpreted their writings somewhere along the line, especially when your conclusions end up contradicting advice from such good sources as Jonathan Little and the good ole 5-10 rule.
But there we go... interesting stuff eh?
