Yes you just handcuffed yourself by placing 5 in the middle especially with your opponent going nowhere fast, you want flexibility on future streets to beat his likely K high

btw open K/AA/34 and you'd be sitting pretty now with 3 shots at 6 outs

I would not recommend this.

I would if I set second and all the Kings were live.

I would even if villain shows one king, provided all the 3s and 4s are still live and there isn't something else grossly blocking the straight draw like opponent having 5556K or 22555. If he had done it here, he'd be looking at QQK/AA8/3456 at this point in the hand, with 6 outs to the straight, and I think every single one of us will happily be in that position.

But I'm sure that sort of play is why I get called all sorts of things when I hit fantasyland. Aggressive sets that seem to depend on luck end up not fouling way more often than people realize. You don't always bink the second King, but you don't foul far more often than people believe. But I guess I'm just a fish who lucks into FL all the time.

If I'm dealt AAxxx, I need a reason NOT to play it in the middle; the standard play should be playing it in the middle and then figuring out what to do with the remaining cards. Obviously sometimes it's simply not a good play whatsoever, but the default should be playing it in the middle. FL is simply too powerful to pass up one of the easiest tickets to the holy place.

17.6%

Let me get this straight. So you're telling me there's still a tribe of people hidden away that aren't playing Pineapple OFC? They speak standard OFC? Tell me more, tell me more! LOL

Pineapple is soooo good. Just played today and it is way better than regular OFC.

2 outs, 3 cards to come. We know this to be 17.6%

17.6% of the time we win 7 Royalty+12 FL +3.5 (somewhere in between 1 point and 6 points)

1-17.6% = 82.4% we lose 6 points

.176*22.5 - 6*.824 = 3.96-4.94 = -.98

Compare this with the alternative, where you place the Q in the bottom:

Let's estimate you win over 1 point if you set this, most likely your Top and Bottom will win, or your opponent will foul when they miss their flush draw on the bottom. They will occasionally get some royalties out of you, but not as often as they foul... it pretty much should even itself out.

So -1 point if you go for FL and a mistake of about 2 points.

It's extremely costly to set yourself in this "all-in" kind of way, at best it is less +EV than the alternative. I am not going to say PlayWarren is extremely accurate, but it appears to be worth about 1.8 points to set AA in the middle, and about 2.4 points to set it in the back.

If you want a reason NOT to play in the middle, I think .6 points is a good reason. When my EV calculator goes into beta later this month we can examine the spot more closely, to see when it is better, if at all.

Remember, no one designed this game so that gambling for FL was the best play. In fact, if anything, FL is designed to get people to make bad plays for the thrill of a sick beat.

I will happily play anyone who firmly believes that playing AA in the middle is going to be long term bad in most spots. Not sure if you're just sticking to this one spot or also speaking in general platitudes, but based on your final conclusion my hunch is it takes the perfect spot for you to ever even consider playing AA in there middle. FL wasn't "designed" for either, it was designed to add value to premium top hands, which typically require taking a lot more risk to achieve than premium bottom hands. It does sometimes encourage people to undertake risks that aren't worth the reward, but it also often punishes the nit who won't take on risk levels that are far below the reward offered.

This specific one may have issues because you block one end of your straight draw, and you are first to act so that's always tougher when going the AA rout; but put it this way - if I've got a decent enough 2-draw, AA and K to start, it's pretty unlikely I'm going to not set draw/AA/K. Every time.

What if the AA Was TT? Friend and I have a disagreement over this. I believe one was is clearly superior over another. He believes his way is better, but marginally so.

The problem is that most people see too many hands as FL sets because they want to have a FL set type of hand. I replied to this article with a long winded and mathematically backed reasoning behind not seting for FL: http://quadjacks.com/nikolai-yakoven...r-fantasyland/

I am not going to set for FL just because it "feels" right. There is a way to calculate it out mathematically. I had to actually hire a team of programmers to create the program so that I can find out the answer to this problem.

Right now we are placing bets on who's strategy is correct. I believe that 2 suited cards is enough to make the K/AA/ss the best play, but 2 off-suit cards, even if connected, might be still too weak. In any case, we will have the answers at our fingertips soon, don't be shy to keep up to date with the EV calculator at www.solvingofc.com

Another really good reason to not set this specific hand for FL is because you can get a K/Q/Q run out and make FL with Queens without risking a foul. So we might find that you should only gamble for FL when you have a QKK type hand. But we will see.

T44/7/J imo

if you want a response from deeb tho why not make it simpler for him to process n just say hey shaun how would you set QT744?

whats the advantage of changing it to a jack and changing FL qualification to JJ+?

i mean obv you guys were playing with JJ+ for FL and this opening set went down which led to an argument, but are you guys so dense you can't see how much smarter it would be to just ask him how he'd set QT744 since its almost the exact same principle?

That is a far different mindset than your previous post seemed to imply. I could easily see this being entirely correct; I don't know what the line is either, I think two connected, when all of its pair cards are also live, is sufficient.

Your earlier post, at least the way it seemed to me, was suggesting that you wouldn't do something like 86ss/AA/K, which is laughable.

Also, what are you using as the royalty bonus for making fantasyland? Obviously simply giving the player the 7 pt royalty isn't enough. Do you just simulate the next hand and have a way to set normal chinese hands so they maximize their ofc fantasyland value? Or just have a set payout?

New article out talking about direct outs vs indirect outs:

Check it Out

Thank you to hauturi for the math help and inspiration.

Once you go Pineapple........

The only thing that's gonna save standard OFC is you can't play Pineapple 4-handed.

I personally like both, but at a site I play at regularly, once Pineapple was introduced, that is where 100% of cash action is.

I haven't played both- but one of the things I find skillful about OFC is balancing risk of fouling vs. reward of royalties...It seems like people should be fouling way way less in pineapple so it's really just catching cards, is this not accurate?

Seems like there are some options here.



Leaning towards 8/7J/AT

I'd go for the gutterball, set the A mid and hope to bink some A-KK or A-QQ action. Gutshot is ~55-60% OOP/IP, pairing the Ace if live about a coinflip -- HU standard OFC AA middle will be very strong -- and opens the door to FL

7-8-j-10 back
A middle

Yeah I realize now gutterball better option. Was thinking the AT below gave me a lot of maneuverability depending how the hand played out.

FWIW I did scoop (A high/2p/flush) but the gutshot with A in middle looks like the stronger play overall.

HU UTG FL:

A 8 K Q 8

How are you setting?

I set --/A8/KQ8.

Tho not sure if that is optimal, and prob worst FL potential.

Wonder what had better Equity between Q/AK/88; Qk/A/88; other?

I went Q/AK/88, but could go either way.

Q-ak-88