You disagree that you should be more risky against a FL opponent? I feel this is very standard play. You have more to gain from hitting FL against a FL opponent and less to lose because it often makes the difference between getting scooped or not.

Yes, basically I disagree that you have to play 'more risky' in a 14-card Fantasyland game (which is what ABC and TonyBet have). My theory on what's solid here is to focus on royalty equity in all rows and (defending against negative) scoop equity rather than just focusing on Fantasyland makes and future FL EV. Doesn't mean you can't try to get to FL but it's less profitable than in standard OFC and I don't think you should be sacrificing the other two scoring areas to get there.

I think a lot of players have gotten used to a 10-12 point FL EV from standard Open Face, and that just doesn't translate to Pineapple when played with 14-card Fantasyland.

In my trial 14-card FL EV over the 400-hand sample came to about 5.95 against a Pineapple hand, so it's easier to defend against Fantasyland in Pineapple and there is less EV to be gained once getting to FL. My EV could be different than others' measurements so I don't want to say that's definitive, but 'compentently set' could be a good description of play.

15-card Fantasyland is a totally different monster and in that case I agree you have to play riskier all around. I also ran 200 hands in that scenario and the 15-card FL absolutely crushed, more like 12+ points. Pocket Rockets does it that way, with KK qualifying. Just bring a bigger bankroll.

Another issue is this, for both 14 and 15 cards: when you have the FL opponent repeating FL simultaneous to your make, you are then both in FL at the same time next hand. You are now playing Lotto, right? Simultaneous FL reduces edge. I'm not preaching 'dont go to FL in Pineapple' but I am pointing out this skill-reduction point happens much more frequently than in standard OFC, since QQ+ FL is so easy to make in Pineapple, and repeats are more frequent as well. And 3-handed, this scenario happens all the time. So 'getting to FL' ain't always good.

I have now basically accidentally summarized the article on this topic I wrote for the 2+2 magazine. It's in this month's issue for those interested:
http://www.twoplustwo.com/magazine/i...pple-poker.php

Also I should point out that if you take that 100-point or whatever-point prop bet against the 17-card Fantasyland player, you should probably try not to get to FL yourself. That simply extends the round for the 17-card player who is enjoying a ~20 point EV per hand.

My point is that taking risks on our part is going to lower our opponents scoop% a lot more when we're against a FL hand than against an open face hand, partly because the hands are stronger and partly because our opponent has no chance of fouling. So defending against negative scoop equity has to entail taking more chances than you would against an opponent who can possibly be scooped by any legal hand.

For example, let's say you had a really bad runout and you ended up with basically Q-hi/K-hi/A-hi with 2 pulls left. Let's say you catch Q/blank/blank. If you were against an open face hand that had a reasonable chance of fouling, you would just play it safe and not pair the queen as it's so unlikely for you to catch a K and an A on the last pull. But if you were against a FL hand, your hand has zero value as is, so it's easily the best move for you to play the queen up top and hope for a miracle.

Welcome to GamblerGames

My point is that there are alternative setting strategies that are possibly more solid than an aggro attempt at scoring in front/getting to FL, which leaves the back two rows vulnerable while obviously increasing foul percentage.

Defending against negative scoop equity is only 1/3 of improving overall hand equity, and 'taking risks' (which I assume means going for a high broadway pair in front) is only one way to increase scoop equity. Setting early for double flushes or double boats, a good back row full house, trips or a straight in middle, or 88-JJ in front are all examples of plays that improve both scoop and royalty equity, and thus overall hand equity. 14-card Fantasyland isn't that terrific. Obviously some monsters hit. But in a larger sample size there are plenty of low-pair or A-high/K-high front rows that are left over after putting that boat/flush or similar hand together, so a pair of 8's against FL in front is a reasonable play esp. if that frees up high broadway for the better end of a back row boat. In that scenario you are very likely to bring your scoop equity up to the +1/-1 area, as QQQ/xx KKK/xx AAA/xx are very likely winners. Then you score 3 points with 8's minimizing other royalties, e.g. going +1 against trips middle from the FL player. 9's would counteract a middle row straight, JJ minimizes middle row flush to -2.

That should be Q/AK/x by the 2nd pull if you're going that route. Q/K/A is a holdover from standard Open Face. A bad starting hand or a bad runout is just variance. Gambling hard late in the hand is reactionary to run-bad or possibly the result of a poor early setup.

You do have to actually gamble more when your opponent is in FL. It's not a lot more, but it does occassionally change some of your decisions. Lets say you are thinking of bailing the back of a 3flush for 2 pair, and you have nothing going for your hand. You should almost certainly keep the flush draw open and hope you make it rather than bail. This is because 2pair is very close to equivalent to fouling and gives no royalties, a flush isn't impossible to complete and gives enough of a chance of not getting scooped that its worth the risk. Generally I am just trying to get some sort of royalties vs someone in FL, even if its 77 up top.

Once I shift gears from trying to build a monster into the "salvage something out of his hand" mode, I'm generally trying to make sure one row has a somewhat respectable chance of winning and thus blocking the scoop. It's mostly the same thing as your mindset of "just tying to get some sort of royalty", but I'd go so far as to try to get any pair up top, even the non royalty pairs, and/or 2pair mid has decent scoop-block abilities against normal-OFC FL hands and even pineapple-FL (high card/flush/flush, and pair/pair/boat are common enough pineapple FL hands)

Just to be clear I'm not advocating 'no gambling' in Pineapple OFC. Playing the game well requires it. My point is it may not be optimal to go beyond normal risk in this situation, especially if that tactic weakens the middle and back rows.

Regarding 'fouling and getting scooped is the same thing': getting scooped and fouling are not equivalencies as it relates to the overall hand score. There's a swing in royalty equity between the two scenarios. Obviously when you foul you're paying off all royalties the villain makes, but when you make equivalent or otherwise offsetting royalties in a good hand (even when scooped), the payout is less.

For example, if villain has boat/straight/88 and you foul, you're paying 19 points. If you make a hand like boat/straight/A-high, you might still get scooped but the hurt is down to 9 points, and the same hand without any middle royalties would pay out 13, which is still 6 points less than the 19. Boat/AA/JJ would avoid the scoop altogether and pay out only 2 points.

You should expect to get scooped or to pay out an equivalent EV when villain is in FL. Avoiding frequent 20+ point losses is what I'm talking about.

Let's say we have a made 10 high flush in the back, a pair of 9s in the middle, and a king on top. Our opponent has had a bad runout and has a dead pair on bottom, king high in he middle and queen high on top, virtually assuring us a scoop. If we catch a king and put it on top, we're risking 16 points to win around 14, (6 pts for losing scoop, 6 pts for opponents scoop, 4 pts for flush).

However, if we're against FL, we will usually but far from always get scooped with our hand anyway, so we're risking far less since often we'll only get 4 pts for the royalty for playing safe.

Go for it. If you have the odds it's a good play regardless of the situation.

I've already stated my theory quite clearly backed up with all sort of trial numbers and examples so I'm not planning to waste any more time defending it further. I see now my attempt at providing thoughtful alternatives to what appears to be standard thinking is unwelcome, so play whatever way you feel is appropriate, I don't really GAF

The idea is that you currently have a low chance at any royalties, so you take a "guaranteed royalty risk" where you maybe pair QQ up top a little more early than you used to and if you don't foul you will make some royalties. If you already have a strong hand like a 4flush, or 2 pair, the gamble would need to take into account these royalties and push it further from a gambling situation. Fouling and getting scooped is the same thing if you have Qxx/44xx/ TTxxx, or some other mediocre hand, which is often the case when you are solo against a FL player. Basically when you are solo HU vs FL you should assume that your opponent has a hand something like: 55/tt44/flush, and you should play your best to win some points back off that hand.

Well put.
Im much more likely to go for a 3flush and break up the pair with 99j7k so that I just so I can lesson the damage from the FL player.

That's not very nice now is it

nope not really

You can rest assured I'll be keeping my theoretical, strategic, and mathematical drivel to myself from now on, after determining the risk-reward scenario of sharing it on here. I'll save it for my own website and the occasional magazine that thinks it's worth publishing.

Ciao

I think your defensiveness here is a little unwarranted, the fact that me and a few others disagree with you on certain points doesn't mean that your opinion and analysis aren't welcome. I really don't think that anyone up until now has made it rude or personal.

I do think your analysis determining that the value of fantasyland may be less than typically assumed is valid, I'm simply disagreeing with the conclusion that this implies we shouldn't adjust our strategy to facing an opponent in FL.

Is the potential gain really as low as 14? KK high is already 8 pts, FL next hand adds about 10. This is one of the worst spots to gamble, and yet it is very standard spot to put KK top if you have around 3-4 outs to FL.

+1

I was enjoying the debate.

We go from winning 10 points ~90% of the time ( = AVG +9 ) before we gamble. We are going to say we are on either 5th or 6th street and have 6 outs to pair our sidecard, hit trips or hit running pair. So if we gamble we are winning (8 + 7(FL) + 4 + 6 + .34*2 (for trips potential))* 73.5% = 25.68 * .735 = 18.875

So it appears its still a clear gamble. In fact it would be a clear gamble until:

(8+7+4+6+.34*2)* X > 9

25.68X > 9
X > .35 or 35%

Which according to my direct outs 2 player chart means any time you have 4 or more live outs at any time. If you have 3 or more on 5th/6th, 2 or more on 1/2/3/4th and 2 or more for the button only on 2nd street.

Learned something!

He seems to be slightly sensitive every now and then (at some point he asked for comments about his charts, and we I gave them, he was not happy at all. The response was very similar to this case)

Wait what point value are you counting fantasy land as here

He counted FL as 7 which is probably on the low side. His calculation is wrong as he forget to count the 6 points loss upon fouling, he needs about 53% to chase FL at this spot.

You are righy I forgot to include -6*.265 = -1.59, fl is often valued at 6.5 for world class play. I have my own estimate around 8. The error and modification shouldnt change much since fouling occurs so infrequently.

Sent from my SAMSUNG

I still got 37% as breakeven point though, which means all the direct outs are the same.

(8+7+4+6+.34*2)* X - 6*(1-X) > 9

31.68X > 15
X > 47%