All Time 2+2 Thread Draft PICK THREAD
11-23-2013
, 04:42 PM
11-23-2013
, 07:02 PM
11-23-2013
, 10:11 PM
11-23-2013
, 10:22 PM
finally Daniel appears, probably my favourite OP ever.
11-24-2013
, 01:50 AM
11-24-2013
, 02:17 AM
11-24-2013
, 08:01 AM
11-24-2013
, 10:29 AM
11-24-2013
, 12:26 PM
2005 was quite the year for online poker - what was once a limit paradise was now being overtaken by the unlimited texas hold them variety due to Chris Moneymaker (god bless him). 2+2 publishing was starting to really cash in on its knowledgeable writers, and next on the docket was a no-limit cash game book. But while this book was being developed, we had some smugness and controversy in the high stakes NL forum (yes there was actual high stakes strategy in 2005):
Initial disagreement (ah it's just kkf):
some more:
strasser in da house:
resident real estate balla rika:
fsu comes in with the low blow:
el d and hek join the party:
Mason comes back with some lolclarification
which, of course, ends with:
TheWorstPlayer sums it up nicely:
another well-placed low blow:
Matt Flynn is a bit rustled:
El d, as he's done so often on these boards, needs only to fan the flames...
people start questioning skill levels and abilities to actually write a NL book:
El d with another truthbomb:
the lols:
El d's lawnmower is now hovering:
Mason with some lols that continue to rustle the masked man:
Ed Miller joins the party:
Matt Flynn is back:
just lol
Mason starts to get a little snarky:
Matt Flynn's lawnmower also hovering:
Mason continues to go hambone for literally 90 posts with el diablo applying the pressure, until finally:
The writeup barely does it justice, as there are lawnmowers all over the place throughout the whole thread. Also, Mason gets owned approximately 389 times.
With round 7 pick, Grando picks:
AQ vs JJ
Quote:
Hi Everyone:
I thought I would pass along a little discussion that I took part in tonight. I've been trying to play some no limit hold 'em since it has become so popular and we are publishing books on this subject, so earlier this evening I was sitting in a $5-$10 blind no limit game at The Wynn.
What happen was that a player raised to $40 and then got reraised to $150. The original raiser then folded and showed AQ. His opponent then showed JJ.
This of course started a discussion as to which hand was better. Most of the table agreed that the pair of jacks were better since they would win over 50 percent of the time in a show down. Then someone said, "Let's ask Mason since he writes all the books." My answer was that if someone was all-in, the jacks would be better, but if they each had chips left, which was the case here, the ace-queen suited was better.
Well, no one understood what I was talking about. No wonder the games are good.
Best wishes,
Mason
I thought I would pass along a little discussion that I took part in tonight. I've been trying to play some no limit hold 'em since it has become so popular and we are publishing books on this subject, so earlier this evening I was sitting in a $5-$10 blind no limit game at The Wynn.
What happen was that a player raised to $40 and then got reraised to $150. The original raiser then folded and showed AQ. His opponent then showed JJ.
This of course started a discussion as to which hand was better. Most of the table agreed that the pair of jacks were better since they would win over 50 percent of the time in a show down. Then someone said, "Let's ask Mason since he writes all the books." My answer was that if someone was all-in, the jacks would be better, but if they each had chips left, which was the case here, the ace-queen suited was better.
Well, no one understood what I was talking about. No wonder the games are good.
Best wishes,
Mason
Quote:
with position and the advantage of being the aggressor, id perfer jj to aq.
Quote:
I prefer JJ over AQs in any NL game regardless of stack size. Do you see why?
Quote:
I'll take JJ over any ace any day.
Quote:
I would rather have position, the next option would be JJ WAY OVER AQ, not even close.
Quote:
...
Quote:
I was sitting in a $5-$10 blind no limit
Quote:
No wonder the games are good.
Quote:
I'll take the JJ.
Quote:
JJ. I'm a fish like the rest of you.
Quote:
Hi Everyone:
The question isn't whether jacks is better than ace-queen suited. If you raise with ace-queen suited and get a good sized reraise, as long as the player is playing somewhat rationally you have to fold.
The question is regardless as to whether it is right or wrong to call the raise, if you do go ahead and call it, which hand would you now rather have. (Of course in reality if you hold the ace-queen you don't know that your opponent holds precisely jacks and vice-versa.)
Here's a hint. In almost all cases the ace-queen will check the flop and the player holding the jacks will bet probably somewhere between half the pot to the whole pot.
Best wishes,
Mason
The question isn't whether jacks is better than ace-queen suited. If you raise with ace-queen suited and get a good sized reraise, as long as the player is playing somewhat rationally you have to fold.
The question is regardless as to whether it is right or wrong to call the raise, if you do go ahead and call it, which hand would you now rather have. (Of course in reality if you hold the ace-queen you don't know that your opponent holds precisely jacks and vice-versa.)
Here's a hint. In almost all cases the ace-queen will check the flop and the player holding the jacks will bet probably somewhere between half the pot to the whole pot.
Best wishes,
Mason
Quote:
Id still rather have JJ.
Quote:
Quote:
Id still rather have JJ.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Id still rather have JJ.
Quote:
Mason:
Well, no one understood what I was talking about. No wonder the games are good.
Strasser:
I'll take JJ over any ace any day
Roman:
JJ is a lot more valuable than AQ in a cash game
punter:
AQ vs JJ in not even close imo
cero_z:
In NL, the Jacks are definitely better
flawless_victory:
JJ is better
El Diablo:
I'll take the JJ.
HoldemKillah:
JJ.
KKF:
Id still rather have JJ
Yeti:
Id still rather have JJ
Mason, that full ring game of you, strasser, roman, punter, cero, flawless, El D, HEK, KKF, and Yeti sure does sound like a good game. Let me know next time you're sitting in such a live one.
Well, no one understood what I was talking about. No wonder the games are good.
Strasser:
I'll take JJ over any ace any day
Roman:
JJ is a lot more valuable than AQ in a cash game
punter:
AQ vs JJ in not even close imo
cero_z:
In NL, the Jacks are definitely better
flawless_victory:
JJ is better
El Diablo:
I'll take the JJ.
HoldemKillah:
JJ.
KKF:
Id still rather have JJ
Yeti:
Id still rather have JJ
Mason, that full ring game of you, strasser, roman, punter, cero, flawless, El D, HEK, KKF, and Yeti sure does sound like a good game. Let me know next time you're sitting in such a live one.
Quote:
so when's that book coming out
Quote:
Of course you want the jacks. Jacks are far more valuable than AQs. Any pair beats any other preflop holding by a mile within a very broad range of stack sizes and playing styles. Here if your assumption holds that the out-of-position player will play jacks better postflop b/c he will be forced to fold for a small postflop bet less, jacks are waayyy better than AQs.
No limit is annoying to discuss because it is so heuristic, and this question suffers from that problem. In general with random opponents, jacks are significantly better. However, if I or any other relatively aggressive player is the player with position, JJ could end up costing the out-of-position player more than AQs. The reason is I am likely to resteal from you if you give off any weakness, and my only question before putting you to the test on most boards will be "did he flop a set?"
Matt
No limit is annoying to discuss because it is so heuristic, and this question suffers from that problem. In general with random opponents, jacks are significantly better. However, if I or any other relatively aggressive player is the player with position, JJ could end up costing the out-of-position player more than AQs. The reason is I am likely to resteal from you if you give off any weakness, and my only question before putting you to the test on most boards will be "did he flop a set?"
Matt
Quote:
Matt,
Note that in Mason's followup post he postulates the following:
AQs is out of position having called a reraise. Jacks are in position having put in the re-raise preflop.
Given that scenario, he would rather be the AQs post-flop.
I am looking forward to Mason's explanation.
Note that in Mason's followup post he postulates the following:
AQs is out of position having called a reraise. Jacks are in position having put in the re-raise preflop.
Given that scenario, he would rather be the AQs post-flop.
I am looking forward to Mason's explanation.
Quote:
Picking AQs without stack-size clarification and statement of major restrictions? Interesting.
Quote:
Not surprisingly, Mason, your description of how the hand will be played reminds me of how limit players play NL - typically far worse than even relatively inexperienced low-limit NL players.
if mason can make such a fundamental mistake as this one, a mistake that reminds you of the kind made specifically by players transitioning from limit to no-limit, then that doesn't bode well for two other 2+2 authors known as limit players writing a book on no-limit.
i don't presume to know or disparage sklansky's and miller's abilities as nl players, but i have a simple question: wouldn't RAY ZEE writing the nl cash games book make a lot more sense??
if mason can make such a fundamental mistake as this one, a mistake that reminds you of the kind made specifically by players transitioning from limit to no-limit, then that doesn't bode well for two other 2+2 authors known as limit players writing a book on no-limit.
i don't presume to know or disparage sklansky's and miller's abilities as nl players, but i have a simple question: wouldn't RAY ZEE writing the nl cash games book make a lot more sense??
Quote:
Ed is very inexperienced at NL, and as far I I know David is not very experienced at NL either. Both, however, are very good at math and poker theory. I imagine the book will be written in a way that focuses on NL topics that take advantage of those strengths.
Quote:
I like to interpret this as Malmuth being the 15-handicapper with the absolutely perfect swing and the rest of the 2p2 consensus being Ray Floyd.
Quote:
I don't know what that really means, but when it comes to NL, only one of the 2+2 authors has a perfect swing.
Quote:
Since David S is writing I would not be surprised if the book goes like:
"If you think your opponent is weak, you should raise"
"If you think he is strong, you should fold"
"Unless he gives you correct odds, then you should call"
"If you think your opponent is weak, you should raise"
"If you think he is strong, you should fold"
"Unless he gives you correct odds, then you should call"
Quote:
I imagine the treatment of some things will be very good. Short-stack all-in strategy, for example.
Quote:
Hi Masked Man:
Your idea as to what my experience and knowledge is is also limited. Even though I haven't played much no limit simply because the game didn't exist until recently, perhaps more than anyone else in all of poker, I have had the luxury of talking sophisticated poker of all type with many of the best players in the world. This includes huge numbers of hours of discussion with both Ray Zee and Dan Harrington, people who I have been close friends with for about 20 years each.
Best wishes,
Mason
Your idea as to what my experience and knowledge is is also limited. Even though I haven't played much no limit simply because the game didn't exist until recently, perhaps more than anyone else in all of poker, I have had the luxury of talking sophisticated poker of all type with many of the best players in the world. This includes huge numbers of hours of discussion with both Ray Zee and Dan Harrington, people who I have been close friends with for about 20 years each.
Best wishes,
Mason
Quote:
Mason,
Well, I don't care to rehash our discussions of the past about whether or not cash NL can thrive as a game and the fact that in some places it definitely has existed and never went away! My position on that has been clear for some time, of course. And I really don't care all that much about who has how much NL experience, though it's good to see you are spending some time thinking and talking about NL. If you and David have spent more time on NL than many of us here are aware (my knowledge is based on your posts here and discussions I've had with many longtime NL players in Vegas, LA, and SF who have been playing NL for many, many years), that's great to know.
Mainly, though, I would simply like to hear your explanation as to why you prefer AQs to JJ in the situation you described.
Thanks!
Well, I don't care to rehash our discussions of the past about whether or not cash NL can thrive as a game and the fact that in some places it definitely has existed and never went away! My position on that has been clear for some time, of course. And I really don't care all that much about who has how much NL experience, though it's good to see you are spending some time thinking and talking about NL. If you and David have spent more time on NL than many of us here are aware (my knowledge is based on your posts here and discussions I've had with many longtime NL players in Vegas, LA, and SF who have been playing NL for many, many years), that's great to know.
Mainly, though, I would simply like to hear your explanation as to why you prefer AQs to JJ in the situation you described.
Thanks!
Quote:
As for Ed Miller ... He's the first one to ever explain the advantages of a short stack strategy
Quote:
Mason, this is a little much.
Quote:
It is a little much if you don't put that qualifier (in a book) on it Mason, as it otherwise implies that Ed developed that theory. (The specific quote I claimed was "a little much" - He's [Ed Miller] the first one to ever explain the advantages of a short stack strategy)
On this very forum, probably about 2 or 3 years ago, there were numerous discussions about how to have near guaranteed wins in one of the live games around here by buying in for the minimum of $100 and playing very tight. Those same short-buy discussions have been more recently discussed in depth in the context of online no-limit games.
Also, there have been many posts here by people like Matt Flynn and Tommy (and more recently from people like me and GiftofGab) that discuss optimal buyin levels, which often times is described simply as "enough to cover the bad players," not "cover the table." Obviously, when you are an awesome player like 2+2er KaneKungFu, you always want to cover the table.
You stated that you've talked no-limit over the years with many excellent players. I'm sure none of those players would make silly claims like "a tight short-stack strategy can't work" as these Florida home-game players were arguing.
If your point is that there are many bad players out there who have major misconceptions about NL strategy, of course I agree.
However, I do think it is a little much to portray what Ed wrote as some sort of innovative NL strategy. It is a basic, very simple and well-known winning strategy that is good for beginners, but usually far from the most +EV strategy once people advance beyond the basic beginner stage.
On this very forum, probably about 2 or 3 years ago, there were numerous discussions about how to have near guaranteed wins in one of the live games around here by buying in for the minimum of $100 and playing very tight. Those same short-buy discussions have been more recently discussed in depth in the context of online no-limit games.
Also, there have been many posts here by people like Matt Flynn and Tommy (and more recently from people like me and GiftofGab) that discuss optimal buyin levels, which often times is described simply as "enough to cover the bad players," not "cover the table." Obviously, when you are an awesome player like 2+2er KaneKungFu, you always want to cover the table.
You stated that you've talked no-limit over the years with many excellent players. I'm sure none of those players would make silly claims like "a tight short-stack strategy can't work" as these Florida home-game players were arguing.
If your point is that there are many bad players out there who have major misconceptions about NL strategy, of course I agree.
However, I do think it is a little much to portray what Ed wrote as some sort of innovative NL strategy. It is a basic, very simple and well-known winning strategy that is good for beginners, but usually far from the most +EV strategy once people advance beyond the basic beginner stage.
Quote:
I certainly don't claim to have "invented" these ideas.
Quote:
Mason,
Please explain your original clain that E[AQs] > E[JJ].
Matt
Please explain your original clain that E[AQs] > E[JJ].
Matt
Quote:
Hi psuasskicker:
This is a very good way to analyze many statistical situations. When I worked for Northrop, and we were interested in blowing up the Soviet Union, I used similar techniques many times, and we weren't concerned with no limit poker, but we were concerned with real no limit.
best wishes,
Mason
This is a very good way to analyze many statistical situations. When I worked for Northrop, and we were interested in blowing up the Soviet Union, I used similar techniques many times, and we weren't concerned with no limit poker, but we were concerned with real no limit.
best wishes,
Mason
Quote:
7% of the time, AQ loses 150
26% of the time, AQ wins 165+225 = 390
7% of the time, AQ loses 150+225 = 375
= -100 + 101 - 26 = -25
The above is wrong. I'll let others elaborate.
MM
Mason, please explain what you believe is wrong about that equation in the context that I wrote it.
More importantly, please explain why you disagree with my calculations that show the EV of JJ (whether looking at the problem in terms of EV for the whole hand or EV post-flop) to be higher than that of AQs.
Ed, feel free to chime in as well. You're an MIT grad, so if there's an error in my post, I'm sure you could point it out and provide the correct relative EV calcs for JJ v. AQs using the assumptions Mason provided.
26% of the time, AQ wins 165+225 = 390
7% of the time, AQ loses 150+225 = 375
= -100 + 101 - 26 = -25
The above is wrong. I'll let others elaborate.
MM
Mason, please explain what you believe is wrong about that equation in the context that I wrote it.
More importantly, please explain why you disagree with my calculations that show the EV of JJ (whether looking at the problem in terms of EV for the whole hand or EV post-flop) to be higher than that of AQs.
Ed, feel free to chime in as well. You're an MIT grad, so if there's an error in my post, I'm sure you could point it out and provide the correct relative EV calcs for JJ v. AQs using the assumptions Mason provided.
Quote:
Mason,
In general this is a collegial forum. We get some obnoxious interlopers, but in general all the top posters on this forum treat each other well.
Every really good poster who has chimed in save one on this forum has disagreed with your position. Ok, so let's talk no limit. We can have a discussion and come to a consensus. If saving face is so important, it is simple to declare restraining conditions that make E[AQs]>E[JJ]. We can then agree to disagree on whether those constraints are relevant to the game you were playing in.
I feel that the need to be right has perverted the discussion here. This is not a book. It is ok for anyone, including you, to be wrong or to make a series of iffy assumptions. Who cares if you change your mind? This is a discussion site, not a bible for playing no limit.
I ask that you treat me and the other posters here with some respect, or at least tone it down. Your last post, while perhaps better dismissed as banter between colleagues, imo crosses the line. You have declared a position, claimed everyone who disagrees does not know how to play no limit, disagreed with every experienced poster who has chimed in save one (who has since recanted I am willing to bet), presented an interesting but irrelevant discussion, and now nitpick on addition on a man who admits to having 12 scotches. It has been four days. Please let the thread die if you have no intention of explaining yourself or refuse to admit that you are wrong. Otherwise, let's have some fun and talk poker!
Much appreciated.
Matt
In general this is a collegial forum. We get some obnoxious interlopers, but in general all the top posters on this forum treat each other well.
Every really good poster who has chimed in save one on this forum has disagreed with your position. Ok, so let's talk no limit. We can have a discussion and come to a consensus. If saving face is so important, it is simple to declare restraining conditions that make E[AQs]>E[JJ]. We can then agree to disagree on whether those constraints are relevant to the game you were playing in.
I feel that the need to be right has perverted the discussion here. This is not a book. It is ok for anyone, including you, to be wrong or to make a series of iffy assumptions. Who cares if you change your mind? This is a discussion site, not a bible for playing no limit.
I ask that you treat me and the other posters here with some respect, or at least tone it down. Your last post, while perhaps better dismissed as banter between colleagues, imo crosses the line. You have declared a position, claimed everyone who disagrees does not know how to play no limit, disagreed with every experienced poster who has chimed in save one (who has since recanted I am willing to bet), presented an interesting but irrelevant discussion, and now nitpick on addition on a man who admits to having 12 scotches. It has been four days. Please let the thread die if you have no intention of explaining yourself or refuse to admit that you are wrong. Otherwise, let's have some fun and talk poker!
Much appreciated.
Matt
Quote:
I have now reconsidered my statement and agree that El Diablo is correct.
I see now that what I was concentrating on was the interesting fact that the existence of future bets would help the jacks in limit (because it can knock out six outs on either the flop or the turn) but against most players those future bets would hurt the jacks and help the ace-queen suited in no limit (because of the increased implied odds).
MM
I see now that what I was concentrating on was the interesting fact that the existence of future bets would help the jacks in limit (because it can knock out six outs on either the flop or the turn) but against most players those future bets would hurt the jacks and help the ace-queen suited in no limit (because of the increased implied odds).
MM
With round 7 pick, Grando picks:
AQ vs JJ