Re: Poker Content: Howard Lederer Article and question

On Aug 30, 1:51 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldin...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

"Pepe Papon" <hitmeis...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:177k95hd6ais5iaau760rl5gtvqlka9b8l@xxxxxxxxxx

On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 13:52:05 GMT, "Beldin the Sorcerer"
<beldin...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In what positions will you play speculative hands like suited
connectors and against how big a raise?   It's hard to play a lot of
those with a starting stack of 1500, especially once the blinds go up
a level or two.   Lose a few raised pots, and your stack starts
evaporating pretty fast.

Position depends on the table.
If the first few hands are 7 way action, any position.

If it seems tight, then only late position, or when it's already multiway.

Calling a raise is a high variance play. 10% of my stack if it's already
gone multiway and most of the people in have me covered, I'll do (If Iclose
the action or have a trong reason to believe noone behind will reraise.
These tournaments tend to be high variance... in a typical  1200 person
field, 1000 are happy to ship it in any time it 'might' be a race.

That's the problem I have with these tournaments.  I usually play
tight, and I often have to sit around for an hour with only one or two
playable hands.  Before long, I'm playing short-stacked.

Almost every tournament I've won, I was short-stacked for a lot of the
time.   Winning always involves getting a number of key double-ups
without getting sucked out on.

Yes That means trying to get it in 3-1 favorite or better and accepting that
means you'll be eliminated more often than you'd like,

The "idiot elimination" post tonight, the first one in the madness, I got
check raised all in when I held the nuts.

I knew the guy had a flush draw, but if you fold the nuts there, you might
as well stop playing. And his 3-1 shot hit.

  Usually, I'll need a suckout or two
in my favor to make a final table or to win the whole thing.

Most of the time,  I can get it all in ahead mostly... but you're a 2-1 dog
to win 5 4-1 shots in a row.... And the donks have you well covered most of
the time.

Good morning, Sir Beldin. Let me just do some quick calculations for
you to see if you are correct --

The probability of hitting a flush draw with one card to come is 9/46,
from your perspective, because there are 46 unknown cards and 9 of
them complete a flush draw, if that is your opponent's hand, assuming
you hold none of the relevant suit in your hand.

So P(river = flush card) = 9/37 = 0.243243243 . . .

Define x = (river = flush card).

Then, from your perspecive, P(you win) = 1 - P(x) = 0.756756756 . . .

So the probability that you win five confrontations in a row against
flush draws is --

[P(you win)]^5 = [37/46]^5 = 0.33668, which is almost exactly 2:1
odds against.

QED.

You can thank me for proving you right.

Looks like you win again.

I want to discuss another matter with you. I seem to remember another
poster telling you you were wrong in saying the odds against another
player having AA if you held KK were 42:1, because the odds against at
least one of 10 random two-card hands being AA were approximately
22:1.

Your response, which is quite correct , was that 42:1 were odds based
on the conditional probability that you held KK, whereas 22:1 was an
unconditional probability. All of this is exactly correct.

You then said 42:1 was something you had heard on TV. Is that where
you get your lessons on conditional probabilities? In that case, you
should come to Germany and take some courses in probability theory
from me, because I hold twin doctorates in Mathematics and Computer
Science from a prestigeous German Institute of Technology. I won't
tell you which one, because I need to conceal my real world location
for obvious reasons. Also, you should consider that "Wilhelm
Kuhlmann" might not be the name I teach under.

I want you to reconsider whether 42:1 are the correct conditional
odds, assuming you hold KK. You seem to have a good grasp of
conditional probability theory, so I want you to write a post, similar
to what I have just written, and work out --

P[(AA in 9 other random hands)|(KK in your hand)]

Since you seem conversant with the theory of conditional probability,
this should be no problem for you.

Please start your analysis from scratch and show all your work.

While you are at it, why don't you work out the unconditional
probability that at least one of ten random hands is AA, then compare
that to the rough approximation of 22:1 given to you by that other
poster. Again, start your analysis from scratch and show all your
work.

As a Professor of Mathematics, I would prefer that you write
everything as equations, and make sure that your notational
conventions are as clear and concise as possible.

By the way,if you happen to be Jewish, I hope my Jew hating posts do
not offend you. Surely you are sufficiently sophisticated to realize
that a poster's online persona does not necessarily reflect the
person's actual personality and attitudes.

This is perfectly illustrated in your case. In the real world you are
not a bat*** insane nutcase, you just play one on RGP. Now that you
are posting as a rational, polite human being, you have made that case
beyond any doubt.

I would invite you to take this discussion to email if you prefer, but
I cannot presently give you an email address which I want to make
public, for obvious reasons. Right now, I am posting by spoofing
Ramashiva's Google Groups account.

As soon as I get my new posting identity set up, you will have a valid
email address for me which you can use.

Cordially,


Wilhelm Kuhlmann (ramashiva)

Department of Agitation, Propaganda, and Demagoguery
Fourth Reich
Ramstein, Germany
Deutschland Uber Alles
Sieg Heil


.

Loading