Why there are more bad beats online, from Roy Rounder.

#36 11-02-2008, 8:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoWuckingFurries

So does this imply that we should generally be slow-playing AA

See this is the problem. In most poker scenarios, we DO want to isolate. The goal is to raise enough so that not everyone calls. But I am just saying a multi-way pot all-in is good. Implied odds hurt us a lot if for example everyone calls a 4x raise preflop, and if that were to happen at that point I would literally play my AA for set value. Because one pair is rarely good 9-way and the money hasn't gone in the pot yet. If the money is all in the pot though, I'll take the best hand in poker 100% of the time. If there is postflop play though, you don't want more opponents. So although my example actually had little bearing on any actual real poker play, if you don't understand the theory behind it you probably will have a tough time following the theory behind a strategy in a real hand.

#37 11-02-2008, 8:09 PM

So one additional over-simplified thought from my perspective...

AA vs 9 players in ring fine if you played your AA right and it happens. You still have the edge overall and ring is all about exploiting every edge no matter how thin.

AA vs 9 players in a freeze-out tourney is bad because losing 2 out of 3 times means you're out more often than not. In a tourney I'd rather be up against only 1 or 2 opponents tops, even with AA. Tournaments = survival while ring games let you rebuy to stack someone later.

#38 11-02-2008, 8:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Daniels

So one additional over-simplified thought from my perspective...

AA vs 9 players in ring fine if you played your AA right and it happens. You still have the edge overall and ring is all about exploiting every edge no matter how thin.

AA vs 9 players in a freeze-out tourney is bad because losing 2 out of 3 times means you're out more often than not. In a tourney I'd rather be up against only 1 or 2 opponents tops, even with AA. Tournaments = survival while ring games let you rebuy to stack someone later.

Yes, I agree completely.

#39 11-02-2008, 8:17 PM

you missed the bad beat on the river, the infamous 85 percent odds and higher with one card to go losing on the river. I've seen it over and over, and experienced it over and over. I absolutely agree with your post though, except the whole sites wouldn't rig the game stuff. absolute poker should have taught us something, yes? Also, sites need deposits, nor rakes. The business model calls for more deposits. I do believe the sites aren't run like steamboat poker where everyone is a sucker and the house purely thrives on cheating. But i think, like in all things in life, there are mixes of everything involved with the bad beats experienced online.

You are so right though about players being irrationaly, and money not seeming as real. I've watched friends play, and they absolutely do that. I have done that at times. It's a good post, and you obviously know what you're talking about. cool deal. gl everyone.

#40 11-02-2008, 8:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zachvac

ok, let's do some math.

AA is all-in against 8 random hands. Pokerstove says 33.5% equity.

I play 25nl, so say everyone has $25 at the table. If I win, I win 8*25 = $200. If I lose, I lose $25. My ev is approximately $50 (a little less, I used 1/3 and 2/3 as estimates, less than a .2% difference). With proper BRM I should have 20 buy-ins so I need $500+ to play at these tables. So if I enter this 20 times, my odds of losing them all are (2/3)^20 = 0.03% = 0.0003 = 1 in 3325. This is THREE TIMES AS UNLIKELY as a runner runner 2 outs (ie you flopped quad kings and your opponent just has AA. They will hit both aces on turn and river 0.09% of the time, 3 times as often as you go bust making this play 20 times).

So variance isn't a problem if you're using proper BRM unless you're the unluckiest person in the universe. And of course on average this play pays off more than a 1-on-1 all-in (where you win 25 if you win and lose 25 if you lose, so even if you never lost you'd only get half of what you'll get in a 9-way pot). So please explain to me how variance hurts you? Or when you flop quads vs. an over-pair are you always constantly afraid they'll runner runner quads on you?

OK, let's wake up from fantasyland and look at this in the right way. You're all-in against eight other players and you think they all have random hands? Hello!?!?!?! McFly!?!?!?!?!?

Now, let's do this the right way and assume that if there are several all-ins, that the odds are overwhelming that you aren't even the only person with AA. How do you like your EV now?

Gobbs

#41 11-02-2008, 8:54 PM

^^^ lol

#42 11-02-2008, 9:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zachvac

If the money is all in the pot though, I'll take the best hand in poker 100% of the time.

Of course, but the best hand pre-flop isn't necessarily the best hand post-flop. Let's suppose that you have

, I have

, and the flop is three spades, for example.

Quote:

So although my example actually had little bearing on any actual real poker play, if you don't understand the theory behind it you probably will have a tough time following the theory behind a strategy in a real hand.

I am wanting to understand the theory, but I learnt plenty of poncey theories at university that in RL were of no real use whatsoever, whereas what I learnt in basic economics aged 12 has in practice been far more useful, such as diminishing returns, or supply and demand. If you can't put a theory into practice, then I probably won't waste too much time trying to assimilate it.

#43 11-02-2008, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gobbs

OK, let's wake up from fantasyland and look at this in the right way. You're all-in against eight other players and you think they all have random hands? Hello!?!?!?! McFly!?!?!?!?!?

Now, let's do this the right way and assume that if there are several all-ins, that the odds are overwhelming that you aren't even the only person with AA. How do you like your EV now?

Gobbs

OK, let's put them on ranges. Let's say any PP, Ax, KQ-KT, QJ. I've seen 4-way all-ins where people had FAR worse than that (T4 just the other day), so I'm being generous to you. Now let's see what pokerstove has to say.

24.3% equity. The reason I used random hands was that AA vs. any 2 unders is similar and AA vs. any pocket pair is similar. This brought it down because more of the range is filled with pocket pairs, which I agree is true. So 9-way and we still have almost 1/4 pot equity. So I still like my ev thank you very much.

IN FACT: I tried this out, give 2 people AA and the rest cards in the previous range. You STILL have enough pot equity to call. Granted it's just barely, but you do. You're just under 12% and 9-way that's more than enough (12*9 = 108% > 100%). So even if you know for a fact that someone else has AA, you should still call a 9-way all-in preflop.

So I did this the "right way" and I still like my ev.

#44 11-02-2008, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoWuckingFurries

Of course, but the best hand pre-flop isn't necessarily the best hand post-flop. Let's suppose that you have

, I have

, and the flop is three spades

But when you make your decision, you don't know the flop and can't make your decision based on the flop. You can only do what gives you the best expected value based on the limited information that you know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoWuckingFurries

for example.I am wanting to understand the theory, but I learnt plenty of poncey theories at university that in RL were of no real use whatsoever, whereas what I learnt in basic economics aged 12 has in practice been far more useful, such as diminishing returns, or supply and demand. If you can't put a theory into practice, then I probably won't waste too much time trying to assimilate it.

And what about the poker theory of expected value, pot equity, and variance can't be put into practice?

#45 11-02-2008, 10:55 PM

I am pretty sure Roy is talking SnG strat only... it didnt really sound like he refered to cash games

#46 12-02-2008, 6:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zachvac

And what about the poker theory of expected value, pot equity, and variance can't be put into practice?

I certainly hope so, or I probably wouldn't be visiting this forum in the first place. It was just that one of your phrases started to ring alarm bells in my mind:

Quote:

Originally Posted by zachvac

my example actually had little bearing on any actual real poker play

What I'm trying to do is read things here, immediately take it and use it in my play, and then assess how useful it is to me in reality... one of the best ways to learn is to actually put theory into practice...

Similar Threads for: Why there are more bad beats online, from Roy Rounder.
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Loose Lips Sink Ships (More on Bad Beats)	Wlokos	Poker General	10	07-04-2008 7:13 AM
Online poker IS fair (long)	crash7	Poker General	7	21-11-2007 10:24 AM


Absolute Poker Referral Code CCHAT will get you a 100% upto $500 bonus at AbsolutePoker.com.	PokerStars is one of the best poker sites on the internet. They accept US players and using PokerStars marketing code CARDSCHAT you get a $75 bonus.