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

[Gobbs]

Well you want to bet enough to be heads up, ESPECIALLY if there is play after the flop. You give away huge implied odds when there are several opponents seeing the flop vs. your AA. He just mentioned all-in and said the goal was to get heads-up. Don't know about you, but I'd rather be all-in in a 9-way pot with AA than all-in HU with AA. Maybe I just like money too much and don't despise bad beats more than making money.

This is the same logic that breaks horse betters who think they can beat the system by betting enough to win $x on the first race. If they win, they go home. If they lose, they bet enough to win $x plus recover their first race losses. If they win, they go home. If they lose, they bet enough to win $x plus recover their race losses for the first two races. So on, so on, and so forth.

It sounds really good in theory, but in practice, it doesn't work unless you have a mammoth bankroll and you're only trying to win a small amount. Why? Because of variance.

What you are talking about would eventually bust you unless you have a large bankroll. If so, why would you be playing on small stake tables, using this theory, to make $10 per day.

Let's deal in the real world. There is no such thing as an all-in pot with nine players unless you are playing at the corner bar play money game.

 

[zachvac]

This is the same logic that breaks horse betters who think they can beat the system by betting enough to win $x on the first race. If they win, they go home. If they lose, they bet enough to win $x plus recover their first race losses. If they win, they go home. If they lose, they bet enough to win $x plus recover their race losses for the first two races. So on, so on, and so forth.

It sounds really good in theory, but in practice, it doesn't work unless you have a mammoth bankroll and you're only trying to win a small amount. Why? Because of variance.

What you are talking about would eventually bust you unless you have a large bankroll. If so, why would you be playing on small stake tables, using this theory, to make $10 per day.

Let's deal in the real world. There is no such thing as an all-in pot with nine players unless you are playing at the corner bar play money game.

No, that betting strategy has a theoretical flaw and is a fallacy (it has a fancy name, I just don't remember it). It's flaw doesn't lie in variance it lies in the fact that every single bet you make is -ev so the final results CAN'T be +ev. Meanwhile all-in 9-way with AA is +ev EVERY SINGLE TIME. Can you honestly call yourself even a decent poker player playing within their BR when you'd turn down a +ev situation? I play at the 25nl tables and I for one would be happy to be all-in with as many people as possible (obviously I'd rather them be drawing practically dead, like 2 KKs, 2 QQs, etc. but from the blind POV not seeing the cards I'd still want as many caller as possible). The more people in the pot = the less chance you have to win but also more ev. If you play poker, ev is your friend, you want the highest expected value, and if you wouldn't take that all-in at your buy-in at a table, then your limits are a bit too high and you should move down.

 

[NoWuckingFurries]

Can you honestly call yourself even a decent poker player playing within their BR when you'd turn down a +ev situation?

I don't call myself a decent poker player, but I would try to force people out of the pot in that situation, and would rather go heads up and not win as much money...

 

[zachvac]

It sounds really good in theory, but in practice, it doesn't work unless you have a mammoth bankroll and you're only trying to win a small amount. Why? Because of variance.

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?

 

[premierplayer]

I wouldnt want to put AA against 9 hands. it diminishes its value greatly since so much more can beat you. Why do I wanna play a hand when I only win 30% of the time? Isnt that -ev?

 

[smd173]

ok, let's do some math.

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?

Barbaro is feeling a bit roughed up.

 

[WVHillbilly]

Of coarse Zach is right. If his scenario happens 100 times (AA with 9 all-ins with 9 $25 stacks) we'll profit $4950 (if we win 33% of the time). If we're heads-up with AA 100 times we'll profit $1500 (if we win 80% of the time). $4950 > $1500.

 

[WVHillbilly]

I wouldnt want to put AA against 9 hands. it diminishes its value greatly since so much more can beat you. Why do I wanna play a hand when I only win 30% of the time? Isnt that -ev?

It doesn't diminish it's value (that goes up). It does diminish it's chances of winning that particular hand.

 

[NoWuckingFurries]

Of coarse Zach is right. If his scenario happens 100 times (AA with 9 all-ins with 9 $25 stacks) we'll profit $4950 (if we win 33% of the time). If we're heads-up with AA 100 times we'll profit $1500 (if we win 80% of the time). $4950 > $1500.

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

 

[WVHillbilly]

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

No. We want to get as much in preflop as possible. We do not want random hands (that may catch) to stick around and beat us. If all the money goes in postflop we're more likely to lose (because we'll be facing better hands/draws). That said, if you did limp in with AA on the button with everyone else is in the hand and postflop everyone in front of you went all-in, you'd still have to make the call.

 

[zachvac]

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

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.

 

[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.

 

[WVHillbilly]

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.

 

[jason dawson]

you missed one

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.

 

[Gobbs]

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

 

[jaketrevvor]

^^^ lol

 

[NoWuckingFurries]

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.

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.

 

[zachvac]

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.

 

[zachvac]

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.

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?

 

[ts69even3]

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

 

[NoWuckingFurries]

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:

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...

 

[TMarkH1]

This seems to work in the Free Rolls and the lower limits, but you should add to it a bit in My thinking. If you limp in with hands like 8-9- hearts. every 1 calls and the flop is 6 7 10 you just pulled a str8. . place value bets, use check raise, and you win more. who knows, you may draw 3 more hearts, beware though unless you have the A in a flush.
But then I'm new to the game. Im a 7 card stud home town poker player untill last month when I got into this online.
If you slow play your aces and I hit the flop I'll take your money.
But I'm just a beginner. You WILL be seeing ME at the tables.
PS. Im refering to freerolls only here. remember, us beginners are stupid so come take me out... CATCH ME IF FYOU CAN.

 

[IcyBlueAce]

Way to wake up a dead thread....................................................

 

[crowhui]

its just simply that you play way more hands in online world than in live....that's why it seems that way

 

[lektrikguy]

His real name is Rory Monahan(had to google him). He's written several ebooks that some say he's just repackaged stuff already written. Don't know if I agree with everything he says and,yes,the math makes my head hurt too.