<span> Hand #9935049-2842 at Holden (No Limit Hold'em)
Powered by UltimateBet
Started at 30/Nov/05 21:24:26
robopok is at seat 0 with $3468.
The_Takeover is at seat 1 with $31646.
eugeneel is at seat 2 with $10000 (sitting out).
get crunk is at seat 3 with $5000 (sitting out).
clownTown is at seat 4 with $21148.
XXDUFFXX is at seat 5 with $8000.
The button is at seat 1.
clownTown posts the small blind of $50.
XXDUFFXX posts the big blind of $100.
robopok: -- --
The_Takeover: -- --
clownTown: -- --
XXDUFFXX: -- --
robopok folds. The_Takeover raises to $350.
clownTown re-raises to $1150. XXDUFFXX folds.
Flop (board: 6d 3h 6c):
clownTown checks. The_Takeover bets $1000.
clownTown raises to $4000. The_Takeover goes all-in
for $30496. clownTown goes all-in for $19998.
The_Takeover is returned $10498 (uncalled).
Turn (board: 6d 3h 6c 4c):
(no action in this round)
River (board: 6d 3h 6c 4c 4d):
(no action in this round)
The_Takeover shows 4s 7s.
The_Takeover has 4s 6d 6c 4c 4d: full house, fours full of sixes.
clownTown shows As Ac.
clownTown has As Ac 6d 6c 4c: two pair, aces and sixes.
Hand #9935049-2842 Summary:
$2 is raked from a pot of $42396.
The_Takeover wins $42394 with full house, fours full of sixes.
I know that mathematical analysis never occurs on this board, but I'll do this just for fun as opposed to saying "wow he's a donkey" or "takeover owns anyway" or something like that...
So they started with:
<span> The_Takeover is at seat 1 with $31646.
</span><span> clownTown is at seat 4 with $21148.
and a pot of $150.
Takeover raised to 350, he got repopped to 1150 and he called, in position. This would be a terrible call out of position, but in position he has a decent chance to take someone's entire stack with the right flop and it's only $800 more to potentially win over $20K. I doubt he would have called if clownTown was only $10K deep.
The pot is now $100 + $1150 + $1150, or $2400. Takeover has about $30500 and clownTown has about $20000.
The flop comes and he essentially has nothing. Just a gutshot.
He gets checked to and he bets $1000 into a $2400 pot. After the check raise to 4K, there is $2400 + $1000 + $4000, or $7400. clownTown has $16000 behind and is by no means committed to call, although he has represented a big hand to this point and there's not much here that would tell us he's folding.
However, here's the situation for Takeover: He likely has to put clownTown on an overpair at this point, although it's hard to say exactly what. In a 4 handed game with a low flop, this isn't necessarily aces. It could be TT-AA as likely range and 88-99 as possible. I guess there are a few other hands that are slight possibilities, but they aren't really that likely IMO. The bottom line is that he isn't going to win without taking the pot.
Here's his chances with the hand as we know it:
pokenum -h as ac - 4s 7s -- 6d 3h 6c
Holdem Hi: 990 enumerated boards containing 6c 6d 3h
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
As Ac 830 83.84 160 16.16 0 0.00 0.838
7s 4s 160 16.16 830 83.84 0 0.00 0.162</pre>
These % don't change when changed to any overpair. Basically, he's going to be facing a 16% chance to win most of the time.
So, if he pushes, he'll win $7400 whenever he gets a fold or he'll net $16000 + $7400 16% of the time. He'll lose $16000 84% of the time.
Therefore, you can write the following equation (F = fold %):
(7400 * F) + (23400 * (1-F) * .16) - (16000 * (1-F) * .84) = expected value
Then it's just a matter of coming up with fold %. I think it was pretty unlikely he was folding given his bets thus far, but it was a powerful move by Takeover. Let's just make it 25% just for shits and giggles.
At 25%, our equation produces -$5422, which would make it a long term bad move most likely, even considering possible advertising value to get paid off on big hands down the line.
At 50%, the equation produces -$1148, which is still probably around a break even move long run because of advertising value and the potential for a non-paired hand.
At 57%, it becomes a long term winning move. That probably makes it a long term losing move considering the line of the other player (57% seems a bit high to get out of him here), but NL players have to go with their reads. Not every aggressive move works out.
Anyway, someone tell me if I botched this math horribly (should I put the whole pot value in with the 16%, or just the net?). Thanks.
Great post....so refreshing when the response is a "let's analyze" rather than "that was a donk move" or whatever. TakeOver clearly made the wrong read this particular hand and got lucky, but that doesn't mean this move is always a bad one in a similar spot. Amazing that 57% is all you need for fold % to make this a winning play. Shows a lot about why aggressive play is the way to go.
Thanks for the post. I had merely posted this hand history to illustrate some of the plays this 21 year old phenom has a penchant for making. It illustrates to me that i will never have the stomach to play higher limits because quite simply, I could never make this play. It also makes me realize why I will never have the style to win big. I'm fine with that. It just seemed like the perfect hand history for me to seperate the players that look to make a small profit with safe plays, and the aggressive players that look to scoop every pot no matter the cost.
My analysis is this: he made a very aggressive play, thinking, there is a good chance that this guy only has overs which he's can't call with and if he has an overpair, then maybe I can get lucky, or maybe he'll think I have a 6, and make an EXTREMELY tough lay down. . . then he happened to get extremely lucky.
Is he a lucksack or a donk? No way. Was this a poor play? Maybe. I can't see the amount of time taken between bets, raises, etc, so maybe he really believed he was against overcards and not a pair. If it were me, I'd wait for a better spot to play a pot that big, but I'm not a major tourney winner or a high stakes player. The thing about your analysis N 82, is that it's decent justification, but never a reason. I don't know any players who are that quick mentally to do this type of high level math on the spot. It doesn't make sense to. Nor does it make sense to do it beforehand to be ready when you're in that spot. So, you can point to the math after to prove it wasn't such a horrible play, but you can never say it was the reason why you did it. In all honesty, you can use math to justify a lot of plays that would be considered poor just looking at face value.
You could do the whole analysis with a % chance of overcards. If you think he's 80% to have a pair and 20% to have AK then you can get a % for how often he needs to fold for it to be a winning play.
I don't know if Takeover is quick enough mentally to figure out that he had 57% fold equity in the hand...I'm sure that some great players are doing that math or close to it when spending a couple of minutes thinking a play in a live MTT. Online you obviously don't have that kind of time. But N82's post perfectly illustrates the depth to which a hand can be analyzed, and to which some people are thinking about the game.
Let me give you an example which illustrates what Takeover could have been thinking about:
When you first start playing, you really focus every hand on what hand could beat what hand. If someone raises in front of you, should you call with ATo, raise or fold? You don't do this analysis based on pure math, but you do it based on starting hole card rankings which take the math into account.
After awhile, this process because far more instinctive and natural, so you don't expressly think about it anymore. Then you focus on explicit and implied pot odds. After the flop, I've got middle pair or a flush draw or an open-ended straight draw. How many outs do I have, what are my odds of winning with those outs, and what bets can/should I call here correctly? At first, you struggle with that math, but eventually, it becomes instinctive and natural.
Determining fold equity can be the same process, at the next level of thinking about the game. He knew he probably had four outs twice, making him a 5-to-1 dog in the hand (he knows this instinctively from going through the progression through the second level of thinking, defined above, so there's zero time spent coming up with this number). He can work a relatively straightforward estimation based on how much money is left in clownTown's stack as to how often he thinks the guy might fold, and come up with the play he did from there. He couldn't tell you that it was 57%, per se, but his experience tells him instinctively gives him a closer range which with to make a decision.
Or, hell, Takeover might just have been donking around with 30 thousand dollars and gotten lucky. I dunno.
that was an AWESOME anyalysis but i just have a question for some higher level thinkers... is this the thought process and the math that goes through a player at this limits hand DURING the hand, or was takeover just pushing and PRAYING for a fold? i ask this because they seem to make the decisions so fast that it seems impossible to actually make these calculations. thanks guys.
putting all the math aside... it was nothing more than a super aggresive play.. with outs
the guy had to have a hand to call... he didn't necessarily need an overpair to pop 4k
couldve had ak.. 27.. etc, etc.
I think it's pretty much the way graps describes.
They've thought about lots of situations. They have an almost instinctive knowledge of their probable percentage of winning.
But, at that level, they also know many of their opponents from previous sessions. So, they've got a better than normal read on how often they make this play or that play in a given situation. When you get up where the dollars are that big and the air is that thin, it's all about the man and very little about the cards.
My guess is that Takeover figured he had at least an even chance to pick the pot up without a showdown.
I talked to Takeover on MSN about this hand...
He said he thinks about it this way in his head, but he isn't necessarily hammering out exact numbers. He's played so many hands he "knows the math without knowing the math." But he has this three part equation in his head I'm sure - fold, get called and win, get called and lose. The key is you win money in two of them and lose money in one. As long as the pot is big enough to make it worth it, the push is a good long-term decision as long as you can get the other player to fold often enough. That's a big key to NLHE...
And yes, I have some software tools that do these calculations for me. I put someone on a range and I plug the numbers in to find out what my best course of action is... sometimes it helps me to make a "crazy" shove when I can see that I only need him to fold a small % of the time to make it worth it :)
I think the folding % is much higher than 25%, maybe even closer to 50%.
One of my favorite plays when I miss a flop with a hand like AK/AQ out of position is the check-raise. So I don't fully believe he's got a pair with the check-raise, as these players are playing high-stakes and mixing it up, not just ABC poker. If he really thought TakeOver was aggressive, he should have led into him with the aces on the flop. So if this is an *aware* and *active* player, I think he's fully capable of just having overs here.
Also, I think it might not be easy for him to call with 77-TT. So we're pretty much looking at JJ-AA as auto-calls, the rest of the hands in his range are a decision.
Agreed with your analysis. I think at higher levels, the aggressive players like the Ivey's and the Negraneu's are basically putting maximum ammounts of pressure onm their opponents. They are saying "I'm going to force you to call with a big hand or toss anything other than the nuts away". They thrive on making players make these types of decisions. Its brilliant game play. Especially if you know your opponent is cappable of throwing away a hand like JJ or QQ on a flop of 6 6 4. I try and lead into players when I have a big hand preflop as it tends to take away their aggressive nature. They know that if you raised preflop and led out postflop, you are probably less likely to fold to a reraise. I do like takeovers play though on that flop, only think i MIGHT have done different is to reraise a hefty amount, but not all in. I think an all in reraise there screams steal as he would have smooth played a 6 if he really had it.
I don't think it's likely that he has overcards, because he raised from the small blind.. he's going to be out of position so he most likely has a pair. However i didn't watch the session and I don't know how it was going. I like how he check raised with AA.. I would definitely think it was a steal move too if i was takeover.
N 82 50 24,
Is there a tool similar to pokerstove that does this complex analysis (displaying your equity in each of the 3 parts of the equation?)? Or does pokerstove do this kind of analysis and I just haven't messed with it enough to use it efficiently?
<span>math is amazing isnt it?
calling the $800 preflop re-raise with 4s 7s is headscratcher number 1
misses the flop except for a gutshot, clown CONTINUES to show strength after check raising and TO calls the $3,000 raise - headscratcher number 2
TO pushes $26,646!! MORE for the sole purposes of getting clown to fold, even though there was absolutely NO sign of weakness on the hand yet from clown. Does he really think he is folding that hand??
goes on to hit runner runner boat and somehow we can explain it. I realize we dont know the history of play from clown during that session, so that may have factored into TO's play.
If 47 against AA can be explained, is there any hand that cannot be justified after looking at it in this light? I bet with the correct formula, we can make even Kathy Liebert look attractive....</span>
I would like his play better if the board was scarier (ignoring the paried sixes). These players probably know ech other, so I'll qualify what I'm about to say. But I don't think the typical play if you had a 6 would be to push. I'd think you'd play it a little slower. So what can the check raiser put us on that is a better made hand than ours? It has to be some type of draw, which the only likely one is 45, or a middle to high pair.
I do agree that the fold percentage is higher than 25%, given that it a good player can lay down a middle pair on this board, though I find it difficult to put the SB on a middle pair with the check raise. I think most people lead out on that board with a middle pair. So it has to be a strong hand, now seemingly limited to a high pair or AK/AQ. Meaning the fold equity is when the "strong hand" is AK/AQ.
Last Post: Jul 2nd, 2007, 02:48 PM19 Replies
Last Post: Feb 6th, 2006, 12:42 AM5 Replies
Last Post: Dec 9th, 2005, 02:32 PM5 Replies
Last Post: Aug 26th, 2005, 07:25 AM3 Replies
- 1 Replies