pokerfied.com
Promoting poker discussions.

Main
Date: 26 Dec 2008 12:02:53
From: Jerry Sturdivant
Subject: Odds on races and coin flips
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0095_01C96751.E1B64300
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



Believing I'd lost more than my share of coin flips and races when I was =
ahead, I decided to start a spreadsheet and keep track for a while. So =
far; out of 134 races, this is how I've faired:=20


At the start of the race (pre flop and all in):

I was ahead but lost 25% of the time.
I was behind and lost 23% of the time.
I was ahead and won 34% of the time.
I was behind and won 13% of the time.

The remaining 5% of the time (ahead or behind) resulted in splits.

Obviously, if one goes all in with low pairs or one-gaper high cards, =
you'd expect worse numbers. And various situations would have you trying =
with different strength cards. And there's the luck factor. But do these =
numbers look about right?


Jerry (wondering) 'n Vegas


------=_NextPart_000_0095_01C96751.E1B64300
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" >
<HTML ><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1" >
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.6000.16788" name=3DGENERATOR >
<STYLE ></STYLE>
</HEAD >
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff >
<DIV ><FONT size=3D2><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: =
'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: =
EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA" ><BR><BR>Believing=20
I=92d lost more than my share of coin flips and races when I was ahead, =
I decided=20
to start a spreadsheet and keep track for a while. So far; out of 134 =
races,=20
this is how I=92ve faired: <BR ><BR><BR>At the start of the race (pre =
flop and all=20
in):<BR ><BR>I was ahead but lost 25% of the time.<BR>I was behind and =
lost 23%=20
of the time.<BR >I was ahead and won 34% of the time.<BR>I was behind and =
won 13%=20
of the time.<BR ><BR>The remaining 5% of the time (ahead or behind) =
resulted in=20
splits.<BR ><BR>Obviously, if one goes all in with low pairs or one-gaper =
high=20
cards, you=92d expect worse numbers. And various situations would have =
you trying=20
with different strength cards. And there=92s the luck factor. But do =
these numbers=20
look about right?<BR ><BR><BR>Jerry (wondering) =91n Vegas<BR=20
style=3D"mso-special-character: line-break" ><BR=20
style=3D"mso-special-character: =
line-break" ></SPAN></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0095_01C96751.E1B64300--





 
Date: 26 Dec 2008 15:30:54
From: Aodhan
Subject: Re: Odds on races and coin flips
On Dec 26 2008 1:02 PM, Jerry Sturdivant wrote:

> Believing I'd lost more than my share of coin flips and races when I was =
> ahead, I decided to start a spreadsheet and keep track for a while. So =
> far; out of 134 races, this is how I've faired:=20
>
>
> At the start of the race (pre flop and all in):
>
> I was ahead but lost 25% of the time.
> I was behind and lost 23% of the time.
> I was ahead and won 34% of the time.
> I was behind and won 13% of the time.
>
> The remaining 5% of the time (ahead or behind) resulted in splits.

Well, these are pretty vague statistics. It would be better if you could
supply more detail, for example, AK vs QQ is ahead, but very very slimly.
AK vs K3 is WAY ahead.

But, your above percentages pretty much add up to 64 hands won, 63 hands
lost, the rest split, which is pretty much 50/50. So if most of your races
are actually coin flips, then you're pretty spot on.

John

-------†
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



  
Date: 27 Dec 2008 14:08:10
From: richlp
Subject: Re: Odds on races and coin flips
On Dec 26, 3:30=A0pm, "Aodhan" <a1...@webnntp.invalid > wrote:
> On Dec 26 2008 1:02 PM, Jerry Sturdivant wrote:
>
> > Believing I'd lost more than my share of coin flips and races when I wa=
s =3D
> > ahead, I decided to start a spreadsheet and keep track for a while. So =
=3D
> > far; out of 134 races, this is how I've faired:=3D20
>
> > At the start of the race (pre flop and all in):
>
> > I was ahead but lost 25% of the time.
> > I was behind and lost 23% of the time.
> > I was ahead and won 34% of the time.
> > I was behind and won 13% of the time.
>
> > The remaining 5% of the time (ahead or behind) resulted in splits.
>
> Well, these are pretty vague statistics. It would be better if you could
> supply more detail, for example, AK vs QQ is ahead, but very very slimly.
> AK vs K3 is WAY ahead.
>
> But, your above percentages pretty much add up to 64 hands won, 63 hands
> lost, the rest split, which is pretty much 50/50. So if most of your race=
s
> are actually coin flips, then you're pretty spot on.
>
> John
>
> -------=A0
> : the next generation of web-newsreaders :http://www.recgroups.com

"AK vs K3 is WAY ahead."

And if a hand like this is included I would seriously question the use
of the term "race" or "coin-flip" which, to me, usually means the odds
are approximately equal. That usually means pair vs overcards. With
most anything else, it's hard to call it a "coin-flip"


  
Date: 27 Dec 2008 06:12:04
From: Jerry Sturdivant
Subject: Re: Odds on races and coin flips

"Aodhan" <a169b@webnntp.invalid > wrote

> Well, these are pretty vague statistics. It would be better
> if you could supply more detail, for example, AK vs QQ is
> ahead, but very very slimly. AK vs K3 is WAY ahead.

Yea, it's too easy for me to go nuts on this because I like playing with
spread sheets; charts; graphs and such. I've kept track of my hold'em
playing since day one because it's too easy to play the, "I always win in
Vegas," game: Remembering your winning and forgetting your losing. Because
of ring games; bonuses buy ins; and playing in live casinos (big rakes) my
spread sheet is quite a mess.

But my curve looks nice as I've improved over time (and reading books).


> But, your above percentages pretty much add up to 64 hands
> won, 63 hands lost, the rest split, which is pretty much
> 50/50. So if most of your races are actually coin flips,
> then you're pretty spot on.

Which is what the whole exercise was about.

Thanks,



Jerry 'n Vegas







 
Date: 26 Dec 2008 15:28:35
From: Aodhan
Subject: Re: Odds on races and coin flips
On Dec 26 2008 1:02 PM, Jerry Sturdivant wrote:

> Believing I'd lost more than my share of coin flips and races when I was =
> ahead, I decided to start a spreadsheet and keep track for a while. So =
> far; out of 134 races, this is how I've faired:=20
>
>
> At the start of the race (pre flop and all in):
>
> I was ahead but lost 25% of the time.
> I was behind and lost 23% of the time.
> I was ahead and won 34% of the time.
> I was behind and won 13% of the time.
>
> The remaining 5% of the time (ahead or behind) resulted in splits.
>
> Obviously, if one goes all in with low pairs or one-gaper high cards, =
> you'd expect worse numbers. And various situations would have you trying =
> with different strength cards. And there's the luck factor. But do these =
> numbers look about right?
>
>
> Jerry (wondering) 'n Vegas

------†
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




 
Date: 26 Dec 2008 12:46:31
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: Odds on races and coin flips
On Dec 26 2008 3:02 PM, Jerry Sturdivant wrote:

> Believing I'd lost more than my share of coin flips and races when I was =
> ahead, I decided to start a spreadsheet and keep track for a while. So =
> far; out of 134 races, this is how I've faired:=20
>
>
> At the start of the race (pre flop and all in):
>
> I was ahead but lost 25% of the time.
> I was behind and lost 23% of the time.
> I was ahead and won 34% of the time.
> I was behind and won 13% of the time.
>
> The remaining 5% of the time (ahead or behind) resulted in splits.
>
> Obviously, if one goes all in with low pairs or one-gaper high cards, =
> you'd expect worse numbers. And various situations would have you trying =
> with different strength cards. And there's the luck factor. But do these =
> numbers look about right?
>
>
> Jerry (wondering) 'n Vegas

Those numbers mean absolutely nothing. DUCY?

Fell
--
Be Loud. Be Proud. Be Considerate!

-----†
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



  
Date: 26 Dec 2008 22:08:56
From: Tad Perry
Subject: Re: Odds on races and coin flips
"FellKnight" <jordandevenport@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:7esf26x1bh.ln2@recgroups.com...
> On Dec 26 2008 3:02 PM, Jerry Sturdivant wrote:
>
> > Believing I'd lost more than my share of coin flips and races when I was
=
> > ahead, I decided to start a spreadsheet and keep track for a while. So =
> > far; out of 134 races, this is how I've faired:=20
> >
> >
> > At the start of the race (pre flop and all in):
> >
> > I was ahead but lost 25% of the time.
> > I was behind and lost 23% of the time.
> > I was ahead and won 34% of the time.
> > I was behind and won 13% of the time.
> >
> > The remaining 5% of the time (ahead or behind) resulted in splits.
> >
> > Obviously, if one goes all in with low pairs or one-gaper high cards, =
> > you'd expect worse numbers. And various situations would have you trying
=
> > with different strength cards. And there's the luck factor. But do these
=
> > numbers look about right?
> >
> >
> > Jerry (wondering) 'n Vegas
>
> Those numbers mean absolutely nothing. DUCY?

Put it in a pie graph and see if you change your mind.

tvp




   
Date: 27 Dec 2008 06:02:02
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: Odds on races and coin flips
On Dec 27 2008 1:08 AM, Tad Perry wrote:

> "FellKnight" <jordandevenport@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7esf26x1bh.ln2@recgroups.com...
> > On Dec 26 2008 3:02 PM, Jerry Sturdivant wrote:
> >
> > > Believing I'd lost more than my share of coin flips and races when I was
> =
> > > ahead, I decided to start a spreadsheet and keep track for a while. So =
> > > far; out of 134 races, this is how I've faired:=20
> > >
> > >
> > > At the start of the race (pre flop and all in):
> > >
> > > I was ahead but lost 25% of the time.
> > > I was behind and lost 23% of the time.
> > > I was ahead and won 34% of the time.
> > > I was behind and won 13% of the time.
> > >
> > > The remaining 5% of the time (ahead or behind) resulted in splits.
> > >
> > > Obviously, if one goes all in with low pairs or one-gaper high cards, =
> > > you'd expect worse numbers. And various situations would have you trying
> =
> > > with different strength cards. And there's the luck factor. But do these
> =
> > > numbers look about right?
> > >
> > >
> > > Jerry (wondering) 'n Vegas
> >
> > Those numbers mean absolutely nothing. DUCY?
>
> Put it in a pie graph and see if you change your mind.
>
> tvp

Nope.

It really doesn't change if on average the times you get it in ahead and
behind are different.

Me, for example. I'll win a lot more of the hands I get it in behind,
because I am usually getting it in with chips and taking shots at an
opponent with hands like suited connectors or small pairs.

Fell
--
Be Loud. Be Proud. Be Considerate!

----†
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com



    
Date: 28 Dec 2008 09:44:29
From: gtech1
Subject: Re: Odds on races and coin flips
A lot more than what?
On Dec 27 2008 9:02 AM, FellKnight wrote:

> On Dec 27 2008 1:08 AM, Tad Perry wrote:
>
> > "FellKnight" <jordandevenport@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:7esf26x1bh.ln2@recgroups.com...
> > > On Dec 26 2008 3:02 PM, Jerry Sturdivant wrote:
> > >
> > > > Believing I'd lost more than my share of coin flips and races when I
was
> > =
> > > > ahead, I decided to start a spreadsheet and keep track for a while. So
=
> > > > far; out of 134 races, this is how I've faired:=20
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > At the start of the race (pre flop and all in):
> > > >
> > > > I was ahead but lost 25% of the time.
> > > > I was behind and lost 23% of the time.
> > > > I was ahead and won 34% of the time.
> > > > I was behind and won 13% of the time.
> > > >
> > > > The remaining 5% of the time (ahead or behind) resulted in splits.
> > > >
> > > > Obviously, if one goes all in with low pairs or one-gaper high cards, =
> > > > you'd expect worse numbers. And various situations would have you
trying
> > =
> > > > with different strength cards. And there's the luck factor. But do
these
> > =
> > > > numbers look about right?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Jerry (wondering) 'n Vegas
> > >
> > > Those numbers mean absolutely nothing. DUCY?
> >
> > Put it in a pie graph and see if you change your mind.
> >
> > tvp
>
> Nope.
>
> It really doesn't change if on average the times you get it in ahead and
> behind are different.
>
> Me, for example. I'll win a lot more of the hands I get it in behind,
> because I am usually getting it in with chips and taking shots at an
> opponent with hands like suited connectors or small pairs.
>
> Fell
> --
> Be Loud. Be Proud. Be Considerate!

---†
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com




 
Date: 26 Dec 2008 13:01:56
From: Tad Perry
Subject: Re: Odds on races and coin flips
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0019_01C9675A.21BCD1F0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Jerry,

You're playing a little loose with your wording, but I understand what =
you mean. (When you say "I was ahead but lost 25% of the time" you =
really mean "In 25% of these 134 races, I was ahead but lost.")

The good news is that when a race does happen, you have a significant =
tendency to be ahead.=20

In 63% of all races you commit to, you at least get your money back. =
(25% + 36% + 5%)

Assuming that you were ahead in approximately half of your splits, you =
start out ahead about 61% of the time. (25% + 36% + 2.5%) So you may =
call these coin flips, but you clearly have an advantage that you are =
gaining from superior play. So there doesn't seem to be any advantage =
going to opponents when you start out ahead. (Unless you're saying that =
you're so good you should be winning even more of these.)

What about when you start out behind? You are behind preflop 39% of the =
time. You suckout 13% of the total hands, but only about 33% of the time =
that you start out behind. If this was a true coin flip, you would =
expect to see a number closer to 17%. That's not really that far off, so =
any reasonable explanation could account for it.

What is the likely reasonable explanation? I think it's because some of =
these are not really coin flips.

For instance, you may correctly have an aversion to all ins with only =
high cards, and preference to at least be paired. This in turn would =
imply that when you are behind, you tend to have a pair in your hand, =
and it's no good. So if you're including pair vs. pair situations and =
then expecting "coin flip" results, you shouldn't be surprised to find =
that the numbers don't quite seem to work out.

13% isn't really that far from 17%. So if it is more likely for you to =
be the smaller pair in cases where you start out behind, that's enough =
to explain the discrepency.

Keep in mind that your method of selecting hands is part of the reason =
you're so much more likely to be ahead when the cards are turned up. =
This is just the price you pay for the few times you are behind. You may =
be able to improve these numbers if you can identify the situations that =
don't tend to pan out.=20

For instance, you may be able to find a tendency where you hold a pair =
and the action has gone a certain way and you tend to end out behind, =
drawing at 25% of the deck. If you start folding when you see that =
situation developing, you could potentially improve your chance of being =
ahead in the first place even more.

Tad "I'll talk about whatever ya'll wanna to talk about, but this *is* a =
poker group after all" Perry

PS: Keep coming back.



"Jerry Sturdivant" <jerryst@cox.net > wrote in message =
news:QLa5l.239$em5.79@newsfe22.iad...


Believing I'd lost more than my share of coin flips and races when I =
was ahead, I decided to start a spreadsheet and keep track for a while. =
So far; out of 134 races, this is how I've faired:=20


At the start of the race (pre flop and all in):

I was ahead but lost 25% of the time.
I was behind and lost 23% of the time.
I was ahead and won 34% of the time.
I was behind and won 13% of the time.

The remaining 5% of the time (ahead or behind) resulted in splits.

Obviously, if one goes all in with low pairs or one-gaper high cards, =
you'd expect worse numbers. And various situations would have you trying =
with different strength cards. And there's the luck factor. But do these =
numbers look about right?


Jerry (wondering) 'n Vegas


------=_NextPart_000_0019_01C9675A.21BCD1F0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" >
<HTML ><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1" >
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1561" name=3DGENERATOR >
<STYLE ></STYLE>
</HEAD >
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff >
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D4>Jerry,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D4>You're playing a little =
loose with=20
your wording, but I understand what you mean. (When you say "I was ahead =
but=20
lost 25% of the time" you really mean "In 25% of these 134 races, I was =
ahead=20
but lost.")</FONT ><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 =
size=3D4 ></FONT></DIV>
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D4>The good news is that =
when a race=20
does happen, you have a significant tendency to be ahead. </FONT ></DIV>
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D4>In 63% of all races you =
commit to,=20
you at least get your money back. (25% + 36% + 5%)</FONT ></DIV>
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D4>Assuming that you were =
ahead in=20
approximately half of your splits, you start out ahead about 61% of the =
time.=20
(25% + 36% + 2.5%) </FONT ><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D4>So =
you may call=20
these coin flips, but you clearly have an advantage that you are gaining =
from=20
superior play. So there doesn't seem to be any advantage going to =
opponents when=20
you start out ahead. (Unless you're saying that you're so good you =
should be=20
winning even more of these.)</FONT ></DIV>
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D4>What about when you =
start out behind?=20
Y</FONT ><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D4>ou are behind =
preflop 39% of the=20
time. You suckout 13% of the total hands, but only about 33% of the time =
that=20
you start out behind. If this was a true coin flip, you would expect to =
see a=20
number closer to 17%. That's not really that far off, so any reasonable=20
explanation could account for it.</FONT ></DIV>
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D4>What is the likely =
reasonable=20
explanation? I think it's because some of these are not really coin=20
flips.</FONT ></DIV>
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D4>For instance, you may =
correctly have=20
an aversion to all ins with only high cards, and preference to at least =
be=20
paired. This in turn would imply that when you are behind, you tend to =
have a=20
pair in your hand, and it's no good. So if you're including pair vs. =
pair=20
situations and then expecting "coin flip" results, you shouldn't be =
surprised to=20
find that the numbers don't quite seem to work out.</FONT ></DIV>
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D4>13% isn't really that =
far from 17%.=20
So if it is more likely for you to be the smaller pair in cases where =
you start=20
out behind, that's enough to explain the discrepency.</FONT ></DIV>
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D4>Keep in mind that =
</FONT ><FONT=20
face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D4 >your method of selecting hands is =
part of the=20
reason you're so much more likely to be ahead when the cards are turned =
up. This=20
is just the price you pay for the few times you are behind. You may be =
able to=20
improve these numbers if you can identify the situations that don't tend =
to pan=20
out. </FONT ></DIV>
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D4>For instance, you may =
be able to find=20
a tendency where you hold a pair and the action has gone a certain way =
and you=20
tend to end out behind, drawing at 25% of the deck. If you start folding =
when=20
you see that situation developing, you could potentially improve your =
chance of=20
being ahead in the first place even more.</FONT ></DIV>
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D4>Tad "I'll talk about =
whatever ya'll=20
wanna to talk about, but this *is* a poker group after all" =
Perry</FONT ></DIV>
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D4>PS: Keep coming =
back.</FONT ></DIV>
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV ><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV >"Jerry Sturdivant" <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:jerryst@cox.net" >jerryst@cox.net</A>> wrote in message =
<A=20
href=3D"news:QLa5l.239$em5.79@newsfe22.iad" >news:QLa5l.239$em5.79@newsfe2=
2.iad</A >...</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" >
<DIV ><FONT size=3D2><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: =
'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: =
EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA" ><BR><BR>Believing=20
I=92d lost more than my share of coin flips and races when I was =
ahead, I=20
decided to start a spreadsheet and keep track for a while. So far; out =
of 134=20
races, this is how I=92ve faired: <BR ><BR><BR>At the start of the race =
(pre flop=20
and all in):<BR ><BR>I was ahead but lost 25% of the time.<BR>I was =
behind and=20
lost 23% of the time.<BR >I was ahead and won 34% of the time.<BR>I was =
behind=20
and won 13% of the time.<BR ><BR>The remaining 5% of the time (ahead or =
behind)=20
resulted in splits.<BR ><BR>Obviously, if one goes all in with low =
pairs or=20
one-gaper high cards, you=92d expect worse numbers. And various =
situations would=20
have you trying with different strength cards. And there=92s the luck =
factor.=20
But do these numbers look about right?<BR ><BR><BR>Jerry (wondering) =
=91n=20
Vegas<BR style=3D"mso-special-character: line-break" ><BR=20
style=3D"mso-special-character: =
line-break" ></SPAN></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0019_01C9675A.21BCD1F0--



  
Date: 26 Dec 2008 20:45:42
From: garycarson
Subject: Re: Odds on races and coin flips
On Dec 26 2008 4:01 PM, Tad Perry wrote:

> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_0019_01C9675A.21BCD1F0
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> Jerry,
>
> You're playing a little loose with your wording, but I understand what =
> you mean. (When you say "I was ahead but lost 25% of the time" you =
> really mean "In 25% of these 134 races, I was ahead but lost.")
>
> The good news is that when a race does happen, you have a significant =
> tendency to be ahead.=20

We don't know if that's good or not. If all those times he gets all in
because he called, then that's probably good. But, if all those times he
got in then got called, maybe he's not betting often enough.

Also, depending on how big a raise AK will call then fold to a flop bet he
might should bet allin much less frequently with QQ.

We just don't know from what he tells us.


>
> In 63% of all races you commit to, you at least get your money back. =
> (25% + 36% + 5%)

Well, we have no clue how many races he commits to. Some of those he'll
commit then win it right then without the race.

None of what he told us means anything at all.

____________________________________________________________________†
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com



   
Date: 26 Dec 2008 22:06:55
From: Tad Perry
Subject: Re: Odds on races and coin flips
"garycarson" <garycarson@alumni.northwestern.edu > wrote in message
news:mgog26xckj.ln2@recgroups.com...
>
> None of what he told us means anything at all.

Highly unlikely, Gary. After all, the player himself confirms my evaluation
of his play as regards these results.

tvp




    
Date: 27 Dec 2008 06:03:08
From: Jerry Sturdivant
Subject: Re: Odds on races and coin flips




> "garycarson" <garycarson@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote

> None of what he told us means anything at all.

If I lost the vast majority of the races where I started ahead, it would
tell the possibility of a rigged system. But I donít play in that high a
stakes games. And, as Tad mentioned, the beginning of the game is different
than the end. Usually better players at the end. Also, Iíve noticed the
higher the entry costs, the better the players. I quit the cheaper ones
because too many players not Ďvaluingí the game and going all in too often.

As you state, you canít tell a whole lot because of the ambiguity; small
amount of data; and poker luck. I considered broadening the spreadsheet to
actual hands; early and late in the game; but that distracted from my fun of
playing. (And posting in poker sites?)


Jerry Ďn Vegas








  
Date: 26 Dec 2008 17:10:17
From: Jerry Sturdivant
Subject: Re: Odds on races and coin flips
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C9677C.D324CDE0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

"Tad Perry" <tadperry@comcast.net > wrote in message=20


> You're playing a little loose with your wording, but I understand
> what you mean. (When you say "I was ahead but lost 25% of
> the time" you really mean "In 25% of these 134 races, I
> was ahead but lost.")

You're right. I wrote it like that for my spreadsheet and here, when =
trying to make the graphic look good. I knew what I meant :)


> Assuming that you were ahead in approximately half of your
> splits, you start out ahead about 61% of the time. (25%
> + 36% + 2.5%) So you may call these coin flips, but you
> clearly have an advantage that you are gaining from superior
> play. So there doesn't seem to be any advantage going to
> opponents when you start out ahead. (Unless you're saying
> that you're so good you should be winning even more of these.)

Well, I'm not that good. I've kept a spreadsheet since day one and over =
the years I'm still ahead of the game. It just seemed like I was getting =
screwed in the number of times I started ahead and lost.

But then, I used to believe I was in the blinds more than my share when =
starting tournaments. So I kept track of that, too. After a hindered =
starts I saw it all come out about even.


> What about when you start out behind? You are behind preflop
> 39% of the time. You suckout 13% of the total hands, but
> only about 33% of the time that you start out behind. If
> this was a true coin flip, you would expect to see a number
> closer to 17%. That's not really that far off, so any reasonable
> explanation could account for it.

I suppose I could keep better books, but the variables would become too =
complicated. You have times you're big stack and a desperate short stack =
goes all in for a few chips and you decide to take a chance with =
marginal cards. And there's the times I'm on the short end of the stick =
and do the same.


> For instance, you may correctly have an aversion to all
> ins with only high cards, and preference to at least be
> paired.

Yes. Staying in the game is a factor and I try to avoid coin flips. Two =
coin flips and you're behind in the survival odds.


> Keep in mind that your method of selecting hands is part
> of the reason you're so much more likely to be ahead when
> the cards are turned up. This is just the price you pay
> for the few times you are behind. You may be able to improve
> these numbers if you can identify the situations that don't
> tend to pan out.

True. Sometimes I get sucked into an all in because I'm pot committed.=20

Thanks for the comeback and analysis.


Jerry (having fun) 'n Vegas












------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C9677C.D324CDE0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" >
<HTML ><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1" >
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.6000.16788" name=3DGENERATOR >
<STYLE ></STYLE>
</HEAD >
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff >
<DIV >"Tad Perry" <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:tadperry@comcast.net" >tadperry@comcast.net</A>> wrote =
in message=20
</DIV >
<DIV ><FONT size=3D2><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: =
'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: =
EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA" ><BR><BR></SPAN><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; =
mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; =
mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; =
mso-bidi-font-size: 13.5pt" >>=20
You're playing a little loose with your wording, but I =
understand<BR >> what=20
you mean. (When you say "I was ahead but lost 25% of<BR >> the time" =
you=20
really mean "In 25% of these 134 races, I<BR >> was ahead but=20
lost.")</SPAN ><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: =
'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: =
EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA" ><BR><BR>You=92re=20
right. I wrote it like that for my spreadsheet and here, when trying to =
make the=20
graphic look good. I knew what I meant :)<BR ><BR></SPAN><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; =
mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; =
mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; =
mso-bidi-font-size: 13.5pt" ><BR>>=20
Assuming that you were ahead in approximately half of your<BR >> =
splits, you=20
start out ahead about 61% of the time. (25%<BR >> + 36% + 2.5%) So you =
may=20
call these coin flips, but you<BR >> clearly have an advantage that =
you are=20
gaining from superior<BR >> play. So there doesn't seem to be any =
advantage=20
going to<BR >> opponents when you start out ahead. (Unless you're=20
saying<BR >> that you're so good you should be winning even more of=20
these.)</SPAN ><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: =
'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: =
EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA" ><BR><BR>Well,=20
I'm not that good. I=92ve kept a spreadsheet since day one and over the =
years I'm=20
still ahead of the game. It just seemed like I was getting screwed in =
the number=20
of times I started ahead and lost.<BR ><BR>But then, I used to believe I =
was in=20
the blinds more than my share when starting tournaments. So I kept track =
of=20
that, too. After a hindered starts I saw it all come out about=20
even.<BR ><BR><BR></SPAN><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; =
mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; =
mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; =
mso-bidi-font-size: 13.5pt" >>=20
What about when you start out behind? You are behind preflop<BR >> 39% =
of the=20
time. You suckout 13% of the total hands, but<BR >> only about 33% of =
the time=20
that you start out behind. If<BR >> this was a true coin flip, you =
would=20
expect to see a number<BR >> closer to 17%. That's not really that far =
off, so=20
any reasonable<BR >> explanation could account for it.</SPAN><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: =
'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: =
EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA" ><BR><BR>I=20
suppose I could keep better books, but the variables would become too=20
complicated. You have times you=92re big stack and a desperate short =
stack goes=20
all in for a few chips and you decide to take a chance with marginal =
cards. And=20
there=92s the times I=92m on the short end of the stick and do the=20
same.<BR ><BR><BR></SPAN><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; =
mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; =
mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; =
mso-bidi-font-size: 13.5pt" >>=20
For instance, you may correctly have an aversion to all<BR >> ins with =
only=20
high cards, and preference to at least be<BR >> paired.<BR><BR>Yes. =
Staying in=20
the game is a factor and I try to avoid coin flips. Two coin flips and =
you=92re=20
behind in the survival odds.<BR ><BR><BR>> Keep in mind that your =
method of=20
selecting hands is part<BR >> of the reason you're so much more likely =
to be=20
ahead when<BR >> the cards are turned up. This is just the price you=20
pay<BR >> for the few times you are behind. You may be able to =
improve<BR >>=20
these numbers if you can identify the situations that don't<BR >> tend =
to pan=20
out.<BR ><BR>True. Sometimes I get sucked into an all in because I=92m =
pot=20
committed. <BR ><BR>Thanks for the comeback and =
analysis.<BR ><BR><BR>Jerry=20
(having fun) =91n Vegas<BR ><BR><BR><BR=20
style=3D"mso-special-character: line-break" ><BR=20
style=3D"mso-special-character: line-break" ></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV ><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV ><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV ><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV ><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV ><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV ><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV ><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C9677C.D324CDE0--



   
Date: 27 Dec 2008 03:25:31
From: Tad Perry
Subject: Re: Odds on races and coin flips
"Jerry Sturdivant" <jerryst@cox.net > wrote in message
news:7gf5l.7720$mE3.575@newsfe14.iad...
"Tad Perry" <tadperry@comcast.net > wrote in message
>
> Assuming that you were ahead in approximately half of your
>> splits, you start out ahead about 61% of the time. (25%
>> + 36% + 2.5%) So you may call these coin flips, but you
>> clearly have an advantage that you are gaining from superior
>> play. So there doesn't seem to be any advantage going to
>> opponents when you start out ahead. (Unless you're saying
>> that you're so good you should be winning even more of these.)
>
>Well, I'm not that good. I've kept a spreadsheet since day one and over the
years I'm still ahead of the >game. It just seemed like I was getting
screwed in the number of times I started ahead and lost.

You may not be that great a player, but you are out-playing your opponents
in the sense that the instant you're all-in there's a significant chance
that you're already ahead.

>But then, I used to believe I was in the blinds more than my share when
starting tournaments. So I kept >track of that, too. After a hindered starts
I saw it all come out about even.

Just goes to show the paranoia players can generate over online play.

>> What about when you start out behind? You are behind preflop
>> 39% of the time. You suckout 13% of the total hands, but
>> only about 33% of the time that you start out behind. If
>> this was a true coin flip, you would expect to see a number
>> closer to 17%. That's not really that far off, so any reasonable
>> explanation could account for it.
>
>I suppose I could keep better books, but the variables would become too
complicated. You have times >you're big stack and a desperate short stack
goes all in for a few chips and you decide to take a chance >with marginal
cards. And there's the times I'm on the short end of the stick and do the
same.
>
>> For instance, you may correctly have an aversion to all
>> ins with only high cards, and preference to at least be
>> paired.
>
>Yes. Staying in the game is a factor and I try to avoid coin flips. Two
coin flips and you're behind in the >survival odds.
>
>> Keep in mind that your method of selecting hands is part
>> of the reason you're so much more likely to be ahead when
>> the cards are turned up. This is just the price you pay
>> for the few times you are behind. You may be able to improve
>> these numbers if you can identify the situations that don't
>> tend to pan out.
>
>True. Sometimes I get sucked into an all in because I'm pot committed.

About this pot-committed thing: remember that the value of chips is variable
in tournament play. Your last ones are more valuable than your first ones.
Some people claim they are pot committed before it's actually true. Because
that last chip going in is actually worth so much more than the one's you've
already put in, it can sometimes be worth it to just give up what's already
in the pot to ensure survival.

>Thanks for the comeback and analysis.

I wouldn't want people saying that you can't have a constructive poker
conversation in this group. It takes someone initiating a topic, like you
did, and the rest is easy, but we can talk about God, too, if you want, or
why humans are about to go extinct, or anything you want.

tvp




    
Date: 28 Dec 2008 11:17:17
From: garycarson
Subject: Re: Odds on races and coin flips
On Dec 27 2008 6:25 AM, Tad Perry wrote:

> "Jerry Sturdivant" <jerryst@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:7gf5l.7720$mE3.575@newsfe14.iad...
> "Tad Perry" <tadperry@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >
> > Assuming that you were ahead in approximately half of your
> >> splits, you start out ahead about 61% of the time. (25%
> >> + 36% + 2.5%) So you may call these coin flips, but you
> >> clearly have an advantage that you are gaining from superior
> >> play. So there doesn't seem to be any advantage going to
> >> opponents when you start out ahead. (Unless you're saying
> >> that you're so good you should be winning even more of these.)
> >
> >Well, I'm not that good. I've kept a spreadsheet since day one and over the
> years I'm still ahead of the >game. It just seemed like I was getting
> screwed in the number of times I started ahead and lost.
>
> You may not be that great a player, but you are out-playing your opponents
> in the sense that the instant you're all-in there's a significant chance
> that you're already ahead.

Here's a counter example.

You have an opponent who goes all in every hand.

You wait, and wait, and wait, and finially get AA and call him

It's true that once you get all in that there's a big chance you're
already ahead.

But you aren't outplaying anyone.

From my description we don't even have enough information to know whether
or not you're playing plus EV or not.

The numbers he gave us mean nothing without a much, much better
description of context.

------†
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com




    
Date: 27 Dec 2008 05:49:30
From: Jerry Sturdivant
Subject: Re: Odds on races and coin flips

"Tad Perry" <tadperry@comcast.net > wrote



>> But then, I used to believe I was in the blinds more than
>> my share when starting tournaments. So I kept track of that,
>> too. After a hindered starts I saw it all come out about even.

> Just goes to show the paranoia players
> can generate over online play.

Well; you know the old saying, just because youíre paranoid doesnít mean
there arenít crooked poker sites out there. (Perhaps itís a new sayingÖ)




>> True. Sometimes I get sucked into an
>> all in because I'm pot committed.

> About this pot-committed thing: remember that the value
> of chips is variable in tournament play. Your last ones
> are more valuable than your first ones. Some people claim
> they are pot committed before it's actually true. Because
> that last chip going in is actually worth so much more than
> the one's you've already put in, it can sometimes be worth
> it to just give up what's already in the pot to ensure survival.

I do that. Iíve give up half my chips when it looks like a coin flip. Better
having half than none in a tournament. Ring games is another thing.


>> Thanks for the comeback and analysis.

> I wouldn't want people saying that you can't have a constructive
> poker conversation in this group. It takes someone initiating
> a topic, like you did, and the rest is easy, but we can
> talk about God, too, if you want

I donít think there is one.


> or why humans are about to go extinct,

What? I hate it when that happens. Just when Iím ahead in poker, tooÖ

:)


Jerry Ďn Vegas








     
Date: 28 Dec 2008 11:34:07
From: garycarson
Subject: Re: Odds on races and coin flips
On Dec 27 2008 8:49 AM, Jerry Sturdivant wrote:


> >> True. Sometimes I get sucked into an
> >> all in because I'm pot committed.
>
> > About this pot-committed thing: remember that the value
> > of chips is variable in tournament play. Your last ones
> > are more valuable than your first ones. Some people claim
> > they are pot committed before it's actually true. Because
> > that last chip going in is actually worth so much more than
> > the one's you've already put in, it can sometimes be worth
> > it to just give up what's already in the pot to ensure survival.
>
> I do that. Iíve give up half my chips when it looks like a coin flip. Better
> having half than none in a tournament. Ring games is another thing.
>

Wow.

If half your chips are already in the pot then you're getting at least 3-1
to call for the rest of them. And you won't call getting 3 to 1 on an
even money proposition?

I think you might be talking this chip value thing a little too far.

---†
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com