Calculations, calculations. What am I doing wrong here?

[Disturbed]

Reading alot of books and articles online alot are suggesting playing groups 1-3 or 1-4 only in texas holdem and especially in cash games.

So I thought I would make this calculation to see what return would be. Unfotunately it was negative meaning I made a mistake (probably) or all those people are wrong.

Anyways here goes.

We will adopt this table for starting hand ranking and this is based on EV

TierHandsEV1AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AKs2.32 - 0.782AQs, TT, AK, AJs, KQs, 990.59 - 0.383ATs, AQ, KJs, 88, KTs, QJs0.32 - 0.204A9s, AJ, QTs, KQ, 77, JTs0.19 - 0.15


Lets play groups 1-4 in a $5/$10 cash table of 9 players. Assume I buy in at $5k.

We have a total of 23 hands in those groups to play out of a possible 169 possible hands. Hence we are playing at around 14% (23/169) of all hands only.

Now assume we see 1000 hands.

First each 9 hands will cost us $15 (1 big + 1 small blind) to see, hence we need $1667 (1000/9 *15) for blinds to see those 1000 hands. That will be our investment.

Now we will calculate the average EV for all 4 groups:

1: (2.32+0.78)/2 = 1.55 * 5 = 7.75
+
2: (0.59+0.38)/2 = 0.49 * 6 = 2.94
+
3: (0.32+0.20)/2 = 0.26 * 6 = 1.56
+
4: (0.19+0.15)/2 = 0.17 * 6 = 1.02

=13.27 => Average EV for first four groups is 13.27/23 = 0.58

Now we are gonna see 1000 hands, and we will play 14% of those ie 140 hands played.

EV per hand is 0.58 *BB ($10) = $5.8

so EV for all 140 hands is 5.8 * 140 = $808 This our return on the intial investments of the $1667.

Is this right? My ER wont cover the blinds to play groups 1-4?

Can anyone comment on this pls.

I think something is wrong with the EV monetary value on each hand.

[scrawnybob]

hi

ok so bear with me - as I'm not quite sober - so therefore as a responsible webmaster should therefore leave posting until the morning

but this is an interesting thread and I've had a nice night and it seems a shame to not post something I would probably want to delete in the morning

GT etc will probably put you right on you maths - I'm guessing its all correct

but the thing is ... IMHO this ... if everyone plays by perfect numbers / stats etc poker is a net equal game

ie. over a decent amount of hands ... say 100,000 you, me, the dog and old tom cobbly an all will get a similar if not identical number of good, bad and indifferent hands ...

and I'm not totally talking out my a** (skylansky said simthing about this too)

therefore if everyone played either text book poker or strictly speaking played face up poker then no one would win or lose

therefore the skill ... and profit is not in being able to play text book (in effect breakeven) poker but in being able to play better than textbook poker ... exploiting the less than perfect play of "perfectionists" whilst also exploiting the less than skill play of " gamblers"

the margin of profit is in the skilled imaginative yet not stupid poker player who can figure out who is what at the table and play accordingly ... optimal poker playing is NOT playing perfect text book poker but knowing who to play and how to extract the extra margin over being able to play as if the cards were turned over

probably makes no sense - so will look over this again in the morning

anyway this could be useful or could be worthless - its the approach I take pi**ed or sober

happy brithday to the missus

cheers scrawnybob

ps. short answer it doesnt suprise me if the maths says an ultra tight group 1 only approach will not net a net profit ... thats why poker is such an absorbing game ... there is not hand in hand out magic fromula ... "it depends" is the bottom line of poker and you have to love it for that

[NUCKING_FUTS_4]

Reading alot of books and articles online alot are suggesting playing groups 1-3 or 1-4 only in texas holdem and especially in cash games.

So I thought I would make this calculation to see what return would be. Unfotunately it was negative meaning I made a mistake (probably) or all those people are wrong.

Anyways here goes.

We will adopt this table for starting hand ranking and this is based on EV

TierHandsEV1AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AKs2.32 - 0.782AQs, TT, AK, AJs, KQs, 990.59 - 0.383ATs, AQ, KJs, 88, KTs, QJs0.32 - 0.204A9s, AJ, QTs, KQ, 77, JTs0.19 - 0.15


Lets play groups 1-4 in a $5/$10 cash table of 9 players. Assume I buy in at $5k.

We have a total of 23 hands in those groups to play out of a possible 169 possible hands. Hence we are playing at around 14% (23/169) of all hands only.

Now assume we see 1000 hands.

First each 9 hands will cost us $15 (1 big + 1 small blind) to see, hence we need $1667 (1000/9 *15) for blinds to see those 1000 hands. That will be our investment.

Now we will calculate the average EV for all 4 groups:

1: (2.32+0.78)/2 = 1.55 * 5 = 7.75
+
2: (0.59+0.38)/2 = 0.49 * 6 = 2.94
+
3: (0.32+0.20)/2 = 0.26 * 6 = 1.56
+
4: (0.19+0.15)/2 = 0.17 * 6 = 1.02

=13.27 => Average EV for first four groups is 13.27/23 = 0.58

Now we are gonna see 1000 hands, and we will play 14% of those ie 140 hands played.

EV per hand is 0.58 *BB ($10) = $5.8

so EV for all 140 hands is 5.8 * 140 = $808 This our return on the intial investments of the $1667.

Is this right? My ER wont cover the blinds to play groups 1-4?

Can anyone comment on this pls.

I think something is wrong with the EV monetary value on each hand.

Yes your maths is correct, but i don't like the overall analysis. Firstly your figures for the ev of the hands is based on the "average player". A better player will make more than that on those hands. Secondly it doesn't take into consideration the factors that might help a better player to have a better ev with those hands or others eg strength of players at table, the table averages, position, odds etc. Just because the hand you're dealt has a high ev on your list doesn't make it a winner in certain situations.

Thirdly, it doesn't matter about the other 7 hands your dealt at the table. The blinds are the only ones where there is a guaranteed chance(%) that you'll loose money. This is all you need be concerned about. If you stick to group 1- 4 in the blinds then yes you will loose over 1000 hands the amount you have stated. It requires you to set aside the EV of a hand in the blinds and take into consideration the other factors I've mentioned when choosing which cards to play not the "text book" general rules.

A poker quote I heard at the start of my playing has stuck with me. I don't know who said it, I don't even remember where i heard it, but its something i repeat often:

"You'll know a good poker player, by the way he plays his blinds"

Never a truer statement.

P.S. Happy birthday to bob's missus

[jacks_off4me]

aww, scrawnybob if you were sober, non of this musical but damn true mixture of words might even be written

Happy birthday Missus Bob

[Disturbed]

hi

ok so bear with me - as I'm not quite sober - so therefore as a responsible webmaster should therefore leave posting until the morning

but this is an interesting thread and I've had a nice night and it seems a shame to not post something I would probably want to delete in the morning

GT etc will probably put you right on you maths - I'm guessing its all correct

but the thing is ... IMHO this ... if everyone plays by perfect numbers / stats etc poker is a net equal game

ie. over a decent amount of hands ... say 100,000 you, me, the dog and old tom cobbly an all will get a similar if not identical number of good, bad and indifferent hands ...

and I'm not totally talking out my a** (skylansky said simthing about this too)

therefore if everyone played either text book poker or strictly speaking played face up poker then no one would win or lose

therefore the skill ... and profit is not in being able to play text book (in effect breakeven) poker but in being able to play better than textbook poker ... exploiting the less than perfect play of "perfectionists" whilst also exploiting the less than skill play of " gamblers"

the margin of profit is in the skilled imaginative yet not stupid poker player who can figure out who is what at the table and play accordingly ... optimal poker playing is NOT playing perfect text book poker but knowing who to play and how to extract the extra margin over being able to play as if the cards were turned over

probably makes no sense - so will look over this again in the morning

anyway this could be useful or could be worthless - its the approach I take pi**ed or sober

happy brithday to the missus

cheers scrawnybob

ps. short answer it doesnt suprise me if the maths says an ultra tight group 1 only approach will not net a net profit ... thats why poker is such an absorbing game ... there is not hand in hand out magic fromula ... "it depends" is the bottom line of poker and you have to love it for that

Uhh yes and no. I dont love it because of the big luck factor involved and I love it because it depends. It depends on the player cards position odds where how when what you saw what he did and said. This, I like. But I hate it when it starts lying and fucking up your plans.

As for the rest of your reply I agree. But alot of the stuff like the who, and where and what, is not present online. I mean there are some online tells but they are useless. and all your left with is calculations and patterns in playing. and the later can change so drastically from day to day.

But agree plenty more than calculations. But proves a point though that you cant win through group 1-4.

Yes your maths is correct, but i don't like the overall analysis. Firstly your figures for the ev of the hands is based on the "average player". A better player will make more than that on those hands. Secondly it doesn't take into consideration the factors that might help a better player to have a better ev with those hands or others eg strength of players at table, the table averages, position, odds etc. Just because the hand you're dealt has a high ev on your list doesn't make it a winner in certain situations.

Thirdly, it doesn't matter about the other 7 hands your dealt at the table. The blinds are the only ones where there is a guaranteed chance(%) that you'll loose money. This is all you need be concerned about. If you stick to group 1- 4 in the blinds then yes you will loose over 1000 hands the amount you have stated. It requires you to set aside the EV of a hand in the blinds and take into consideration the other factors I've mentioned when choosing which cards to play not the "text book" general rules.

A poker quote I heard at the start of my playing has stuck with me. I don't know who said it, I don't even remember where i heard it, but its something i repeat often:



Never a truer statement.

P.S. Happy birthday to bob's missus

For firstly and Secondly: Yes you are right this is for average players, but how much would you estimate a good player to be different by? Prolly something like 10-20% no? ok maybe 50%, but even with that they are still below break even.

I think its safe to say that you cant play group 1-4 only and expect to win on the long run. I think from what you are saying and bob is saying that a pro poker player is someone that makes the best of any hand.

For Thirdly, uhh I dont understand this.


and I like the saying. I think I need a book on betting your cards and blind playing - i think im still weak in that area.

Anyone have any idea what I should be looking at?

[luzipher]

We have a total of 23 hands in those groups to play out of a possible 169 possible hands. Hence we are playing at around 14% (23/169) of all hands only.

Later I will answer with more detail, but here you have a math error.
It's true that you have 169 possible hands, but the error is in the hands you will play.
You will play less than 14% (23/169) hands... I wont do the right maths now, but you cannot count a pair in hand in the same way that 2 suited cards or 2 unsuited cards.
As example: AA, you have 6 possible combinations, AKs, you have only 4 possible combinations, but AKu you have 12 possible combinations, so is right that you only have 169 possible hands preflop, and do not make a difference between AcAd from AhAd to study the chances that those hands have, but isn't ok don't use this information to calculate the % of hands that you will play.

[luzipher]

EV per hand is 0.58 *BB ($10) = $5.8

I think you have two mistakes here.
First, is the EV gives you the value that you can expect to win playing those hands, so you must multiply by (1+EV) or just sum your bet to the amout that you calculated.
The right value there is $15.8 (you collect your own bet and win another 5.8).

And I think there are another mistake, and is assuming that you are just playing for 1BB.
You will fold all the other mediocre hands, but when you hold one of those 23 hands you will raise 2, 3 or 4BB. So, you will never play those hands for 1BB bet (maybe in an ocasional situation doing a slow play).

[NUCKING_FUTS_4]

So you want a +tive expectation on your overall play. You took advice on starting hands, and play groups 1-4 and saw that it didn't do what it was said it would.

If you blanket this advice to all positions at the table then yes you are going to find the answer you have shown.

Clearly we have to play these hands cause if we don't we'll be worse off. We also have to define where we have a -tve ER, otherwise you won't know where to start doing something about it.

Does it cost you to play these cards in any position other than the blinds?

No.

On average you'll make 0.58 bets per hand.

In the blinds will you make money if you play only these hands?

No

If you limit yourself to only playing these cards in the blinds then the loses are way greater than the gains. Whilst you make money round the rest of the table it gets gobbled up by the true cost, the blinds.

So clearly while there is value in the advice it is too general. We need to adapt a wider strategy, and I think the place it needs most adjustment is in the blinds. You'll want to play cards here as well as group 1-4, that have the ability to make large gains per hands to offset the loses and let the other positions and group 1-4 hands be your profit.

I think that is why I went on about the other 7 hands not being significant as regards your confusion, and the blinds being the sign of a good player.

As for some real figures as to what a "better" than average player might expect from group 1-4, well you're not getting mine. I'll give you a general idea tho, its substantially more than you are suggesting might be reasonable.

[Disturbed]

Later I will answer with more detail, but here you have a math error.
It's true that you have 169 possible hands, but the error is in the hands you will play.
You will play less than 14% (23/169) hands... I wont do the right maths now, but you cannot count a pair in hand in the same way that 2 suited cards or 2 unsuited cards.
As example: AA, you have 6 possible combinations, AKs, you have only 4 possible combinations, but AKu you have 12 possible combinations, so is right that you only have 169 possible hands preflop, and do not make a difference between AcAd from AhAd to study the chances that those hands have, but isn't ok don't use this information to calculate the % of hands that you will play.

Yes but then you will have to take a number more than 169 as that has ommitted combos of the same hand, but generally i think you will end up with a similar number, maybe a bit higher.

I think you have two mistakes here.
First, is the EV gives you the value that you can expect to win playing those hands, so you must multiply by (1+EV) or just sum your bet to the amout that you calculated.
The right value there is $15.8 (you collect your own bet and win another 5.8).

And I think there are another mistake, and is assuming that you are just playing for 1BB.
You will fold all the other mediocre hands, but when you hold one of those 23 hands you will raise 2, 3 or 4BB. So, you will never play those hands for 1BB bet (maybe in an ocasional situation doing a slow play).

Uhh I dont know and I dont think so. I read about EV and did some research about it and everyone says it is the expected value you will get muliplied by the big blind. Nobody mentions anything about raising or not. I personally agree with you but I have not seen an example saying what you are saying, they all multiply EV by BB.

So you want a +tive expectation on your overall play. You took advice on starting hands, and play groups 1-4 and saw that it didn't do what it was said it would.

If you blanket this advice to all positions at the table then yes you are going to find the answer you have shown.

Clearly we have to play these hands cause if we don't we'll be worse off. We also have to define where we have a -tve ER, otherwise you won't know where to start doing something about it.

Does it cost you to play these cards in any position other than the blinds?

No.

On average you'll make 0.58 bets per hand.

In the blinds will you make money if you play only these hands?

No

If you limit yourself to only playing these cards in the blinds then the loses are way greater than the gains. Whilst you make money round the rest of the table it gets gobbled up by the true cost, the blinds.

So clearly while there is value in the advice it is too general. We need to adapt a wider strategy, and I think the place it needs most adjustment is in the blinds. You'll want to play cards here as well as group 1-4, that have the ability to make large gains per hands to offset the loses and let the other positions and group 1-4 hands be your profit.

I think that is why I went on about the other 7 hands not being significant as regards your confusion, and the blinds being the sign of a good player.

As for some real figures as to what a "better" than average player might expect from group 1-4, well you're not getting mine. I'll give you a general idea tho, its substantially more than you are suggesting might be reasonable.

hehe its alright, so the exception to the conclusion is a pro player that knows how to play those.

[scrawnybob]

hi

ok well its mid morning now - I didnt drink too much last night, enough to be tipsy but not have the hangover from hell (the missus is an altogether different case lol)

anyway this is turning into a great thread ;-)

so now hungover I'd just add to all the great replies and great OP that if you look at some of the great maths based players - Chris Jesus Ferguson for example he is a human calculator and can & will make near perfect calls based on betting / odds etc but he also factors in (mathmatically) human variation / players styles etc ...

the end result of his very mathmatical approach (which is highly profitable) is also very similar to the old time served players "natural" school of life poker - which is learn on the road over a long period of time and self taught - but essentially arrives at a similar way of playing

the first can be learnt by strict maths (but factoring in all the variables) the later is learn by learning from successes and mistakes, observation and natural deduction, where a time served player might not be able to explain the maths formula that made them make the correct decision but they know from seeing and being in similar situations what is the most effect play

online we dont have physical tells but IMHO the potential information from betting patterns / bet size etc that you get both online and in live poker games is the most useful information

but (finally) here is the maybe useful observation ... people make certain bets thinking they are doing certain things (like betting too much to make it sensible for another player to call on a draw)

alot of the time this type of bet will give you

a) information
b) a mathmatical error that gives you an edge

alot of players will say I bet xyz to achieve abc ... if they make the mathmatically incorrect bet for this to be statistcal fact but feel they have ... you have gained information on what hand they most probably have and also more pot odds / implied odds to make a call that they would consider wrong

hopefully this makes sense but betting patterns are really big tells especially in low / mid stakes games - tells in terms of mathmatical mistakes and also obvious hand holding indicators

dont get too tied up in strict maths because without factoring in most / all variables the maths will correct in an all-in situation / bad beat etc is accurate especially in NL the implied odds etc really throw out the maths ... that doesnt make it about getting lucky or negate skill

but NL is more art based on science / maths

limit is pretty much just maths

if poker were just lucky and the cards - everyone would be equally lucky and no winners / losers over a good period

the reality is poker is like any sport ... the more you practice and improve the luckier you will get

while outsiders / amateurs do win tournaments ... looking at the tournament or cash table leaderboards for top US or Euro poker players etc its always the same names putting in consistent results ... that isnt luck or chance

cheers scrawnybob