Some Poker Theory

loosecannon

Ok

i know that this is going to sound like a really strange and maybe irrelevent thread and although the reasons behind my thinking on this sort of poker theory may not be apparent i thought they may even in some way affect somebody's play slightly (for the better i think!)

so here it goes, this is all mainly based around odds calculation etc. and deals almost entirely with pre-flop play

i began thinking about this during a large MTT which for the umpeenth consecutive time saw me lose the classic coin flip to end my tourney. If we are to take the most stereotypical one of these ie AKs vs Q's which weigh's in at a % level at roughly 53% (Q's) vs 46% (AKs) and look at it in some more detail

the AK suited % win ratio of nearly half the time is due to it's two overcards, it is of course the majority of the time purely reliant pairing either his ace or his king to win the hand. With the exception of straight and flush possibilities he has 6 outs and 5 chances to hit it (not getting into the matter of the Q's hitting a set)

Now, let's just say that when faced with an all in push against your AK, you know 100% that he has Q's and you are trying to work out whether you should call or not, when thinking you begin to analyse the likelihood of your 6 outs (the 3 K's and 3 A's) hitting the flop, so you look around the table and consider the actions of the other players that have played before you, and the likelihood of those players having either an ace or a king in their hands, it is a 10 seater table (so from the 8 other hands, excluding your's and the Q's, how many of the 16 cards are A's or K's). From your deduction you decide that there are 3 of the aces and kings out, turning your 6 outs into just three and what was nearly a coin toss into a much worse scenario

i know that it may seem far fetched for this sort of thinking to ever be practical at any game so i've thought of the kind of scenario where it would

MTT with deep stacks, you've got some very solid reads on all the players at the table, you are in Seat 8 and on the button, Seat 9 and 10 are the Blinds, which are 100/200 and u are sitting on a stack of 22,000

Seat 1 raises to 800
Seat 2 folds
Seat 3 calls
Seat 4 folds
Seat 5 calls
Seat 6 calls
Seat 7 calls
You in Seat 8 Re-Raise to 5000
Seat 9 folds
& Seat 10 Pushes all in for 30k

The rest of the callers all fold round to you and you are left facing an all in call for your last 17K ( for the purpose of this theory discussion when pushing all in seat 10 accidently flipped his queens over when pushing all in)

You go into the tank and think, you have all the players marked at the table and come to the conclusion (no need to go into the thought process behind why, that's a different topic) that Seat 1 Raised with AQ, Seat 3 called with KJs, Seat 5 called with K10s, Seat 6 had a small pocket pair, and Seat 7 had Axs)

whilst considering these pro's and con's you now realise that your suppoused coin flip is nothing even close to being a coin flip and you are now in reality way behind (even allowing for a slight variance on your reads of these hands) and you immediately fold and are happy with your decision, it happens to be the last hand before the break and as you know the table you asked the callers what they all had, you read the majority of them right and out of your suppoused 6 outs you were indeed down to 2 and made the correct fold

now, what does everyone think about what i have mapped out here above, am i talking complete and utter nonsense, is anything that i've said of any relevance whatsoever?

i really hope that this interests someone out there in boardsland as to be honest thinking about the topic did interest me a lot and i'm sure that there is other points about this which i didn't make which make a bit more sense

looking forward to some feedback

cannon

bohsman

All makes sense, I try to keep an eye on the potential aces when I have AK with a raise into me.

fuzzbox

The cards of the other players have been taken into account in the "unseen" ones already.

loosecannon

I was more wondering if it was put to you as a question, would you ever lay the hand down because of this type of information where you may have already called in a seperate instance?

fuzzbox

I would have to be a mind reader to put players on precise holdings like AQ, or KJ.

5starpool

loosecannon wrote:

I was more wondering if it was put to you as a question, would you ever lay the hand down because of this type of information where you may have already called in a seperate instance?

I have laid down AK several times because I had a good idea that people ahead of me were contemplating calling an allin with a big hand, probably containing an A if not AK. This is an elementary part of the game. If you feel that an all in has a decent hand, and a couple of people look like they want to call then you have to take this into account.

As for looking around and saying I know xxx has AQ and yyy has KQ is a bit unlikely, and if I ever do that then I know I am overestimating myself.

cardshark202

loosecannon wrote:

MTT with deep stacks, you've got some very solid reads on all the players at the table

loosecannon wrote:

You go into the tank and think, you have all the players marked at the table and come to the conclusion (no need to go into the thought process behind why, that's a different topic) that Seat 1 Raised with AQ, Seat 3 called with KJs, Seat 5 called with K10s, Seat 6 had a small pocket pair, and Seat 7 had Axs)

Talk about solid reads...... Can you see their holecards?? Putting people on their exact holdings can never be good. You're talking about something that probably never has, or never will happen.

Ok if you're take this situation in a more generalised way, there may be some substance to this theory, but I don't think these situations occur often enough to affect the long term results.