AngryJacks Poker Forum

When I think of "gamble", I think of the losing side. So how often are you taking the (possible) losing side of a bet to win?

I am not a statistician, nor do I know if my logic is right here, but I think it works like this:

In any 60/40 situation, the hand that's ahead stands to be ahead 60% of the time. That means, 40% of the time, you are going to win too. So if the cards were face up and you folded every time you're behind, you're missing opportunities to make money. Gambling is, in fact, a part of poker. It's not the focus of poker, but it's there. If you're not taking advantage of it, it will take advantage of you.

Therefore you can call up to 40% of the time and expect to maybe win the hand. The variance goes both ways obviously as you can call the 40% of the time and lose every single one - therefore costing you WAY more than you win. You can't control the variance, all you can do is put yourself in a position to make it work for you.

However, I theorize that if you're not calling (chasing) bets and all-ins half the time you could (ex. call 60/40 hands about 20% of the time) you're probably missing some +EV. Especially in this group. All-ins are clearly a different animal, but I'm talking about calling a pot sized flop bet when you are pretty sure you're behind, but can catch up with as few as 4 and as many as 10 cards that can help your hand. You don't know the ACTUAL odds at the minute, but you know what you need to hit in order to win the hand.

If your opponent slows down on the turn, there is a great way to win the hand on the turn/river too ... bluffing. If a scare card hits the board, you can bet it if/when checked to you. So you played the hand to make your open ended straight draw, but the flush card hits and it's checked to you ... bet it.

This isn't an article about "chasing" all the time ... to the contrary it is important to know how/when to use moves effectively to help control variance. However, this is a play that many of us complain about when it goes someone else's way ... but when you put it in a thinking player's head, it becomes a "play".

Let's outline one more good scenario:

You're who you are. An AJ player. You think, you try to make right plays, you may even be on the tight side of spectrum (especially compared to average players in the card room). You're playing cash at a local card house like you normally do. You may find that you have trouble getting paid off when you have the goods. You're simply playing too tight.

Now let's use the theory above PLUS let's start showing all those chases. Let's also make sure we're betting those chases ... and upon re-raise we lay down and show. The table now thinks you're a little loose, making bets and calls you shouldn't. So now not only are you going to win some of those hands (and show those 4 outers you hit), but you're also going to fool them for when you move back into TAG mode.

I think this is the stuff guys like durrrrrr are doing and not talking about. I think they don't just have more "gamble" but more "calculated gamble". i.e. keeping stats on how many times they do it, where they actually were in the hand (man, I thought i was 60/40, but I was 80/20) to be sure you classify your stats properly, etc.

Anyway I wanted to lively up the Theory board because we all spend too much time bitching about bad beats and too little time talking about what matters. This is a theory of mine that I've never read about specifically and I have no idea if it holds water, so have at it.

_________________
-Joel

Allergy Warning: These Cards May Contain Nuts

Joel

Well written piece.... thanks for sharing.....



Questions:
1. Did EY write the above quoted section for you?
2. Are you auditioning for Poker Sensei position?

_________________
slow play at your risk
you cannot bluff a donkey
river runs both ways

.....Burt

No and no. I'm no sensei ... I'm just hyper-analytical. :)

_________________
-Joel

Allergy Warning: These Cards May Contain Nuts

Burt...Joel wrote as few as 4, not 1. So to answer question 1, no

_________________
Bob

Nice Joel.

This is a lot like how I already play, but I am slowly learning how to increase my "calculated gamble". I find this to be the hardest thing for me to do, because, as you all know, I like to dodge bullets :)

_________________
Josh

Actually the more I analyze this, the real percentage of the time you can/could call is the losing percentage (times) the losing percentage.

10% of 10% is 1%
20% of 20% is 4%
30% of 30% is 9%
40% of 40% is 16%

So - in this scenario you should be calling your 70/30 dog situations 9% of the time you're confronted with them. These numbers also don't apply to raising/pushing either. These numbers are about calling to make your hand. (i.e. showdown the best hand).

The rest of your decision is made up of the even-harder stuff. Subjectively based on +EV (big stack), ability to steal, etc.

_________________
-Joel

Allergy Warning: These Cards May Contain Nuts

I like your thought process on this topic. Like I posted yesterday, getting it in on a "gamble" esp. when up against a short stack in my opinion is a great spot for rollin the dice as a dog. Glad to see some action in theory section.

_________________
-Aaron "Coach"

Good post, and I like the math here

.. this could be a part of the game that separates the seriously winning players from the rest of us. Especially when you consider these pots are usually monsters when the winner hits, and usually a well hidden draw on top of it all.

_________________
POKER IS -EV

-Scott

Very good read Joel. Admittedly my percentage is probably a little too low when it comes to calling when I know I'm behind. I decided to apply this thinking tonight on full tilt. In all 3 tourneys I played, I chipped up like crazy hitting well concealed monsters by chasing a little but also lost big swings. I played two ko's and had a lot of ko's to off- set half of the buy-ins for the night. It was fun to play like my alter ego for a night. Thanks for the addition to the theory section

_________________
Bob

Nice !! this is what Im talkin about. Thanks Joel for gettin these #s up !! 60/40 dog could justify ( justifiable and mandatory have diff meanings EY :wink: )a short stack call close to 20% of the time. How often are you in these situations ? 20% of the time could potentially be every time a shorty is pushin on ya. I mean these situations arent coming up that much till your short handed.

_________________
-Aaron "Coach"

I would like to add caution to the calculation of when calling in these situations, and when it is further justifiable as correct. I think your opponent needs to have you covered, or at minimum 75-80% of your stack. I say this because to chase from a dog position if you hit, you better double up or close. Why chase if you'll only increase a portion of your stack. Thoughts?

_________________
POKER IS -EV

-Scott

My 2 cents..

When deciding to chase, obviously, pot odds are a very important consideration, if not the most important consideration. It does no good to chase when you are an underdog if you wont get paid on a later street or by money already in the pot.

Also, in tournaments, maximizing your EV is not the primary goal (unlike cash games, obv). There are other factors at play in tournaments (such as elimination, fold equity, etc.) that I think other players don't take into consideration enough (and I mean other poker players in general - not AJ players necessarily).

An obvious example is in the early stages of a tournament.. someone makes a rediculous bet or all-in preflop, and you know your are a 60/40 favorite.... you usually fold. In a cash game, you would call.

Point being in a tournament you sometimes have to sacrifice EV for other things like survival, fold equity, etc. So, I wouldn't start chasing just because I might be missing a small amount of EV somewhere. I'm going to chase if Im getting good odds/implied odds, and if I have the chips to do it.

_________________
ShaneTheMaster
SEC > OSU

Fear the Ace of Stars.

Good point Scott.....

At one extreme is the "Flyswatter" call where it is such a small % of your stack to call it doesn't matter if you win or lose other than felting a player if you win...

At the other end (which you address) is the potential to double up at the risk of your entire tourney life.... I would think you would only do this when you need to double up to stay alive....

the most difficult (and contentious) is what % (20 to 50) of your stack are you willing to risk when you think your a 60/40 dog.... the lower the % of your stack and the earlier it is in the tourney is less risky than a higher % stack and later in the tourney because you have more time to recover.... that's why i have chosen to take risks like this early in tourneys and a maximum of 1/3 of my stack so I still can recover and compete if I lose...

_________________
slow play at your risk
you cannot bluff a donkey
river runs both ways

.....Burt

Implied odds aren't used enough by many players. I will chase to hit on an aggro lagtard w/ a deepstack because i know i'm gonna get paid if I hit. If i don't so what - i'll get his chips eventually down the road. Or if its multi-way pot and i know that nobody is going to re-pop but I know they are all gonna smooth call (think any card room in Tampa) then I will also call. On the opposite end if its against a shorty and i've already got the pot odds to call (Shane's post) I'm gonna call almost all the time.

_________________
- Brett


****Certified Bracketologist****

Everyone is making a LOT of good points, but realize that what I posted here does not supersede nor change that information which we already know to be true such as not risking too big a % of your stack (ever) and the general principles behind EV.

I do think that SITUATIONALLY this information can supersede one or MANY of those points in the right spot. Obviously not in a spot where you're severely out chipped (or short stacked), rather this part of a chipping up strategy. I would never push for my tournament life knowing I was behind. I would at least have some decent odds I'm ahead or many outs with 2 to come.

Ere go, it is only important to remember that this option is out there and you should be using it sparingly (1-20% of the TOTAL number of times you're in this situation in any given tournament) depending on the situation.

So, we need:

- A good read of where we are - i.e. behind, BUT we're also pegging the opponent as particularly strong (This does not mean he's 80% to win, merely that he's got a strong hand and ahead)
- A solid understanding of what exact (few) cards we're looking to hit
- Discipline to lay down on the turn if you miss and are bet into
- To track the number of times this is happening so you can ensure you're around the above published numbers.
- Betting, and deep stacks. No all-ins here, this is a chip up scenario.

The best part is you've got the opportunity to do three great things here:
- win
- steal
- make EASY folds

No more "OMG'ing" at the table because it was so hard to lay down. You pitch them in and move on.

_________________
-Joel

Allergy Warning: These Cards May Contain Nuts