Poker instinct

[Top Pair Ace Kicker]

My EV if he folds is +$82, my EV if he calls is +$142. He has to be 100% sure of his read to make it a profitable call.

If you can't see that to call in his position was wrong then that's your view and you're entitled to it.

Lol I know it is.

I'm not 100% sure what all this EV stuff is, when you seem to have a positive figure if he calls, and a positive figure if he folds, yet he seems to have walked off with the pot?

Perhaps like in my original post, rather than calculating the exact odds and treating the game like a maths degree he had a flash of inspiration and decided to call on a "hunch"

Anyway, as you say, there's nothing more to discuss so I will leave it at that.

[trustme]

instinct is important, sometimes you get a hand that isnt great but you feel its got a chance, trusting your instinct can win you a few pots, especially early on when blinds are low, playing a live game on friday, i looked to see i had 5 6 , blinds were low but there was a raise, about 5 times the blinds, i decided to fold reluctently, would have had a straight flush by the turn, the pot was a big one and would have left me sitting pretty. always go with your instinct!

[PokerWoody]

I had a brilliant example of this at a game i was at last week in a tournament I was chip leader in with 6 people left. I had about 16000; there was one similar sized stack to my right, but the next biggest stack was about 7k.

I was UTG and got dealt J-T. I flat called the 400 blind and the shortest stack to my left called too. The next person, another short stack minimum raised and the 7k stack who was next to play doubled the bet to 1600. the next two folded, including the big stack, and it was back round to me.

All of a sudden I had a thought, nay, not a thought, a vision! I looked at all the stacks, took a second to think about it, then slowly said "I'm going to raise all of you all in" and moved a total of 7k into the middle. As I suspected, they all called and showed 6-6, A-K and A-K. I didnt even register what the hands were as the flop soon brought 2-7-T. The turn was ANOTHER T and the river another 2, making me the full house and promptly reduced the field from 6 to 3.

These sorts of visions are how I make money playing poker, at least, how I make money off the people I play with...they have these visions and I don't. Yes, I sometimes get a feeling that someone is very weak and will make what appears to be a marginal call but that is not what you are talking about here. As I understand it you are referring to having some sort of feeling that you hand will get lucky?

Poker is a funny game because you can be rewarded for making bad decisions just as you were here. Just 'cause you won the put doesn't make your decision good. Decisions like this will ultimately see you go bust.

[sl0ggs]

Absolutely. I've found that some degree of consistency in my decision making has produced much better results than I used to get whilst playing the odd risky hand, or chancing it on a hunch... our perceived 'instinct' is only ever correct when we get lucky! Or am I too synical...?!

[jjh]

Absolutely. I've found that some degree of consistency in my decision making has produced much better results than I used to get whilst playing the odd risky hand, or chancing it on a hunch... our perceived 'instinct' is only ever correct when we get lucky! Or am I too synical...?!

I'd agree with you completely. I don't play much but we were down to the last two players last night, I had 2 six and my mate had two aces- last card to turn was a 6 giving me the win. I couldn't tell what card was coming out and my decision was a bad one considering a queen and king were already down, leaving the possibilty he had one of those cards- but I got lucky and went on to win the pot.

I wouldn't say it is inspiration from some devine power as has been suggested in this thread, it is just plain luck that a 6 was drawn out for me- extremely fortunate to say the least!

[The Philosopher]

This post was more about the call being being the mathematically correct move but it still being a very bad call than anything else. Whilst losing that pot was frustrating it doesn't really bother me, people making poor calls is what makes the game profitable over the longer term.

This is interesting. I think Phil is right and it is a bad call because the chances are greater that that the caller will lose than he will win. I don't believe in "inspired" calls or raises unless you read someone correctly and they are bluffing you. The idea that you "know" that this time the flop, 4th and 5th are going top make your hand is romantic mysticism.

Where I disagree with Phil is his belief that in the "long-term" it will redress itself. How long is this long-term? Does it apply even if it is another deck, on another day, with another set of players? What if you are in a sequence of $100 tournys and the sequence that you are in with the long-term is Lose (L), L, L, L, L, L, L, because before you became a part of the sequence there had been 30 straight wins for the people with your hand? Can someone - anyone - define the "long-term" in a meaningful way that reflects back to Phil's incomings and outgoings? Phrases like "Long-term" just bother me.

Really sorry if I offended any romantics or mystics. Plus I always enjoy TPAK's posts so please - no offence intended.

[PokerWoody]

This is interesting. I think Phil is right and it is a bad call because the chances are greater that that the caller will lose than he will win. I don't believe in "inspired" calls or raises unless you read someone correctly and they are bluffing you. The idea that you "know" that this time the flop, 4th and 5th are going top make your hand is romantic mysticism.

Exactly right. The guys call was clearly very wrong even though he was actually in front. This is because you don’t put your opposition on a hand, that is far too difficult to with any consistent degree of accuracy, what you do instead is put your opponent on a range of hands. From this range you can work out if you are ahead or behind. In this particular case Phil’s hand would be at the bottom of his range for making this move, if you (as the opponent) factored in the rest of the hands he may play this way calling becomes a mistake. Hence it was a bad call.

Where I disagree with Phil is his belief that in the "long-term" it will redress itself. How long is this long-term? Does it apply even if it is another deck, on another day, with another set of players? What if you are in a sequence of $100 tournys and the sequence that you are in with the long-term is Lose (L), L, L, L, L, L, L, because before you became a part of the sequence there had been 30 straight wins for the people with your hand? Can someone - anyone - define the "long-term" in a meaningful way that reflects back to Phil's incomings and outgoings? Phrases like "Long-term" just bother me.

I really don’t think there is any clearly definable length of time which can be given to this thing known as ‘the long term’. Really when people are referring to the long term they are talking about the expected value of a play. Good plays (+EV) make you money in the long term, bad plays (-EV) lose you money in the long term. Whether you actually won or lost the hand in question at any given point is irrelevant. The question is, did you have an edge on the hand in question. If you did have an edge and you repeated the hand enough times you would end up with winning money. Just how many times that needs to be is a question for statistical analysts to answer. Probably something absurdly huge, I don’t know and I don’t really think it matters much. Understanding the concept of why a play is plus or minus EV is much more important than knowing how many hands it will take for a hand to show its worth. It is also why a poker players bankroll is the most important thing they have, and a world class player with bad BR management skills will spend most of his time broke.

[The Philosopher]

If you did have an edge and you repeated the hand enough times you would end up with winning money. Just how many times that needs to be is a question for statistical analysts to answer. Probably something absurdly huge, I don’t know and I don’t really think it matters much. Understanding the concept of why a play is plus or minus EV is much more important than knowing how many hands it will take for a hand to show its worth. It is also why a poker players bankroll is the most important thing they have, and a world class player with bad BR management skills will spend most of his time broke.

Hi Woody - Let's explore this a bit more. I actually don't think it is a statistical solution at all because, as you imply, there are so many possibilities that the algorithms needed to run it to a solution would be too complex to write. I think it is all in the specific situation at a specific time. For example, playng against a loose player with a big stack you may do X while playing against a tight player with a small stack you may do Y. Whether you do X or Y or something else may be influenced by the fact you have won/lost the previous pots - had a beer to many - are tired and so on. So I think I am saying something like - if the statistical chances of X winning are 10-1 on one occasion then they are 10-1 in all occassions. The times that the 1 comes up is random - no matter what length of time has elapsed or how many times the 10 has come up. It is always 10:1 and (and this is where I may fall down) never worth a bet unless you are getting 10:1 on your money. This is, I think based on the abstract - it is theoretical - in real life I would bet if e.g. I know my opponent is so tight that they will fold to a reasonable bet - my opponent has had a run of bad cards and is scared of more and waiting on the nuts - my opponent would be all in and first out and probably a lot of other reasons too - but - never because I thought I would draw to the 1 side of the 10:1. Having re-read this I think we are in violent agreement!