PLaying first HAND!

ben_rhyno · Mar 16, 2011

Sorry to interrupt but i don't see how when you're multitabling you can afford to take the time to post in the CO, then sit out every blind on every table? Does this not mean you only see 6 hands/BB paid as you will have to miss the BTN,SB and BB every orbit?

WVHillbilly · Mar 16, 2011

ben_rhyno said:
Sorry to interrupt but i don't see how when you're multitabling you can afford to take the time to post in the CO, then sit out every blind on every table? Does this not mean you only see 6 hands/BB paid as you will have to miss the BTN,SB and BB every orbit?

Doesn't matter we've gone to the extreme non-real world example to prove the point.

As to your WR being different from the CO just because you posted the blind, I don't see it. The position is the position. If my WR went up just because I'm posting the blinds (before the blinds are deducted) do you think my WR would go way up if I didn't post the blinds but played a lot more random hands from the CO?

The BB sucks postflop yes but it actually has several advantages that the CO doesn't have preflop. It gets to act last. It can have guaranteed position throughout. It can get a walk. The CO has none of those things.

TheDevilsLuck · Mar 16, 2011

I don't see why anything here would make any sense. You have proven posting from the CO is worse than just waiting. And if you skipped three hands every orbit, it would take tons more hours to play the same amount.
$/hr > bb/100?

ben_rhyno · Mar 16, 2011

TheDevilsLuck said:
I don't see why anything here would make any sense. You have proven posting from the CO is worse than just waiting. And if you skipped three hands every orbit, it would take tons more hours to play the same amount.
$/hr > bb/100?

Add that to the fact that any serious/decent player is not going to be missing 3 hands per orbit

x2486 · Mar 16, 2011

WVHillbilly said:
Ummm yeah, that's exactly how it works and your WR is only positive if you don't have to post the blinds.

In english, please? Was this in reference to something I wrote?

WVHillbilly said:
Go back and look at my table from page 1. In the BB I won $10,818.60 without the blinds. That sample was for 50nl over 36121 hands from the BB or $18,060.50 worth of blinds posted. So my SUPER DUPER CORRECT math says that my $$ won from the BB should be $10,818.60 (money won) - $18,060.50 (blinds posted) or -$7,241.90.

I'll post the table here again for reference and maybe you can tell me where my math is wrong again???

Just keep posting and I'll just keep winning.

You are absolutely right. $10,818.60 - $18,060.50 = -$7,241.90. Now, maybe you could explain why you think that's relevant to the conversation. Are you saying that if you didn't have to post the bb, you would have a profit of 10,818.60 in the bb position? (Please tell me you're saying that, I could use a good laugh)

If you pay $2 to win $1, do you think you've won $1, or lost $1.

Are you disputing my calculation of your win rate in some way? If so, what do you think your win rate would be?

What part of my post do you think was incorrect?

And to put my earlier post (which is still correct) in real world terms, that extra bb/100 that you're missing out on works out to a .06 bb for every table you join. At 50nl, that's $0.03 per table, $0.60 per 20 table session, or $270 per 450 session year. It's a small leak that's easy for you to fix, but I don't think I can make you understand the logic behind it.

x2486 · Mar 16, 2011

TheDevilsLuck said:
I don't see why anything here would make any sense. You have proven posting from the CO is worse than just waiting. And if you skipped three hands every orbit, it would take tons more hours to play the same amount.
$/hr > bb/100?

ben_rhyno said:
Add that to the fact that any serious/decent player is not going to be missing 3 hands per orbit

WVHillbilly said:
Doesn't matter we've gone to the extreme non-real world example to prove the point.

^What he said^

If you haven't read the whole thread, this is just about whether it's better to enter a new table at the big blind, or wait until the cutoff to post your bb. After that, you play as usual. It has been said numerous times here that it would not be practical to do this every round, but to demonstrate the effect this would have long-term, we have been talking about playing multiple rounds this way.

dudesenior · Mar 16, 2011

ramdeebam said:
Eh? Why is it? Doesn't it just lose you money as you're losing out on seeing hands for free, prior to sitting out. You still have to pay the BB when you rejoin so it makes no difference..

As for your 2,7 hand example, you of course can make a FH every now and again but keep calling pre flop with these hands is a sure loser in the long run.

It is my opinion, as an amature indeed, but you didn't get what i said.
I didnt say pay blind every hand.
But this isn't a rule to fold if you have 72's, or any bad starting hand.
No risk no gain.

WVHillbilly · Mar 16, 2011

No it would not be that high if I didn't have to post from the BB. But if I played every hand the same from that position (last to act pre, 1st or 2nd to act post) it would equal that total amount - the amount of the blinds I had put in for those hands that I won.

The part of your post that is incorrect is the amount of $$ you expect to lose from the CO by always posting from that position. I can't make you get it. I've laid it out as clearly as I can. You seem to think that by posting in the CO your WR from that position (before posting the blinds) will improve. I don't think it will. So my position is you'd win at your current WR minus the blinds paid. The more often you have to post from the CO the more your adjusted for blinds paid WR would suffer.

Like I said earlier, there is a reason regulars don't post from the CO. It's a losing play. If you would like to play a bunch of hands and post from the CO every time I think you'll see that. Until then I'm just not sure you'll ever get it.

I think I have said everything I have so unless you have some specific question, I'll just leave it at that.

x2486 · Mar 16, 2011

WVHillbilly said:
As to your WR being different from the CO just because you posted the blind, I don't see it. The position is the position. If my WR went up just because I'm posting the blinds (before the blinds are deducted) do you think my WR would go way up if I didn't post the blinds but played a lot more random hands from the CO?

Well, first we need to agree to the definition of WR and how it is calculated. If you don't like my examples, perhaps you could let me know what you think it is and how it should be calculated.

I think that your win rate (as I define it) in the cutoff would go down if you post the blind there because you would either be playing less profitable hands, or folding to raises and losing your blind. Either action would decrease your win rate compared to your normal play. The effect is not entirely negative, because sometimes those trash hands that you are able to check to see a flop will become well-disguised monsters that you would have thrown away.

If your cutoff WR actually stays the same or goes up, then it would be an absolute must to post your first blind in the cutoff.

WVHillbilly said:
The BB sucks postflop yes but it actually has several advantages that the CO doesn't have preflop. It gets to act last. It can have guaranteed position throughout. It can get a walk. The CO has none of those things.

Wherever you post your first bb, you can always get a walk if everyone checks, so that's a non-factor. Yes, the cutoff is not as good pre-flop, but are you saying that makes the bb a better position to post the blind than the cutoff? You already said earlier in the thread that everyone would prefer to post their blinds on the button and cutoff if they could.

x2486 · Mar 16, 2011

WVHillbilly said:
No it would not be that high if I didn't have to post from the BB. But if I played every hand the same from that position (last to act pre, 1st or 2nd to act post) it would equal that total amount - the amount of the blinds I had put in for those hands that I won.

Okay, try this example:
Your in the bb position. You don't have to post the bb, but you still get to act last pre-flop. You get 72o. A couple of people limp and the small blind calls.

How do you play this hand?
How would you have played it if you had already posted?
Are they the same?

If you would play every hand the same whether you had posted a blind or not, then you are an idiot, plain and simple. I don't really think you're an idiot - just stubborn and confused. But since posting a blind affects not only you, but the play of others at your table, it is impossible to play every hand the same way, so posting will have an effect on your WR.

WVHillbilly said:
...You seem to think that by posting in the CO your WR from that position (before posting the blinds) will improve...

I don't calculate WR that way, and that's not what I said. From the table I posted, you can see I had your WR going down.

WVHillbilly said:
...I don't think it will. So my position is you'd win at your current WR minus the blinds paid. The more often you have to post from the CO the more your adjusted for blinds paid WR would suffer.

Like I said, I don't think you're an idiot who would play a hand the same whether or not they already had money in the pot. You have heard of pot odds, I assume? But feel free to prove me wrong.

WVHillbilly said:
Like I said earlier, there is a reason regulars don't post from the CO. It's a losing play.

I thought this was settled in the earlier link - Pros > "Regulars"

ben_rhyno · Mar 16, 2011

x2486 said:
^What he said^

If you haven't read the whole thread, this is just about whether it's better to enter a new table at the big blind, or wait until the cutoff to post your bb. After that, you play as usual. It has been said numerous times here that it would not be practical to do this every round, but to demonstrate the effect this would have long-term, we have been talking about playing multiple rounds this way.

It doesn't matter though because as you said it's not practical and not feasible for a real player to sit out every 6 hands for 3 hands on all tables, so just in terms of sitting down for your 20table session, not planning to mess around and sit out all the time, where is it better to post your initial BB to get started on the table, CO or BB?

WVHillbilly · Mar 16, 2011

BB ainec.
In before x2486 says CO ainec.

Btw I have asked a stats guy from another forum who does lots of db analysis to weigh in on this. Certainly if posting from the CO is better he'll have seen it when looking at these awesome numbers in some regs db.

x2486 · Mar 16, 2011

ben_rhyno said:
It doesn't matter though because as you said it's not practical and not feasible for a real player to sit out every 6 hands for 3 hands on all tables, so just in terms of sitting down for your 20table session, not planning to mess around and sit out all the time, where is it better to post your initial BB to get started on the table, CO or BB?

The point is that, as someone said earlier, "small actions played out over a large enough sample size have big effects."

Every time you sit down at a table you have some decisions to make. The first one is, do you observe the table for a round or two before playing, or jump right in? Whether you choose to do that or not doesn't affect what we have been talking about in this thread.

The second decision is whether to enter on the button or cutoff. (We all agree that anything else is stupid) This only affects your first round of play, but it is a factor for every table you enter, so the consequences of making a wrong choice will add up after a large number of tables.

I think I have shown that entering in the cutoff is by far the better choice. WVH disagrees, but in my opinion his evidence is lacking in details and accuracy. I hadn't thought too much about it before this discussion, but now that I've done the math I know which way I'm going.

WVHillbilly · Mar 16, 2011

Ok here is another way to look at why it's wrong to post from the CO. Maybe this one will get through.

Again using my WRs from the table (now in bb/hand to make things clearer):

x2486 · Mar 16, 2011

WVHillbilly said:
Ok here is another way to look at why it's wrong to post from the CO. Maybe this one will get through.

Again using my WRs from the table (now in bb/hand to make things clearer):

View attachment 36871

I'd like to work with you on this, but I can't do a comparison unless I know the win rates for the bb, sb and button.

Also, could you tell me where these win rates came from and why are the different from the ones you posted earlier?

Thanks

WVHillbilly · Mar 16, 2011

They are the same numbers just converted to bb/100 instead of BB/100.

Same table in BB if you'd rather:

Also why would BTN/BB/SB WRs be relevant? You're never playing those positions.

x2486 · Mar 16, 2011

WVHillbilly said:
Ok here is another way to look at why it's wrong to post from the CO. Maybe this one will get through.

Again using my WRs from the table (now in bb/hand to make things clearer):

View attachment 36871

Now that I can work with! Lets just use your "math" and see what happens if you post in the BB, shall we?

Thank you for proving my point - Isn't it better to only lose 11k by posting in the cutoff than lose 142k by posting in the BB? I just noticed that I should have only used 100,000 rounds for the second example, so that the number of hands are the same, but I think you get the picture.

Hopefully by now you realize that there is something not quite right about your calculation. Would you like to try again? Do need a hint as to where you went wrong?

Edit: Sorry, typed bb instead of BB in the labels of the spreadsheet

x2486 · Mar 16, 2011

WVHillbilly said:
Also why would BTN/BB/SB WRs be relevant? You're never playing those positions.

I needed those to show you how bad your math was, thanks.

WVHillbilly · Mar 16, 2011

Ahhh but that's why you're wrong! My posted WR from the SB/BB already includes money lost to the blinds! So your top graph on the right is correct BUT you don't get to double deduct for the blinds so you can't resubtract the cost to play (1.5bb) as it's already included in the top.

So .5496 per round at 100nl for 100,000 rounds (900,000 hands) = $54,960.

WVHillbilly · Mar 16, 2011

x2486 said:
I needed those to show you how bad your math was, thanks.

Np and you're still wrong.

RamdeeBen · Mar 16, 2011

You're one of a kind Billy.

I never honestly thought I'd learn something of this thread until you popped up!

WVHillbilly · Mar 16, 2011

ramdeebam said:
You're one of a kind Billy.

I never honestly thought I'd learn something of this thread until you popped up!

Yeah this started out a rigtard fiasco waiting to happen but it changed direction.

I will say that if your WRs from the CO thru UTG are better than mine, posting from the CO may be correct. You just need to make more $$s over those 6 hands than you lose for posting the bb. My WR doesn't allow for that but I'm sure there are a few crushers out there who can.

x2486 · Mar 16, 2011

WVHillbilly said:
Ahhh but that's why you're wrong! My posted WR from the SB/BB already includes money lost to the blinds! So your top graph on the right is correct BUT you don't get to double deduct for the blinds so you can't resubtract the cost to play (1.5bb) as it's already included in the top.

So .5496 per round at 100nl for 100,000 rounds (900,000 hands) = $54,960.

Fine, I can play it that way, but let's compare apples to apples. So I'll just adjust your SB and BB WR to the same as UTG and run it again:

Are you going to try to argure that acting last preflop is such a big advantage that your WR in the blinds will be significantly better than UTG?

Of course, THIS is why I adjusted your cutoff WR when I corrected your first table. However you want to run it, the numbers come out better for posting in the cutoff as long as you compare fairly.

Edit: I'll make a note here, though it should be obvious by now that your method of calculating profit is entirely wrong. But even so, posting in the cutoff still comes out ahead. You cannot use a non-blind WR for a position and then subtract the blind. It puts you in a -100 bb/100 hole that you can never get out of.

WVHillbilly · Mar 16, 2011

Why would you get to change my numbers from the blinds? They are what they are. You're just making shit up now to try to justify a failed point of view.

Ok I'm done. Anyone who reads the thread can make up their own minds with the info presented. I'm not going to start posting from the CO anytime soon and you're going to keep playing tourneys so at least you won't be throwing your money away posting outside of the blinds.

I mean you do see that I don't lose money in the real world posting from the blinds right??? So why should your made up calculations for posting from the BB show that???

x2486 · Mar 16, 2011

WVHillbilly said:
I will say that if your WRs from the CO thru UTG are better than mine, posting from the CO may be correct. You just need to make more $$s over those 6 hands than you lose for posting the bb. My WR doesn't allow for that but I'm sure there are a few crushers out there who can.

I would need to analyze more data to be sure, but I suspect any player who has a decent positional awareness would benefit by posting in the cutoff.

Your numbers are more than adequate to justify the change if you compare the two situations correctly. The only way to do this accurately is to make an educated guess as to what your win rate will be in the cutoff when posting the blind there. You would have to be a complete tool not to do better than -13 bb/100 when posting a blind from the cutoff.

PLaying first HAND!

ben_rhyno

Legend

WVHillbilly

Legend

TheDevilsLuck

Enthusiast

ben_rhyno

Legend

x2486

Rock Star

x2486

Rock Star

dudesenior

Rising Star

WVHillbilly

Legend

x2486

Rock Star

x2486

Rock Star

ben_rhyno

Legend

WVHillbilly

Legend

x2486

Rock Star

WVHillbilly

Legend

x2486

Rock Star

WVHillbilly

Legend

x2486

Rock Star

x2486

Rock Star

WVHillbilly

Legend

WVHillbilly

Legend

RamdeeBen

Legend

WVHillbilly

Legend

x2486

Rock Star

WVHillbilly

Legend

x2486

Rock Star

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site