A few months ago, a friend of mine who lives in Australia wanted to organize a couple of get-togethers for people who, like him, participate in an online poker forum. He comes to Vegas for about six weeks every year. After consulting with potential participants about when they might be in town, he picked two dates, June 24 and July 8, both Sunday evenings. Between those two dates, nearly everybody who was interested in coming could make at least one of them.

## Saturday, July 14, 2012

### Riviera success, Tropicana fail

Posted by Rakewell at 4:07 PM 3 comments Links to this post

### Dogs playing poker

Can this be beat for sheer adorableness? I say no!

Posted by Rakewell at 3:39 PM 0 comments Links to this post

Labels: dogs playing poker

## Friday, July 13, 2012

### Deuce-Four wins a tournament

See last hand described here:

Posted by Rakewell at 11:52 PM 0 comments Links to this post

Labels: deuce-four

## Thursday, July 12, 2012

### Poopcorn must die

Now, see, I'm laughing out loud just typing out that post title. Sadly, only one reader will find it as funny as I do.

Posted by Rakewell at 1:41 AM 4 comments Links to this post

Labels: very josie

## Wednesday, July 11, 2012

### Probability of a bigger pair

Ed Miller's column in the June 27 issue of Card Player magazine is about bet-sizing tells. He walks the reader through a hand that he played while holding Q-Q, showing how opponents' bet sizes helped him deduce what hands he was up against. I have no quibbles with his reasoning. In fact, it's a highly worthwhile piece, and the sort of insight that makes me never want to miss his columns.

[T]here are still five unknown hands behind me. There's about a one percent chance each player has either A-A or K-K, making about a five percent chance in total that one of the two hands I'm most afraid of is lurking behind me.

*a priori*probability that somebody at a ten-handed table has been dealt A-A or K-K when I'm holding Q-Q? It turns out to be a ferociously complicated mathematical problem, one that I could never solve on my own. Fortunately, though, somebody a lot smarter than me has already worked it out, and you can see both the process and the result here:

*a priori*probability of somebody holding a bigger pair were 80%, or 0.8%, rather than the actual 8%.

*only*raise UTG with

*exactly*A-A or K-K, then our previous 8% probability goes to 100%. Of course, it's not often you'll have a player with a range that narrowly definable, so it usually won't go up all the way to 100%. But it's surely a damn sight higher than 8%.

*a priori*probability that

*two*players have been dealt pocket pairs bigger than my queens is only about 0.2%--a negligible quantity. The implication is this: The fact that a nit put in an UTG raise means that the probability of a bigger pocket pair being out there is much greater than the baseline 8% (as just discussed), but also that

*nearly all of that probability resides in the nit, not in the players who will be acting behind me.*

*has*changed.

*quite*true, because as soon as two aces are in a player's hand and no longer in the deck from which the dealer is pitching cards, the concentration of kings in the deck rises slightly by virtue of card subtraction, so the probability of K-K goes up slightly. But it's a tiny difference.

Posted by Rakewell at 3:30 PM 12 comments Links to this post

Labels: card player magazine, math, miller