Missing Cards, have we really not fixed this yet? *edit* Plus an interesting update and a strange qu

ShaunyT

Hey guys. Haven't posted in ages, or played much for that matter. But seen as though i have just being the victim of the "move tables-get no cards glitch" i thought i'd ask the question. It's not a moan (although i was in the bb grrrr). I just wondered given the fact the glitch still exists has it just been written off as "one of those things".

Hope everybody is well, run good peeps.

For Skys info, i was playing via the download. Hand ID 944726140

Player	Action	Cards	Amount	Pot	Balance
Darkangel7	Small blind		150.00	150.00	11335.00
ShaunyT	Big blind		300.00	450.00	9920.00
	Your hole cards	7 6
FLUSHCHECK	Fold
spudgunn	Raise		1050.00	1500.00	19510.00
mistyeyesx	Fold
TwitT	Fold
Darkangel7	Fold
ShaunyT	Fold
spudgunn	Muck
spudgunn	Win		750.00		20260.00
spudgunn	Return		750.00	0.00	21010.00 The HH actually shows my cards but not when i was playing.

Ice_Tiger

I discovered that if you call pre flop then the cards appear when the flop comes down.

ShaunyT

In Response to Re: Missing Cards, have we really not fixed this yet?:

I discovered that if you call pre flop then the cards appear when the flop comes down.
Posted by Ice_Tiger

Ha Ha. Thats quite funny.

SO. The question is.... given the hand in the OP, i have already invested my BB into the pot, from a stack of a smidge over 33BB, do i pay the extra 450 (1.5BB) to see a flop with random cards, assuming they appear??

My initial thought is probably (without really knowing the maths of chances of been dealt a bare K or an A).

raggy94

Hand in the opening post you have to call 750 chips(2.5x) to see a flop.

Assuming it was only 450(1.5x) more to call, what hands would you normally defend if you could see your cards?

ShaunyT

In Response to Re: Missing Cards, have we really not fixed this yet? *edit* Plus an interesting update and a strange question.....:

Hand in the opening post you have to call 750 chips(2.5x) to see a flop. Assuming it was only 450(1.5x) more to call, what hands would you normally defend if you could see your cards?
Posted by raggy94

You spotted my diliberate mistake!! *coughs with embarrassment*

I have no idea where i was looking. I would say the perhaps call 450, fold 750.

It got me thinking, when i play live, there are always a few maniac regs who play hands "blind", even raise, and call 3 bets blind. I have no idea how common this is as i dont play live THAT much. But this is obviously a comparable situation.

To answer your question, i would probably not defend with 76off but probably would with 76 suited.

F_Ivanovic

OOP from an early opener I'd say optimal strategy with no blinds is to just always fold! Against BTN or SB vs min-open I think defending is probably fine!

mumsie

The're called blinds for good reason.

cleansweep

I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING I'M PLAYING THE MAIN AND HAVE SEEN LESS THAN 50 % OF MY HOLE CARDS AND NOW I'VE BEEN KICKED OFF THE TABLE AND CAN'T GET BACK IN!
IT NEVER USED TO BE THIS BAD!
HAS THE SOFTWARE BEEN UPDATED?

I USED TO PLAY 50P BLIND HANDS IN 3 CARD BRAG BUT £11 BLIND POKER IS A FIRST!
SHOVED AND LOST, WHEN I GOT BACK IN.
THERE'S ZERO FUN PLAYING HANDS WHEN YOU HAVEN'T A CLUE WHAT YOU ARE HOLDING!

Tikay10

In Response to Re: Missing Cards, have we really not fixed this yet? *edit* Plus an interesting update and a strange question.....:

In Response to Re: Missing Cards, have we really not fixed this yet? *edit* Plus an interesting update and a strange question..... : You spotted my diliberate mistake!! *coughs with embarrassment* I have no idea where i was looking. I would say the perhaps call 450, fold 750. It got me thinking, when i play live, there are always a few maniac regs who play hands "blind", even raise, and call 3 bets blind. I have no idea how common this is as i dont play live THAT much. But this is obviously a comparable situation. To answer your question, i would probably not defend with 76off but probably would with 76 suited.
Posted by ShaunyT

Hi Shauny,

I'm always quite intrigued by this "but they were suited" thinking, & I'm as guilty as most, I can't resist (in PLO & PLO8) a suited ace.

Do you know (in % terms) how much difference there is between 7-6 suited & 7-6 unsuited?

Short of posting reams & reams of starting hands, there is no clear, definitive answer, but it's about 3%, so our hand value increases by 3 parts in a 100. Multi-way, the more the better, helps, but heads up, in the long term, it's not ideal.   

Sir-Gary

Yes if you call you get to see the cards, you can also if quick, shut the table down and then open it up again as that usually works as well

ShaunyT

In Response to Re: Missing Cards, have we really not fixed this yet? *edit* Plus an interesting update and a strange question.....:

The're called blinds for good reason.
Posted by mumsie

LOL

ShaunyT

In Response to Re: Missing Cards, have we really not fixed this yet? *edit* Plus an interesting update and a strange question.....:

In Response to Re: Missing Cards, have we really not fixed this yet? *edit* Plus an interesting update and a strange question..... : Hi Shauny, I'm always quite intrigued by this "but they were suited" thinking, & I'm as guilty as most, I can't resist (in PLO & PLO8) a suited ace. Do you know (in % terms) how much difference there is between 7-6 suited & 7-6 unsuited? Short of posting reams & reams of starting hands, there is no clear, definitive answer, but it's about 3%, so our hand value increases by 3 parts in a 100. Multi-way, the more the better, helps, but heads up, in the long term, it's not ideal.   
Posted by Tikay10

Hey Tikay, yeah that does fall into the "but they were suited", and the 3% starting difference doesn't seem much, and its probably a flaw in my game but 76 suited does SEEM a lot more attractive than 76 off. But does the 3% only represent the increased chance of flopping the flush? Does it take into account a flop with 2 of your suit on which increases your equity post flop?

Tikay10

In Response to Re: Missing Cards, have we really not fixed this yet? *edit* Plus an interesting update and a strange question.....:

In Response to Re: Missing Cards, have we really not fixed this yet? *edit* Plus an interesting update and a strange question..... : Hey Tikay, yeah that does fall into the "but they were suited", and the 3% starting difference doesn't seem much, and its probably a flaw in my game but 76 suited does SEEM a lot more attractive than 76 off. But does the 3% only represent the increased chance of flopping the flush? Does it take into account a flop with 2 of your suit on which increases your equity post flop?
Posted by ShaunyT

That's the whole point, Shauny - we - many of us - think it seems so much better. In my world, 3% is not much. I still struggle to resist though, because of implied odds.

The 3% is simply the increase in pre-flop equity. There are too many different ways of looking at it, but if we were against Aces - well, in fact, ANY pair above 9-9 (give or take a % point or two, they are all similar), we are, roughly, 20% to win. (Assuming we don't get pushed off down the streets, which we often will). 

So, those odds are very similar - almost identical in fact - to an underpair v an overpair - roughly 20%. 

An underpair, however, is MUCH easier to play - we either flop our set & get the lot, or we miss. Whereas 7-6, suited or not, is far, far, harder to get to the river with.     

Interesting stuff, yeah?

MattBates

In Response to Re: Missing Cards, have we really not fixed this yet? *edit* Plus an interesting update and a strange question.....:

In Response to Re: Missing Cards, have we really not fixed this yet? *edit* Plus an interesting update and a strange question..... : That's the whole point, Shauny - we - many of us - think it seems so much better. In my world, 3% is not much. I still struggle to resist though, because of implied odds . The 3% is simply the increase in pre-flop equity. There are too many different ways of looking at it, but if we were against Aces - well, in fact, ANY pair above 9-9 (give or take a % point or two, they are all similar), we are, roughly, 20% to win. (Assuming we don't get pushed off down the streets, which we often will).  So, those odds are very similar - almost identical in fact - to an underpair v an overpair - roughly 20%.  An underpair, however, is MUCH easier to play - we either flop our set & get the lot, or we miss. Whereas 7-6, suited or not, is far, far, harder to get to the river with.      Interesting stuff, yeah?
Posted by Tikay10

More interesting would be quantifying the equity effect of missing 1 hand on a FT! 

ShaunyT

In Response to Re: Missing Cards, have we really not fixed this yet? *edit* Plus an interesting update and a strange question.....:

In Response to Re: Missing Cards, have we really not fixed this yet? *edit* Plus an interesting update and a strange question..... : More interesting would be quantifying the equity effect of missing 1 hand on a FT! 
Posted by MattBates

Very much so.

Like i said in the OP, it isn't a moan BUT considering i played Sky quite regular and was aware of the "move table missing cards glitch" i have come back to find it's still there! Further to this i have a new laptop and a different ISP to when i played before, so i very much doubt it's a fault at my end.

Like Matt mentioned, imagine moving to a final table with a 10BB stack and been in that situation! Not very nice.

Luckily for me i dont have to worry about final tables much

Tikay10

In Response to Re: Missing Cards, have we really not fixed this yet? *edit* Plus an interesting update and a strange question.....:

In Response to Re: Missing Cards, have we really not fixed this yet? *edit* Plus an interesting update and a strange question..... : More interesting would be quantifying the equity effect of missing 1 hand on a FT! 
Posted by MattBates

Yup. Might be a lot, might be nothing, might even save us losing, we'll never know.

In your case, you'd be raising anyway, even without seeing your cards.

In my case I'd be folding anyway......

Incidentally, I'm not trivialising the issue, but it's not something I have any ability to comment upon. I suspect it is one of those awkward edge cases, but I'd best leave it to the techie sorts. I'll send it up to them, obv. Postman, me.

F_Ivanovic

In Response to Re: Missing Cards, have we really not fixed this yet? *edit* Plus an interesting update and a strange question.....:

In Response to Re: Missing Cards, have we really not fixed this yet? *edit* Plus an interesting update and a strange question..... : Hi Shauny, I'm always quite intrigued by this "but they were suited" thinking, & I'm as guilty as most, I can't resist (in PLO & PLO8) a suited ace. Do you know (in % terms) how much difference there is between 7-6 suited & 7-6 unsuited? Short of posting reams & reams of starting hands, there is no clear, definitive answer, but it's about 3%, so our hand value increases by 3 parts in a 100. Multi-way, the more the better, helps, but heads up, in the long term, it's not ideal.   
Posted by Tikay10

Its strange how in PLO the added equity that a FD can bring makes all the difference in terms of hand selection. I was analysing a PLO hand the other day where we were facing a 4b with QQJTss. We have 35.9% equity with this hand; and with around a PSB behind it should be a fold to a 4b (assuming villain nearly always has AA) Make it QQJTds and we go up by an amazing 4% to 39.7% equity. And when equities run so close that 4% makes a huge difference; especially when it comes to the increase in flops we can stack off on (and as such the ability to realise our equity post-flop) - As such QQJTds is always a call to a 4b. 

Going back to Holdem; the 3% is obviously irrelevant if we're facing a tight range of TT+, AQ+ when we aren't deep enough for implied odds. But it IS relevant when it comes to defending against m-r from wide opens. Having a FD makes the world of difference in helping us construct a proper defending range. And when it comes to post-flop playability and making moves and stuff - holding a BDFD + GS for instance make for a great c/r bluffing range. Sure, we could make the same play with an off-suit hand but a) we are less inclined to continue if we don't turn a FD and b) it's harder to balance. There are 12 off suit combos of each hand; so if we are bluff-raising every GS that's 12 bluffs. And now we need 24 value hands to balance. Which is way too many; If we have to c/r that many for value then our c/c range becomes super weak. But if it's a suited hand with a back door that's only 3 bluffs. And at least 6 value hands. Much easier to balance

Jac35

In Response to Re: Missing Cards, have we really not fixed this yet? *edit* Plus an interesting update and a strange question.....:

In Response to Re: Missing Cards, have we really not fixed this yet? *edit* Plus an interesting update and a strange question..... : Hi Shauny, I'm always quite intrigued by this "but they were suited" thinking, & I'm as guilty as most, I can't resist (in PLO & PLO8) a suited ace. Do you know (in % terms) how much difference there is between 7-6 suited & 7-6 unsuited? Short of posting reams & reams of starting hands, there is no clear, definitive answer, but it's about 3%, so our hand value increases by 3 parts in a 100. Multi-way, the more the better, helps, but heads up, in the long term, it's not ideal.   
Posted by Tikay10

The rotund one found there was a very big difference on his way to winning the mini last night.

I should also say that he timebanked and checked all way to river when opponent got discoed heads up to allow him time to get back.

Maybe he's not quite so bad after all

SR23

In Response to Re: Missing Cards, have we really not fixed this yet? *edit* Plus an interesting update and a strange question.....:

In Response to Re: Missing Cards, have we really not fixed this yet? *edit* Plus an interesting update and a strange question..... : The rotund one found there was a very big difference on his way to winning the mini last night. I should also say that he timebanked and checked all way to river when opponent got discoed heads up to allow him time to get back. Maybe he's not quite so bad after all
Posted by Jac35

Class

Tikay10

In Response to Re: Missing Cards, have we really not fixed this yet? *edit* Plus an interesting update and a strange question.....:

In Response to Re: Missing Cards, have we really not fixed this yet? *edit* Plus an interesting update and a strange question..... : The rotund one found there was a very big difference on his way to winning the mini last night. I should also say that he timebanked and checked all way to river when opponent got discoed heads up to allow him time to get back. Maybe he's not quite so bad after all
Posted by Jac35

That's wonderful - playing the game in the right spirit.

If people want to win at all costs,fine, but always good to see a proper man behaving like one. 

Bravo him.