| |
Main
Date: 18 Dec 2008 10:13:54
From: Irish Mike
Subject: Clueless players (mini BAHH)
|
No matter how long I play poker I'm always amazed at how totally clueless
some players manage to stay. I was playing in a local $2/$5 NL game, bet
out $20 UTG with KK and got re-raised to $50 by the player on my immediate
left. Rest of the table folds, it comes back to me and I muck. My cards
hit the dealer's hand, or vice-versa, and my KK flips up. Then the player
on my left proudly turns up his AA and the dealer pushes him the pot. This
generated a little table talk with some players saying I played too tight
and was afraid to gamble. One guy gave me a brief lecture on pot-odds and
explained how calling was a "no brainer". I don't talk when I play so I
just sat there thinking "How can they be this dumb?" Fact is, the guy on my
left is a fairly regular player in this game and he's a total rock. He
wouldn't bluff at a pot if his life depended on it plus he knows I play
solid cards in early position. The only hand this guy would ever come over
the top with in early position is AA. Hell, I've seen him muck QQ in late
position to a single raise. Plus, every time he gets a big hand he
straightens up in his chair and leans forward. Seriously, he might as well
hold up a sign that says "AA in the hole". I'm not bitching but it really
makes you wonder how any player wouldn't notice this.
Irish Mike
|
|
| |
Date: 18 Dec 2008 14:37:05
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: Clueless players (mini BAHH)
|
On Dec 18 2008 9:13 AM, Irish Mike wrote:
> No matter how long I play poker I'm always amazed at how totally clueless
> some players manage to stay. I was playing in a local $2/$5 NL game, bet
> out $20 UTG with KK and got re-raised to $50 by the player on my immediate
> left. Rest of the table folds, it comes back to me and I muck. My cards
> hit the dealer's hand, or vice-versa, and my KK flips up. Then the player
> on my left proudly turns up his AA and the dealer pushes him the pot. This
> generated a little table talk with some players saying I played too tight
> and was afraid to gamble. One guy gave me a brief lecture on pot-odds and
> explained how calling was a "no brainer". I don't talk when I play so I
> just sat there thinking "How can they be this dumb?" Fact is, the guy on my
> left is a fairly regular player in this game and he's a total rock. He
> wouldn't bluff at a pot if his life depended on it plus he knows I play
> solid cards in early position. The only hand this guy would ever come over
> the top with in early position is AA. Hell, I've seen him muck QQ in late
> position to a single raise. Plus, every time he gets a big hand he
> straightens up in his chair and leans forward. Seriously, he might as well
> hold up a sign that says "AA in the hole". I'm not bitching but it really
> makes you wonder how any player wouldn't notice this.
>
> Irish Mike
great fold ..IF YOU ONLY HAVE 70 DOLLARS IN FRONT OF YOU.. but if you
both have plenty of chips it is a RIDICULOUS FOLD ....HORRIBLE ....INSANE .
30 MORE TO FLOP A SET AND BREAK HIM... fucking bargain
Once again .. your brain doesnt have any ability to think beyond the hand
in front of your face
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire
_______________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 18 Dec 2008 12:49:47
From: DELETETHIS
Subject: Re: Clueless players (mini BAHH)
|
no fair paying attention to the game and the players
cancel the invite to my home game
Irish Mike wrote:
> No matter how long I play poker I'm always amazed at how totally clueless
> some players manage to stay. I was playing in a local $2/$5 NL game, bet
> out $20 UTG with KK and got re-raised to $50 by the player on my immediate
> left. Rest of the table folds, it comes back to me and I muck. My cards
> hit the dealer's hand, or vice-versa, and my KK flips up. Then the player
> on my left proudly turns up his AA and the dealer pushes him the pot. This
> generated a little table talk with some players saying I played too tight
> and was afraid to gamble. One guy gave me a brief lecture on pot-odds and
> explained how calling was a "no brainer". I don't talk when I play so I
> just sat there thinking "How can they be this dumb?" Fact is, the guy on my
> left is a fairly regular player in this game and he's a total rock. He
> wouldn't bluff at a pot if his life depended on it plus he knows I play
> solid cards in early position. The only hand this guy would ever come over
> the top with in early position is AA. Hell, I've seen him muck QQ in late
> position to a single raise. Plus, every time he gets a big hand he
> straightens up in his chair and leans forward. Seriously, he might as well
> hold up a sign that says "AA in the hole". I'm not bitching but it really
> makes you wonder how any player wouldn't notice this.
>
> Irish Mike
>
>
|
| |
Date: 18 Dec 2008 08:39:52
From: CincinnatiKid
Subject: Re: Clueless players (mini BAHH)
|
On Dec 18 2008 10:13 AM, Irish Mike wrote:
> No matter how long I play poker I'm always amazed at how totally clueless
> some players manage to stay. I was playing in a local $2/$5 NL game, bet
> out $20 UTG with KK and got re-raised to $50 by the player on my immediate
> left. Rest of the table folds, it comes back to me and I muck. My cards
> hit the dealer's hand, or vice-versa, and my KK flips up. Then the player
> on my left proudly turns up his AA and the dealer pushes him the pot. This
> generated a little table talk with some players saying I played too tight
> and was afraid to gamble. One guy gave me a brief lecture on pot-odds and
> explained how calling was a "no brainer". I don't talk when I play so I
> just sat there thinking "How can they be this dumb?" Fact is, the guy on my
> left is a fairly regular player in this game and he's a total rock. He
> wouldn't bluff at a pot if his life depended on it plus he knows I play
> solid cards in early position. The only hand this guy would ever come over
> the top with in early position is AA. Hell, I've seen him muck QQ in late
> position to a single raise. Plus, every time he gets a big hand he
> straightens up in his chair and leans forward. Seriously, he might as well
> hold up a sign that says "AA in the hole". I'm not bitching but it really
> makes you wonder how any player wouldn't notice this.
>
> Irish Mike
Stack sizes would be nice. While it turned out to be a great fold in
hindsight it was actually a pretty damn bad fold. He knows you're solid
and he's a rock? You know what he has? Take the pot from him regardless
after the flop. If he's a rock then he can lay down aces postflop.
________________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 18 Dec 2008 12:09:41
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: Clueless players (mini BAHH)
|
On Dec 18, 2:45=A0pm, "CincinnatiKid" <a1...@webnntp.invalid > wrote:
> On Dec 18 2008 2:14 PM, Will in New Haven wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 18, 1:53=A0pm, "Ian Stuart" <spamsu...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> > > On Dec 18 2008 7:42 PM, CincinnatiKid wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 18 2008 1:35 PM, Ian Stuart wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 18 2008 7:11 PM, CincinnatiKid wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Dec 18 2008 1:06 PM, CincinnatiKid wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Dec 18 2008 12:52 PM, Wayne Vinson wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > I hate to think of a $2/5 game with stacks smaller than t=
hat
> but
> > > you
> > > > > > > > > see them every day. Being out of position means that this=
is
> almost
> > > > > > > > > certainly purely a set-farming call, if you call. Of cour=
se,
> I've
> > > > only
> > > > > > > > > played against a few people whom I would not four-bet wit=
h
> Kings
> > > but
> > > > I
> > > > > > > > > don't know this guy and Mike does.
>
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Will in New Haven
>
> > > > > > > > Generally agreed. =A0I do think this class of opponents is =
more
> common
> > > > than
> > > > > > > > many think however - there are LOTS of people who will not
> re-raise
> > > QQ
> > > > > > > > preflop and instead just call. =A0Your kings are not a favo=
rite if
> QQ
> > > is
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > > in their range obviously.
>
> > > > > > > > I would guess as much as 20-30% of the player population at=
2/5
> falls
> > > > > into
> > > > > > > > that category. =A0Just a guess.
>
> > > > > > > > Wayne Vinson
> > > > > > > >http://cardsharp.org/
> > > > > > > > Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
>
> > > > > > > That seems like a gross overestimation to me. The 2/5 games I=
play
> in
> > > are
> > > > > > > horrible and I would expect AT to 3 bet as often as AA. Game
> selection
> > > is
> > > > > > > vital.
>
> > > > > > > I just think a good rule of thumb to follow is that folding K=
K
> preflop
> > > in
> > > > > > > a cash game to a bit more than a minraise is typically a bad
> play.. I
> > > > would
> > > > > > > imagine it's a ~ev one too.
>
> > > > > > Don't get me wrong...there are certain situations where it woul=
d be
> > > > > > beneficial to fold the KK, but this just doesn't seem like one =
of
> them.
>
> > > > > What about:
>
> > > > > "...is a fairly regular player in this game....."
> > > > > "He wouldn't bluff at a pot if his life depended on it...."
> > > > > "..he knows I play solid cards in early position."
> > > > > =A0The only hand this guy would ever come over the top with in ea=
rly
> > > > > position is AA."
> > > > > "I've seen him muck QQ in late position to a single raise."
> > > > > "Plus, every time he gets a big hand he straightens up in his cha=
ir and
> > > > > leans forward."
>
> > > > > So we're 99.999% certain in our read that he has aces and yet you=
want
> to
> > > > > call. The situation involves this specific player, not the joes y=
ou
> expect
> > > > > to find in another game with the same stakes.
>
> > > > The problem is you're not 99.999% sure he has Aces. The indisputabl=
e fact
> > > > is that he has exactly one hand that you're behind right now. Just =
one.
> > > > Folding is bad. There really is no argument that's gonna make any s=
ense
> to
> > > > the contrary. It just is what it is.
>
> > > > AA v KK happens. It does not happen often enough to lay down KK in =
a cash
> > > > game to a minraise. The situation really is that simplified.
>
> > > It seems perfectly clear that Mike was 100% sure of his read. The
> > > frequency with which AA comes up against KK is therefore irrelevent a=
nd
> > > the only debate worth having is with Mike around the accuracy of his =
read..
>
> > Somone who is that sure of his read ought to know how many chips were
> > in the stacks. Unless one or both of us is awfully short for a 2/5
> > game it is worth calling thirty more dollars because you can make a
> > great deal of money off a set against someone who won't let go of
> > Aces. And most "rocks" are exactly the people who will open a vein and
> > bleed chips into a sewer when you beat their Aces.
>
> > I suspect that the skinflint who re-raised Mike had only another one
> > or two hundred in front of him, making Mike's fold correct, but that
> > will have to wait for Mike to answer.
>
> > --
> > Will in New Haven
>
> If the opponent did only have that much left then the correct play would
> be to put him all in.
You insist on ignoring the read. Just because something isn't common
does not mean it's not possible. If he's short-stacked enough that we
have no implied odds and he has Aces, I fold. I wasn't there and I
don't know if _I_ would have known he had Aces but that's a given in
this discussion.
--
Will in New Haven
|
| | |
Date: 18 Dec 2008 11:14:23
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: Clueless players (mini BAHH)
|
On Dec 18, 1:53=A0pm, "Ian Stuart" <spamsu...@tiscali.co.uk > wrote:
> On Dec 18 2008 7:42 PM, CincinnatiKid wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 18 2008 1:35 PM, Ian Stuart wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 18 2008 7:11 PM, CincinnatiKid wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 18 2008 1:06 PM, CincinnatiKid wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 18 2008 12:52 PM, Wayne Vinson wrote:
>
> > > > > > > I hate to think of a $2/5 game with stacks smaller than that =
but
> you
> > > > > > > see them every day. Being out of position means that this is =
almost
> > > > > > > certainly purely a set-farming call, if you call. Of course, =
I've
> > only
> > > > > > > played against a few people whom I would not four-bet with Ki=
ngs
> but
> > I
> > > > > > > don't know this guy and Mike does.
>
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Will in New Haven
>
> > > > > > Generally agreed. =A0I do think this class of opponents is more=
common
> > than
> > > > > > many think however - there are LOTS of people who will not re-r=
aise
> QQ
> > > > > > preflop and instead just call. =A0Your kings are not a favorite=
if QQ
> is
> > > not
> > > > > > in their range obviously.
>
> > > > > > I would guess as much as 20-30% of the player population at 2/5=
falls
> > > into
> > > > > > that category. =A0Just a guess.
>
> > > > > > Wayne Vinson
> > > > > >http://cardsharp.org/
> > > > > > Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
>
> > > > > That seems like a gross overestimation to me. The 2/5 games I pla=
y in
> are
> > > > > horrible and I would expect AT to 3 bet as often as AA. Game sele=
ction
> is
> > > > > vital.
>
> > > > > I just think a good rule of thumb to follow is that folding KK pr=
eflop
> in
> > > > > a cash game to a bit more than a minraise is typically a bad play=
. I
> > would
> > > > > imagine it's a ~ev one too.
>
> > > > Don't get me wrong...there are certain situations where it would be
> > > > beneficial to fold the KK, but this just doesn't seem like one of t=
hem.
>
> > > What about:
>
> > > "...is a fairly regular player in this game....."
> > > "He wouldn't bluff at a pot if his life depended on it...."
> > > "..he knows I play solid cards in early position."
> > > =A0The only hand this guy would ever come over the top with in early
> > > position is AA."
> > > "I've seen him muck QQ in late position to a single raise."
> > > "Plus, every time he gets a big hand he straightens up in his chair a=
nd
> > > leans forward."
>
> > > So we're 99.999% certain in our read that he has aces and yet you wan=
t to
> > > call. The situation involves this specific player, not the joes you e=
xpect
> > > to find in another game with the same stakes.
>
> > The problem is you're not 99.999% sure he has Aces. The indisputable fa=
ct
> > is that he has exactly one hand that you're behind right now. Just one.
> > Folding is bad. There really is no argument that's gonna make any sense=
to
> > the contrary. It just is what it is.
>
> > AA v KK happens. It does not happen often enough to lay down KK in a ca=
sh
> > game to a minraise. The situation really is that simplified.
>
> It seems perfectly clear that Mike was 100% sure of his read. The
> frequency with which AA comes up against KK is therefore irrelevent and
> the only debate worth having is with Mike around the accuracy of his read=
.
Somone who is that sure of his read ought to know how many chips were
in the stacks. Unless one or both of us is awfully short for a 2/5
game it is worth calling thirty more dollars because you can make a
great deal of money off a set against someone who won't let go of
Aces. And most "rocks" are exactly the people who will open a vein and
bleed chips into a sewer when you beat their Aces.
I suspect that the skinflint who re-raised Mike had only another one
or two hundred in front of him, making Mike's fold correct, but that
will have to wait for Mike to answer.
--
Will in New Haven
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Dec 2008 11:45:32
From: CincinnatiKid
Subject: Re: Clueless players (mini BAHH)
|
On Dec 18 2008 2:14 PM, Will in New Haven wrote:
> On Dec 18, 1:53 pm, "Ian Stuart" <spamsu...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Dec 18 2008 7:42 PM, CincinnatiKid wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Dec 18 2008 1:35 PM, Ian Stuart wrote:
> >
> > > > On Dec 18 2008 7:11 PM, CincinnatiKid wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Dec 18 2008 1:06 PM, CincinnatiKid wrote:
> >
> > > > > > On Dec 18 2008 12:52 PM, Wayne Vinson wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > I hate to think of a $2/5 game with stacks smaller than that
but
> > you
> > > > > > > > see them every day. Being out of position means that this is
almost
> > > > > > > > certainly purely a set-farming call, if you call. Of course,
I've
> > > only
> > > > > > > > played against a few people whom I would not four-bet with
Kings
> > but
> > > I
> > > > > > > > don't know this guy and Mike does.
> >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Will in New Haven
> >
> > > > > > > Generally agreed. I do think this class of opponents is more
common
> > > than
> > > > > > > many think however - there are LOTS of people who will not
re-raise
> > QQ
> > > > > > > preflop and instead just call. Your kings are not a favorite if
QQ
> > is
> > > > not
> > > > > > > in their range obviously.
> >
> > > > > > > I would guess as much as 20-30% of the player population at 2/5
falls
> > > > into
> > > > > > > that category. Just a guess.
> >
> > > > > > > Wayne Vinson
> > > > > > >http://cardsharp.org/
> > > > > > > Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
> >
> > > > > > That seems like a gross overestimation to me. The 2/5 games I play
in
> > are
> > > > > > horrible and I would expect AT to 3 bet as often as AA. Game
selection
> > is
> > > > > > vital.
> >
> > > > > > I just think a good rule of thumb to follow is that folding KK
preflop
> > in
> > > > > > a cash game to a bit more than a minraise is typically a bad
play.. I
> > > would
> > > > > > imagine it's a ~ev one too.
> >
> > > > > Don't get me wrong...there are certain situations where it would be
> > > > > beneficial to fold the KK, but this just doesn't seem like one of
them.
> >
> > > > What about:
> >
> > > > "...is a fairly regular player in this game....."
> > > > "He wouldn't bluff at a pot if his life depended on it...."
> > > > "..he knows I play solid cards in early position."
> > > > The only hand this guy would ever come over the top with in early
> > > > position is AA."
> > > > "I've seen him muck QQ in late position to a single raise."
> > > > "Plus, every time he gets a big hand he straightens up in his chair and
> > > > leans forward."
> >
> > > > So we're 99.999% certain in our read that he has aces and yet you want
to
> > > > call. The situation involves this specific player, not the joes you
expect
> > > > to find in another game with the same stakes.
> >
> > > The problem is you're not 99.999% sure he has Aces. The indisputable fact
> > > is that he has exactly one hand that you're behind right now. Just one.
> > > Folding is bad. There really is no argument that's gonna make any sense
to
> > > the contrary. It just is what it is.
> >
> > > AA v KK happens. It does not happen often enough to lay down KK in a cash
> > > game to a minraise. The situation really is that simplified.
> >
> > It seems perfectly clear that Mike was 100% sure of his read. The
> > frequency with which AA comes up against KK is therefore irrelevent and
> > the only debate worth having is with Mike around the accuracy of his read..
>
> Somone who is that sure of his read ought to know how many chips were
> in the stacks. Unless one or both of us is awfully short for a 2/5
> game it is worth calling thirty more dollars because you can make a
> great deal of money off a set against someone who won't let go of
> Aces. And most "rocks" are exactly the people who will open a vein and
> bleed chips into a sewer when you beat their Aces.
>
> I suspect that the skinflint who re-raised Mike had only another one
> or two hundred in front of him, making Mike's fold correct, but that
> will have to wait for Mike to answer.
>
> --
> Will in New Haven
If the opponent did only have that much left then the correct play would
be to put him all in.
_____________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 18 Dec 2008 10:41:45
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: Clueless players (mini BAHH)
|
On Dec 18, 1:35=A0pm, "Ian Stuart" <spamsu...@tiscali.co.uk > wrote:
> On Dec 18 2008 7:11 PM, CincinnatiKid wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 18 2008 1:06 PM, CincinnatiKid wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 18 2008 12:52 PM, Wayne Vinson wrote:
>
> > > > > I hate to think of a $2/5 game with stacks smaller than that but =
you
> > > > > see them every day. Being out of position means that this is almo=
st
> > > > > certainly purely a set-farming call, if you call. Of course, I've=
only
> > > > > played against a few people whom I would not four-bet with Kings =
but I
> > > > > don't know this guy and Mike does.
>
> > > > > --
> > > > > Will in New Haven
>
> > > > Generally agreed. =A0I do think this class of opponents is more com=
mon than
> > > > many think however - there are LOTS of people who will not re-raise=
QQ
> > > > preflop and instead just call. =A0Your kings are not a favorite if =
QQ is
> not
> > > > in their range obviously.
>
> > > > I would guess as much as 20-30% of the player population at 2/5 fal=
ls
> into
> > > > that category. =A0Just a guess.
>
> > > > Wayne Vinson
> > > >http://cardsharp.org/
> > > > Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
>
> > > That seems like a gross overestimation to me. The 2/5 games I play in=
are
> > > horrible and I would expect AT to 3 bet as often as AA. Game selectio=
n is
> > > vital.
>
> > > I just think a good rule of thumb to follow is that folding KK preflo=
p in
> > > a cash game to a bit more than a minraise is typically a bad play. I =
would
> > > imagine it's a ~ev one too.
>
> > Don't get me wrong...there are certain situations where it would be
> > beneficial to fold the KK, but this just doesn't seem like one of them.
>
> What about:
>
> "...is a fairly regular player in this game....."
> "He wouldn't bluff at a pot if his life depended on it...."
> "..he knows I play solid cards in early position."
> =A0The only hand this guy would ever come over the top with in early
> position is AA."
> "I've seen him muck QQ in late position to a single raise."
> "Plus, every time he gets a big hand he straightens up in his chair and
> leans forward."
>
> So we're 99.999% certain in our read that he has aces and yet you want to
> call. The situation involves this specific player, not the joes you expec=
t
> to find in another game with the same stakes.
Without knowing the stack sizes, who knows. If there is enough money
out there to be won if we make our set, why not?
--
Will in New Haven
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Dec 2008 11:25:18
From: Ian Stuart
Subject: Re: Clueless players (mini BAHH)
|
On Dec 18 2008 7:41 PM, Will in New Haven wrote:
> On Dec 18, 1:35 pm, "Ian Stuart" <spamsu...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Dec 18 2008 7:11 PM, CincinnatiKid wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Dec 18 2008 1:06 PM, CincinnatiKid wrote:
> >
> > > > On Dec 18 2008 12:52 PM, Wayne Vinson wrote:
> >
> > > > > > I hate to think of a $2/5 game with stacks smaller than that but
you
> > > > > > see them every day. Being out of position means that this is almost
> > > > > > certainly purely a set-farming call, if you call. Of course, I've
only
> > > > > > played against a few people whom I would not four-bet with Kings
but I
> > > > > > don't know this guy and Mike does.
> >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Will in New Haven
> >
> > > > > Generally agreed. I do think this class of opponents is more common
than
> > > > > many think however - there are LOTS of people who will not re-raise
QQ
> > > > > preflop and instead just call. Your kings are not a favorite if QQ
is
> > not
> > > > > in their range obviously.
> >
> > > > > I would guess as much as 20-30% of the player population at 2/5 falls
> > into
> > > > > that category. Just a guess.
> >
> > > > > Wayne Vinson
> > > > >http://cardsharp.org/
> > > > > Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
> >
> > > > That seems like a gross overestimation to me. The 2/5 games I play in
are
> > > > horrible and I would expect AT to 3 bet as often as AA. Game selection
is
> > > > vital.
> >
> > > > I just think a good rule of thumb to follow is that folding KK preflop
in
> > > > a cash game to a bit more than a minraise is typically a bad play. I
would
> > > > imagine it's a ~ev one too.
> >
> > > Don't get me wrong...there are certain situations where it would be
> > > beneficial to fold the KK, but this just doesn't seem like one of them.
> >
> > What about:
> >
> > "...is a fairly regular player in this game....."
> > "He wouldn't bluff at a pot if his life depended on it...."
> > "..he knows I play solid cards in early position."
> > The only hand this guy would ever come over the top with in early
> > position is AA."
> > "I've seen him muck QQ in late position to a single raise."
> > "Plus, every time he gets a big hand he straightens up in his chair and
> > leans forward."
> >
> > So we're 99.999% certain in our read that he has aces and yet you want to
> > call. The situation involves this specific player, not the joes you expect
> > to find in another game with the same stakes.
>
> Without knowing the stack sizes, who knows. If there is enough money
> out there to be won if we make our set, why not?
>
Agreed, though as that point had already been raised in this thread I
didn't see the need to revisit it. I was challenging the position that we
should never fold KK, irrespective of how sure we were that our opponent
had AA. I trust Mike has enough experience of the game to have come across
the concept of implied odds before.
> --
> Will in New Haven
______________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 18 Dec 2008 10:03:42
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: Clueless players (mini BAHH)
|
On Dec 18, 12:52=A0pm, "Wayne Vinson" <a7a8...@webnntp.invalid > wrote:
> > I hate to think of a $2/5 game with stacks smaller than that but you
> > see them every day. Being out of position means that this is almost
> > certainly purely a set-farming call, if you call. Of course, I've only
> > played against a few people whom I would not four-bet with Kings but I
> > don't know this guy and Mike does.
>
> > --
> > Will in New Haven
>
> Generally agreed. =A0I do think this class of opponents is more common th=
an
> many think however - there are LOTS of people who will not re-raise QQ
> preflop and instead just call. =A0Your kings are not a favorite if QQ is =
not
> in their range obviously.
>
> I would guess as much as 20-30% of the player population at 2/5 falls int=
o
> that category. =A0Just a guess.
>
That seems very hight to me. Of course, I have heard that the games in
Las Vegas are nitty, so ?quien sabe?
--
Will in New Haven
|
| | |
Date: 18 Dec 2008 09:32:15
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: Clueless players (mini BAHH)
|
On Dec 18, 12:30=A0pm, "Wayne Vinson" <a7a8...@webnntp.invalid > wrote:
> > Not unless the stacks are big enough. For both set-mining and
> > outplaying post-flop you have to have enough chips behind. And, and
> > this is key, lots of tight players are tragically unable to give up
> > big overpairs unless the board yells "flush" or "straight." Which is
> > good, of course. Classifying someone as tight, because of his habit of
> > not playing many hands, doesn't really tell you whether he is tough or
> > weak after there is money in the pot.
>
> > --
> > Will in New Haven
>
> This is an excellent point. =A0Unless the stacks were at least $500 I
> wouldn't even consider playing in a situation like this. =A0Even then, it=
's
> probably not worth it. =A0Position would help a bit, since his bets or la=
cks
> thereof might provide information about how he viewed the strength of his
> aces. =A0But sadly you're OOP.
>
> But if you have any intention of "outplaying" him when you don't hit a
> set, this is NOT a traditional set farm as you're risking a lot more than
> just the $30 to call. =A0It would be easy to loose hundreds on a second o=
r
> third barrel intended to get him to fold his overpair.
I hate to think of a $2/5 game with stacks smaller than that but you
see them every day. Being out of position means that this is almost
certainly purely a set-farming call, if you call. Of course, I've only
played against a few people whom I would not four-bet with Kings but I
don't know this guy and Mike does.
--
Will in New Haven
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Dec 2008 09:52:53
From: Wayne Vinson
Subject: Re: Clueless players (mini BAHH)
|
> I hate to think of a $2/5 game with stacks smaller than that but you
> see them every day. Being out of position means that this is almost
> certainly purely a set-farming call, if you call. Of course, I've only
> played against a few people whom I would not four-bet with Kings but I
> don't know this guy and Mike does.
>
> --
> Will in New Haven
Generally agreed. I do think this class of opponents is more common than
many think however - there are LOTS of people who will not re-raise QQ
preflop and instead just call. Your kings are not a favorite if QQ is not
in their range obviously.
I would guess as much as 20-30% of the player population at 2/5 falls into
that category. Just a guess.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
____________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 18 Dec 2008 10:06:38
From: CincinnatiKid
Subject: Re: Clueless players (mini BAHH)
|
On Dec 18 2008 12:52 PM, Wayne Vinson wrote:
> > I hate to think of a $2/5 game with stacks smaller than that but you
> > see them every day. Being out of position means that this is almost
> > certainly purely a set-farming call, if you call. Of course, I've only
> > played against a few people whom I would not four-bet with Kings but I
> > don't know this guy and Mike does.
> >
> > --
> > Will in New Haven
>
> Generally agreed. I do think this class of opponents is more common than
> many think however - there are LOTS of people who will not re-raise QQ
> preflop and instead just call. Your kings are not a favorite if QQ is not
> in their range obviously.
>
> I would guess as much as 20-30% of the player population at 2/5 falls into
> that category. Just a guess.
>
> Wayne Vinson
> http://cardsharp.org/
> Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
That seems like a gross overestimation to me. The 2/5 games I play in are
horrible and I would expect AT to 3 bet as often as AA. Game selection is
vital.
I just think a good rule of thumb to follow is that folding KK preflop in
a cash game to a bit more than a minraise is typically a bad play. I would
imagine it's a ~ev one too.
--------
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | | |
Date: 18 Dec 2008 10:11:15
From: CincinnatiKid
Subject: Re: Clueless players (mini BAHH)
|
On Dec 18 2008 1:06 PM, CincinnatiKid wrote:
> On Dec 18 2008 12:52 PM, Wayne Vinson wrote:
>
> > > I hate to think of a $2/5 game with stacks smaller than that but you
> > > see them every day. Being out of position means that this is almost
> > > certainly purely a set-farming call, if you call. Of course, I've only
> > > played against a few people whom I would not four-bet with Kings but I
> > > don't know this guy and Mike does.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Will in New Haven
> >
> > Generally agreed. I do think this class of opponents is more common than
> > many think however - there are LOTS of people who will not re-raise QQ
> > preflop and instead just call. Your kings are not a favorite if QQ is not
> > in their range obviously.
> >
> > I would guess as much as 20-30% of the player population at 2/5 falls into
> > that category. Just a guess.
> >
> > Wayne Vinson
> > http://cardsharp.org/
> > Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
>
>
> That seems like a gross overestimation to me. The 2/5 games I play in are
> horrible and I would expect AT to 3 bet as often as AA. Game selection is
> vital.
>
> I just think a good rule of thumb to follow is that folding KK preflop in
> a cash game to a bit more than a minraise is typically a bad play. I would
> imagine it's a ~ev one too.
Don't get me wrong...there are certain situations where it would be
beneficial to fold the KK, but this just doesn't seem like one of them.
---
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 18 Dec 2008 10:35:04
From: Ian Stuart
Subject: Re: Clueless players (mini BAHH)
|
On Dec 18 2008 7:11 PM, CincinnatiKid wrote:
> On Dec 18 2008 1:06 PM, CincinnatiKid wrote:
>
> > On Dec 18 2008 12:52 PM, Wayne Vinson wrote:
> >
> > > > I hate to think of a $2/5 game with stacks smaller than that but you
> > > > see them every day. Being out of position means that this is almost
> > > > certainly purely a set-farming call, if you call. Of course, I've only
> > > > played against a few people whom I would not four-bet with Kings but I
> > > > don't know this guy and Mike does.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Will in New Haven
> > >
> > > Generally agreed. I do think this class of opponents is more common than
> > > many think however - there are LOTS of people who will not re-raise QQ
> > > preflop and instead just call. Your kings are not a favorite if QQ is
not
> > > in their range obviously.
> > >
> > > I would guess as much as 20-30% of the player population at 2/5 falls
into
> > > that category. Just a guess.
> > >
> > > Wayne Vinson
> > > http://cardsharp.org/
> > > Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
> >
> >
> > That seems like a gross overestimation to me. The 2/5 games I play in are
> > horrible and I would expect AT to 3 bet as often as AA. Game selection is
> > vital.
> >
> > I just think a good rule of thumb to follow is that folding KK preflop in
> > a cash game to a bit more than a minraise is typically a bad play. I would
> > imagine it's a ~ev one too.
>
> Don't get me wrong...there are certain situations where it would be
> beneficial to fold the KK, but this just doesn't seem like one of them.
What about:
"...is a fairly regular player in this game....."
"He wouldn't bluff at a pot if his life depended on it...."
"..he knows I play solid cards in early position."
The only hand this guy would ever come over the top with in early
position is AA."
"I've seen him muck QQ in late position to a single raise."
"Plus, every time he gets a big hand he straightens up in his chair and
leans forward."
So we're 99.999% certain in our read that he has aces and yet you want to
call. The situation involves this specific player, not the joes you expect
to find in another game with the same stakes.
-------
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Dec 2008 10:42:43
From: CincinnatiKid
Subject: Re: Clueless players (mini BAHH)
|
On Dec 18 2008 1:35 PM, Ian Stuart wrote:
> On Dec 18 2008 7:11 PM, CincinnatiKid wrote:
>
> > On Dec 18 2008 1:06 PM, CincinnatiKid wrote:
> >
> > > On Dec 18 2008 12:52 PM, Wayne Vinson wrote:
> > >
> > > > > I hate to think of a $2/5 game with stacks smaller than that but you
> > > > > see them every day. Being out of position means that this is almost
> > > > > certainly purely a set-farming call, if you call. Of course, I've
only
> > > > > played against a few people whom I would not four-bet with Kings but
I
> > > > > don't know this guy and Mike does.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Will in New Haven
> > > >
> > > > Generally agreed. I do think this class of opponents is more common
than
> > > > many think however - there are LOTS of people who will not re-raise QQ
> > > > preflop and instead just call. Your kings are not a favorite if QQ is
> not
> > > > in their range obviously.
> > > >
> > > > I would guess as much as 20-30% of the player population at 2/5 falls
> into
> > > > that category. Just a guess.
> > > >
> > > > Wayne Vinson
> > > > http://cardsharp.org/
> > > > Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
> > >
> > >
> > > That seems like a gross overestimation to me. The 2/5 games I play in are
> > > horrible and I would expect AT to 3 bet as often as AA. Game selection is
> > > vital.
> > >
> > > I just think a good rule of thumb to follow is that folding KK preflop in
> > > a cash game to a bit more than a minraise is typically a bad play. I
would
> > > imagine it's a ~ev one too.
> >
> > Don't get me wrong...there are certain situations where it would be
> > beneficial to fold the KK, but this just doesn't seem like one of them.
>
> What about:
>
> "...is a fairly regular player in this game....."
> "He wouldn't bluff at a pot if his life depended on it...."
> "..he knows I play solid cards in early position."
> The only hand this guy would ever come over the top with in early
> position is AA."
> "I've seen him muck QQ in late position to a single raise."
> "Plus, every time he gets a big hand he straightens up in his chair and
> leans forward."
>
> So we're 99.999% certain in our read that he has aces and yet you want to
> call. The situation involves this specific player, not the joes you expect
> to find in another game with the same stakes.
The problem is you're not 99.999% sure he has Aces. The indisputable fact
is that he has exactly one hand that you're behind right now. Just one.
Folding is bad. There really is no argument that's gonna make any sense to
the contrary. It just is what it is.
AA v KK happens. It does not happen often enough to lay down KK in a cash
game to a minraise. The situation really is that simplified.
--------
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Dec 2008 10:53:04
From: Ian Stuart
Subject: Re: Clueless players (mini BAHH)
|
On Dec 18 2008 7:42 PM, CincinnatiKid wrote:
> On Dec 18 2008 1:35 PM, Ian Stuart wrote:
>
> > On Dec 18 2008 7:11 PM, CincinnatiKid wrote:
> >
> > > On Dec 18 2008 1:06 PM, CincinnatiKid wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Dec 18 2008 12:52 PM, Wayne Vinson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > I hate to think of a $2/5 game with stacks smaller than that but
you
> > > > > > see them every day. Being out of position means that this is almost
> > > > > > certainly purely a set-farming call, if you call. Of course, I've
> only
> > > > > > played against a few people whom I would not four-bet with Kings
but
> I
> > > > > > don't know this guy and Mike does.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Will in New Haven
> > > > >
> > > > > Generally agreed. I do think this class of opponents is more common
> than
> > > > > many think however - there are LOTS of people who will not re-raise
QQ
> > > > > preflop and instead just call. Your kings are not a favorite if QQ
is
> > not
> > > > > in their range obviously.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would guess as much as 20-30% of the player population at 2/5 falls
> > into
> > > > > that category. Just a guess.
> > > > >
> > > > > Wayne Vinson
> > > > > http://cardsharp.org/
> > > > > Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > That seems like a gross overestimation to me. The 2/5 games I play in
are
> > > > horrible and I would expect AT to 3 bet as often as AA. Game selection
is
> > > > vital.
> > > >
> > > > I just think a good rule of thumb to follow is that folding KK preflop
in
> > > > a cash game to a bit more than a minraise is typically a bad play. I
> would
> > > > imagine it's a ~ev one too.
> > >
> > > Don't get me wrong...there are certain situations where it would be
> > > beneficial to fold the KK, but this just doesn't seem like one of them.
> >
> > What about:
> >
> > "...is a fairly regular player in this game....."
> > "He wouldn't bluff at a pot if his life depended on it...."
> > "..he knows I play solid cards in early position."
> > The only hand this guy would ever come over the top with in early
> > position is AA."
> > "I've seen him muck QQ in late position to a single raise."
> > "Plus, every time he gets a big hand he straightens up in his chair and
> > leans forward."
> >
> > So we're 99.999% certain in our read that he has aces and yet you want to
> > call. The situation involves this specific player, not the joes you expect
> > to find in another game with the same stakes.
>
> The problem is you're not 99.999% sure he has Aces. The indisputable fact
> is that he has exactly one hand that you're behind right now. Just one.
> Folding is bad. There really is no argument that's gonna make any sense to
> the contrary. It just is what it is.
>
> AA v KK happens. It does not happen often enough to lay down KK in a cash
> game to a minraise. The situation really is that simplified.
It seems perfectly clear that Mike was 100% sure of his read. The
frequency with which AA comes up against KK is therefore irrelevent and
the only debate worth having is with Mike around the accuracy of his read.
______________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Dec 2008 11:20:28
From: CincinnatiKid
Subject: Re: Clueless players (mini BAHH)
|
On Dec 18 2008 1:53 PM, Ian Stuart wrote:
> On Dec 18 2008 7:42 PM, CincinnatiKid wrote:
>
> > On Dec 18 2008 1:35 PM, Ian Stuart wrote:
> >
> > > On Dec 18 2008 7:11 PM, CincinnatiKid wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Dec 18 2008 1:06 PM, CincinnatiKid wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Dec 18 2008 12:52 PM, Wayne Vinson wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > I hate to think of a $2/5 game with stacks smaller than that but
> you
> > > > > > > see them every day. Being out of position means that this is
almost
> > > > > > > certainly purely a set-farming call, if you call. Of course, I've
> > only
> > > > > > > played against a few people whom I would not four-bet with Kings
> but
> > I
> > > > > > > don't know this guy and Mike does.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Will in New Haven
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Generally agreed. I do think this class of opponents is more
common
> > than
> > > > > > many think however - there are LOTS of people who will not re-raise
> QQ
> > > > > > preflop and instead just call. Your kings are not a favorite if QQ
> is
> > > not
> > > > > > in their range obviously.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would guess as much as 20-30% of the player population at 2/5
falls
> > > into
> > > > > > that category. Just a guess.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Wayne Vinson
> > > > > > http://cardsharp.org/
> > > > > > Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > That seems like a gross overestimation to me. The 2/5 games I play in
> are
> > > > > horrible and I would expect AT to 3 bet as often as AA. Game
selection
> is
> > > > > vital.
> > > > >
> > > > > I just think a good rule of thumb to follow is that folding KK
preflop
> in
> > > > > a cash game to a bit more than a minraise is typically a bad play. I
> > would
> > > > > imagine it's a ~ev one too.
> > > >
> > > > Don't get me wrong...there are certain situations where it would be
> > > > beneficial to fold the KK, but this just doesn't seem like one of them.
> > >
> > > What about:
> > >
> > > "...is a fairly regular player in this game....."
> > > "He wouldn't bluff at a pot if his life depended on it...."
> > > "..he knows I play solid cards in early position."
> > > The only hand this guy would ever come over the top with in early
> > > position is AA."
> > > "I've seen him muck QQ in late position to a single raise."
> > > "Plus, every time he gets a big hand he straightens up in his chair and
> > > leans forward."
> > >
> > > So we're 99.999% certain in our read that he has aces and yet you want to
> > > call. The situation involves this specific player, not the joes you
expect
> > > to find in another game with the same stakes.
> >
> > The problem is you're not 99.999% sure he has Aces. The indisputable fact
> > is that he has exactly one hand that you're behind right now. Just one.
> > Folding is bad. There really is no argument that's gonna make any sense to
> > the contrary. It just is what it is.
> >
> > AA v KK happens. It does not happen often enough to lay down KK in a cash
> > game to a minraise. The situation really is that simplified.
>
> It seems perfectly clear that Mike was 100% sure of his read. The
> frequency with which AA comes up against KK is therefore irrelevent and
> the only debate worth having is with Mike around the accuracy of his read.
What's more consistent? Mathematical probability or soul reading?
This really is too simple a situation to discuss. It pretty much requires
zero thought.
A flop almost always has to be seen with this type action in this type
game.
-----
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 18 Dec 2008 09:03:06
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: Clueless players (mini BAHH)
|
On Dec 18, 11:39=A0am, "CincinnatiKid" <a1...@webnntp.invalid > wrote:
> On Dec 18 2008 10:13 AM, Irish Mike wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > No matter how long I play poker I'm always amazed at how totally cluele=
ss
> > some players manage to stay. =A0I was playing in a local $2/$5 NL game,=
bet
> > out $20 UTG with KK and got re-raised to $50 by the player on my immedi=
ate
> > left. =A0Rest of the table folds, it comes back to me and I muck. =A0My=
cards
> > hit the dealer's hand, or vice-versa, and my KK flips up. =A0Then the p=
layer
> > on my left proudly turns up his AA and the dealer pushes him the pot. =
=A0This
> > generated a little table talk with some players saying I played too tig=
ht
> > and was afraid to gamble. =A0One guy gave me a brief lecture on pot-odd=
s and
> > explained how calling was a "no brainer". =A0I don't talk when I play s=
o I
> > just sat there thinking "How can they be this dumb?" =A0Fact is, the gu=
y on my
> > left is a fairly regular player in this game and he's a total rock. =A0=
He
> > wouldn't bluff at a pot if his life depended on it plus he knows I play
> > solid cards in early position. =A0The only hand this guy would ever com=
e over
> > the top with in early position is AA. =A0Hell, I've seen him muck QQ in=
late
> > position to a single raise. =A0Plus, every time he gets a big hand he
> > straightens up in his chair and leans forward. =A0 Seriously, he might =
as well
> > hold up a sign that says "AA in the hole". =A0I'm not bitching but it r=
eally
> > makes you wonder how any player wouldn't notice this.
>
> > Irish Mike
>
> Stack sizes would be nice. While it turned out to be a great fold in
> hindsight it was actually a pretty damn bad fold. He knows you're solid
> and he's a rock? You know what he has? Take the pot from him regardless
> after the flop. If he's a rock then he can lay down aces postflop.
Not unless the stacks are big enough. For both set-mining and
outplaying post-flop you have to have enough chips behind. And, and
this is key, lots of tight players are tragically unable to give up
big overpairs unless the board yells "flush" or "straight." Which is
good, of course. Classifying someone as tight, because of his habit of
not playing many hands, doesn't really tell you whether he is tough or
weak after there is money in the pot.
--
Will in New Haven
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Dec 2008 09:30:28
From: Wayne Vinson
Subject: Re: Clueless players (mini BAHH)
|
> Not unless the stacks are big enough. For both set-mining and
> outplaying post-flop you have to have enough chips behind. And, and
> this is key, lots of tight players are tragically unable to give up
> big overpairs unless the board yells "flush" or "straight." Which is
> good, of course. Classifying someone as tight, because of his habit of
> not playing many hands, doesn't really tell you whether he is tough or
> weak after there is money in the pot.
>
> --
> Will in New Haven
This is an excellent point. Unless the stacks were at least $500 I
wouldn't even consider playing in a situation like this. Even then, it's
probably not worth it. Position would help a bit, since his bets or lacks
thereof might provide information about how he viewed the strength of his
aces. But sadly you're OOP.
But if you have any intention of "outplaying" him when you don't hit a
set, this is NOT a traditional set farm as you're risking a lot more than
just the $30 to call. It would be easy to loose hundreds on a second or
third barrel intended to get him to fold his overpair.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
------
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 18 Dec 2008 17:06:23
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: Clueless players (mini BAHH)
|
On Dec 18 2008 11:30 AM, Wayne Vinson wrote:
> > Not unless the stacks are big enough. For both set-mining and
> > outplaying post-flop you have to have enough chips behind. And, and
> > this is key, lots of tight players are tragically unable to give up
> > big overpairs unless the board yells "flush" or "straight." Which is
> > good, of course. Classifying someone as tight, because of his habit of
> > not playing many hands, doesn't really tell you whether he is tough or
> > weak after there is money in the pot.
> >
> > --
> > Will in New Haven
>
> This is an excellent point. Unless the stacks were at least $500 I
> wouldn't even consider playing in a situation like this. Even then, it's
> probably not worth it. Position would help a bit, since his bets or lacks
> thereof might provide information about how he viewed the strength of his
> aces. But sadly you're OOP.
>
> But if you have any intention of "outplaying" him when you don't hit a
> set, this is NOT a traditional set farm as you're risking a lot more than
> just the $30 to call. It would be easy to loose hundreds on a second or
> third barrel intended to get him to fold his overpair.
>
> Wayne Vinson
> http://cardsharp.org/
> Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
500??...500? OR MORE ?? yYou are wrong
After he brings it for 20 the raise is 30 more .. if his opponent has 210
or more left it is a most reasonable call. With the money in the pot and
what you can win if he has 210 or more left ,it is a justifiable call. If
you can win 240 by calling the 30 it is OK.
and another thing you are overlooking in this is the fact that you are
taking it as a given that the opponent has AA and ONLY AA.. thats just
stupid .
If he turned over the AA when he raised (for some reason) , and he had 210
or more left in his stack it is a good call by IM
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire
________________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 18 Dec 2008 14:39:50
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: Clueless players (mini BAHH)
|
On Dec 18 2008 11:30 AM, Wayne Vinson wrote:
> > Not unless the stacks are big enough. For both set-mining and
> > outplaying post-flop you have to have enough chips behind. And, and
> > this is key, lots of tight players are tragically unable to give up
> > big overpairs unless the board yells "flush" or "straight." Which is
> > good, of course. Classifying someone as tight, because of his habit of
> > not playing many hands, doesn't really tell you whether he is tough or
> > weak after there is money in the pot.
> >
> > --
> > Will in New Haven
>
> This is an excellent point. Unless the stacks were at least $500 I
> wouldn't even consider playing in a situation like this.
RIGHT .. YOU ARE AN IDIOT .. you wouldnt fold here for 30 more to save
your life
EVER
Even then, it's
> probably not worth it. Position would help a bit, since his bets or lacks
> thereof might provide information about how he viewed the strength of his
> aces. But sadly you're OOP.
>
> But if you have any intention of "outplaying" him when you don't hit a
> set, this is NOT a traditional set farm as you're risking a lot more than
> just the $30 to call. It would be easy to loose hundreds on a second or
> third barrel intended to get him to fold his overpair.
>
> Wayne Vinson
> http://cardsharp.org/
> Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire
-------
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | | |
Date: 18 Dec 2008 15:27:23
From: Wayne Vinson
Subject: Re: Clueless players (mini BAHH)
|
> RIGHT .. YOU ARE AN IDIOT .. you wouldnt fold here for 30 more to save
> your life
>
> EVER
Apparently Doggy knows nothing about implied odds and set farming.
Hardly surprising - he seems to know nothing about an amazing array of
poker topics.
Basic hint: stack depth is required to set farm effectively.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
_____________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 18 Dec 2008 17:00:55
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: Clueless players (mini BAHH)
|
On Dec 18 2008 5:27 PM, Wayne Vinson wrote:
> > RIGHT .. YOU ARE AN IDIOT .. you wouldnt fold here for 30 more to save
> > your life
> >
> > EVER
>
> Apparently Doggy knows nothing about implied odds and set farming.
>
> Hardly surprising - he seems to know nothing about an amazing array of
> poker topics.
>
> Basic hint: stack depth is required to set farm effectively.
>
> Wayne Vinson
> http://cardsharp.org/
> Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
and that is exactly what I was referring to when I said that it was a good
play if one of em had only 70 dollars on the table ..
i was "set farming" 25 years before some MORON named it 'set farming"
MY POINT IN THIS RESPONSE WAS , that although you said what you did ..YOU
WOULDNT FOLD IT
PERIOD
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire
_______________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 18 Dec 2008 08:09:28
From: Dave the Clueless
Subject: Re: Clueless players (mini BAHH)
|
If there's a choice between being the guy who wins the minimum with
Aces or the guy who loses the minimum with Kings, I'd rather be the
latter. Be happy that you aren't him.
Dave
|
| |
Date: 18 Dec 2008 07:59:14
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: Clueless players (mini BAHH)
|
On Dec 18, 10:13=A0am, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net > wrote:
> No matter how long I play poker I'm always amazed at how totally clueless
> some players manage to stay. =A0I was playing in a local $2/$5 NL game, b=
et
> out $20 UTG with KK and got re-raised to $50 by the player on my immediat=
e
> left. =A0Rest of the table folds, it comes back to me and I muck. =A0My c=
ards
> hit the dealer's hand, or vice-versa, and my KK flips up. =A0Then the pla=
yer
> on my left proudly turns up his AA and the dealer pushes him the pot. =A0=
This
> generated a little table talk with some players saying I played too tight
> and was afraid to gamble. =A0One guy gave me a brief lecture on pot-odds =
and
> explained how calling was a "no brainer". =A0I don't talk when I play so =
I
> just sat there thinking "How can they be this dumb?" =A0Fact is, the guy =
on my
> left is a fairly regular player in this game and he's a total rock. =A0He
> wouldn't bluff at a pot if his life depended on it plus he knows I play
> solid cards in early position. =A0The only hand this guy would ever come =
over
> the top with in early position is AA. =A0Hell, I've seen him muck QQ in l=
ate
> position to a single raise. =A0Plus, every time he gets a big hand he
> straightens up in his chair and leans forward. =A0 Seriously, he might as=
well
> hold up a sign that says "AA in the hole". =A0I'm not bitching but it rea=
lly
> makes you wonder how any player wouldn't notice this.
What amazes ME is you left out the only really important information.
How deep were your stacks? If you weren't playing deep enough to call
thirty bucks and try to stack him by hitting a set (or HE wasn't) then
good fold. I suspect, by your description, that he didn't have a ton
of chips in front of him.
And Merry Christmas
--
Will in New Haven
|
|
