Potential Pro's, move to Vegas "GCA"

pokerfied.com
Promoting poker discussions.

Main

Date: 28 Nov 2006 12:51:15
From: RussGeorgiev@aol.com
Subject: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas "GCA"

I never thought I would say this, but I have. I flew to Vegas Sunday,
to check games out for my site to provide first hand knowledge for my
members.

In all my years of playing, I have never seen more games, nor worse
players. For the time being, I don't think there's a better place to
play poker on Earth. I spent 14 hours there, playing most of them in
various casino's. Most had must move games, thus multiple tables.

I stayed away from the Bellagio, Wynn, Caesar's, but the city has more
card rooms now than ever. I played small games, $2-$5 and $5-$10 blinds
to make reports to my website. Action, was incredible. Few small
stacks, with more people having $1,000 or more than having less.

Here, was a place where the average age was about 30. Yes, you had your
local young pro's, thinking there're the 'new wave', but outside of
being aggressive, none were really dangerous.

I won over $10,000, but in reality, I was given the money. I didn't
gamble, but if I did, I would've won $20,000. I laid down JJ under the
gun when I made it $30 to go in a $5-$10 game and had three callers,
only to be raised $125 by the button. I had over $1,000 in my stack.

I folded, the flop came J-10-2 rainbow and three players called $200
from the original raiser. Board paired 2's, all three went all in. KK
won the pot of about $3,000.

Earlier, I did the same with AK suited, only to be raised to $150, then
having three callers. Flop came AAA and three players went all-in, with
pocket 9's beating pocket 8's and 7's. Pot was another $5,000.

You have your really tight players, you have your real 'donks'. If you
have any ability and think you're pro material, move to Vegas NOW. This
won't last long. Games in California are many times more difficult, as
the bad players are regulars who lose, while in Vegas, the bad players
are tourists.

Play in these small games, though your will need thousands to have an
adequate BR for the game.

Stay out of the tourneys, play the smaller games, play many hours, for
this won't last that long.

This is basically, $150-$200K tax free money. Yes, I know, you all pay
your TEXAS, or is it Taxes?

Russ Georgiev

www.pokermafia.com

Date: 28 Nov 2006 22:54:45
From: Douglas Dunn
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas "GCA"

FellKnight wrote:
> On Nov 28 2006 2:34 PM, DennisP wrote:
>
> > RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
> > I laid down JJ under the
> > > gun when I made it $30 to go in a $5-$10 game and had three callers,
> > > only to be raised $125 by the button. I had over $1,000 in my stack.
> > >
> > > I folded, the flop came J-10-2 rainbow and three players called $200
> > > from the original raiser. Board paired 2's, all three went all in. KK
> > > won the pot of about $3,000.
> >
> > You're folding JJ to in that situation with deep stacks and you are
> > trying to give out lessons?
>
> Wow... you think that playing JJ against a reraise for 12.5% of your stack
> is a good play???
>
> Fell

I'm not sure what over 1k means, but if it's only a little bit over 1k
he is playing pretty short stacked for a 5-10 live game. The average
stacks in any 5-10 game I've ever played live are over 3k. Even so
getting 5-1 with jacks in a loose game where you can reload makes this
a pretty easy call for me. I might even come over the top depending on
my read.

Doug

Date: 28 Nov 2006 22:31:09
From: RussGeorgiev@aol.com
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas "GCA"

DennisP wrote:
> RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
> > DennisP wrote:
> > > The implied odds there are huge, as is shown by the KK not laying down
> > > in a monster pot.
> >
> >
> > What happens if one of the small stacks behind me goes all-in after
> > this bet? What are my implied odds now? Maybe that's why I play for a
> > living and have money:).
> >
> As I mentioned in another post, if there are small stacks behind you it
> changes things. But, with a $3000 pot something tells me there wasn't
> a small stack.

Wow, you can tell all this by the size of the pot? All one of these
players needs is a $400 stack or so, which was the case. here, he goes
all in, hoping to isolate and get great odds heads-up.

Why don't you read the post from my site, where a player found me, then
attack that post:).

meanwhile, I'll play poker for a living, and you keep posting.

Russ Georgiev

www.pokermafia.com

Date: 29 Nov 16:33:16
From: steve1127
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Nov 29 2006 1:31 AM, RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:

> DennisP wrote:
> > RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
> > > DennisP wrote:
> > > > The implied odds there are huge, as is shown by the KK not laying down
> > > > in a monster pot.
> > >
> > >
> > > What happens if one of the small stacks behind me goes all-in after
> > > this bet? What are my implied odds now? Maybe that's why I play for a
> > > living and have money:).
> > >
> > As I mentioned in another post, if there are small stacks behind you it
> > changes things. But, with a $3000 pot something tells me there wasn't
> > a small stack.
>
>
> Wow, you can tell all this by the size of the pot? All one of these
> players needs is a $400 stack or so, which was the case. here, he goes
> all in, hoping to isolate and get great odds heads-up.

Um...what? That's not what happened. You said, "I folded, the flop came J-10-2
rainbow and three players called $200 from the original raiser. Board paired
2's, all three went all in. KK won the pot of about $3,000." So. Nobody went
all-in to isolate. Unless you mean on the turn, which means his stack was $755
(155 preflop, 200 on the flop, 400 on the turn), which I guess isn't all that
small if you're confident playing with just over $1,000.
>
> Why don't you read the post from my site, where a player found me, then
> attack that post:).
>
> meanwhile, I'll play poker for a living, and you keep posting.
>
> Russ Georgiev
>
> http://www.pokermafia.com/

_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 29 Nov 12:00:55
From: Bryan Kimmes
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Nov 29 2006 12:31 AM, RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:

> DennisP wrote:
> > RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
> > > DennisP wrote:
> > > > The implied odds there are huge, as is shown by the KK not laying down
> > > > in a monster pot.
> > >
> > >
> > > What happens if one of the small stacks behind me goes all-in after
> > > this bet? What are my implied odds now? Maybe that's why I play for a
> > > living and have money:).
> > >
> > As I mentioned in another post, if there are small stacks behind you it
> > changes things. But, with a $3000 pot something tells me there wasn't
> > a small stack.
>
>
> Wow, you can tell all this by the size of the pot? All one of these
> players needs is a $400 stack or so, which was the case. here, he goes
> all in, hoping to isolate and get great odds heads-up.
>
> Why don't you read the post from my site, where a player found me, then
> attack that post:).
>
> meanwhile, I'll play poker for a living, and you keep posting.
>
> Russ Georgiev
>
> http://www.pokermafia.com/

I know why he attacks you Russ. $200 sng's at Party, he never joined 'a team'.
Now he blames you.

Bryan

_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 28 Nov 2006 19:24:29
From: DennisP
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

Nick,
When you first came here I thought you were clueless. I'd like to
apologize. You and JG seem to be some of the only players that
understands implied odds and the value of sets in NLHE.

This thread is one of the most interesting on RGP since I started here
and it amazed me that well over a majority are flat out clueless with
regards to NLHE.

Nick Wool wrote:
> Just love the Russlickers here, defending piss-poor play by the 'best poker
> player in the world' as the prefect play.
>
> For example, and I quote: 'most drawing hands have more than 2 outs', yes, but
> most drawing hands do not let you see 3 cards for the price of calling one
> standard reraise either.
>
> The great Russ has describe the table as very loose, and people with deep
> stacks waiting to give their money away. He puts someone on an overpair to his
> JJ, was confident that the guy would stack off on that unimproved overpair post
> flop, plus there were other willing to go to war with TP in the hand, and yet
> was still not prepared to call a standard reraise for the implied odds?
>
> I can think of no worse play in deep stack NL Holdem than mucking under these
> table conditions, yet there are still people trying to defend such play? And
> this guy is offering to give lesson in NL holdem, and with people taking up the
> offer????
>
> I guess what they say is true, there is indeed one born every minute.
>
> On Nov 28 2006 8:51 PM, RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
>
> > I never thought I would say this, but I have. I flew to Vegas Sunday,
> > to check games out for my site to provide first hand knowledge for my
> > members.
> >
> > In all my years of playing, I have never seen more games, nor worse
> > players. For the time being, I don't think there's a better place to
> > play poker on Earth. I spent 14 hours there, playing most of them in
> > various casino's. Most had must move games, thus multiple tables.
> >
> > I stayed away from the Bellagio, Wynn, Caesar's, but the city has more
> > card rooms now than ever. I played small games, $2-$5 and $5-$10 blinds
> > to make reports to my website. Action, was incredible. Few small
> > stacks, with more people having $1,000 or more than having less.
> >
> > Here, was a place where the average age was about 30. Yes, you had your
> > local young pro's, thinking there're the 'new wave', but outside of
> > being aggressive, none were really dangerous.
> >
> > I won over $10,000, but in reality, I was given the money. I didn't
> > gamble, but if I did, I would've won $20,000. I laid down JJ under the
> > gun when I made it $30 to go in a $5-$10 game and had three callers,
> > only to be raised $125 by the button. I had over $1,000 in my stack.
> >
> > I folded, the flop came J-10-2 rainbow and three players called $200
> > from the original raiser. Board paired 2's, all three went all in. KK
> > won the pot of about $3,000.
> >
> > Earlier, I did the same with AK suited, only to be raised to $150, then
> > having three callers. Flop came AAA and three players went all-in, with
> > pocket 9's beating pocket 8's and 7's. Pot was another $5,000.
> >
> > You have your really tight players, you have your real 'donks'. If you
> > have any ability and think you're pro material, move to Vegas NOW. This
> > won't last long. Games in California are many times more difficult, as
> > the bad players are regulars who lose, while in Vegas, the bad players
> > are tourists.
> >
> > Play in these small games, though your will need thousands to have an
> > adequate BR for the game.
> >
> > Stay out of the tourneys, play the smaller games, play many hours, for
> > this won't last that long.
> >
> > This is basically, $150-$200K tax free money. Yes, I know, you all pay
> > your TEXAS, or is it Taxes?
> >
> > Russ Georgiev
> >
> > http://www.pokermafia.com/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________
> Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 29 Nov
From: Nick Wool
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Nov 29 2006 3:24 AM, DennisP wrote:

> Nick,
> When you first came here I thought you were clueless. I'd like to
> apologize. You and JG seem to be some of the only players that
> understands implied odds and the value of sets in NLHE.
>
> This thread is one of the most interesting on RGP since I started here
> and it amazed me that well over a majority are flat out clueless with
> regards to NLHE.
>

Don't worry. I'll revert back to the normal clueless, brainless donkey by
midnight.

_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 29 Nov 2006 07:57:40
From: mo_charles
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

> Nick,
> When you first came here I thought you were clueless. I'd like to
> apologize. You and JG seem to be some of the only players that
> understands implied odds and the value of sets in NLHE.
>
> This thread is one of the most interesting on RGP since I started here
> and it amazed me that well over a majority are flat out clueless with
> regards to NLHE.

hi there. i'm one of the NLHE newbies around here who's clueless. could
you please prove that calling in that spot is +EV in the long-run? thanks
in advance!

mo_charles

----
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com

Date: 28 Nov 2006 19:09:11
From: DennisP
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas "GCA"

RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
> DennisP wrote:
> > The implied odds there are huge, as is shown by the KK not laying down
> > in a monster pot.
>
>
> What happens if one of the small stacks behind me goes all-in after
> this bet? What are my implied odds now? Maybe that's why I play for a
> living and have money:).
>
As I mentioned in another post, if there are small stacks behind you it
changes things. But, with a $3000 pot something tells me there wasn't
a small stack.

Date: 28 Nov 2006 18:57:22
From: RussGeorgiev@aol.com
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas "GCA"

DennisP wrote:
> The implied odds there are huge, as is shown by the KK not laying down
> in a monster pot.

What happens if one of the small stacks behind me goes all-in after
this bet? What are my implied odds now? Maybe that's why I play for a
living and have money:).

Russ Georgiev

www.pokermafia.com

>
> If he calls and folds any time he doesn't hit a set he only needs to
> win about $750 to break even.
>
>
> Susan wrote:
> > and he should have played it why?
> >
> >
> > "DennisP" <dennis.picht@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1164749669.688069.172570@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
> > > I laid down JJ under the
> > >> gun when I made it $30 to go in a $5-$10 game and had three callers,
> > >> only to be raised $125 by the button. I had over $1,000 in my stack.
> > >>
> > >> I folded, the flop came J-10-2 rainbow and three players called $200
> > >> from the original raiser. Board paired 2's, all three went all in. KK
> > >> won the pot of about $3,000.
> > >
> > > You're folding JJ to in that situation with deep stacks and you are
> > > trying to give out lessons?
> > >

Date: 29 Nov
From: Nick Wool
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Nov 29 2006 2:57 AM, RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:

> DennisP wrote:
> > The implied odds there are huge, as is shown by the KK not laying down
> > in a monster pot.
>
>
> What happens if one of the small stacks behind me goes all-in after
> this bet? What are my implied odds now? Maybe that's why I play for a
> living and have money:).
>
> Russ Georgiev
>
> http://www.pokermafia.com/

'I folded, the flop came J-10-2 rainbow and three players called $200
from the original raiser. Board paired 2's, all three went all in. KK
won the pot of about $3,000.'

What small stacks?

_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 29 Nov
From: Nick Wool
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

Just love the Russlickers here, defending piss-poor play by the 'best poker
player in the world' as the prefect play.

For example, and I quote: 'most drawing hands have more than 2 outs', yes, but
most drawing hands do not let you see 3 cards for the price of calling one
standard reraise either.

The great Russ has describe the table as very loose, and people with deep
stacks waiting to give their money away. He puts someone on an overpair to his
JJ, was confident that the guy would stack off on that unimproved overpair post
flop, plus there were other willing to go to war with TP in the hand, and yet
was still not prepared to call a standard reraise for the implied odds?

I can think of no worse play in deep stack NL Holdem than mucking under these
table conditions, yet there are still people trying to defend such play? And
this guy is offering to give lesson in NL holdem, and with people taking up the
offer????

I guess what they say is true, there is indeed one born every minute.

On Nov 28 2006 8:51 PM, RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:

> I never thought I would say this, but I have. I flew to Vegas Sunday,
> to check games out for my site to provide first hand knowledge for my
> members.
>
> In all my years of playing, I have never seen more games, nor worse
> players. For the time being, I don't think there's a better place to
> play poker on Earth. I spent 14 hours there, playing most of them in
> various casino's. Most had must move games, thus multiple tables.
>
> I stayed away from the Bellagio, Wynn, Caesar's, but the city has more
> card rooms now than ever. I played small games, $2-$5 and $5-$10 blinds
> to make reports to my website. Action, was incredible. Few small
> stacks, with more people having $1,000 or more than having less.
>
> Here, was a place where the average age was about 30. Yes, you had your
> local young pro's, thinking there're the 'new wave', but outside of
> being aggressive, none were really dangerous.
>
> I won over $10,000, but in reality, I was given the money. I didn't
> gamble, but if I did, I would've won $20,000. I laid down JJ under the
> gun when I made it $30 to go in a $5-$10 game and had three callers,
> only to be raised $125 by the button. I had over $1,000 in my stack.
>
> I folded, the flop came J-10-2 rainbow and three players called $200
> from the original raiser. Board paired 2's, all three went all in. KK
> won the pot of about $3,000.
>
> Earlier, I did the same with AK suited, only to be raised to $150, then
> having three callers. Flop came AAA and three players went all-in, with
> pocket 9's beating pocket 8's and 7's. Pot was another $5,000.
>
> You have your really tight players, you have your real 'donks'. If you
> have any ability and think you're pro material, move to Vegas NOW. This
> won't last long. Games in California are many times more difficult, as
> the bad players are regulars who lose, while in Vegas, the bad players
> are tourists.
>
> Play in these small games, though your will need thousands to have an
> adequate BR for the game.
>
> Stay out of the tourneys, play the smaller games, play many hours, for
> this won't last that long.
>
> This is basically, $150-$200K tax free money. Yes, I know, you all pay
> your TEXAS, or is it Taxes?
>
> Russ Georgiev
>
> http://www.pokermafia.com/

_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 28 Nov 2006 20:14:01
From: johnny T
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

Nick Wool wrote:
> I can think of no worse play in deep stack NL Holdem than mucking under these
> table conditions, yet there are still people trying to defend such play?

I can think of TONS of worse plays to make than not making this one. As
a matter of fact this looks like an edge play at best rather than just
taking money when you are further ahead. Do you really believe that in
the reasonable amount of time you will have these folks at the table,
that this is the play that you need to break these players?

I am glad you think this is fun, and your bestest most favoritest play
(must be since it would the "worse play" to not make it), but really
dude, honestly, barely even a blip in the mistake department.

Date: 29 Nov 2006 11:04:06
From: Bill Vanek
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Wed, 29 Nov 06 2:33:39 GMT, Nick Wool <43079532@recpoker.com >
wrote:

>
>Just love the Russlickers here, defending piss-poor play by the 'best poker
>player in the world' as the prefect play.
>
>For example, and I quote: 'most drawing hands have more than 2 outs', yes, but
>most drawing hands do not let you see 3 cards for the price of calling one
>standard reraise either.

Does that sentence make sense to you? First, there are 3 players
behind Russ, plus the raiser if one of them raises. And what is
special about this particular drawing hand? What is it about other
draws with more outs that won't let you see 3 cards for the price of
one reraise?

>The great Russ has describe the table as very loose, and people with deep
>stacks waiting to give their money away. He puts someone on an overpair to his
>JJ, was confident that the guy would stack off on that unimproved overpair post
>flop, plus there were other willing to go to war with TP in the hand, and yet
>was still not prepared to call a standard reraise for the implied odds?

But under these conditions, why bother with hands before the flop that
need a lot of help on the flop, especially when you're depending only
on implied odds? Under these conditions, you can get all the money
without gambling. You complain about posters blindly defending Russ,
but you should look around and see if you can find any posters blindly
attacking everything he says. Even you admit that the hand is a fold
in a normal game. Well, somewhere between normal games and great games
the hand is a tossup, but you seem to know that a call is *the*
correct play in this game. Even Russ isn't claiming that his play was
*the* correct play. You sound more like a gambler than a poker player.

Date: 29 Nov 11:25:30
From: Nick Wool
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Nov 29 2006 11:04 AM, Bill Vanek wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Nov 06 2:33:39 GMT, Nick Wool <43079532@recpoker.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Just love the Russlickers here, defending piss-poor play by the 'best poker
> >player in the world' as the prefect play.
> >
> >For example, and I quote: 'most drawing hands have more than 2 outs', yes,
> >but
> >most drawing hands do not let you see 3 cards for the price of calling one
> >standard reraise either.
>
> Does that sentence make sense to you? First, there are 3 players
> behind Russ, plus the raiser if one of them raises. And what is
> special about this particular drawing hand? What is it about other
> draws with more outs that won't let you see 3 cards for the price of
> one reraise?

You really think someone in EP could smooth call an UTG standard raise, yet
repop a button reraise? What sort of hands would be able to do that? The point
about drawing to a set preflop is that it only cost you the price of one
standard reraise, and when you hit, your hand is well hidden, so on a deep loose
table, you are getting huge implied odds to draw.

The same cannot be said of a flush, as even the most loose moron would have
secondn thoughts about going to war with a 3 suited flop should you be lucky
enough to flop the nut flush. Plus the odds of a flopped flush is way higher
tha a flopped set, further limiting your scope for youir implied odds.

> >The great Russ has describe the table as very loose, and people with deep
> >stacks waiting to give their money away. He puts someone on an overpair to
> >his
> >JJ, was confident that the guy would stack off on that unimproved overpair
> >post
> >flop, plus there were other willing to go to war with TP in the hand, and yet
> >was still not prepared to call a standard reraise for the implied odds?
>
> But under these conditions, why bother with hands before the flop that
> need a lot of help on the flop, especially when you're depending only
> on implied odds? Under these conditions, you can get all the money
> without gambling.

How? By only playing AA preflop? By your definition, isnt everything a gamble
if you only put in chips when you are ahead preflop?

You complain about posters blindly defending Russ,
> but you should look around and see if you can find any posters blindly
> attacking everything he says. Even you admit that the hand is a fold
> in a normal game. Well, somewhere between normal games and great games
> the hand is a tossup, but you seem to know that a call is *the*
> correct play in this game. Even Russ isn't claiming that his play was
> *the* correct play. You sound more like a gambler than a poker player.

How is it a gamble to draw at 7.5 to 1 odds, when you are almost certain that
your payout would be much greater if you hit? Isnt that the whole point of NL,
and of poker in general; to put in chips under +EV situations?

_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 29 Nov 2006 13:44:33
From: Mark B $Diputsur$
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

"Nick Wool" <43079532@recpoker.com > wrote in message
news:1164799530$913001@recpoker.com...
> On Nov 29 2006 11:04 AM, Bill Vanek wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 29 Nov 06 2:33:39 GMT, Nick Wool <43079532@recpoker.com>
>> wrote:
>> >Just love the Russlickers here, defending piss-poor play by the 'best
>> >poker
>> >player in the world' as the prefect play.
>> >
>> >For example, and I quote: 'most drawing hands have more than 2 outs', yes,
>> >but
>> >most drawing hands do not let you see 3 cards for the price of calling one
>> >standard reraise either.
>>
>> Does that sentence make sense to you? First, there are 3 players
>> behind Russ, plus the raiser if one of them raises. And what is
>> special about this particular drawing hand? What is it about other
>> draws with more outs that won't let you see 3 cards for the price of
>> one reraise?
>
> You really think someone in EP could smooth call an UTG standard raise, yet
> repop a button reraise?

Hell yes.

> What sort of hands would be able to do that?

AA, KK, possibly AK if someone had a lot of gamble in him.
If I'm UTG +1 and it's already been raised, I probably smooth
call with AA the first time around as I'm hoping someone
behind pops it up again... in which case the rest will be going
in when the betting comes back around to me.

> How is it a gamble to draw at 7.5 to 1 odds, when you are almost certain
> that
> your payout would be much greater if you hit? Isnt that the whole point of
> NL,
> and of poker in general; to put in chips under +EV situations?

Yes, which is why it's correct to fold JJ in clear -EV situations when you
only
have $30 invested.

Mark
--
www.myspace.com/diputsur

Date: 29 Nov 2006 17:38:59
From: Bill Vanek
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Wed, 29 Nov 06 11:25:30 GMT, Nick Wool <43079532@recpoker.com >
wrote:

>You really think someone in EP could smooth call an UTG standard raise, yet
>repop a button reraise? What sort of hands would be able to do that?

We obviously play in very different games. I play live in LV, which is
the location of this particular game, and a reraise here is common.
It's usually someone who started out slow-playing, and then decides
the pot is now "big enough". I see it over and over, and I see it with
every sort of hand. You don't get out enough.

>The point
>about drawing to a set preflop is that it only cost you the price of one
>standard reraise, and when you hit, your hand is well hidden, so on a deep loose
>table, you are getting huge implied odds to draw.

You are again making assumptions that it's only one more raise, that
if you hit you'll win, and that you'll get paid off. There's a lot of
variables.

>The same cannot be said of a flush, as even the most loose moron would have
>secondn thoughts about going to war with a 3 suited flop should you be lucky
>enough to flop the nut flush. Plus the odds of a flopped flush is way higher
>tha a flopped set, further limiting your scope for youir implied odds.

No one is arguing the payoff potential of a flopped set.

>> >The great Russ has describe the table as very loose, and people with deep
>> >stacks waiting to give their money away. He puts someone on an overpair to
>> >his
>> >JJ, was confident that the guy would stack off on that unimproved overpair
>> >post
>> >flop, plus there were other willing to go to war with TP in the hand, and yet
>> >was still not prepared to call a standard reraise for the implied odds?
>>
>> But under these conditions, why bother with hands before the flop that
>> need a lot of help on the flop, especially when you're depending only
>> on implied odds? Under these conditions, you can get all the money
>> without gambling.
>
>How? By only playing AA preflop? By your definition, isnt everything a gamble
>if you only put in chips when you are ahead preflop?

The point is to wait for situations where you can get the money in as
late in the hand as possible, and I think you know that.

>You complain about posters blindly defending Russ,
>> but you should look around and see if you can find any posters blindly
>> attacking everything he says. Even you admit that the hand is a fold
>> in a normal game. Well, somewhere between normal games and great games
>> the hand is a tossup, but you seem to know that a call is *the*
>> correct play in this game. Even Russ isn't claiming that his play was
>> *the* correct play. You sound more like a gambler than a poker player.
>
>How is it a gamble to draw at 7.5 to 1 odds, when you are almost certain that
>your payout would be much greater if you hit? Isnt that the whole point of NL,
>and of poker in general; to put in chips under +EV situations?

It's one of the points, but if you're playing for a living you need to
win, but you also need to stay in business. Slight edges combined with
high variance will have you driving a taxi. You keep claiming that
this particular hand is easily +EV. I'd like to see the calculations
for that, but we both know there are far too many variables left after
you call that bet. You "feel" that it's +EV, and it might be, but,
again, you're sounding more like a gambler than anything else. And you
keep bringing up how the hand actually played out, but why do you
think it would have played out the same way if Russ had also been in
the hand? Maybe some, or all of the involved players knew each other,
and with Russ in the pot would have played differently. That's not
really a hypothetical question, it's also a common situation here.

Date: 29 Nov 23:56:58
From: Nick Wool
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Nov 29 2006 5:38 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Nov 06 11:25:30 GMT, Nick Wool <43079532@recpoker.com>
> wrote:
>
> >You really think someone in EP could smooth call an UTG standard raise, yet
> >repop a button reraise? What sort of hands would be able to do that?
>
> We obviously play in very different games. I play live in LV, which is
> the location of this particular game, and a reraise here is common.
> It's usually someone who started out slow-playing, and then decides
> the pot is now "big enough". I see it over and over, and I see it with
> every sort of hand. You don't get out enough.

We obviously do..smooth calling an UTG raise from EP than repoping a button
reraise in common? Wish I could get into that kind of game more often.

> >The point
> >about drawing to a set preflop is that it only cost you the price of one
> >standard reraise, and when you hit, your hand is well hidden, so on a
> >deep loose
> >table, you are getting huge implied odds to draw.
>
> You are again making assumptions that it's only one more raise, that
> if you hit you'll win, and that you'll get paid off. There's a lot of
> variables.

No, the assumption was no my, but Russ's. I quote: People were waiting to give
their money away....Does that not sound like you will get paid off hugely if you
hit your set?

> >The same cannot be said of a flush, as even the most loose moron would have
> >secondn thoughts about going to war with a 3 suited flop should you be lucky
> >enough to flop the nut flush. Plus the odds of a flopped flush is way higher
> >tha a flopped set, further limiting your scope for youir implied odds.
>
> No one is arguing the payoff potential of a flopped set.

In the conditions described by russ, the potential would very likely be realised
if you hit.

> >> >The great Russ has describe the table as very loose, and people with deep
> >> >stacks waiting to give their money away. He puts someone on an overpair
> >> >to
> >> >his
> >> >JJ, was confident that the guy would stack off on that unimproved overpair
> >> >post
> >> >flop, plus there were other willing to go to war with TP in the hand, and
> >> >yet
> >> >was still not prepared to call a standard reraise for the implied odds?
> >>
> >> But under these conditions, why bother with hands before the flop that
> >> need a lot of help on the flop, especially when you're depending only
> >> on implied odds? Under these conditions, you can get all the money
> >> without gambling.
> >
> >How? By only playing AA preflop? By your definition, isnt everything a
> >gamble
> >if you only put in chips when you are ahead preflop?
>
> The point is to wait for situations where you can get the money in as
> late in the hand as possible, and I think you know that.

> >You complain about posters blindly defending Russ,
> >> but you should look around and see if you can find any posters blindly
> >> attacking everything he says. Even you admit that the hand is a fold
> >> in a normal game. Well, somewhere between normal games and great games
> >> the hand is a tossup, but you seem to know that a call is *the*
> >> correct play in this game. Even Russ isn't claiming that his play was
> >> *the* correct play. You sound more like a gambler than a poker player.
> >
> >How is it a gamble to draw at 7.5 to 1 odds, when you are almost certain that
> >your payout would be much greater if you hit? Isnt that the whole point of
> >NL,
> >and of poker in general; to put in chips under +EV situations?
>
> It's one of the points, but if you're playing for a living you need to
> win, but you also need to stay in business. Slight edges combined with
> high variance will have you driving a taxi.

What high varience? you are risking 125 preflop, to win anything from 1K to 3K
if you hit. Where is the high varience?

You keep claiming that
> this particular hand is easily +EV. I'd like to see the calculations
> for that, but we both know there are far too many variables left after
> you call that bet. You "feel" that it's +EV, and it might be, but,
> again, you're sounding more like a gambler than anything else.

Not my feel. Read Russ description of the table conditions.

And you
> keep bringing up how the hand actually played out, but why do you
> think it would have played out the same way if Russ had also been in
> the hand? Maybe some, or all of the involved players knew each other,
> and with Russ in the pot would have played differently. That's not
> really a hypothetical question, it's also a common situation here.

I never once said anything about how the hand played out. Reread my post.
And now you are bring in assumptions not in the OP. I based my critque of the
hand purely on what Russ stated, that it is loose (how else can people waiting
to give money away if they weren't loose? By offering you a wad of notes when
you sit down?), the button had an overpair to his JJ, most of the players havent
got a clue. Russ's words, not my. If you wish to impose your own assumptions
into the discussion, that's your right, but we would be no longer discussing the
same situation.

_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 28 Nov 2006 16:43:49
From: OrangeSFO
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas "GCA"

Alert the media!

Russ Georgiev has gone on a fact finding mission to Vegas and has
declared poker to be thriving and juicy.

Thanks Russ, I was wondering if I should check out that town. You
don't hear much about it.

Date: 28 Nov 2006 17:30:09
From: mo_charles
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas "GCA"

> Alert the media!
>
> Russ Georgiev has gone on a fact finding mission to Vegas and has
> declared poker to be thriving and juicy.
>
> Thanks Russ, I was wondering if I should check out that town. You
> don't hear much about it.

lol

mo_charles

_____________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com

Date: 28 Nov 2006 16:18:26
From: JG
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas "GCA"

RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
>
> The raise was $125 more.

And the payout was 30 times that.

> I knew the hand was no good.

Then no one should ever draw in poker?

> What if 3 small came? Do I call?

You said you 'knew' you were beat pre-flop (which implies your opponent
had AA-QQ), so you should be able to get away from a baby flop.

JG

Date: 28 Nov 2006 19:17:55
From: JG
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

Follow wrote:

> You keep talking about implieds in this hand, but never bother to even calculate
> them. The pot at the moment of the fold contains $280, which Russ would have to
> call $125 to enter.

Forget about immediate odds. That's not what we're talking about. We're
talking about the money you stand to collect on later betting rounds.

> Hitting a set on the flop is 7.5:1, even assuming you would win everytime you
> hit your set on the flop, your call in Russ' position can't possibly get the
> odds it needs to call.

As long as your pot and/or implied odds are in line relative to you
hitting your draw and then winning, and yes, sometimes losing, then
it's profitable to draw.

> Now, assuming you knew

Enough of this. No one can predict the future. You won't ever be able
to know what someone will do for sure, whether they will go all-in,
pull out a pistol and shoot you, etc. This is understood anytime you
play a hand, so don't point out the obvious. And 'implied odds', by
defintion, is not an exact science. But it's a crucially important
concept in NL.

> There are no amount of implied odds that make a call a profitable play on this
> hand judging by position, odds, and the fact that you're facing a raiser that
> you need to suck out on.

What are you talking about? The hand ended up with about $3000 of his
opponents' money in the pot. I'm just totally guessing here, but I
believe it's profitable to draw to a set for another $100 or so, when
you stand to win that kind of money!

> Let me ask you, if I were the $125 raiser in the pot, and I had made my move
> with my cards face up in front of you, knowing you were a 4:1 dog against my
> hand, would you put the money into the pot?

If you told me you would give me an additional $1000 if I won the hand
at showdown, abso-fucking-lutely. I'd beat you into the pot. And I'd
make a fortune over the long term. That's what implied odds are about.
Get it now? Do the math.

JG

Date: 29 Nov
From: Follow
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Nov 28 2006 8:17 PM, JG wrote:

> If you told me you would give me an additional $1000 if I won the hand
> at showdown, abso-fucking-lutely. I'd beat you into the pot. And I'd
> make a fortune over the long term. That's what implied odds are about.
> Get it now? Do the math.
>
> JG

I did the math. Oddly enough, I haven't seen anyone else do any math on this
whole thread, but I'm told that there has been "evidence" that the incorrect
play was made. Very confusing.

Using your evidence and logic, Jamie Gold is the best player in the world.
Since we are only focusing on results and all...

Follow :)

_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 29 Nov
From: Nick Wool
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Nov 29 2006 3:22 AM, Follow wrote:

>
>
>
> On Nov 28 2006 8:17 PM, JG wrote:
>
> > If you told me you would give me an additional $1000 if I won the hand
> > at showdown, abso-fucking-lutely. I'd beat you into the pot. And I'd
> > make a fortune over the long term. That's what implied odds are about.
> > Get it now? Do the math.
> >
> > JG
>
> I did the math. Oddly enough, I haven't seen anyone else do any math on this
> whole thread, but I'm told that there has been "evidence" that the incorrect
> play was made. Very confusing.
>
> Using your evidence and logic, Jamie Gold is the best player in the world.
> Since we are only focusing on results and all...
>
>
>
>
> Follow :)

FFS, did you actually read the OP by Russ? Based on his description, we can be
sure that these people are loose, will stack off with TP/overpair. Now funnily
enough, Russ had the button on an overpair. The evidence is here:

'In all my years of playing, I have never seen more games, nor worse
players'

'I won over $10,000, but in reality, I was given the money'

'with more people having $1,000 or more than having less'

'I knew the hand was no good.'

Loose table with players overplaying their hands, deep stacks, overpair
reraiser. Now what more could you ask for in playing for implied odds?

_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 29 Nov
From: Super Steamer
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Nov 28 2006 7:29 PM, Nick Wool wrote:
>
> Loose table with players overplaying their hands, deep stacks, overpair
> reraiser. Now what more could you ask for in playing for implied odds?

The reason I am not too likely to make the call, is the players left to act
behind me, you could still get jacked up for another big raise (or two) before
the flop even comes. If your call closes the betting, that is entirely
different.

_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 29 Nov
From: Nick Wool
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Nov 29 2006 3:46 AM, Super Steamer wrote:

>
>
>
> On Nov 28 2006 7:29 PM, Nick Wool wrote:
> >
> > Loose table with players overplaying their hands, deep stacks, overpair
> > reraiser. Now what more could you ask for in playing for implied odds?
>
> The reason I am not too likely to make the call, is the players left to act
> behind me, you could still get jacked up for another big raise (or two) before
> the flop even comes. If your call closes the betting, that is entirely
> different.

To some extent, i could agree with that. But if we think it through logically,
a reraise should be very unlikely. Russ said there were 3 callers to his UTG
raise before it got to the button, if we leave out the blinds , the button, and
yourself UTG, it would seem very likely that the first caller was from EP. So,
you are UTG, you come in with a standard raise, now is it likely for a player
from EP with aces/kings to smooth call you in a deep stack ring game, pricing in
players behind to crack his aces/kings on the cheap? Not impossible, but very
unlikely, no?

The same goes for callers behind the first caller. So it is extremely unlikely
for any of the players between you and the button to have a hand that could
re-raise here. Given the table conditions described by Russ, I can easily see
them calling for 'value', but certainly not reraising, given you even better
odds to make the call, both express and implied.

If JJ had limped UTG, a reraise behind would be more likely, as you might have
med pairs and other semi-strong/speculative hands testing whether the button
raise was a positional raise or a raise based on his cards, and folding JJ when
caught in the middle would make much more sense.

_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 29 Nov
From: Super Steamer
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Nov 28 2006 8:10 PM, Nick Wool wrote:

>
>
>
> On Nov 29 2006 3:46 AM, Super Steamer wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > On Nov 28 2006 7:29 PM, Nick Wool wrote:
> > >
> > > Loose table with players overplaying their hands, deep stacks, overpair
> > > reraiser. Now what more could you ask for in playing for implied odds?
> >
> > The reason I am not too likely to make the call, is the players left to act
> > behind me, you could still get jacked up for another big raise (or
> > two) before
> > the flop even comes. If your call closes the betting, that is entirely
> > different.
>
> To some extent, i could agree with that. But if we think it through
> logically,
> a reraise should be very unlikely. Russ said there were 3 callers to his UTG
> raise before it got to the button, if we leave out the blinds , the button,
> and
> yourself UTG, it would seem very likely that the first caller was from EP.
> So,
> you are UTG, you come in with a standard raise, now is it likely for a player
> from EP with aces/kings to smooth call you in a deep stack ring game, pricing
> in
> players behind to crack his aces/kings on the cheap? Not impossible, but very
> unlikely, no?
>
> The same goes for callers behind the first caller. So it is extremely
> unlikely
> for any of the players between you and the button to have a hand that could
> re-raise here. Given the table conditions described by Russ, I can easily see
> them calling for 'value', but certainly not reraising, given you even better
> odds to make the call, both express and implied.
>
> If JJ had limped UTG, a reraise behind would be more likely, as you might have
> med pairs and other semi-strong/speculative hands testing whether the button
> raise was a positional raise or a raise based on his cards, and folding JJ
> when
> caught in the middle would make much more sense.

I know what you're saying, of course it is not "likely", but how "unlikely" is
it?

Being out of position the entire hand makes it much more difficult to extract
full value as well, so your implied odds have to take some kind of hit there.

_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 29 Nov
From: Follow
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Nov 28 2006 5:18 PM, JG wrote:

> RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > The raise was $125 more.
>
> And the payout was 30 times that.
>
> > I knew the hand was no good.
>
> Then no one should ever draw in poker?
>
> > What if 3 small came? Do I call?
>
> You said you 'knew' you were beat pre-flop (which implies your opponent
> had AA-QQ), so you should be able to get away from a baby flop.
>
> JG

You keep talking about implieds in this hand, but never bother to even calculate
them. The pot at the moment of the fold contains $280, which Russ would have to
call $125 to enter. This gives him standing odds of 2.2:1 at the flop, assuming
it killed all the action behind him. At a loose table, his best case scenario
is that the three other callers behind him also just call into the pot putting
in another $375 total, which now boosts the pot to a total of $655 which makes
the calling approximately 5.3:1, if you could be sure of that outcome. Assuming
one of the "loose" players behind went all in and was called by the original
raiser, you can now safely assume you're well behind in the hand and are now at
odds of about 2.5:1.

Hitting a set on the flop is 7.5:1, even assuming you would win everytime you
hit your set on the flop, your call in Russ' position can't possibly get the
odds it needs to call. Now, assuming you knew for a fact that each of the
previous 3 callers were going to call only, not raise and not fold, you would be
losing about 15-16 cents on every dollar you've put into the pot. You can get
better odds than that playing craps, what are you doing on a poker table? The
other outcomes (folders behind you, or an all-in behind you) will make your odds
about on par with a lottery scratcher ticket.

There are no amount of implied odds that make a call a profitable play on this
hand judging by position, odds, and the fact that you're facing a raiser that
you need to suck out on. To get your 7.5:1 you need just to break even, you
need to hit a set with no overcards on the board, and then you need to sucker
another 300 or so into the pot when the flop came up rags besides your jack.
Should a king or queen or ace hit, or a 10JQ, you suddenly don't even know where
you stand, and these things will happen maybe 15-20% of the time shifting your
odds to 9:1, and the money you need to sucker in post flop up to 400 or so!

Let me ask you, if I were the $125 raiser in the pot, and I had made my move
with my cards face up in front of you, knowing you were a 4:1 dog against my
hand, would you put the money into the pot? Russ seemed to be aware of his
position well enough to know he should fold in his spot. It's horribly
amatuerish to justify terrible calls with a nebulous (and ultimately unprovable)
statement about "implied odds."

The reason poker players analyze "implied" odds, is when a decision is very
close and the "implieds" will push the decision to one side or the other. Not
to mention the fact that the pocket jacks come out only about 30% against even 3
random hands, let alone 4 aggressive mutts. We don't use "implied" odds to
justify daring moves that can cost us our whole stack 3 times just so we can
double one of those stacks up once.

Methinks there are a lot of people on this thread that need to pay closer
attention to their pot odds and put aside their concerns of "implieds" until
they can master the basics. Second guessing yourself with pliable numbers that
can justify any move (like "implied odds") are only going to cost you money in
the long run.

Follow :)

_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 28 Nov 2006 18:56:37
From: pokerchimp
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

Excellent post.

On Nov 28 2006 9:26 PM, Follow wrote:

> On Nov 28 2006 5:18 PM, JG wrote:
>
> > RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
> > >
> > > The raise was $125 more.
> >
> > And the payout was 30 times that.
> >
> > > I knew the hand was no good.
> >
> > Then no one should ever draw in poker?
> >
> > > What if 3 small came? Do I call?
> >
> > You said you 'knew' you were beat pre-flop (which implies your opponent
> > had AA-QQ), so you should be able to get away from a baby flop.
> >
> > JG
>
> You keep talking about implieds in this hand, but never bother to even
calculate
> them. The pot at the moment of the fold contains $280, which Russ would
have to
> call $125 to enter. This gives him standing odds of 2.2:1 at the flop,
assuming
> it killed all the action behind him. At a loose table, his best case
scenario
> is that the three other callers behind him also just call into the pot
putting
> in another $375 total, which now boosts the pot to a total of $655 which
makes
> the calling approximately 5.3:1, if you could be sure of that outcome.
Assuming
> one of the "loose" players behind went all in and was called by the original
> raiser, you can now safely assume you're well behind in the hand and are now
at
> odds of about 2.5:1.
>
> Hitting a set on the flop is 7.5:1, even assuming you would win everytime you
> hit your set on the flop, your call in Russ' position can't possibly get the
> odds it needs to call. Now, assuming you knew for a fact that each of the
> previous 3 callers were going to call only, not raise and not fold, you
would be
> losing about 15-16 cents on every dollar you've put into the pot. You can
get
> better odds than that playing craps, what are you doing on a poker table?
The
> other outcomes (folders behind you, or an all-in behind you) will make your
odds
> about on par with a lottery scratcher ticket.
>
> There are no amount of implied odds that make a call a profitable play on
this
> hand judging by position, odds, and the fact that you're facing a raiser that
> you need to suck out on. To get your 7.5:1 you need just to break even, you
> need to hit a set with no overcards on the board, and then you need to sucker
> another 300 or so into the pot when the flop came up rags besides your jack.
> Should a king or queen or ace hit, or a 10JQ, you suddenly don't even know
where
> you stand, and these things will happen maybe 15-20% of the time shifting
your
> odds to 9:1, and the money you need to sucker in post flop up to 400 or so!
>
> Let me ask you, if I were the $125 raiser in the pot, and I had made my move
> with my cards face up in front of you, knowing you were a 4:1 dog against my
> hand, would you put the money into the pot? Russ seemed to be aware of his
> position well enough to know he should fold in his spot. It's horribly
> amatuerish to justify terrible calls with a nebulous (and ultimately
unprovable)
> statement about "implied odds."
>
> The reason poker players analyze "implied" odds, is when a decision is very
> close and the "implieds" will push the decision to one side or the other.
Not
> to mention the fact that the pocket jacks come out only about 30% against
even 3
> random hands, let alone 4 aggressive mutts. We don't use "implied" odds to
> justify daring moves that can cost us our whole stack 3 times just so we can
> double one of those stacks up once.
>
> Methinks there are a lot of people on this thread that need to pay closer
> attention to their pot odds and put aside their concerns of "implieds" until
> they can master the basics. Second guessing yourself with pliable numbers
that
> can justify any move (like "implied odds") are only going to cost you money
in
> the long run.
>
>
>
>
> Follow :)

thumbers on stars, pokerchimp1 on absolute

--------
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com

Date: 29 Nov
From: Nick Wool
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Nov 29 2006 2:26 AM, Follow wrote:

>
>
>
> On Nov 28 2006 5:18 PM, JG wrote:
>
> > RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
> > >
> > > The raise was $125 more.
> >
> > And the payout was 30 times that.
> >
> > > I knew the hand was no good.
> >
> > Then no one should ever draw in poker?
> >
> > > What if 3 small came? Do I call?
> >
> > You said you 'knew' you were beat pre-flop (which implies your opponent
> > had AA-QQ), so you should be able to get away from a baby flop.
> >
> > JG
>
> You keep talking about implieds in this hand, but never bother to even
> calculate
> them. The pot at the moment of the fold contains $280, which Russ would have
> to
> call $125 to enter. This gives him standing odds of 2.2:1 at the flop,
> assuming
> it killed all the action behind him. At a loose table, his best case scenario
> is that the three other callers behind him also just call into the pot putting
> in another $375 total, which now boosts the pot to a total of $655 which makes
> the calling approximately 5.3:1, if you could be sure of that outcome.
> Assuming
> one of the "loose" players behind went all in and was called by the original
> raiser, you can now safely assume you're well behind in the hand and are now
> at
> odds of about 2.5:1.

What hands could an EP or MP player smooth call an UTG raise with, yet can
re-pop a button reraise? I think Russ said they were idiots, not morons. The
table being loose, it's hard not to see the players behind not calling with any
reasonable hands. And if they havent got reasonable hands, what were they doing
calling an UTG raise in the first place? So a fair assumption would be that
multiple callers are likely, no?

>
> Hitting a set on the flop is 7.5:1, even assuming you would win everytime you
> hit your set on the flop, your call in Russ' position can't possibly get the
> odds it needs to call.

Why not? Russ said that the table was very loose, 'waiting to give their money
away. By that standard, he should have been confident that they will stack off
with an overpair or TP.

Now, assuming you knew for a fact that each of the
> previous 3 callers were going to call only, not raise and not fold, you would
> be
> losing about 15-16 cents on every dollar you've put into the pot. You can get
> better odds than that playing craps, what are you doing on a poker table? The
> other outcomes (folders behind you, or an all-in behind you) will make your
> odds
> about on par with a lottery scratcher ticket.

You never heard of table conditions? The table conditions as described by Russ
was that there would likely to be callers behind him, but unlikely to be
raisers, and that he would get paid off in a big way should he hit his set.

Way better than your average lottery ticket.

> There are no amount of implied odds that make a call a profitable play on this
> hand judging by position, odds, and the fact that you're facing a raiser that
> you need to suck out on. To get your 7.5:1 you need just to break even, you
> need to hit a set with no overcards on the board, and then you need to sucker
> another 300 or so into the pot when the flop came up rags besides your jack.
> Should a king or queen or ace hit, or a 10JQ, you suddenly don't even know
> where
> you stand,

Why? Russ said he was sure JJ was not good preflop. So why the need to waste
money with a flop bet if you dont hit the jack? And if you are constanly
worrying about where you are with Top or middle set, you should be playing deep
stack NL holdem. Stick to limit.

and these things will happen maybe 15-20% of the time shifting your
> odds to 9:1, and the money you need to sucker in post flop up to 400 or so!
>
> Let me ask you, if I were the $125 raiser in the pot, and I had made my move
> with my cards face up in front of you, knowing you were a 4:1 dog against my
> hand, would you put the money into the pot? Russ seemed to be aware of his
> position well enough to know he should fold in his spot. It's horribly
> amatuerish to justify terrible calls with a nebulous (and ultimately
> unprovable)
> statement about "implied odds."

If I know (as russ implied that he did) that you would stack off whatever
happens on the flop, and your stack is deep enough, yes, I would. To do
otherwise would be a bad fold.

> The reason poker players analyze "implied" odds, is when a decision is very
> close and the "implieds" will push the decision to one side or the other. Not
> to mention the fact that the pocket jacks come out only about 30% against even
> 3
> random hands, let alone 4 aggressive mutts. We don't use "implied" odds to
> justify daring moves that can cost us our whole stack 3 times just so we can
> double one of those stacks up once.

How the fuck could it cost you your stack unless its set over set or you lose to
a straight or flush? Russ claimed that he knew JJ was no good preflop. A rags
flop would change that?

> Methinks there are a lot of people on this thread that need to pay closer
> attention to their pot odds and put aside their concerns of "implieds" until
> they can master the basics. Second guessing yourself with pliable numbers
> that
> can justify any move (like "implied odds") are only going to cost you money in
> the long run.
>

Methinks that far too many people here think the sun shines out of Russ's arse,
and defend him whatever he does. In a tight/normal game, that JJ would have
been on the way to the muck faster than the speed of light given that sort of
action, but under the table conditions Russ described, its an auto-call
everytime.

>
>
> Follow :)

_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 29 Nov
From: Follow
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Nov 28 2006 7:48 PM, Nick Wool wrote:

> Methinks that far too many people here think the sun shines out of Russ's
> arse,
> and defend him whatever he does. In a tight/normal game, that JJ would have
> been on the way to the muck faster than the speed of light given that sort of
> action, but under the table conditions Russ described, its an auto-call
> everytime.

Actually, if you look around, I've never once defended Russ. Nor do I consider
myself to be "defending" him right now, I'm defending his rightful fold, and
I've "defended" other people's play as well while criticizing at times. I'm a
poker player, not a religious initiate. ;)

Either way, I think my last post covers the matter entirely using the numbers as
their own proof. You can discount it if you like as "defending Russ," or you
can run through the numbers and realize I'm right. I think you're already aware
of how bad a call is in this position, because you've already conceded to losing
money on the play, just not your "whole stack." Running this same play 8 times
will break your roll, and will show you a yield of less than you lost. How much
less is dependent on your stack at the moment of the decision making.

Follow :)

_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 29 Nov
From: Nick Wool
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Nov 29 2006 3:06 AM, Follow wrote:

>
>
>
> On Nov 28 2006 7:48 PM, Nick Wool wrote:
>
> > Methinks that far too many people here think the sun shines out of Russ's
> > arse,
> > and defend him whatever he does. In a tight/normal game, that JJ would have
> > been on the way to the muck faster than the speed of light given that sort
> > of
> > action, but under the table conditions Russ described, its an auto-call
> > everytime.
>
> Actually, if you look around, I've never once defended Russ. Nor do I
> consider
> myself to be "defending" him right now, I'm defending his rightful fold, and
> I've "defended" other people's play as well while criticizing at times. I'm a
> poker player, not a religious initiate. ;)
>
> Either way, I think my last post covers the matter entirely using the numbers
> as
> their own proof. You can discount it if you like as "defending Russ," or you
> can run through the numbers and realize I'm right.

You did not. You never once taken the table conditions described by Russ into
consideration. In a normal game, folding is correct. In a deep stack game
where people are likely to stack off with TP or overpairs (Russ had the button
re-raiser on an overpair to his jacks), folding is terrible play. You never
heard that poker is a game of cards and people, and right play under one
circumstance will be terrible play in another?

I ran through the numbers, and find that you are wrong. See below

I think you're already
> aware
> of how bad a call is in this position, because you've already conceded to
> losing
> money on the play,

I did? When? On a blank flop, you lose 125. Those times when you hit your
set, you win anything from 1K to 3K, if the condtions described by Russ is
correct.

just not your "whole stack." Running this same play 8
> times
> will break your roll,

No, in the table conditions as described by Russ, running the same play 8 times
will greatly increase your roll.

and will show you a yield of less than you lost. How
> much
> less is dependent on your stack at the moment of the decision making.
>
>
>
>
> Follow :)

_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 29 Nov
From: Follow
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Nov 28 2006 8:21 PM, Nick Wool wrote:

> I ran through the numbers, and find that you are wrong. See below

Which numbers were incorrect?

> I did? When? On a blank flop, you lose 125. Those times when you hit your
> set, you win anything from 1K to 3K, if the condtions described by Russ is
> correct.

I don't think there is a set of "conditions" in the world that will cause a
table to build a pot of 1K to 3K on every single hand when the blinds are 5-10.
You didn't assume that every hand was this big did you? And if you didn't make
that silly and very obviously incorrect assumption, what makes you so sure that
this hand in particular out of all of them would have been built to such a
level? Besides the results that were already posted I mean.

Follow :)

_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 29 Nov
From: Nick Wool
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

You should really read Russ's OP before you barge into a discussion. If you are
so silly as to ignore his description of the table conditions when you werent
there, and impose your own 'stanard' conditions onto it, what more can I say,
except that it is you who is making the silly and stupid assumptions?

On Nov 29 2006 3:26 AM, Follow wrote:

>
>
>
> On Nov 28 2006 8:21 PM, Nick Wool wrote:
>
> > I ran through the numbers, and find that you are wrong. See below
>
> Which numbers were incorrect?
>
>
> > I did? When? On a blank flop, you lose 125. Those times when you hit your
> > set, you win anything from 1K to 3K, if the condtions described by Russ is
> > correct.
>
> I don't think there is a set of "conditions" in the world that will cause a
> table to build a pot of 1K to 3K on every single hand when the blinds are
> 5-10.
> You didn't assume that every hand was this big did you? And if you didn't
> make
> that silly and very obviously incorrect assumption, what makes you so sure
> that
> this hand in particular out of all of them would have been built to such a
> level? Besides the results that were already posted I mean.
>
>
>
>
> Follow :)

_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 29 Nov 2006 13:30:32
From: Mark B $Diputsur$
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

"Nick Wool" <43079532@recpoker.com > wrote in message
news:1164771166$912821@recpoker.com...
>
> You should really read Russ's OP before you barge into a discussion. If you
> are
> so silly as to ignore his description of the table conditions when you
> werent
> there, and impose your own 'stanard' conditions onto it, what more can I
> say,
> except that it is you who is making the silly and stupid assumptions?

Had you read Russ' OP you'd see the only word he used to describe
opponents was 'aggressive' ... nowhere in it did he say the game was loose.

Mark

--
www.myspace.com/diputsur

Date: 29 Nov 16:22:07
From: steve1127
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Nov 28 2006 10:26 PM, Follow wrote:

>
>
>
> On Nov 28 2006 8:21 PM, Nick Wool wrote:
>
> > I ran through the numbers, and find that you are wrong. See below
>
> Which numbers were incorrect?
>
>
> > I did? When? On a blank flop, you lose 125. Those times when you hit your
> > set, you win anything from 1K to 3K, if the condtions described by Russ is
> > correct.
>
> I don't think there is a set of "conditions" in the world that will cause a
> table to build a pot of 1K to 3K on every single hand when the blinds are
> 5-10.
> You didn't assume that every hand was this big did you? And if you didn't
> make
> that silly and very obviously incorrect assumption, what makes you so sure
> that
> this hand in particular out of all of them would have been built to such a
> level? Besides the results that were already posted I mean.
>
>
I don't think it's results based thinking to observe that the button raiser won
a big hand here with KK on the JT22 board. If he's willing to stack off with KK
on that board, and if Russ knows that, I'm not at all sure why it's not
reasonable to assume that against most flops he won't be able to get away from
an overpair.

>
>
> Follow :)

_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 01 Dec 2006 07:23:50
From: Backslider23
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Nov 28 2006 10:26 PM, Follow wrote:

> On Nov 28 2006 8:21 PM, Nick Wool wrote:
>
> > I ran through the numbers, and find that you are wrong. See below
>
> Which numbers were incorrect?
>
>
> > I did? When? On a blank flop, you lose 125. Those times when you hit
your
> > set, you win anything from 1K to 3K, if the condtions described by Russ is
> > correct.
>
> I don't think there is a set of "conditions" in the world that will cause a
> table to build a pot of 1K to 3K on every single hand when the blinds are
5-10.
> You didn't assume that every hand was this big did you? And if you didn't
make
> that silly and very obviously incorrect assumption, what makes you so sure
that
> this hand in particular out of all of them would have been built to such a
> level? Besides the results that were already posted I mean.

Do you even think about what you are writing? I mean really?

Who cares if every pot is 1k to 3k?? This is a single hand. What makes
one think this hand in particular could be huge? It has already been
raised to 30 with 3 callers, then raised to 155 when the action in
question takes place. Russ has his perfect read that JJ is no good.
Explain to me when you're going to have a better idea that a pot could be
about to get large.

It's really not hard to see how the games are as easy as Russ describes
them, when people who actually think they understand poker lack basic
reasoning skills. The extreme lack of logic displayed in your post is
just astounding. You're asking questions that would be rhetorical to
anyone who sat for a second and thought about it. "What makes you so sure
this hand in particular would have been built.." I mean.. are you
serious? The same thing that made Russ so sure that his JJ was no good?
The same thing that makes Russ so sure that potential pro's should move to
Vegas? Give me a single shred of evidence that this pot isn't going to be
big. Certainly not the ensuing action, since the pot turned out to be
huge. Certainly not your estimation of how a donkey would play AA or KK
in a big pot. So what is it?

Backslider

____________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com

Date: 01 Dec 18:09:14
From: Follow
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Dec 1 2006 8:23 AM, Backslider23 wrote:

> Do you even think about what you are writing? I mean really?
>
> Who cares if every pot is 1k to 3k?? This is a single hand. What makes
> one think this hand in particular could be huge? It has already been
> raised to 30 with 3 callers, then raised to 155 when the action in
> question takes place. Russ has his perfect read that JJ is no good.
> Explain to me when you're going to have a better idea that a pot could be
> about to get large.
>
> It's really not hard to see how the games are as easy as Russ describes
> them, when people who actually think they understand poker lack basic
> reasoning skills. The extreme lack of logic displayed in your post is
> just astounding. You're asking questions that would be rhetorical to
> anyone who sat for a second and thought about it. "What makes you so sure
> this hand in particular would have been built.." I mean.. are you
> serious? The same thing that made Russ so sure that his JJ was no good?
> The same thing that makes Russ so sure that potential pro's should move to
> Vegas? Give me a single shred of evidence that this pot isn't going to be
> big. Certainly not the ensuing action, since the pot turned out to be
> huge. Certainly not your estimation of how a donkey would play AA or KK
> in a big pot. So what is it?
>
> Backslider

Oh goody, new entertainment! I'm pretty sure Honest Donkey is done entertaining
me so I'm glad you've stepped up to take his place, work days can get so
terribly long otherwise ya know...

To answer your question, I'm not sure if the pot will get big or it won't. I'm
not sure the three original callers behind me are going to call again, it's an
uncertainty. Sure, it might seem like a plausible idea that they will call and
the pot will get huge, but only 1 time in 8.5 is that going to matter to me at
all. The other times, it's just going to get huge and I'll still be in second
place.

Just so you know, second place doesn't get paid in poker. Building a pot when
you're a solid favorite to lose is about the single most elementary blunder one
can make. It's a symptom of television and glitzy bluffing that makes someone
think this is a proper play. I mean, if Phil Ivey can pull it off, so can
Donkish_Nick, or anyone else tossing chips at a pot, right?

Follow :)

_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 02 Dec
From: steve1127
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Dec 1 2006 1:09 PM, Follow wrote:

>
>
>
> On Dec 1 2006 8:23 AM, Backslider23 wrote:
>
> > Do you even think about what you are writing? I mean really?
> >
> > Who cares if every pot is 1k to 3k?? This is a single hand. What makes
> > one think this hand in particular could be huge? It has already been
> > raised to 30 with 3 callers, then raised to 155 when the action in
> > question takes place. Russ has his perfect read that JJ is no good.
> > Explain to me when you're going to have a better idea that a pot could be
> > about to get large.
> >
> > It's really not hard to see how the games are as easy as Russ describes
> > them, when people who actually think they understand poker lack basic
> > reasoning skills. The extreme lack of logic displayed in your post is
> > just astounding. You're asking questions that would be rhetorical to
> > anyone who sat for a second and thought about it. "What makes you so sure
> > this hand in particular would have been built.." I mean.. are you
> > serious? The same thing that made Russ so sure that his JJ was no good?
> > The same thing that makes Russ so sure that potential pro's should move to
> > Vegas? Give me a single shred of evidence that this pot isn't going to be
> > big. Certainly not the ensuing action, since the pot turned out to be
> > huge. Certainly not your estimation of how a donkey would play AA or KK
> > in a big pot. So what is it?
> >
> > Backslider
>
> Oh goody, new entertainment! I'm pretty sure Honest Donkey is done
> entertaining
> me so I'm glad you've stepped up to take his place, work days can get so
> terribly long otherwise ya know...
>
> To answer your question, I'm not sure if the pot will get big or it won't.
> I'm
> not sure the three original callers behind me are going to call again, it's an
> uncertainty. Sure, it might seem like a plausible idea that they will call
> and
> the pot will get huge, but only 1 time in 8.5 is that going to matter to me at
> all. The other times, it's just going to get huge and I'll still be in second
> place.
>
> Just so you know, second place doesn't get paid in poker. Building a pot when
> you're a solid favorite to lose is about the single most elementary blunder
> one
> can make. It's a symptom of television and glitzy bluffing that makes someone
> think this is a proper play. I mean, if Phil Ivey can pull it off, so can
> Donkish_Nick, or anyone else tossing chips at a pot, right?
>
>
Congratulations! You missed the point completely! To review: This bad player
has AA, KK or QQ. Bad players consistently overvalue overpairs to the board.
So if we hit a set we stand to get paid. If we don't we stand to lose a small
pot. It's reasonable to expect the pot to be biggish if we hit, since how many
bad players do you know who would fold AA on a J58 flop? So. Why is this tough
to get?

>
>
> Follow :)

_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 02 Dec
From: Nick Wool
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Dec 2 2006 3:07 AM, steve1127 wrote:

>
>
>
> On Dec 1 2006 1:09 PM, Follow wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > On Dec 1 2006 8:23 AM, Backslider23 wrote:
> >
> > > Do you even think about what you are writing? I mean really?
> > >
> > > Who cares if every pot is 1k to 3k?? This is a single hand. What makes
> > > one think this hand in particular could be huge? It has already been
> > > raised to 30 with 3 callers, then raised to 155 when the action in
> > > question takes place. Russ has his perfect read that JJ is no good.
> > > Explain to me when you're going to have a better idea that a pot could be
> > > about to get large.
> > >
> > > It's really not hard to see how the games are as easy as Russ describes
> > > them, when people who actually think they understand poker lack basic
> > > reasoning skills. The extreme lack of logic displayed in your post is
> > > just astounding. You're asking questions that would be rhetorical to
> > > anyone who sat for a second and thought about it. "What makes you so sure
> > > this hand in particular would have been built.." I mean.. are you
> > > serious? The same thing that made Russ so sure that his JJ was no good?
> > > The same thing that makes Russ so sure that potential pro's should move to
> > > Vegas? Give me a single shred of evidence that this pot isn't going to be
> > > big. Certainly not the ensuing action, since the pot turned out to be
> > > huge. Certainly not your estimation of how a donkey would play AA or KK
> > > in a big pot. So what is it?
> > >
> > > Backslider
> >
> > Oh goody, new entertainment! I'm pretty sure Honest Donkey is done
> > entertaining
> > me so I'm glad you've stepped up to take his place, work days can get so
> > terribly long otherwise ya know...
> >
> > To answer your question, I'm not sure if the pot will get big or it won't.
> > I'm
> > not sure the three original callers behind me are going to call again, it's
> > an
> > uncertainty. Sure, it might seem like a plausible idea that they will call
> > and
> > the pot will get huge, but only 1 time in 8.5 is that going to matter to me
> > at
> > all. The other times, it's just going to get huge and I'll still be in
> > second
> > place.
> >
> > Just so you know, second place doesn't get paid in poker. Building a pot
> > when
> > you're a solid favorite to lose is about the single most elementary blunder
> > one
> > can make. It's a symptom of television and glitzy bluffing that makes
> > someone
> > think this is a proper play. I mean, if Phil Ivey can pull it off, so can
> > Donkish_Nick, or anyone else tossing chips at a pot, right?
> >
> >
> Congratulations! You missed the point completely! To review: This bad player
> has AA, KK or QQ. Bad players consistently overvalue overpairs to the board.
> So if we hit a set we stand to get paid. If we don't we stand to lose a small
> pot. It's reasonable to expect the pot to be biggish if we hit, since how
> many
> bad players do you know who would fold AA on a J58 flop? So. Why is this
> tough
> to get?
>

To be honest, how many average/good players can get away from a J58 2 suited or
rainbow flop? Not that many. As for bad players 'waitng to give their money
away', I would say next to none. And for that category of players, I would add
TP good kicker, sometimes even middle pair, or an underpair to the board because
anytime you bet strong, you 'must be bluffing'.

I think the guy is high on something, he keeps bringing redherrings into the
discussion like running JJ v KK hot and cold to 'prove' that it should be a
fold, ignoring that the point of playing those jacks were for the set value, as
our grandmaster Russ had the button on an overpair redy to stack off.

He also rambles on about 'pot building' when a dog, ignoring we are not buliding
a pot, but are calling 125 more in the hope of winning anything from 1K to 3K, a
good +EV, if Russ's read of the table is correct.

I am done with idiots likes that. If they want to discuss the merits of playing
JJ UTG, they would have a point. Instead, they impose their assumptions on the
table, totally ignoring the OP's read, and calling any play based on the OP
description 'silly assumptions'

The whole point of the debate is not whether JJ should call, raise or fold on a
normal table, but whether the OP, in the light of his read of the table
conditions (ie., loose, poor players willing to overplay and stack off with
marginal to semi-strong hands. If 'players giving their money away' doesnt mean
that, what does it mean? ) was right in folding.

_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 04 Dec 17:44:10
From: Follow
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Dec 1 2006 8:07 PM, steve1127 wrote:

> Congratulations! You missed the point completely! To review: This bad player
> has AA, KK or QQ. Bad players consistently overvalue overpairs to the board.
> So if we hit a set we stand to get paid. If we don't we stand to lose a small
> pot. It's reasonable to expect the pot to be biggish if we hit, since how
> many
> bad players do you know who would fold AA on a J58 flop? So. Why is this
> tough
> to get?

No, I get the point: "One time in 8, we might get a set at which point we could
possibly make more money than we put in the pot. Therefore, the play is +EV
because someone might pay off, once in 8 times....maybe."

You were obviously right all along...

By the way, I have some antique chinese golden plates, made out of real chinese
gold that I'm looking to get rid of cheap. They're probably valued at
millions....maybe, but I'm willing to part with each for just a couple thousand
dollars. Interested?

Follow :)

_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 01 Dec 2006 11:54:03
From: mo_charles
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

> > Do you even think about what you are writing? I mean really?
> >
> > Who cares if every pot is 1k to 3k?? This is a single hand. What makes
> > one think this hand in particular could be huge? It has already been
> > raised to 30 with 3 callers, then raised to 155 when the action in
> > question takes place. Russ has his perfect read that JJ is no good.
> > Explain to me when you're going to have a better idea that a pot could be
> > about to get large.
> >
> > It's really not hard to see how the games are as easy as Russ describes
> > them, when people who actually think they understand poker lack basic
> > reasoning skills. The extreme lack of logic displayed in your post is
> > just astounding. You're asking questions that would be rhetorical to
> > anyone who sat for a second and thought about it. "What makes you so sure
> > this hand in particular would have been built.." I mean.. are you
> > serious? The same thing that made Russ so sure that his JJ was no good?
> > The same thing that makes Russ so sure that potential pro's should move to
> > Vegas? Give me a single shred of evidence that this pot isn't going to be
> > big. Certainly not the ensuing action, since the pot turned out to be
> > huge. Certainly not your estimation of how a donkey would play AA or KK
> > in a big pot. So what is it?
> >
> > Backslider
>
> Oh goody, new entertainment! I'm pretty sure Honest Donkey is done
entertaining
> me so I'm glad you've stepped up to take his place, work days can get so
> terribly long otherwise ya know...
>
> To answer your question, I'm not sure if the pot will get big or it won't.
I'm
> not sure the three original callers behind me are going to call again, it's
an
> uncertainty. Sure, it might seem like a plausible idea that they will call
and
> the pot will get huge, but only 1 time in 8.5 is that going to matter to me
at
> all. The other times, it's just going to get huge and I'll still be in
second
> place.
>
> Just so you know, second place doesn't get paid in poker. Building a pot
when
> you're a solid favorite to lose is about the single most elementary blunder
one
> can make. It's a symptom of television and glitzy bluffing that makes
someone
> think this is a proper play. I mean, if Phil Ivey can pull it off, so can
> Donkish_Nick, or anyone else tossing chips at a pot, right?

exactamundo. we all see the huge pot we'd have won - of course it was
going to be huge, and of course we would have won it! no brainer call
there.

mo_charles

---
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com

Date: 01 Dec 20:32:15
From: Follow
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Dec 1 2006 12:54 PM, mo_charles wrote:

> exactamundo. we all see the huge pot we'd have won - of course it was
> going to be huge, and of course we would have won it! no brainer call
> there.
>
> mo_charles

And jacks are purty. :P

Follow :)

_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 01 Dec 2006 07:10:08
From: Backslider23
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Nov 28 2006 9:26 PM, Follow wrote:

> On Nov 28 2006 5:18 PM, JG wrote:
>
> > RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
> > >
> > > The raise was $125 more.
> >
> > And the payout was 30 times that.
> >
> > > I knew the hand was no good.
> >
> > Then no one should ever draw in poker?
> >
> > > What if 3 small came? Do I call?
> >
> > You said you 'knew' you were beat pre-flop (which implies your opponent
> > had AA-QQ), so you should be able to get away from a baby flop.
> >
> > JG
>
> You keep talking about implieds in this hand, but never bother to even
calculate
> them. The pot at the moment of the fold contains $280, which Russ would
have to
> call $125 to enter. This gives him standing odds of 2.2:1 at the flop,
assuming
> it killed all the action behind him. At a loose table, his best case
scenario
> is that the three other callers behind him also just call into the pot
putting
> in another $375 total, which now boosts the pot to a total of $655 which
makes
> the calling approximately 5.3:1, if you could be sure of that outcome.
Assuming
> one of the "loose" players behind went all in and was called by the original
> raiser, you can now safely assume you're well behind in the hand and are now
at
> odds of about 2.5:1.
>
> Hitting a set on the flop is 7.5:1, even assuming you would win everytime you
> hit your set on the flop, your call in Russ' position can't possibly get the
> odds it needs to call. Now, assuming you knew for a fact that each of the
> previous 3 callers were going to call only, not raise and not fold, you
would be
> losing about 15-16 cents on every dollar you've put into the pot. You can
get
> better odds than that playing craps, what are you doing on a poker table?
The
> other outcomes (folders behind you, or an all-in behind you) will make your
odds
> about on par with a lottery scratcher ticket.
>
> There are no amount of implied odds that make a call a profitable play on
this
> hand judging by position, odds, and the fact that you're facing a raiser that
> you need to suck out on.

Did you really just give an "analysis" of implied odds that only included
pre-flop action? WTF are you talking about? Either you don't know what
implied odds are, or you are a really terrible writer. In either case,
this post was completely useless.

Backslider

--------
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com

Date: 01 Dec 18:10:44
From: Follow
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Dec 1 2006 8:10 AM, Backslider23 wrote:

> Did you really just give an "analysis" of implied odds that only included
> pre-flop action? WTF are you talking about? Either you don't know what
> implied odds are, or you are a really terrible writer. In either case,
> this post was completely useless.
>
> Backslider

Thank you for your in-depth analysis; completely devoid of any numbers, let
alone math.

Don't quit your day job, you'll be sorely disappointed.

Follow :)

_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 28 Nov 2006 23:52:36
From: Douglas Dunn
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

Follow wrote:
>> You keep talking about implieds in this hand, but never bother to even calculate
> them. The pot at the moment of the fold contains $280, which Russ would have to
> call $125 to enter. This gives him standing odds of 2.2:1 at the flop, assuming
> it killed all the action behind him. At a loose table, his best case scenario
> is that the three other callers behind him also just call into the pot putting
> in another $375 total, which now boosts the pot to a total of $655 which makes
> the calling approximately 5.3:1, if you could be sure of that outcome. Assuming
> one of the "loose" players behind went all in and was called by the original
> raiser, you can now safely assume you're well behind in the hand and are now at
> odds of about 2.5:1.

I'm going to have to disagree with everything in your post. You aren't
taking in to consideration the game conditions provided enough. The 3
players called even after Russ folded, so his call is definately going
to bring them along. You describe it as "the best possible scenario",
but it is actually the most likely one.

> Hitting a set on the flop is 7.5:1, even assuming you would win everytime you
> hit your set on the flop, your call in Russ' position can't possibly get the
> odds it needs to call. Now, assuming you knew for a fact that each of the
> previous 3 callers were going to call only, not raise and not fold, you would be
> losing about 15-16 cents on every dollar you've put into the pot. You can get
> better odds than that playing craps, what are you doing on a poker table? The
> other outcomes (folders behind you, or an all-in behind you) will make your odds
> about on par with a lottery scratcher ticket.

No amount of implied odds? You only need to make about $200 on average
for this call to break even.

> There are no amount of implied odds that make a call a profitable play on this
> hand judging by position, odds, and the fact that you're facing a raiser that
> you need to suck out on. To get your 7.5:1 you need just to break even, you
> need to hit a set with no overcards on the board, and then you need to sucker
> another 300 or so into the pot when the flop came up rags besides your jack.
> Should a king or queen or ace hit, or a 10JQ, you suddenly don't even know where
> you stand, and these things will happen maybe 15-20% of the time shifting your
> odds to 9:1, and the money you need to sucker in post flop up to 400 or so!
>
None of your numbers are correct :(

> Let me ask you, if I were the $125 raiser in the pot, and I had made my move
> with my cards face up in front of you, knowing you were a 4:1 dog against my
> hand, would you put the money into the pot? Russ seemed to be aware of his
> position well enough to know he should fold in his spot. It's horribly
> amatuerish to justify terrible calls with a nebulous (and ultimately unprovable)
> statement about "implied odds."

Of course the call is correct without knowing the hand, now that you
know it you have an even bigger advantage. Now you can get away from
that KJx flop, and take the Axx flops away from him. Of course your
question isn't relevant to the discussion, but the answer to it is the
opposite of what you think.

>
> The reason poker players analyze "implied" odds, is when a decision is very
> close and the "implieds" will push the decision to one side or the other. Not
> to mention the fact that the pocket jacks come out only about 30% against even 3
> random hands, let alone 4 aggressive mutts. We don't use "implied" odds to
> justify daring moves that can cost us our whole stack 3 times just so we can
> double one of those stacks up once.

Again your numbers are wrong, and not relevant. Jacks are 49 % against
3 random hands, and we aren't against 4 aggressive mutts, we are
against 4 loose mutts. We aren't doing a "daring move" we are making
the play that has the best expectation. And you have to factor in
implied odds to do this. We aren't going to lose our whole stack 3
times, we are going to lose 12.5 % of it 7 times, and more then quad it
up the 8th time(and this assumes we only have 1k, which seems ludacris
to me in this game).
>
> Methinks there are a lot of people on this thread that need to pay closer
> attention to their pot odds and put aside their concerns of "implieds" until
> they can master the basics. Second guessing yourself with pliable numbers that
> can justify any move (like "implied odds") are only going to cost you money in
> the long run.

Methinks that you just posted this without actually doing an analysis
on the hand with the given conditions. There is nothing wrong with
folding Jacks there if you are a rec player who only brought 5k to play
with. But passing on any profitable situation when you are a pro that
can re-load freely makes no sense. A profitable play isn't going to
cost you money in the long run, it's going to make you money. That's
the whole reason it's considered positive expected value.

Doug

Date: 29 Nov 16:26:49
From: steve1127
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Nov 29 2006 2:52 AM, Douglas Dunn wrote:

> Follow wrote:
> >> You keep talking about implieds in this hand, but never bother to even
> >> calculate
> > them. The pot at the moment of the fold contains $280, which Russ would
> > have to
> > call $125 to enter. This gives him standing odds of 2.2:1 at the flop,
> > assuming
> > it killed all the action behind him. At a loose table, his best case
> > scenario
> > is that the three other callers behind him also just call into the pot
> > putting
> > in another $375 total, which now boosts the pot to a total of $655 which
> > makes
> > the calling approximately 5.3:1, if you could be sure of that outcome.
> > Assuming
> > one of the "loose" players behind went all in and was called by the original
> > raiser, you can now safely assume you're well behind in the hand and are now
> > at
> > odds of about 2.5:1.
>
> I'm going to have to disagree with everything in your post. You aren't
> taking in to consideration the game conditions provided enough. The 3
> players called even after Russ folded, so his call is definately going
> to bring them along. You describe it as "the best possible scenario",
> but it is actually the most likely one.
>
> > Hitting a set on the flop is 7.5:1, even assuming you would win everytime
> > you
> > hit your set on the flop, your call in Russ' position can't possibly get the
> > odds it needs to call. Now, assuming you knew for a fact that each of the
> > previous 3 callers were going to call only, not raise and not fold, you
> > would be
> > losing about 15-16 cents on every dollar you've put into the pot. You can
> > get
> > better odds than that playing craps, what are you doing on a poker table?
> > The
> > other outcomes (folders behind you, or an all-in behind you) will make your
> > odds
> > about on par with a lottery scratcher ticket.
>
> No amount of implied odds? You only need to make about $200 on average
> for this call to break even.
>
> > There are no amount of implied odds that make a call a profitable play on
> > this
> > hand judging by position, odds, and the fact that you're facing a raiser
> > that
> > you need to suck out on. To get your 7.5:1 you need just to break even, you
> > need to hit a set with no overcards on the board, and then you need to
> > sucker
> > another 300 or so into the pot when the flop came up rags besides your jack.
> >
> > Should a king or queen or ace hit, or a 10JQ, you suddenly don't even know
> > where
> > you stand, and these things will happen maybe 15-20% of the time shifting
> > your
> > odds to 9:1, and the money you need to sucker in post flop up to 400 or so!
> >
> None of your numbers are correct :(
>
> > Let me ask you, if I were the $125 raiser in the pot, and I had made my move
> > with my cards face up in front of you, knowing you were a 4:1 dog against my
> > hand, would you put the money into the pot? Russ seemed to be aware of his
> > position well enough to know he should fold in his spot. It's horribly
> > amatuerish to justify terrible calls with a nebulous (and ultimately
> > unprovable)
> > statement about "implied odds."
>
> Of course the call is correct without knowing the hand, now that you
> know it you have an even bigger advantage. Now you can get away from
> that KJx flop, and take the Axx flops away from him. Of course your
> question isn't relevant to the discussion, but the answer to it is the
> opposite of what you think.
>
> >
> > The reason poker players analyze "implied" odds, is when a decision is very
> > close and the "implieds" will push the decision to one side or the other.
> > Not
> > to mention the fact that the pocket jacks come out only about 30% against
> > even 3
> > random hands, let alone 4 aggressive mutts. We don't use "implied" odds to
> > justify daring moves that can cost us our whole stack 3 times just so we can
> > double one of those stacks up once.
>
> Again your numbers are wrong, and not relevant. Jacks are 49 % against
> 3 random hands, and we aren't against 4 aggressive mutts, we are
> against 4 loose mutts. We aren't doing a "daring move" we are making
> the play that has the best expectation. And you have to factor in
> implied odds to do this. We aren't going to lose our whole stack 3
> times, we are going to lose 12.5 % of it 7 times, and more then quad it
> up the 8th time(and this assumes we only have 1k, which seems ludacris
> to me in this game).
> >
> > Methinks there are a lot of people on this thread that need to pay closer
> > attention to their pot odds and put aside their concerns of "implieds" until
> > they can master the basics. Second guessing yourself with pliable numbers
> > that
> > can justify any move (like "implied odds") are only going to cost you money
> > in
> > the long run.
>
> Methinks that you just posted this without actually doing an analysis
> on the hand with the given conditions. There is nothing wrong with
> folding Jacks there if you are a rec player who only brought 5k to play
> with. But passing on any profitable situation when you are a pro that
> can re-load freely makes no sense. A profitable play isn't going to
> cost you money in the long run, it's going to make you money. That's
> the whole reason it's considered positive expected value.
>
> Doug

Hear, hear.

_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 29 Nov 2006 13:07:16
From: John_Brian_K
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

This is unbelieveable how many posts this has attracted. I am no pro,
but hell everyone else has given their opinion so I will give my humble
one. Without doing all the odds and what not I do not believe I could
get away from jacks preflop after a raise by me even if I thought the
person who reraised me had aces or kings. Personally I would call the
reraise and hope to not get a reraise or all in after that. I would
also hope to improve on the flop.

Again after I raise and get reraised preflop with a top 5 hand I call
and hope to hit.

Just my take

Date: 29 Nov 2006 13:48:27
From: DennisP
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
> On 29 Nov 2006 13:27:59 -0800, "DennisP" <dennis.picht@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Avoiding positive expectation hands is not commendable. It is poor
> >poker.
>
> Avoiding only marginally +EV hands in high variance situations isn't
> that bad.

I don't think it is marginally +EV.

Part of the problem in this entire argument is we don't know the exact
stacks though. As I've stated, I'm normally much deeper and this is an
auto call and extremely +EV.

Date: 29 Nov 2006 16:07:02
From: DennisP
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
> On 29 Nov 2006 14:53:45 -0800, "DennisP" <dennis.picht@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The original post did not include anything about a $400 pot.
>
> >That said, no not really. The stack sizes I care about are Russ' and
> >the button.
>
> So you don't care at all about the short stacks, who may be so pot committed
> by the reraise that instead of simply calling, they'll say what the hell and
> jam, thus shooting your implied odds all to hell? If the jam is enough of a
> raise, the reraiser may have the option to jam himself, and then where are
> your implied odds?

I definately care and I was the first one in this thread to point out
that a short stack could go all in behind.

But I would normally have a good read in this situation of the player
and even with the very small description we have and from my experience
I don't see a short stack jamming often enough to pursuade me not to
call here.

I've played many many NL hands and a RR by a stack of $400 here would
be fairly rare.

Now if that player has $250 that may swing my opinion.

The beauty of playing live is that often you can pick up something on
what the short stack player is planning on doing prior to making your
call.

Date: 29 Nov 2006 14:53:45
From: DennisP
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

Follow wrote:
> On Nov 29 2006 2:48 PM, DennisP wrote:
>
> > A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
> > > On 29 Nov 2006 13:27:59 -0800, "DennisP" wrote:
> > >
> > > >Avoiding positive expectation hands is not commendable. It is poor
> > > >poker.
> > >
> > > Avoiding only marginally +EV hands in high variance situations isn't
> > > that bad.
> >
> > I don't think it is marginally +EV.
> >
> > Part of the problem in this entire argument is we don't know the exact
> > stacks though. As I've stated, I'm normally much deeper and this is an
> > auto call and extremely +EV.
>
> Actually, it's fairly easy to deduce the stack sizes. There were 4 players in
> the pot, one of them behind had $400 and the other three had approx. $875
> average chips each. With a $3K pot between them and the guy having $400, it's
> simple algebra from that point.
>
> Now you know the stack sizes, does that change your opinion of the situation?
>
>
>
>
> Follow :)
>
> _______________________________________________________________
> Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com

The original post did not include anything about a $400 pot.

That said, no not really. The stack sizes I care about are Russ' and
the button.

Date: 29 Nov 2006 18:20:49
From: A Man Beaten by Jacks
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On 29 Nov 2006 14:53:45 -0800, "DennisP" <dennis.picht@gmail.com > wrote:

>The original post did not include anything about a $400 pot.

>That said, no not really. The stack sizes I care about are Russ' and
>the button.

So you don't care at all about the short stacks, who may be so pot committed
by the reraise that instead of simply calling, they'll say what the hell and
jam, thus shooting your implied odds all to hell? If the jam is enough of a
raise, the reraiser may have the option to jam himself, and then where are
your implied odds?

Date: 29 Nov 23:43:08
From: Nick Wool
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Nov 29 2006 11:20 PM, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:

> On 29 Nov 2006 14:53:45 -0800, "DennisP" wrote:
>
> >The original post did not include anything about a $400 pot.
>
> >That said, no not really. The stack sizes I care about are Russ' and
> >the button.
>
> So you don't care at all about the short stacks, who may be so pot committed
> by the reraise that instead of simply calling, they'll say what the hell and
> jam, thus shooting your implied odds all to hell? If the jam is enough of a
> raise, the reraiser may have the option to jam himself, and then where are
> your implied odds?

you have 400 in your stack, you have committed 30 to the pot, yet you feel
committed enough to push allin in the face of strong strength by 2 players?

_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 29 Nov 2006 19:03:15
From: A Man Beaten by Jacks
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Wed, 29 Nov 06 23:43:08 GMT, Nick Wool <43079532@recpoker.com > wrote:

>On Nov 29 2006 11:20 PM, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:

>> On 29 Nov 2006 14:53:45 -0800, "DennisP" wrote:

>> >The original post did not include anything about a $400 pot.

>> >That said, no not really. The stack sizes I care about are Russ' and
>> >the button.

>> So you don't care at all about the short stacks, who may be so pot committed
>> by the reraise that instead of simply calling, they'll say what the hell and
>> jam, thus shooting your implied odds all to hell? If the jam is enough of a
>> raise, the reraiser may have the option to jam himself, and then where are
>> your implied odds?

>you have 400 in your stack, you have committed 30 to the pot, yet you feel
>committed enough to push allin in the face of strong strength by 2 players?

Well, I sure as hell am not, unless I was playing aces in a pretty unusual way.
But I'm not going to vouch for what kind of bizarre plays you may get out of the
presumably total idiots who the OP is actually facing, though. Whenever you
don't close out the action with your call, your implied odds are significantly
endangered by not being certain about what the people left to act will do.
There are three of them, in this case.

Then you get to play a big pot after the flop from the worst possible position.
Assuming you get to see a flop at all.

I'm assuming you're playing purely for set value here.

Now, personally, I'm probably going to play this hand, even though I'm going
to fold most flops. But there is a nonzero possibility you don't even get to
see a flop here.

I don't consider this as much of a no-brainer call as some people seem to think
it is. I think it's marginal. Now, I like flopping sets and stacking someone,
and that's probably going to happen often enough to justify the call. I don't
mind that it's somewhat marginal. But I don't think a fold here is all that
bad. And if you have a read that one of the short stacks is contemplating
a goofy ass move, a fold may be perfect.

Because if I'm the guy with kings or aces, and I just saw you call from UTG
after your raise, and any of the three callers reraises me again, I'm going to
jam. Because I don't want you hitting your set with your underpair.

Date: 29 Nov 22:16:26
From: Follow
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Nov 29 2006 2:48 PM, DennisP wrote:

> A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
> > On 29 Nov 2006 13:27:59 -0800, "DennisP" wrote:
> >
> > >Avoiding positive expectation hands is not commendable. It is poor
> > >poker.
> >
> > Avoiding only marginally +EV hands in high variance situations isn't
> > that bad.
>
> I don't think it is marginally +EV.
>
> Part of the problem in this entire argument is we don't know the exact
> stacks though. As I've stated, I'm normally much deeper and this is an
> auto call and extremely +EV.

Actually, it's fairly easy to deduce the stack sizes. There were 4 players in
the pot, one of them behind had $400 and the other three had approx. $875
average chips each. With a $3K pot between them and the guy having $400, it's
simple algebra from that point.

Now you know the stack sizes, does that change your opinion of the situation?

Follow :)

_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 29 Nov 2006 13:27:59
From: DennisP
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

Follow wrote:
> On Nov 29 2006 2:07 PM, John_Brian_K wrote:
>
> > This is unbelieveable how many posts this has attracted. I am no pro,
> > but hell everyone else has given their opinion so I will give my humble
> > one. Without doing all the odds and what not I do not believe I could
> > get away from jacks preflop after a raise by me even if I thought the
> > person who reraised me had aces or kings. Personally I would call the
> > reraise and hope to not get a reraise or all in after that. I would
> > also hope to improve on the flop.
> >
> > Again after I raise and get reraised preflop with a top 5 hand I call
> > and hope to hit.
> >
> > Just my take
>
> Actually, I don't know that I could get away from the hand either. I would have
> to have a great read on the button to know he had me beat, it's a tough
> laydown. But Russ' laydown in this situation was very commendable, and not one
> that most players could read and make in the same situation, including myself.
>
>
>
>
> Follow :)
>
> _______________________________________________________________
> Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com

Avoiding positive expectation hands is not commendable. It is poor
poker.

Date: 29 Nov 2006 16:46:04
From: A Man Beaten by Jacks
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On 29 Nov 2006 13:27:59 -0800, "DennisP" <dennis.picht@gmail.com > wrote:

>Avoiding positive expectation hands is not commendable. It is poor
>poker.

Avoiding only marginally +EV hands in high variance situations isn't
that bad.

Date: 29 Nov 21:12:17
From: Follow
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Nov 29 2006 2:07 PM, John_Brian_K wrote:

> This is unbelieveable how many posts this has attracted. I am no pro,
> but hell everyone else has given their opinion so I will give my humble
> one. Without doing all the odds and what not I do not believe I could
> get away from jacks preflop after a raise by me even if I thought the
> person who reraised me had aces or kings. Personally I would call the
> reraise and hope to not get a reraise or all in after that. I would
> also hope to improve on the flop.
>
> Again after I raise and get reraised preflop with a top 5 hand I call
> and hope to hit.
>
> Just my take

Actually, I don't know that I could get away from the hand either. I would have
to have a great read on the button to know he had me beat, it's a tough
laydown. But Russ' laydown in this situation was very commendable, and not one
that most players could read and make in the same situation, including myself.

Follow :)

_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 30 Nov 2006 17:14:07
From: Travel
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas "GCA"

Follow;1000856 Wrote:
> On Nov 29 2006 2:07 PM, John_Brian_K wrote:
>
> > This is unbelieveable how many posts this has attracted. I am no
> pro,
> > but hell everyone else has given their opinion so I will give my
> humble
> > one. Without doing all the odds and what not I do not believe I
> could
> > get away from jacks preflop after a raise by me even if I thought
> the
> > person who reraised me had aces or kings. Personally I would call
> the
> > reraise and hope to not get a reraise or all in after that. I would
> > also hope to improve on the flop.
> >
> > Again after I raise and get reraised preflop with a top 5 hand I
> call
> > and hope to hit.
> >
> > Just my take
>
> Actually, I don't know that I could get away from the hand either. I
> would have
> to have a great read on the button to know he had me beat, it's a
> tough
> laydown. But Russ' laydown in this situation was very commendable, and
> not one
> that most players could read and make in the same situation, including
> myself.
>
>
>
>
> Follow :)
>
> _______________________________________________________________
> Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com

That's right, no one is saying it's wrong to play that hand, but there
are plenty saying that not playing it is the worst thing they ever
heard.

I don't think that even a good read on the raiser is necessary to lay
JJ down in this situation. An UTG raise gets no respect, three callers,
and a raiser for four opponents seeing the flop, and you're out of
position.

That's four drawing against your JJ. There are overcards and
flush/straight draws against you, out of position in a no-limit game.
JJ isn't looking too good, Uh, why would playing this hand be
important?

--
Travel
- http://www.pokerhelper.com RGP Access News Forums -

Date: 30 Nov 2006 12:01:20
From: David Nicoson
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

Follow wrote:
> There are no amount of implied odds that make a call a profitable play on this
> hand judging by position, odds, and the fact that you're facing a raiser that
> you need to suck out on. To get your 7.5:1 you need just to break even, you
> need to hit a set with no overcards on the board, and then you need to sucker
> another 300 or so into the pot when the flop came up rags besides your jack.

I'm in favor of folding, but I think you're over-emphasising the
preflop action. If we take a flop here, it's to make money on wagers
after the flop. That would be justified if the stacks were larger in
relation to the size of the preflop raise. If the stacks were 3k, I
think this is a call. If the raise were 50, I think this is a call
with the 1k stack size. Ciaffone 5/10 rule and all that.

Date: 30 Nov 2006 23:01:31
From: Douglas Dunn
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

David Nicoson wrote:
> Follow wrote:
> > If the stacks are 3k, I would imagine the stakes would be higher and the $125
> > raise wouldn't be the same multiplier as it is at this level. If the blinds
> > were 10-20 and the raise were $125, this hand would warrant some very different
> > evaluation.
>
> Deep games aren't mythical. I've played in a 1/2 game where $25k was
> on the table. 250xbb isn't an unusual stack size. This stuff happens
> every day.

3k is an average stack at the 5-10 live games I've played at. 1k was
the min buy in for 5-10 when I played in AC. And there was no cap at
all for 5-10 in Southern Miss.

Doug

Date: 30 Nov 2006 16:54:36
From: David Nicoson
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

Follow wrote:
> If the stacks are 3k, I would imagine the stakes would be higher and the $125
> raise wouldn't be the same multiplier as it is at this level. If the blinds
> were 10-20 and the raise were $125, this hand would warrant some very different
> evaluation.

Deep games aren't mythical. I've played in a 1/2 game where $25k was
on the table. 250xbb isn't an unusual stack size. This stuff happens
every day.

Date: 30 Nov 2006 19:12:31
From: David Nicoson
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

Follow wrote:
> On Nov 30 2006 5:54 PM, David Nicoson wrote:
>
> > Deep games aren't mythical. I've played in a 1/2 game where $25k was
> > on the table. 250xbb isn't an unusual stack size. This stuff happens
> > every day.
>
> 250x BB in a 1/2 game is $500, that much is reasonable and would require 50
> people on the table to be $25K.

That's not what I meant. $25k is the most I've ever seen in a 1/2.
That is unusual.

250xbb is not usual.

> I don't see any reason to have more than 250x
> BB in a game, generally I like 100x BB and that's it, no more or less.

If there's fish on the table, I want to have him covered. Why do you
"like" to have 100bb?

> And I didn't say it was mythical (very specifically in my post in fact) I'm sure
> they've happened a few times here and there. I'm just saying that it's very
> VERY rare to have that much money on a 1/2 table.

I mentioned $25k as an extreme. The numbers in the middle are common
in unrestricted buy-in games. Local games here allow a 75% of the big
stack buy-in. Those get big, too.

Date: 01 Dec 2006 12:15:56
From: David Nicoson
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

Follow wrote:
> Because it's the right amount to maximize wins and minimize suckout losses. If
> there are very obvious fish on the table, then maybe I would consider more, but
> it's pretty situational. 100bb is a good rule of thumb though.

I don't have a specific quarrel with 100bb. If we're playing 50bb,
then we run out of play on the turn and river. If we play better than
our opponents, that's a bad thing. Short stack strategies (e.g.,
Miller) work well when the other players are deep and they're making
their bets with the implied odds of the deep stacks in mind. That is,
they're overbetting preflop. I find this sort of play dull, and it's
not really worthwhile at the stakes I usually play.

Against these players, I think we want to get as much in play as
possible.

Date: 01 Dec 20:47:07
From: Follow
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Dec 1 2006 1:15 PM, David Nicoson wrote:

> I don't have a specific quarrel with 100bb. If we're playing 50bb,
> then we run out of play on the turn and river. If we play better than
> our opponents, that's a bad thing. Short stack strategies (e.g.,
> Miller) work well when the other players are deep and they're making
> their bets with the implied odds of the deep stacks in mind. That is,
> they're overbetting preflop. I find this sort of play dull, and it's
> not really worthwhile at the stakes I usually play.
>
> Against these players, I think we want to get as much in play as
> possible.

The counter to getting as much play as possible with loose players like the ones
described are viable as well. The fact of the matter is that we are still
playing poker, and regardless of our large edges, we still stand to get sucked
out on. To give you an example, I had 2 medium buy ins with me when I entered a
california cardroom a few weeks ago. The medium buy was still short for my
liking, but I had only brought a certain amount of money with me and the play
was mostly recreational anyway. About an hour into my game, I had pocket aces
and maneuvered my mark all in during the hand, he had me covered by about $10,
the board was full of safe cards, no flush possibilities and any straight would
have been a gutshot. On the river, the gutshot card came, and my opponent
turned up his cards which fit the straight perfectly (a J8 or some shit) and
took down the pot. I lost my buy in.

On to the second buy in, another hour or so into it I pick up pocket kings. I
maneuver my opponent all in pre-flop hoping to just pick up a small pot rather
than lose a big one like I had an hour ago, but he calls. He turns up a KQo to
my kings. He hits three runners to the straight (910J) and busts my second
roll. Fortunately I had him covered by a bit and had enough play left to spend
the next 4 or so hours in that cardroom grinding out to break even before
leaving at around 4am. Assuming I had bought with max buy in, it would increase
the variance a great deal and I would have been out of play within the first
hour.

When I'm in a room, I expect I can outplay the room one way or another. That
being the case, I am going to minimize variance and come out a winner everytime
rather than increase it and only come out a winner sometimes. Besides playing
limit poker, I haven't walked out of a cardroom in the negative for years.
That's why I limit my buy ins and make sure I have a minimum of 2 buy ins with
me, and usually like to have a total of 5 buys in my pocket in order to work
with the swings while I move. I don't like to let the whole thing ride on the
outcome of one hand and possibly get busted right out on an unlucky card just to
earn a few extra bucks that are as good as mine anyway in the next few hours.
I'll slow it down and take it away slowly on solid values instead, one chip at a
time if I have to. I'm good with the grind, and I'm patient.

That's the value of a poker player, put in a good workday at a casino and watch
these people get overcome with fatigue as they pant and piss and moan until all
their chips wander away. I watched guys donk away 10x their original buy in,
and buy in for 5 more buy ins and donk those off too just because of fatigue.
Go from riches to rags in a second, then wonder what happened the next
morning...

I also get up from the table and walk around every hour, and wash my face.

Follow :)

_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 01 Dec 19:03:00
From: Follow
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Nov 30 2006 8:12 PM, David Nicoson wrote:

> If there's fish on the table, I want to have him covered. Why do you
> "like" to have 100bb?

Because it's the right amount to maximize wins and minimize suckout losses. If
there are very obvious fish on the table, then maybe I would consider more, but
it's pretty situational. 100bb is a good rule of thumb though.

Follow :)

_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 01 Dec
From: Follow
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Nov 30 2006 5:54 PM, David Nicoson wrote:

> Deep games aren't mythical. I've played in a 1/2 game where $25k was
> on the table. 250xbb isn't an unusual stack size. This stuff happens
> every day.

250x BB in a 1/2 game is $500, that much is reasonable and would require 50
people on the table to be $25K. I don't see any reason to have more than 250x
BB in a game, generally I like 100x BB and that's it, no more or less.

And I didn't say it was mythical (very specifically in my post in fact) I'm sure
they've happened a few times here and there. I'm just saying that it's very
VERY rare to have that much money on a 1/2 table.

Follow :)

_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 01 Dec 2006 10:28:37
From: Ron Dworkin
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

Follow wrote:
> On Nov 30 2006 5:54 PM, David Nicoson wrote:
>
> > Deep games aren't mythical. I've played in a 1/2 game where $25k was
> > on the table. 250xbb isn't an unusual stack size. This stuff happens
> > every day.
>
> 250x BB in a 1/2 game is $500, that much is reasonable and would require 50
> people on the table to be $25K. I don't see any reason to have more than 250x
> BB in a game,

Really?

generally I like 100x BB and that's it, no more or less.

Strange - what if you win a pot? Do you get up and leave?

>
> And I didn't say it was mythical (very specifically in my post in fact) I'm sure
> they've happened a few times here and there. I'm just saying that it's very
> VERY rare to have that much money on a 1/2 table.
>
>
>
>
> Follow :)
>
> _______________________________________________________________
> Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 01 Dec 19:04:12
From: Follow
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Dec 1 2006 11:28 AM, Ron Dworkin wrote:

> Strange - what if you win a pot? Do you get up and leave?

Maybe I should have said "I like to buy in with 100bb, no more no less." From
there, it goes where it goes.

Follow :)

_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 30 Nov 2006 15:09:38
From: David Nicoson
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

Date: 30 Nov 23:21:55
From: Follow
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Nov 30 2006 4:09 PM, David Nicoson wrote:

> Deep games aren't mythical. I've played in a 1/2 game where $25k was
> on the table. 250xbb isn't an unusual stack size. This stuff happens
> every day.

Most games I see, the people go through a few hundred every few minutes and have
to keep rebuying to stay afloat. I mean, I've seen 2/5 nl games with $10k at
the table, but that's about the ceiling and those are underground home games.
When you're talking about vegas with the revolving door on the card room, stacks
never get that deep. These guys come in here with the intention of giving poker
a try for a few minutes as if they were tossing a chip on the field in craps to
see if it comes home with friends. They hear the game is 1/2 with a $100
minimum buy in, and that's what they buy for, because they figure that will give
them plenty of chips to work with.

Sure, the deep stack games aren't mythical, but really rare and even more rare
in vegas. Not to mention the fact that we already know this particular game
wasn't deep.

Follow :)

_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 01 Dec 2006 08:04:46
From: Douglas Dunn
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

David Nicoson wrote:
> Follow wrote:
> > When you're talking about vegas with the revolving door on the card room, stacks
> > never get that deep.
>
> The $25k game was at Binions in Vegas. There's usually at least one
> guy with a roll of hundreds in play.
>
> I don't really know, but I imagine the bigger games get deep, too.
>
> > Sure, the deep stack games aren't mythical, but really rare and even more rare
> > in vegas. Not to mention the fact that we already know this particular game
> > wasn't deep.
>
> The point I was making is that if the stacks are deeper then this
> becomes an easy call. Your analysis shows you don't expect to stack
> people after the flop, and I disagree with that in general and in this
> particular instance we can see that the opposition is willing to stack
> off with a single pair.

Well at least we agree on this. I was starting to worry when I was
disagreeing with you, and shared the same point of view as Nick. No
offense to you Nick :)

Doug

Date: 01 Dec 2006 06:04:44
From: David Nicoson
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

Follow wrote:
> When you're talking about vegas with the revolving door on the card room, stacks
> never get that deep.

The $25k game was at Binions in Vegas. There's usually at least one
guy with a roll of hundreds in play.

I don't really know, but I imagine the bigger games get deep, too.

> Sure, the deep stack games aren't mythical, but really rare and even more rare
> in vegas. Not to mention the fact that we already know this particular game
> wasn't deep.

The point I was making is that if the stacks are deeper then this
becomes an easy call. Your analysis shows you don't expect to stack
people after the flop, and I disagree with that in general and in this
particular instance we can see that the opposition is willing to stack
off with a single pair.

Date: 01 Dec 2006 16:42:23
From: Bill Vanek
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On 1 Dec 2006 06:04:44 -0800, "David Nicoson" <bigdavex@yahoo.com >
wrote:

>Follow wrote:
>> When you're talking about vegas with the revolving door on the card room, stacks
>> never get that deep.
>
>The $25k game was at Binions in Vegas. There's usually at least one
>guy with a roll of hundreds in play.

And this particular game is a perfect example of why stack size has
nothing to do with the looseness of the game.

Date: 01 Dec 2006 14:05:42
From: DennisP
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

Follow wrote:
> If the button were the one with the short stack ($400) and the rest all had big
> stacks, then I would call the bet in hopes of playing for the side pot with the
> others while resigning a loss of the main.
>
>
>
>
> Follow :)
>
> _______________________________________________________________
> Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com

Now that is awful reasoning. You'd need an $800 sidepot to break even.
Additionally you are out of position and have a smaller range of hands
for those stacks.

If the button had $400 and you were confident he had you dominated then
I would say to toss this.

Date: 01 Dec 21:55:36
From: Follow
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Dec 1 2006 7:04 AM, David Nicoson wrote:

> The point I was making is that if the stacks are deeper then this
> becomes an easy call. Your analysis shows you don't expect to stack
> people after the flop, and I disagree with that in general and in this
> particular instance we can see that the opposition is willing to stack
> off with a single pair.

I thought of a situation where I would go for this, and the implied odds would
be a great consideration.

If the button were the one with the short stack ($400) and the rest all had big
stacks, then I would call the bet in hopes of playing for the side pot with the
others while resigning a loss of the main.

Follow :)

_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 01 Dec 2006 22:20:35
From: David Nicoson
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

Douglas Dunn wrote:
> Back to disagreeing again. He said he had over $1k, and at least half
> of the table had more then $1k too. And I still have trouble beleiving
> there aren't multiple 3k+ stacks in this type of game. So I not only
> don't know that for certain, I assume the opposite.

I figured "over 1,000" meant something only slightly more than that.
If it means 1,300 or 3,000, then it's a bad fold.

Date: 01 Dec 2006 22:01:39
From: Douglas Dunn
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

David Nicoson wrote:
. We know for certain that Russ couldn't extract more than $1k from
any one
> player.

Back to disagreeing again. He said he had over $1k, and at least half
of the table had more then $1k too. And I still have trouble beleiving
there aren't multiple 3k+ stacks in this type of game. So I not only
don't know that for certain, I assume the opposite.

Doug

Date: 01 Dec 2006 12:51:35
From: David Nicoson
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

Bill Vanek wrote:
> I know the people who are putting the big bankrolls on the table, and
> they know each other. The fact that these people are going to war with
> Q5 & Q2 does not mean they are going to pay *you* off.

Point taken.

> I'm not going to rate their play except to say that they are not as stupid and crazy
> as they might seem.

I wasn't under that impression.

Are you a regular or just know them? I'm wondering if I've played you.

Date: 01 Dec 2006 21:54:44
From: Bill Vanek
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On 1 Dec 2006 12:51:35 -0800, "David Nicoson" <bigdavex@yahoo.com >
wrote:

>Bill Vanek wrote:
>> I know the people who are putting the big bankrolls on the table, and
>> they know each other. The fact that these people are going to war with
>> Q5 & Q2 does not mean they are going to pay *you* off.
>
>Point taken.
>
>> I'm not going to rate their play except to say that they are not as stupid and crazy
>> as they might seem.
>
>I wasn't under that impression.
>
>Are you a regular or just know them?

A little of each, but they're not friends, and these days I just drift
around the city.

> I'm wondering if I've played you.

It's possible, but I don't tell anyone on this group who I am because
of problems with a couple of regulars here.

Date: 01 Dec 2006 10:40:09
From: David Nicoson
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

Bill Vanek wrote:
> On 1 Dec 2006 06:04:44 -0800, "David Nicoson" <bigdavex@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >The $25k game was at Binions in Vegas. There's usually at least one
> >guy with a roll of hundreds in play.
>
> And this particular game is a perfect example of why stack size has
> nothing to do with the looseness of the game.

I hear what you're saying; sometimes money is on the table that isn't
really in play.

The $25k day was, in fact, very loose. For example, one player opened
for $20 UTG. UTG+1 raised to $80. UTG called. There was a bet on the
flop. (I forget which one.) One player showed Q5o for no pair or draw
and folded. The bettor said, "Oh, you had me dominated" and showed Q2o
for no pair or draw.

But big stacks and loose play are related to the point that a person
can't make a loose call with money he doesn't have on the table. We
know for certain that Russ couldn't extract more than $1k from any one
player.

Date: 01 Dec 2006 19:53:50
From: Bill Vanek
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On 1 Dec 2006 10:40:09 -0800, "David Nicoson" <bigdavex@yahoo.com >
wrote:

>Bill Vanek wrote:
>> On 1 Dec 2006 06:04:44 -0800, "David Nicoson" <bigdavex@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>> >The $25k game was at Binions in Vegas. There's usually at least one
>> >guy with a roll of hundreds in play.
>>
>> And this particular game is a perfect example of why stack size has
>> nothing to do with the looseness of the game.
>
>I hear what you're saying; sometimes money is on the table that isn't
>really in play.
>
>The $25k day was, in fact, very loose. For example, one player opened
>for $20 UTG. UTG+1 raised to $80. UTG called. There was a bet on the
>flop. (I forget which one.) One player showed Q5o for no pair or draw
>and folded. The bettor said, "Oh, you had me dominated" and showed Q2o
>for no pair or draw.

I know the people who are putting the big bankrolls on the table, and
they know each other. The fact that these people are going to war with
Q5 & Q2 does not mean they are going to pay *you* off. I'm not going
to rate their play except to say that they are not as stupid and crazy
as they might seem. And I don't think this situation is unique to
Binion's.

(Just to be clear, I am not implying that they are colluding in any
way at Binion's.)

Date: 30 Nov 21:29:10
From: Follow
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Nov 30 2006 1:01 PM, David Nicoson wrote:

> I'm in favor of folding, but I think you're over-emphasising the
> preflop action. If we take a flop here, it's to make money on wagers
> after the flop. That would be justified if the stacks were larger in
> relation to the size of the preflop raise. If the stacks were 3k, I
> think this is a call. If the raise were 50, I think this is a call
> with the 1k stack size. Ciaffone 5/10 rule and all that.

If the stacks are 3k, I would imagine the stakes would be higher and the $125
raise wouldn't be the same multiplier as it is at this level. If the blinds
were 10-20 and the raise were $125, this hand would warrant some very different
evaluation.

Follow :)

_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 01 Dec 2006 14:00:00
From: David Nicoson
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

Follow wrote:
> The reason poker players analyze "implied" odds, is when a decision is very
> close and the "implieds" will push the decision to one side or the other.

I disagree with this emphatically. Implied odds is the dominant factor
for determining the correct play in this situation. I'm really shocked
that this is an issue under debate.

Date: 01 Dec 22:25:30
From: Follow
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Dec 1 2006 3:00 PM, David Nicoson wrote:

> I disagree with this emphatically. Implied odds is the dominant factor
> for determining the correct play in this situation. I'm really shocked
> that this is an issue under debate.

I think I'm really done arguing this point. I don't care if people think it was
the right call anymore, I still don't and the argument just goes around in
circles. I've made a post showing my math and the reasons I believe the call to
be incorrect given the situation, and don't care what sort of reliable donks we
happen to have on the table.

I've spent days making my points, and all those who will be convinced of it are
by now convinced. Those that aren't, can remain that way, I don't care.

But I'm more than happy to have a chat about other things. :)

Follow :)

_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 28 Nov 2006 15:48:13
From: JG
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas "GCA"

Mr. Pittsburgh wrote:
> The players in these games are REALLY, REALLY BAD.

Which means the implied odds are really, really good.

> The players in these games are literally falling all over themselves to
> give away their money.

Then I want to take a lot of flops against these people (the cheaper,
the better).

> Why put yourself in tough positions (like playing JJ
> out of position in a big pot) when you don't have to?

Because the pay off is huge. Play the JJ like pocket 22. You are hoping
for a set, in other words. The hard part comes when the flop comes
something like Ten-high. But really, if you were convinced you were
beat pre-flop, you should be able to lay this down on any flop that
doesn't contain a Jack.

JG

Date: 28 Nov 2006 15:11:58
From: DennisP
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas "GCA"

Mark B (Diputsur) wrote:
> "DennisP" <dennis.picht@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1164751293.063583.159590@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > FellKnight wrote:
> >> On Nov 28 2006 2:34 PM, DennisP wrote:
> >>
> >> > RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
> >> > I laid down JJ under the
> >> > > gun when I made it $30 to go in a $5-$10 game and had three callers,
> >> > > only to be raised $125 by the button. I had over $1,000 in my stack.
> >> > >
> >> > > I folded, the flop came J-10-2 rainbow and three players called $200
> >> > > from the original raiser. Board paired 2's, all three went all in. KK
> >> > > won the pot of about $3,000.
> >> >
> >> > You're folding JJ to in that situation with deep stacks and you are
> >> > trying to give out lessons?
> >>
> >> Wow... you think that playing JJ against a reraise for 12.5% of your stack
> >> is a good play???
> >>
> >> Fell
> >> --
> >> Website: www.fellknight.com
> >> Email: fellknight at gmail dot com
> >>
> >> -----
> >> RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
> >
> >
> > He said he had over $1000, doesn't give an amount. The raise is $95
> > more.
>
> He said: "raised $125" not "raised to $125" ... sounded to me like it was
> $125 more ... if so, there would have been $290 in the pot when it came
> back to him. He's getting a little better than 2:1 as a probable 4:1
> underdog, but he's not even sure if he'll be able to see a flop for another
> $125 because there's still 3 people waiting to act behind him.
> Additionally, he's UTG and got the shittiest seat in the house this hand.
>
> > Unless I have reason to believe that one of the callers was going to RR
> > then yes, I think it is generally bad in this type of game.
>
> Is it me? Or are you contradicting yourself with that statement?
> If the table is loose then you have reason to believe that one of
> the callers may RR... If it's tight then you have reason to believe
> that you've only got 2 cards in the deck which will help and
> about an 1 in 8 chance of seeing one of them on the flop.
> What type of game are you referring to?
>
> Mark
> --
> www.myspace.com/diputsur

A loose table doesn't mean that someone is going to cold call a raise
and then reraise a button raiser. That is very rare and most often
occurs if one of the callers has a short stack and wants to play the
hand, so they jam.

Date: 28 Nov 22:54:32
From: Stu Ungar Fan
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

True! True! True!
http://stuungar.blogspot.com

_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 28 Nov 2006 14:51:31
From: Mr. Pittsburgh
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas "GCA"

The strategy for small buy-in NL games that Russ advocates (mostly in
another post) is a winning one. You guys can quibble over a percentage
point of EV here or there if you want but, to me, it's a lot of
wasted effort. The players in these games are REALLY, REALLY BAD. The
players in these games are literally falling all over themselves to
give away their money. You can press small edges if you like but doing
so is by no means necessary. The day you go home early because you
burned your buy-in racing is a day you cost yourself $500-$1000 that
the tourists would have just given to you.

I don't play quite as tight as what Russ has advocated in these games
but I do recognize the reasoning behind his advice. A) it is very easy
to play his way B) it is very profitable to play his way and C) it is
very easy to teach another player to play his way. You can sit back
and peddle the nuts in these games and make a hefty profit with minimal
stress/variance. Why put yourself in tough positions (like playing JJ
out of position in a big pot) when you don't have to? To me doing so
would be like digging an outhouse for twenty bucks when they are just
giving away hundreds inside the mansion.

Date: 28 Nov 2006 20:20:15
From: JG
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

Susan wrote:
> In
> this way of thinking 45 should be played for any amount of money, as should
> 79 - just look at the draws you have. Preflop every hand is a drawing hand,
> is it not? Whats the cut off?

The cut off is math. If the pot odds, either immediate or implied, are
sufficient, many hands can be played profitably (obviously, the poorer
the hand, the bigger the pot odds you need). Of course, it's not always
easy to know if a hand can be played profitably, since there are so
many variables, and given that it's tough to crunch a lot of numbers at
the table.

Since most games you play in don't give you massive pot odds, you
generally stick to playing decent hands. But, if you are in a juicy
game like Russ describes, you can play some marginal hands and take
some more chances, since the potential payoff is much larger.

> What do you do if the flop is AKJ? or 78J? Or AQJ? Or 234?

These are all tough flops, no doubt. As with most draws, sometimes you
will hit and still lose. This should be factored into your
calculations.

The only flop here that Russ would have an easy laydown with is the 234
flop. Normally, it's tough to get away from a good overpair on a flop
like this, but Russ claims that he knew he was beat pre-flop (which
means he knows he's facing AA, KK, or QQ), so he certainly knows he's
still way behind on a flop of 234, hence he can fold here without much
problem.

BTW, I would get it all-in most times with a flop of 78J. With the
other flops, Russ did suspect AA, KK, or QQ was against him, so he'd
have to know there's a decent chance he's beat if the flop has both an
A and a K in it, or both AQ or KQ.

JG

Date: 28 Nov 2006 19:28:31
From: DennisP
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

No I don't call.

But that is a very unlikely outcome. Why does some flat call and then
raise 8x the current bet?

I'm sure you've played poker a long time, but it seems you don't have a
clue in deep stack no limit.

Susan wrote:
> what do you do if you call and one of the 3 people behind you who have yet
> to act again raise to $1,000? do you still call?
>
>
> "DennisP" <dennis.picht@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1164770239.225539.16710@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
> > No, I agree with JG as well.
> >
> > The biggest problem in this discussion is actual stack size is not
> > mentioned.
> >
> > Drawing to sets is much more powerful than calling w/45s. The problem
> > is bottom two is much more vulnerable than a set. And a flopped
> > straight or flush draw requires putting in a lot more money.
> >
> > I normally play with a minimum of 200 big blinds in front of me and no
> > way in hell would I fold a pocket pair to a raise like this. In this
> > situation there are a few variables we don't know for sure that may
> > cause me to fold, but from the description Russ gives by the size of
> > the pot and the type of table this seems like a very easy call.
> >
> > There is no question jacks may be trouble if it is an overpair here,
> > but if Russ is such a great player he can easily check fold w/o a set.
> >
> > A set with other high cards can be a little more tricky. But I still
> > think it is profitable here.
> >
> >
> > Susan wrote:
> >> I'm going out on a limb here, JG, but without re-reading the thread all
> >> over
> >> again I think you are the only one arguing your side? Somewhere else you
> >> wrote a draw could be profitable if you have 1 out, 10 outs or whatever.
> >> In
> >> this way of thinking 45 should be played for any amount of money, as
> >> should
> >> 79 - just look at the draws you have. Preflop every hand is a drawing
> >> hand,
> >> is it not? Whats the cut off?
> >>
> >> He got the perfect flop, yes. He would have won, yes.
> >>
> >> What do you do if the flop is AKJ? or 78J? Or AQJ? Or 234?
> >>
> >> I'm just trying to understand your thinking. Believe it or not I have
> >> played poker for *probably* longer than you have been alive, but I still
> >> have much to learn.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "JG" <HeckaGuy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1164768511.282255.135920@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> >> > mo_charles wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> russ played the hand perfectly.
> >> >
> >> > If you are reliably getting great implied odds, playing the hand the
> >> > way Russ did is wrong, and costs you money. Heck, you can make a
> >> > fortune drawing to sets if your opponents are deep-stacked and are also
> >> > poor players.
> >> >
> >> > JG
> >> >
> >

Date: 28 Nov 2006 19:17:19
From: DennisP
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

No, I agree with JG as well.

The biggest problem in this discussion is actual stack size is not
mentioned.

Drawing to sets is much more powerful than calling w/45s. The problem
is bottom two is much more vulnerable than a set. And a flopped
straight or flush draw requires putting in a lot more money.

I normally play with a minimum of 200 big blinds in front of me and no
way in hell would I fold a pocket pair to a raise like this. In this
situation there are a few variables we don't know for sure that may
cause me to fold, but from the description Russ gives by the size of
the pot and the type of table this seems like a very easy call.

There is no question jacks may be trouble if it is an overpair here,
but if Russ is such a great player he can easily check fold w/o a set.

A set with other high cards can be a little more tricky. But I still
think it is profitable here.

Susan wrote:
> I'm going out on a limb here, JG, but without re-reading the thread all over
> again I think you are the only one arguing your side? Somewhere else you
> wrote a draw could be profitable if you have 1 out, 10 outs or whatever. In
> this way of thinking 45 should be played for any amount of money, as should
> 79 - just look at the draws you have. Preflop every hand is a drawing hand,
> is it not? Whats the cut off?
>
> He got the perfect flop, yes. He would have won, yes.
>
> What do you do if the flop is AKJ? or 78J? Or AQJ? Or 234?
>
> I'm just trying to understand your thinking. Believe it or not I have
> played poker for *probably* longer than you have been alive, but I still
> have much to learn.
>
>
>
>
>
> "JG" <HeckaGuy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1164768511.282255.135920@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> > mo_charles wrote:
> >>
> >> russ played the hand perfectly.
> >
> > If you are reliably getting great implied odds, playing the hand the
> > way Russ did is wrong, and costs you money. Heck, you can make a
> > fortune drawing to sets if your opponents are deep-stacked and are also
> > poor players.
> >
> > JG
> >

Date: 28 Nov 2006 21:23:10
From: Susan
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

what do you do if you call and one of the 3 people behind you who have yet
to act again raise to $1,000? do you still call?

"DennisP" <dennis.picht@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1164770239.225539.16710@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
> No, I agree with JG as well.
>
> The biggest problem in this discussion is actual stack size is not
> mentioned.
>
> Drawing to sets is much more powerful than calling w/45s. The problem
> is bottom two is much more vulnerable than a set. And a flopped
> straight or flush draw requires putting in a lot more money.
>
> I normally play with a minimum of 200 big blinds in front of me and no
> way in hell would I fold a pocket pair to a raise like this. In this
> situation there are a few variables we don't know for sure that may
> cause me to fold, but from the description Russ gives by the size of
> the pot and the type of table this seems like a very easy call.
>
> There is no question jacks may be trouble if it is an overpair here,
> but if Russ is such a great player he can easily check fold w/o a set.
>
> A set with other high cards can be a little more tricky. But I still
> think it is profitable here.
>
>
> Susan wrote:
>> I'm going out on a limb here, JG, but without re-reading the thread all
>> over
>> again I think you are the only one arguing your side? Somewhere else you
>> wrote a draw could be profitable if you have 1 out, 10 outs or whatever.
>> In
>> this way of thinking 45 should be played for any amount of money, as
>> should
>> 79 - just look at the draws you have. Preflop every hand is a drawing
>> hand,
>> is it not? Whats the cut off?
>>
>> He got the perfect flop, yes. He would have won, yes.
>>
>> What do you do if the flop is AKJ? or 78J? Or AQJ? Or 234?
>>
>> I'm just trying to understand your thinking. Believe it or not I have
>> played poker for *probably* longer than you have been alive, but I still
>> have much to learn.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "JG" <HeckaGuy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1164768511.282255.135920@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>> > mo_charles wrote:
>> >>
>> >> russ played the hand perfectly.
>> >
>> > If you are reliably getting great implied odds, playing the hand the
>> > way Russ did is wrong, and costs you money. Heck, you can make a
>> > fortune drawing to sets if your opponents are deep-stacked and are also
>> > poor players.
>> >
>> > JG
>> >
>

Date: 29 Nov 16:14:50
From: steve1127
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Nov 28 2006 10:22 PM, Susan wrote:

> what do you do if you call and one of the 3 people behind you who have yet
> to act again raise to $1,000? do you still call?

No. You fold.

>
>
> "DennisP" wrote in message
> news:1164770239.225539.16710@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
> > No, I agree with JG as well.
> >
> > The biggest problem in this discussion is actual stack size is not
> > mentioned.
> >
> > Drawing to sets is much more powerful than calling w/45s. The problem
> > is bottom two is much more vulnerable than a set. And a flopped
> > straight or flush draw requires putting in a lot more money.
> >
> > I normally play with a minimum of 200 big blinds in front of me and no
> > way in hell would I fold a pocket pair to a raise like this. In this
> > situation there are a few variables we don't know for sure that may
> > cause me to fold, but from the description Russ gives by the size of
> > the pot and the type of table this seems like a very easy call.
> >
> > There is no question jacks may be trouble if it is an overpair here,
> > but if Russ is such a great player he can easily check fold w/o a set.
> >
> > A set with other high cards can be a little more tricky. But I still
> > think it is profitable here.
> >
> >
> > Susan wrote:
> >> I'm going out on a limb here, JG, but without re-reading the thread all
> >> over
> >> again I think you are the only one arguing your side? Somewhere else you
> >> wrote a draw could be profitable if you have 1 out, 10 outs or whatever.
> >> In
> >> this way of thinking 45 should be played for any amount of money, as
> >> should
> >> 79 - just look at the draws you have. Preflop every hand is a drawing
> >> hand,
> >> is it not? Whats the cut off?
> >>
> >> He got the perfect flop, yes. He would have won, yes.
> >>
> >> What do you do if the flop is AKJ? or 78J? Or AQJ? Or 234?
> >>
> >> I'm just trying to understand your thinking. Believe it or not I have
> >> played poker for *probably* longer than you have been alive, but I still
> >> have much to learn.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "JG" wrote in message
> >> news:1164768511.282255.135920@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> >> > mo_charles wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> russ played the hand perfectly.
> >> >
> >> > If you are reliably getting great implied odds, playing the hand the
> >> > way Russ did is wrong, and costs you money. Heck, you can make a
> >> > fortune drawing to sets if your opponents are deep-stacked and are also
> >> > poor players.
> >> >
> >> > JG
> >> >
> >

_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 28 Nov 2006 18:48:31
From: JG
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

mo_charles wrote:
>
> russ played the hand perfectly.

If you are reliably getting great implied odds, playing the hand the
way Russ did is wrong, and costs you money. Heck, you can make a
fortune drawing to sets if your opponents are deep-stacked and are also
poor players.

JG

Date: 28 Nov 2006 21:07:26
From: Susan
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

I'm going out on a limb here, JG, but without re-reading the thread all over
again I think you are the only one arguing your side? Somewhere else you
wrote a draw could be profitable if you have 1 out, 10 outs or whatever. In
this way of thinking 45 should be played for any amount of money, as should
79 - just look at the draws you have. Preflop every hand is a drawing hand,
is it not? Whats the cut off?

He got the perfect flop, yes. He would have won, yes.

What do you do if the flop is AKJ? or 78J? Or AQJ? Or 234?

I'm just trying to understand your thinking. Believe it or not I have
played poker for *probably* longer than you have been alive, but I still
have much to learn.

"JG" <HeckaGuy@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1164768511.282255.135920@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> mo_charles wrote:
>>
>> russ played the hand perfectly.
>
> If you are reliably getting great implied odds, playing the hand the
> way Russ did is wrong, and costs you money. Heck, you can make a
> fortune drawing to sets if your opponents are deep-stacked and are also
> poor players.
>
> JG
>

Date: 29 Nov 16:08:04
From: steve1127
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Nov 28 2006 10:07 PM, Susan wrote:

> I'm going out on a limb here, JG, but without re-reading the thread all over
> again I think you are the only one arguing your side? Somewhere else you
> wrote a draw could be profitable if you have 1 out, 10 outs or whatever. In
> this way of thinking 45 should be played for any amount of money, as should
> 79 - just look at the draws you have. Preflop every hand is a drawing hand,
> is it not? Whats the cut off?

He is not the only one arguing his side. There were at least 3 other posters
who agreed. I also agree, for what it's worth. And no, his logic does not lead
to playing 45 for any amount of money. It would lead to playing 45 in this
situation, though, if you're sure you're against a big pair. Not sure why
that's a bad idea, though, assuming deep stacks, the ability to rebuy, and the
ability to get away from a 752
>
> He got the perfect flop, yes. He would have won, yes.
>
> What do you do if the flop is AKJ? or 78J? Or AQJ? Or 234?
>
Fold, bet, fold, fold

> I'm just trying to understand your thinking. Believe it or not I have
> played poker for *probably* longer than you have been alive, but I still
> have much to learn.
>
I'm not sure that the length you've played poker is especially relevant. You've
probably played poker longer than Phil Ivey's been alive too -- you better than
him?
>
>
>
>
> "JG" wrote in message
> news:1164768511.282255.135920@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> > mo_charles wrote:
> >>
> >> russ played the hand perfectly.
> >
> > If you are reliably getting great implied odds, playing the hand the
> > way Russ did is wrong, and costs you money. Heck, you can make a
> > fortune drawing to sets if your opponents are deep-stacked and are also
> > poor players.
> >
> > JG
> >

_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 29 Nov 2006 08:15:29
From: mo_charles
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

> > What do you do if the flop is AKJ? or 78J? Or AQJ? Or 234?
> >
> Fold, bet, fold, fold

rofl. sure thing, sparky. let's talk some more about those implied odds
and big paydays when a jack hits. wait, let's fold!

mo_charles

--------
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com

Date: 30 Nov 22:28:26
From: steve1127
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Nov 29 2006 11:15 AM, mo_charles wrote:

> > > What do you do if the flop is AKJ? or 78J? Or AQJ? Or 234?
> > >
> > Fold, bet, fold, fold
>
> rofl. sure thing, sparky. let's talk some more about those implied odds
> and big paydays when a jack hits. wait, let's fold!
>
> mo_charles

I don't really get why this is so complicated. Russ has this magical read that
his opponent MUST have AA, KK or QQ. OK, so if 2 overs and a J hit, odds are
2/3 that I'm beat. I should fold. This isn't that ridiculous an idea.

_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 30 Nov 2006 16:10:09
From: mo_charles
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

> > > > What do you do if the flop is AKJ? or 78J? Or AQJ? Or 234?
> > > >
> > > Fold, bet, fold, fold
> >
> > rofl. sure thing, sparky. let's talk some more about those implied odds
> > and big paydays when a jack hits. wait, let's fold!
>
> I don't really get why this is so complicated. Russ has this magical read
that
> his opponent MUST have AA, KK or QQ. OK, so if 2 overs and a J hit, odds are
> 2/3 that I'm beat. I should fold. This isn't that ridiculous an idea.

it's only complicated by the fact that you think you know what you're
talking about when you really don't. all the positive ev arguments in the
thread i've read so far suggest that we're one in eight to win 2k-3k. you
just said we weren't even close to that:

price.
odds to hit set.
odds the board scares us enough to fold said set.
odds the board is beautiful, but overpair (or ANY OTHER hand at showdown)
sucks out.
cost long-run.
compute a reasonable payoff (note: 3 donks stacking off isn't reasonable)
and compare.

mo_charles

______________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com

Date: 01 Dec 2006 07:03:41
From: Backslider23
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

Date: 01 Dec 2006 12:51:34
From: Mark B $Diputsur$
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

"Backslider23" <fishrfun@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:drs544xnh1.ln2@recgroups.com...
> On Nov 28 2006 10:07 PM, Susan wrote:
>
>> I'm going out on a limb here, JG, but without re-reading the thread all
>> over
>> again I think you are the only one arguing your side? Somewhere else you
>> wrote a draw could be profitable if you have 1 out, 10 outs or whatever.
>> In
>> this way of thinking 45 should be played for any amount of money, as should
>> 79 - just look at the draws you have. Preflop every hand is a drawing
>> hand,
>> is it not? Whats the cut off?
>>
>> He got the perfect flop, yes. He would have won, yes.
>>
>> What do you do if the flop is AKJ? or 78J? Or AQJ? Or 234?
>
> This is my favorite game.
>
> What would do if the flop is J22? J23? J24? J25? J26? J27? J28?
> J29? J2T? JJ2? J33? J43? J53? J63? J73? J83? J93? ISN'T THIS
> FUN?!
>
> Who cares?
>
> All of you arguing that it is a clear fold.. do you ever play a middle
> pair trying to hit a set in a NL cash game?

When it's relatively cheap.

> Of course you do. And you do
> it knowing you only have "two outs" many times.

Not for > 10% of my stack.

Date: 29 Nov 2006 21:58:58
From: xyious
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Nov 29 2006 3:48 AM, JG wrote:
> mo_charles wrote:
> >
> > russ played the hand perfectly.
>
> If you are reliably getting great implied odds, playing the hand the
> way Russ did is wrong, and costs you money. Heck, you can make a
> fortune drawing to sets if your opponents are deep-stacked and are also
> poor players.

if you're 'reliably getting great implied odds', you're implying that your
opponent will always stack off with his KK.
so you get your flop, check-raise all in.....

Board: Js Tc 2h
Dead:

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 88.1818 % 88.18% 00.00% { JdJh }
Hand 2: 11.8182 % 11.82% 00.00% { KcKs }

and your opponent wins 11.8% of the time.
now you've paid 1/8 of your stack and flop a set about 1 time in 8. then
obviously you double up 88.2% of the time and lose 11.8% of the time. thus
making it unprofitable.

the other point here is that you're getting a HUGE increase in variance,
and russ decided to pass up the opportunity of a possibly profitable
situation in favor of reducing his variance.

i think it's a good play.

>
> JG

-Alexander Knopf
http://www.xyious.com/?links

----
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com

Date: 30 Nov 2006 01:26:05
From: A Man Beaten by Jacks
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 21:58:58 -0800, "xyious" <a52dfe8@webnntp.invalid > wrote:

>On Nov 29 2006 3:48 AM, JG wrote:
>> mo_charles wrote:

>> > russ played the hand perfectly.

>> If you are reliably getting great implied odds, playing the hand the
>> way Russ did is wrong, and costs you money. Heck, you can make a
>> fortune drawing to sets if your opponents are deep-stacked and are also
>> poor players.

>if you're 'reliably getting great implied odds', you're implying that your
>opponent will always stack off with his KK.
>so you get your flop, check-raise all in.....

>Board: Js Tc 2h
>Dead:

> equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
>Hand 1: 88.1818 % 88.18% 00.00% { JdJh }
>Hand 2: 11.8182 % 11.82% 00.00% { KcKs }

>and your opponent wins 11.8% of the time.
>now you've paid 1/8 of your stack and flop a set about 1 time in 8. then
>obviously you double up 88.2% of the time and lose 11.8% of the time. thus
>making it unprofitable.

Note there may end up being more dead money in the pot from the three
callers of the original raise, who may call the reraise as well (or do something
more unpredictable).

>the other point here is that you're getting a HUGE increase in variance,
>and russ decided to pass up the opportunity of a possibly profitable
>situation in favor of reducing his variance.

>i think it's a good play.

I think it's one reasonable play, but that calling is also reasonable.

Date: 30 Nov 2006 08:04:27
From: xyious
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Nov 30 2006 7:26 AM, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 21:58:58 -0800, "xyious" <a52dfe8@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
> >On Nov 29 2006 3:48 AM, JG wrote:
> >> mo_charles wrote:
>
> >> > russ played the hand perfectly.
>
> >> If you are reliably getting great implied odds, playing the hand the
> >> way Russ did is wrong, and costs you money. Heck, you can make a
> >> fortune drawing to sets if your opponents are deep-stacked and are also
> >> poor players.
>
> >if you're 'reliably getting great implied odds', you're implying that your
> >opponent will always stack off with his KK.
> >so you get your flop, check-raise all in.....
>
> >Board: Js Tc 2h
> >Dead:
>
> > equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
> >Hand 1: 88.1818 % 88.18% 00.00% { JdJh }
> >Hand 2: 11.8182 % 11.82% 00.00% { KcKs }
>
> >and your opponent wins 11.8% of the time.
> >now you've paid 1/8 of your stack and flop a set about 1 time in 8. then
> >obviously you double up 88.2% of the time and lose 11.8% of the time. thus
> >making it unprofitable.
>
> Note there may end up being more dead money in the pot from the three
> callers of the original raise, who may call the reraise as well (or do
something
> more unpredictable).
>
> >the other point here is that you're getting a HUGE increase in variance,
> >and russ decided to pass up the opportunity of a possibly profitable
> >situation in favor of reducing his variance.
>
> >i think it's a good play.
>
> I think it's one reasonable play, but that calling is also reasonable.

agreed.

-Alexander Knopf
http://www.xyious.com/?links

------
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com

Date: 28 Nov 2006 18:37:16
From: JG
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

mo_charles wrote:
> > I didn't say it wasn't a drawing hand. I just myself prefer to play drawing
> > hands with more than 2 outs.

A draw can be played profitably whether you have 1 out, 10 outs, or any
other amount of outs (depending, of course, on the price you are
getting or expect to get). You don't determine the value of a draw
solely by the absolute number of outs you have.

> > I'm also not sure how you figured the implied odds when you have no
> > knowledge of whether the 3 others players will call or not.

I don't know of anyone who can predict the future. Nonetheless, this
shouldn't stop you from playing poker, or trying to estimate what your
opponents will do.

> moreover, you don't know if your two outs are actually outs. there's no
> discussion here if the jack doesn't hit, and the board doesn't fill.

This is true of most draws, and it should be factored in. It doesn't
mean you don't play draws, though.

You guys are acting like you've never heard of a draw before!

JG

Date: 29 Nov 2006 07:54:31
From: mo_charles
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

> > > I didn't say it wasn't a drawing hand. I just myself prefer to play
drawing
> > > hands with more than 2 outs.
>
> A draw can be played profitably whether you have 1 out, 10 outs, or any
> other amount of outs (depending, of course, on the price you are
> getting or expect to get). You don't determine the value of a draw
> solely by the absolute number of outs you have.

gary carson's written a book you need to read.

> > > I'm also not sure how you figured the implied odds when you have no
> > > knowledge of whether the 3 others players will call or not.
>
> I don't know of anyone who can predict the future. Nonetheless, this
> shouldn't stop you from playing poker, or trying to estimate what your
> opponents will do.

just estimate that they'll do exactly what you think they will.

> > moreover, you don't know if your two outs are actually outs. there's no
> > discussion here if the jack doesn't hit, and the board doesn't fill.
>
> This is true of most draws, and it should be factored in. It doesn't
> mean you don't play draws, though.
>
> You guys are acting like you've never heard of a draw before!

i've heard of a draw before. what hands do well multi-way in loose games,
and which hands are hard to play given similar conditions? why the hell
would you take a decent pair to battle here when your two outs might not
even constitute outs? you've decided that if your set hits you'll make 2k
(or whatever) - you won't make that much everytime or even most times, and
you'll lose your stack a number of times your jack hits and the hand
loses. you're all fixated on the missed pot, but have done nothing to
analyze REAL RISK.

mo_charles

____________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com

Date: 28 Nov 2006 17:49:50
From: DennisP
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

Mr. Pittsburgh wrote:
But seriously, are you really
> looking to call off over 10% of your stack with 22 or some such
> "drawing hand" before the flop?

Who said it was over 10%?

Russ said he had over $1000. Assuming he had been winning at this
table there is no reason for a good player to have less than $2000.

Assuming either Russ or the villian only had $1000 preflop then this
raise may be a bit high to call if heads up. But, it is fairly obvious
there is going to be at least one call and likely two, behind you.

If you're folding here I'll RR you with position every time.

Date: 28 Nov 2006 16:58:21
From: JG
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

Susan wrote:
> I agree with you. Also, maybe you can call JJ a drawing hand, but most
> drawing hands have MORE than 2 outs.

Any hand that is not currently the best hand is a drawing hand.

It is certainly mathematically correct to draw to a set pre-flop if the
pot/implied odds justify it. The same is true for any draw, at any
point in the hand.

JG

Date: 28 Nov 2006 19:05:22
From: Susan
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

I didn't say it wasn't a drawing hand. I just myself prefer to play drawing
hands with more than 2 outs.

I'm also not sure how you figured the implied odds when you have no
knowledge of whether the 3 others players will call or not. This wasn't a
limit hold'em raise, but a raise of 4 times the original bet. In limit
hold'em a call or re-raise is definately called for.

"JG" <HeckaGuy@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1164761901.516960.180990@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
> Susan wrote:
>> I agree with you. Also, maybe you can call JJ a drawing hand, but most
>> drawing hands have MORE than 2 outs.
>
> Any hand that is not currently the best hand is a drawing hand.
>
> It is certainly mathematically correct to draw to a set pre-flop if the
> pot/implied odds justify it. The same is true for any draw, at any
> point in the hand.
>
> JG
>

Date: 28 Nov 2006 17:28:38
From: mo_charles
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

> I didn't say it wasn't a drawing hand. I just myself prefer to play drawing
> hands with more than 2 outs.
>
> I'm also not sure how you figured the implied odds when you have no
> knowledge of whether the 3 others players will call or not. This wasn't a
> limit hold'em raise, but a raise of 4 times the original bet. In limit
> hold'em a call or re-raise is definately called for.

moreover, you don't know if your two outs are actually outs. there's no
discussion here if the jack doesn't hit, and the board doesn't fill.
process not results. russ played the hand perfectly.

mo_charles

____________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com

Date: 28 Nov 2006 16:54:28
From: JG
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

Mr. Pittsburgh wrote:
>
> I'm going to be polite here because your advice seems well
> intentioned.

There's no need to be pull any punches. I can handle it.

> I am not missing the point.

Yes, you are.

> Please read and carefully consider Russ' example. The JJ pot has
> been raised to $155 before the flop. This GREATLY reduces Russ'
> implied odds.

No, not necessarily. If the player doing the raising is a poor player
-- which is the entire premise of Russ's advice to move to Vegas --
then the implied odds are the guy's whole stack. That's not even
counting any other players who also make the call (and given Russ's
description of these games, there stands a good chance that other
players will come along).

> But seriously, are you really looking to call off over 10% of your stack with 22
> or some such "drawing hand" before the flop?

If the payout justifies it, yes. And given Russ's description of the
hands, the payouts are *huge* in these games.

> What if you only get 1 caller the 1 time in 8 when you connect with the flop?

Russ said the games were loose, not tight, so we should typically
expect multiway action. Drawing hands are made for loose games like
these. But, since we're playing NL, even one caller with a deep enough
stack may be enough to justify playing a given hand.

> Please demonstrate to me, mathematically, the "edge" in this hand
> that you describe as "not small."

It's the entire theory about playing draws (mainly, pot odds/implied
odds relative to the chance of hitting your draw).

The reason why you are not pushing a 'small' edge here is because you
are looking to hit a big hand, or fold if you miss. You are not looking
to take an unimproved JJ to the river for a huge chunk of money. You
are not looking to race with AK for all your money. And so on.

JG

Date: 29 Nov 2006 13:22:40
From: Mark B $Diputsur$
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

"JG" <HeckaGuy@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1164761668.763558.213960@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
> Mr. Pittsburgh wrote:
>>
>> I'm going to be polite here because your advice seems well
>> intentioned.
>
> There's no need to be pull any punches. I can handle it.
>
>> I am not missing the point.
>
> Yes, you are.
>
>> Please read and carefully consider Russ' example. The JJ pot has
>> been raised to $155 before the flop. This GREATLY reduces Russ'
>> implied odds.
>
> No, not necessarily. If the player doing the raising is a poor player
> -- which is the entire premise of Russ's advice to move to Vegas --
> then the implied odds are the guy's whole stack. That's not even
> counting any other players who also make the call (and given Russ's
> description of these games, there stands a good chance that other
> players will come along).
>
>> But seriously, are you really looking to call off over 10% of your stack
>> with 22
>> or some such "drawing hand" before the flop?
>
> If the payout justifies it, yes. And given Russ's description of the
> hands, the payouts are *huge* in these games.
>
>> What if you only get 1 caller the 1 time in 8 when you connect with the
>> flop?
>
> Russ said the games were loose, not tight,

Actually, I believe what he said was that the players were "aggressive"
but not particularly dangerous.

Date: 28 Nov 2006 16:24:27
From: Mr. Pittsburgh
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

> You are missing the point. In this spot, play JJ as a drawing hand. You
> would not play JJ as a made, standalone hand that you would be happy to
> stack off with.

I'm going to be polite here because your advice seems well
intentioned.

I am not missing the point. The concepts you are "explaining" to
me could not be more simple. I would guess that most players
understand them fully within their first few months of playing NL.

Please read and carefully consider Russ' example. The JJ pot has
been raised to $155 before the flop. This GREATLY reduces Russ'
implied odds. You say to play JJ like pocket deuces or a drawing hand
(which isn't necessarily bad advice). But seriously, are you really
looking to call off over 10% of your stack with 22 or some such
"drawing hand" before the flop? What if you only get 1 caller the
1 time in 8 when you connect with the flop? What if that guy has
unimproved AK and folds to a bet on the flop? Was it profitable
calling off over 10% of your chips the other 7 times?

> You are not trying to press a small edge here.

Please demonstrate to me, mathematically, the "edge" in this hand
that you describe as "not small." I'm wrong about something
every day. If you can show me that I'm wrong in this example I will
be grateful for the lesson.

Date: 28 Nov 2006 18:37:45
From: Susan
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

I agree with you. Also, maybe you can call JJ a drawing hand, but most
drawing hands have MORE than 2 outs.

"Mr. Pittsburgh" <pittsburgh_peter@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1164759867.339109.125420@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> You are missing the point. In this spot, play JJ as a drawing hand. You
>> would not play JJ as a made, standalone hand that you would be happy to
>> stack off with.
>
> I'm going to be polite here because your advice seems well
> intentioned.
>
> I am not missing the point. The concepts you are "explaining" to
> me could not be more simple. I would guess that most players
> understand them fully within their first few months of playing NL.
>
> Please read and carefully consider Russ' example. The JJ pot has
> been raised to $155 before the flop. This GREATLY reduces Russ'
> implied odds. You say to play JJ like pocket deuces or a drawing hand
> (which isn't necessarily bad advice). But seriously, are you really
> looking to call off over 10% of your stack with 22 or some such
> "drawing hand" before the flop? What if you only get 1 caller the
> 1 time in 8 when you connect with the flop? What if that guy has
> unimproved AK and folds to a bet on the flop? Was it profitable
> calling off over 10% of your chips the other 7 times?
>
>
>> You are not trying to press a small edge here.
>
> Please demonstrate to me, mathematically, the "edge" in this hand
> that you describe as "not small." I'm wrong about something
> every day. If you can show me that I'm wrong in this example I will
> be grateful for the lesson.
>

Date: 28 Nov 2006 16:00:07
From: JG
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

Mr. Pittsburgh wrote:
>
> How do you play it if the flop comes all babies and gets checked
> around? Fold to a small bet on a blank turn?

You are missing the point. In this spot, play JJ as a drawing hand. You
would not play JJ as a made, standalone hand that you would be happy to
stack off with.

Russ said he folded because he knew his hand was presently no good
(meaning he assumes he's up against AA-QQ). But, we all put money into
the pot sometimes when we are pretty sure we are behind. It's called a
draw. The same kind of deal when you are drawing to a straight or a
flush, for example.

As for your other scenarios, like when the flop comes tough even when
your draw comes in, you have to use your better judgement. Unless you
are suggesting that you never draw?

> None of that is the point, however. The point is: YOU DON'T NEED TO
> PRESS SMALL EDGES IN THESE GAMES.

You are not trying to press a small edge here.

JG

Date: 29 Nov 2006 17:10:29
From: Travel
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas "GCA"

JG;1000171 Wrote:
> Mr. Pittsburgh wrote:
> >
> > How do you play it if the flop comes all babies and gets checked
> > around? Fold to a small bet on a blank turn?
>
> You are missing the point. In this spot, play JJ as a drawing hand.
> You
> would not play JJ as a made, standalone hand that you would be happy
> to
> stack off with.
>
> Russ said he folded because he knew his hand was presently no good
> (meaning he assumes he's up against AA-QQ). But, we all put money into
> the pot sometimes when we are pretty sure we are behind. It's called a
> draw. The same kind of deal when you are drawing to a straight or a
> flush, for example.
>
> As for your other scenarios, like when the flop comes tough even when
> your draw comes in, you have to use your better judgement. Unless you
> are suggesting that you never draw?
>
> > None of that is the point, however. The point is: YOU DON'T NEED TO
> > PRESS SMALL EDGES IN THESE GAMES.
>
>
>
>
> You are not trying to press a small edge here.
>
> JG

Actually, you are.

You're talking as if this is the only hand that will be played in the
entire game.

You raised UTG, and you have callers and a reraise. With JJ you want to
detect weakness from your opponents, but that didn't happen. You're out
of position with only $30invested; fold.

If it's a loose game you have implied odds on every hand, why screw
around in a hand that "feels" bad (higher pocket pair) and will cost
you another $125.

Again, this isn't the only hand with an implied odds consideration;
every hand will have a big pot.
..................
It's funny, most threads where posters are explaining why they folded
in a hand, it seems I hardly ever agree.

The reason given for folding is usually from "putting an opponent on a
higher hand" when there's no particular reason, from the action of the
opponents, to come to that conclusion.

Here's a case where there's a reason to believe you're beat, and you
want to chase it like it's the only big pot they'll be all day.

--
Travel
- http://www.pokerhelper.com RGP Access News Forums -

Date: 28 Nov 2006 15:54:31
From: DennisP
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

Mr. Pittsburgh wrote:
> >"Not necessary to play a big pot. Play a small one unless you hit your Jack"
>
>
> If Russ called there would have been around $800 in the pot preflop.
> 80 big bets. That's a "small" pot?
>
> How do you play it if the flop comes all babies and gets checked
> around? Fold to a small bet on a blank turn? What about QJT or AKJ?
> Push with confidence? What if it comes 9TQ rainbow and it gets checked
> to last position who bets $150? Do you fold there as well?
>
> In my experience, a lot of guys talk a very disciplined game at their
> computers only to make a lot of mistakes in a live game. But I'm
> sure that all of you guys who want to play out this hand are
> exceptions. I'm guessing that all of you would play your Jacks
> perfectly in this situation.
>
>
> > "But this is a ring game. If you can only afford one buy-in, then you probably
> > shouldn't be playing anyway."
>
>
> Okay, I'm going to make a similar point here. Maybe you are the rare
> amateur who can get stacked once or twice and still play his A game.
> Most guys can't. Most guys chase. Most guys would be better off
> going home after they lose 100 big bets.
>
> None of that is the point, however. The point is: YOU DON'T NEED TO
> PRESS SMALL EDGES IN THESE GAMES.

I play NL to win big pots and most of those come from flopping sets
against overpairs. It's not a small edge, it is over half my profits.

To say someone should go home losing 100 big bets is ridiculous. Since
we're talking NL I'm not even sure what you mean by big bet. 100 big
blinds is less than I'd buy in for in a live game that doesn't have a
cap.

Date: 28 Nov 2006 15:47:12
From: Mr. Pittsburgh
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

>"Not necessary to play a big pot. Play a small one unless you hit your Jack"

If Russ called there would have been around $800 in the pot preflop.
80 big bets. That's a "small" pot?

How do you play it if the flop comes all babies and gets checked
around? Fold to a small bet on a blank turn? What about QJT or AKJ?
Push with confidence? What if it comes 9TQ rainbow and it gets checked
to last position who bets $150? Do you fold there as well?

In my experience, a lot of guys talk a very disciplined game at their
computers only to make a lot of mistakes in a live game. But I'm
sure that all of you guys who want to play out this hand are
exceptions. I'm guessing that all of you would play your Jacks
perfectly in this situation.

> "But this is a ring game. If you can only afford one buy-in, then you probably
> shouldn't be playing anyway."

Okay, I'm going to make a similar point here. Maybe you are the rare
amateur who can get stacked once or twice and still play his A game.
Most guys can't. Most guys chase. Most guys would be better off
going home after they lose 100 big bets.

None of that is the point, however. The point is: YOU DON'T NEED TO
PRESS SMALL EDGES IN THESE GAMES.

Date: 28 Nov 23:55:22
From: steve1127
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Nov 28 2006 6:47 PM, Mr. Pittsburgh wrote:

> >"Not necessary to play a big pot. Play a small one unless you hit your Jack"
>
>
> If Russ called there would have been around $800 in the pot preflop.
> 80 big bets. That's a "small" pot?

No, but it's not huge.

>
> How do you play it if the flop comes all babies and gets checked
> around? Fold to a small bet on a blank turn?

It depends. If it's the button and it feels like a suck bet, then maybe, yes.

What about QJT or AKJ?

I probably check-fold to AKJ and check and see on QJT.

> Push with confidence? What if it comes 9TQ rainbow and it gets checked
> to last position who bets $150? Do you fold there as well?

No, as then I'll be getting odds.
>
> In my experience, a lot of guys talk a very disciplined game at their
> computers only to make a lot of mistakes in a live game. But I'm
> sure that all of you guys who want to play out this hand are
> exceptions. I'm guessing that all of you would play your Jacks
> perfectly in this situation.
>
Not necessarily, no. And sure, you can lose a big pot. But it's more likely
that you lose a small one or win a big one, I think.

>
> > "But this is a ring game. If you can only afford one buy-in, then you
> > probably
> > shouldn't be playing anyway."
>
>
> Okay, I'm going to make a similar point here. Maybe you are the rare
> amateur who can get stacked once or twice and still play his A game.
> Most guys can't. Most guys chase. Most guys would be better off
> going home after they lose 100 big bets.
>
Ah, but we're not talking about amateurs, are we? We're talking about Russ who
claims to be one of the best in the world.

> None of that is the point, however. The point is: YOU DON'T NEED TO
> PRESS SMALL EDGES IN THESE GAMES.

That's fair enough. But I do think it's an edge.

_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 30 Nov
From: Bryan Kimmes
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

> What about QJT or AKJ?
>
> I probably check-fold to AKJ and check and see on QJT.

You made a small error in your post right here. You meant to stay

"I probably go broke to AKJ"

Bryan

_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 30 Nov 17:10:55
From: steve1127
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Nov 30 2006 4:28 AM, Bryan Kimmes wrote:

>
>
> > What about QJT or AKJ?
> >
> > I probably check-fold to AKJ and check and see on QJT.
>
> You made a small error in your post right here. You meant to stay
>
> "I probably go broke to AKJ"
>
> Bryan

Oh. I thought that if I put the button on bigger than JJ, that I'd probably
want to fold to a scary flop like AKJ. I guess you know me better than I know
myself, though. Hey, what do I want for lunch today?

_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 28 Nov 23:12:31
From: steve1127
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Nov 28 2006 5:51 PM, Mr. Pittsburgh wrote:

> The strategy for small buy-in NL games that Russ advocates (mostly in
> another post) is a winning one. You guys can quibble over a percentage
> point of EV here or there if you want but, to me, it's a lot of
> wasted effort. The players in these games are REALLY, REALLY BAD. The
> players in these games are literally falling all over themselves to
> give away their money. You can press small edges if you like but doing
> so is by no means necessary. The day you go home early because you
> burned your buy-in racing is a day you cost yourself $500-$1000 that
> the tourists would have just given to you.

But this is a ring game. If you can only afford one buy-in, then you probably
shouldn't be playing anyway.
>
> I don't play quite as tight as what Russ has advocated in these games
> but I do recognize the reasoning behind his advice. A) it is very easy
> to play his way B) it is very profitable to play his way and C) it is
> very easy to teach another player to play his way. You can sit back
> and peddle the nuts in these games and make a hefty profit with minimal
> stress/variance. Why put yourself in tough positions (like playing JJ
> out of position in a big pot) when you don't have to? To me doing so
> would be like digging an outhouse for twenty bucks when they are just
> giving away hundreds inside the mansion.

Not necessary to play a big pot. Play a small one unless you hit your Jack.

_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 28 Nov 22:57:20
From: Nick Wool
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Nov 28 2006 10:51 PM, Mr. Pittsburgh wrote:

> The strategy for small buy-in NL games that Russ advocates (mostly in
> another post) is a winning one. You guys can quibble over a percentage
> point of EV here or there if you want but, to me, it's a lot of
> wasted effort. The players in these games are REALLY, REALLY BAD. The
> players in these games are literally falling all over themselves to
> give away their money. You can press small edges if you like but doing
> so is by no means necessary. The day you go home early because you
> burned your buy-in racing is a day you cost yourself $500-$1000 that
> the tourists would have just given to you.
>
> I don't play quite as tight as what Russ has advocated in these games
> but I do recognize the reasoning behind his advice. A) it is very easy
> to play his way B) it is very profitable to play his way and C) it is
> very easy to teach another player to play his way. You can sit back
> and peddle the nuts in these games and make a hefty profit with minimal
> stress/variance. Why put yourself in tough positions (like playing JJ
> out of position in a big pot) when you don't have to? To me doing so
> would be like digging an outhouse for twenty bucks when they are just
> giving away hundreds inside the mansion.

Whoever said getting involved in big pot out of position with JJ?...it is
exactly in these sort of loose games where you can call the reraise for not much
more, hit your set and make a massive profit, or fold on any flop that doesnt
include a Jack.

How much easier do you want it to be? Short of being a hooker, where you can
make money by laying on your back, profit doesnt come eaiser than calling
preflop here.

_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 01 Dec 2006 09:22:47
From: JG
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

Backslider23 wrote:
>
> All of you arguing that it is a clear fold.. do you ever play a middle
> pair trying to hit a set in a NL cash game? Of course you do.

Same thing for suited connectors. And post-flop, whenever you are
trying to hit a straight, or a flush, etc. What we are debating is
simply another type of a draw, which I think some people here don't
understand, for some reason (which is odd, since I am sure they draw to
straights and flushes all the time when they almost surely don't have
the current best hand when they are putting money into the pot).

> If you have a clue, all
> you're arguing about is the implied odds, and the only way you can know
> that is to know the stack sizes and the players.

That's exactly what it comes down to. In this case, if you estimate
your implied odds to be sufficient, then calling with JJ is correct. If
not, then folding is corect. It's a math problem, even if some of the
input is speculative. It's true that none of us really know *for sure*,
based on Russ's limited description, whether or not a call or fold is
the best play in this scenario.

What puzzles me is that some are insisting that since we know we're a
4-1 underdog, there's no way we should make the call. In other words,
they seem to be indicating it's fundamentally incorrect to call when
behind. In reality, however, the decision to call or fold comes down to
pot odds (both current and implied) and the chances of you making the
best hand. As is the case with any draw. These people need a refresher
course on pot odds and implied odds.

JG

Date: 01 Dec 2006 10:50:06
From: JG
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

xyious wrote:

> if you're 'reliably getting great implied odds', you're implying that your
> opponent will always stack off with his KK.

No. I said 'reliably'. This means you are consistently
getting/observing great implied odds. It does not mean *always*. I am
nitpicking here because some people are under the impression you must
win every time and get paid big when your set comes in. You do not.

> and your opponent wins 11.8% of the time.
> now you've paid 1/8 of your stack and flop a set about 1 time in 8.

You are 7.5 - 1 against to flop a set or quads.

> obviously you double up 88.2% of the time and lose 11.8% of the time. thus
> making it unprofitable.

No, not at all. You can certainly go busted once or twice and still
take home a profit over the long term.

> the other point here is that you're getting a HUGE increase in variance,

True, you are taking on increased variance.

> i think it's a good play.

Folding is the mathematically correct play if he's not getting the
right odds (current and future). Otherwise, calling is the correct
play.

JG

Date: 28 Nov 2006 14:48:03
From: DennisP
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas "GCA"

RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
> DennisP wrote:
> > FellKnight wrote:
> > > On Nov 28 2006 2:34 PM, DennisP wrote:
> > >
> > > > RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
> > > > I laid down JJ under the
> > > > > gun when I made it $30 to go in a $5-$10 game and had three callers,
> > > > > only to be raised $125 by the button. I had over $1,000 in my stack.
> > > > >
> > > > > I folded, the flop came J-10-2 rainbow and three players called $200
> > > > > from the original raiser. Board paired 2's, all three went all in. KK
> > > > > won the pot of about $3,000.
> > > >
> > > > You're folding JJ to in that situation with deep stacks and you are
> > > > trying to give out lessons?
> > >
> > > Wow... you think that playing JJ against a reraise for 12.5% of your stack
> > > is a good play???
> > >
> > > Fell
> > > --
> > > Website: www.fellknight.com
> > > Email: fellknight at gmail dot com
> > >
> > > -----
> > > RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
> >
> >
> > He said he had over $1000, doesn't give an amount. The raise is $95
> > more.
>
> The raise was $125 more.
>
> I knew the hand was no good.
>
> What if 3 small came? Do I call?
>
> I take the $30 loss, NEXT hand.
>
> Russ Georgiev

This makes a little more sense, but stack depth would be my deciding
factor.

I'd call up to 10% of my stack (or opponents, whatever is smaller) in a
game like this.

Date: 28 Nov 2006 14:41:15
From: RussGeorgiev@aol.com
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas "GCA"

Iceman wrote:
> > I won over $10,000.
>
> Sure you did.
>
> > but in reality, I was given the money. I didn't gamble, but if I did, I would've won $20,000.
>
> These stories only work on Susan. And I thought you were afraid to go
> to Vegas - what happened to all the death threats?

I'm afraid of NOTHING. Please post your name and address, so we'll see
what your afriad of?

Russ Georgiev

www.pokermafia.com

>
> > This is basically, $150-$200K tax free money.
>
> Make up all the crap you want - almost no one is dumb enough to believe
> anything you say. I suppose next week you'll make $35,000 in
> California. The week after that, $65,000 in Tunica. Then $100,000 in
> Atlantic City. Pretty soon you'll be the next Bill Gates.

Date: 28 Nov 22:52:25
From: Nick Wool
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Nov 28 2006 10:41 PM, RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:

> Iceman wrote:
> > > I won over $10,000.
> >
> > Sure you did.
> >
> > > but in reality, I was given the money. I didn't gamble, but if I did, I
> > > would've won $20,000.
> >
> > These stories only work on Susan. And I thought you were afraid to go
> > to Vegas - what happened to all the death threats?
>
> I'm afraid of NOTHING. Please post your name and address, so we'll see
> what your afriad of?
>
> Russ Georgiev
>
> http://www.pokermafia.com/
>

Russ, do you really want us to drag out all the previous post you made claiming
you would not go to [insert place-name] for a challenge you started because you
fear for your life?

Fuck me, I know we should never give people too much credit for intelligence,
but you take the saying to a new height, dear chap.

_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 05 Dec 2006 12:08:17
From: Iceman
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

> Yes, drag them out. Then we can all see how they've been manipulated
> from what I'd stated. Everyone wants to play when there's a tourney
> going on, something I won't do because too many faces will be there.
> The other way, without the tourney, faces who aren't supposed to be
> there will stick out.
>
> Besides, I always stated let's play for BIG MONEY, however, whatever
> the amount, it isn't big enough for these guys to go an hour out of
> their way to play lil ole me? WHY?

Because you always chicken out, so no one wants to waste their time.
Five years ago a few of the pros thought you were a curiousity, so you
keep reposting the same three emails from pros again and again, but now
they realize you're just a bitter, delusional old man. Just show up in
Las Vegas with enough money and you would have a game anytime. Or
Atlantic City. Or Foxwoods. Or California. Or Tunica.

But you never actually show up and play. You don't have the skill to
play at that level, and you know it, and so all you do is come up with
all kinds of excuses. And the rest of us know you're a joke, except
for the five retards who repeatedly suck up to you.

Date: 05 Dec 2006 11:26:35
From: RussGeorgiev@aol.com
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

Nick Wool wrote:
> On Nov 28 2006 10:41 PM, RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
>
> > Iceman wrote:
> > > > I won over $10,000.
> > >
> > > Sure you did.
> > >
> > > > but in reality, I was given the money. I didn't gamble, but if I did, I
> > > > would've won $20,000.
> > >
> > > These stories only work on Susan. And I thought you were afraid to go
> > > to Vegas - what happened to all the death threats?
> >
> > I'm afraid of NOTHING. Please post your name and address, so we'll see
> > what your afriad of?
> >
> > Russ Georgiev
> >
> > http://www.pokermafia.com/
> >
>
> Russ, do you really want us to drag out all the previous post you made claiming
> you would not go to [insert place-name] for a challenge you started because you
> fear for your life?

Yes, drag them out. Then we can all see how they've been manipulated
from what I'd stated. Everyone wants to play when there's a tourney
going on, something I won't do because too many faces will be there.
The other way, without the tourney, faces who aren't supposed to be
there will stick out.

Besides, I always stated let's play for BIG MONEY, however, whatever
the amount, it isn't big enough for these guys to go an hour out of
their way to play lil ole me? WHY?

Russ Georgiev

www.pokermafia.com
>
> Fuck me, I know we should never give people too much credit for intelligence,
> but you take the saying to a new height, dear chap.
>
> _______________________________________________________________
> The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 28 Nov 2006 14:38:29
From: RussGeorgiev@aol.com
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas "GCA"

DennisP wrote:
> FellKnight wrote:
> > On Nov 28 2006 2:34 PM, DennisP wrote:
> >
> > > RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
> > > I laid down JJ under the
> > > > gun when I made it $30 to go in a $5-$10 game and had three callers,
> > > > only to be raised $125 by the button. I had over $1,000 in my stack.
> > > >
> > > > I folded, the flop came J-10-2 rainbow and three players called $200
> > > > from the original raiser. Board paired 2's, all three went all in. KK
> > > > won the pot of about $3,000.
> > >
> > > You're folding JJ to in that situation with deep stacks and you are
> > > trying to give out lessons?
> >
> > Wow... you think that playing JJ against a reraise for 12.5% of your stack
> > is a good play???
> >
> > Fell
> > --
> > Website: www.fellknight.com
> > Email: fellknight at gmail dot com
> >
> > -----
> > RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
>
>
> He said he had over $1000, doesn't give an amount. The raise is $95
> more.

The raise was $125 more.

I knew the hand was no good.

What if 3 small came? Do I call?

I take the $30 loss, NEXT hand.

Russ Georgiev

www.pokermafia.com
>
> Unless I have reason to believe that one of the callers was going to RR
> then yes, I think it is generally bad in this type of game.
>
> Knowing all the exact stacks would make it easier to know for sure.

Date: 29 Nov
From: Nick Wool
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Nov 28 2006 10:38 PM, RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:

> DennisP wrote:
> > FellKnight wrote:
> > > On Nov 28 2006 2:34 PM, DennisP wrote:
> > >
> > > > RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
> > > > I laid down JJ under the
> > > > > gun when I made it $30 to go in a $5-$10 game and had three callers,
> > > > > only to be raised $125 by the button. I had over $1,000 in my stack.
> > > > >
> > > > > I folded, the flop came J-10-2 rainbow and three players called $200
> > > > > from the original raiser. Board paired 2's, all three went all in. KK
> > > > > won the pot of about $3,000.
> > > >
> > > > You're folding JJ to in that situation with deep stacks and you are
> > > > trying to give out lessons?
> > >
> > > Wow... you think that playing JJ against a reraise for 12.5% of your stack
> > > is a good play???
> > >
> > > Fell
> > > --
> > > Website: http://www.fellknight.com/
> > > Email: fellknight at gmail dot com
> > He said he had over $1000, doesn't give an amount. The raise is $95
> > more.
>
> The raise was $125 more.
>
> I knew the hand was no good.
>
> What if 3 small came? Do I call?
>
> I take the $30 loss, NEXT hand.
>
> Russ Georgiev
>

With that kind of thinking, and you really have enough confidence to give
lessons? Lesons in what? How to lose?

In your own words, you think this table is very loose, and the punters are
'waiting to give their money away'. So by that standard, you call for 125 more,
confident in that you will also have callers behind you preflop to boost your
pot odds, and also that they will be likely to stack off with their TP/overpair
and such-likes.

Now in this situation, you said know you are behind preflop with your JJ, but
you are getting huge implied odds for your 125, yet you mucked because you dont
know what to do on a rags flop?

Ok, here is a free lesson, you check-fold on any flop that doesnt contain a
jack, and you bet like crazy or check raise like crazy when you hit your set.
See, easy, isnt it? And I am not even trying to make any money from the mug
punters who takes lessons from you

_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 28 Nov 2006 18:59:48
From: pokerchimp
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

NIck, if you can't see that Russ made the correct play, maybe it is you
that ought to give up poker. Read "follow"'s response from 9:26 pm today.
He expresses the logic better than I can.

On Nov 28 2006 7:37 PM, Nick Wool wrote:

> On Nov 28 2006 10:38 PM, RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
>
> > DennisP wrote:
> > > FellKnight wrote:
> > > > On Nov 28 2006 2:34 PM, DennisP wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
> > > > > I laid down JJ under the
> > > > > > gun when I made it $30 to go in a $5-$10 game and had three
callers,
> > > > > > only to be raised $125 by the button. I had over $1,000 in my
stack.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I folded, the flop came J-10-2 rainbow and three players called
$200
> > > > > > from the original raiser. Board paired 2's, all three went all in.
KK
> > > > > > won the pot of about $3,000.
> > > > >
> > > > > You're folding JJ to in that situation with deep stacks and you are
> > > > > trying to give out lessons?
> > > >
> > > > Wow... you think that playing JJ against a reraise for 12.5% of your
stack
> > > > is a good play???
> > > >
> > > > Fell
> > > > --
> > > > Website: http://www.fellknight.com/
> > > > Email: fellknight at gmail dot com
> > > He said he had over $1000, doesn't give an amount. The raise is $95
> > > more.
> >
> > The raise was $125 more.
> >
> > I knew the hand was no good.
> >
> > What if 3 small came? Do I call?
> >
> > I take the $30 loss, NEXT hand.
> >
> > Russ Georgiev
> >
>
> With that kind of thinking, and you really have enough confidence to give
> lessons? Lesons in what? How to lose?
>
> In your own words, you think this table is very loose, and the punters are
> 'waiting to give their money away'. So by that standard, you call for 125
more,
> confident in that you will also have callers behind you preflop to boost your
> pot odds, and also that they will be likely to stack off with their
TP/overpair
> and such-likes.
>
> Now in this situation, you said know you are behind preflop with your JJ, but
> you are getting huge implied odds for your 125, yet you mucked because you
dont
> know what to do on a rags flop?
>
> Ok, here is a free lesson, you check-fold on any flop that doesnt contain a
> jack, and you bet like crazy or check raise like crazy when you hit your
set.
> See, easy, isnt it? And I am not even trying to make any money from the mug
> punters who takes lessons from you

thumbers on stars, pokerchimp1 on absolute

-----
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com

Date: 29 Nov
From: Nick Wool
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Nov 29 2006 2:59 AM, pokerchimp wrote:

> NIck, if you can't see that Russ made the correct play, maybe it is you
> that ought to give up poker. Read "follow"'s response from 9:26 pm today.
> He expresses the logic better than I can.
>

I did, and I also gave a rebuttal to his 'logic'. I make no claim to be 'the
best poker player in the world', just an average guy trying to improve. But I
do see that it was piss-poor play by someone who makes that claim.

This thing about russ like like religion, supporters rely on blind faith to
sustain their belief in the guy, refusing to see evidence to the contrary when
it is staring them in the eyes.

On a tight/normal table, folding is the correct play, on a table with conditions
as described by Russ, folding is the worse option.

_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 29 Nov 11:25:20
From: Bryan Kimmes
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Nov 28 2006 6:37 PM, Nick Wool wrote:

>
>
>
> On Nov 28 2006 10:38 PM, RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
>
> > DennisP wrote:
> > > FellKnight wrote:
> > > > On Nov 28 2006 2:34 PM, DennisP wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
> > > > > I laid down JJ under the
> > > > > > gun when I made it $30 to go in a $5-$10 game and had three callers,
> > > > > > only to be raised $125 by the button. I had over $1,000 in my stack.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I folded, the flop came J-10-2 rainbow and three players called $200
> > > > > > from the original raiser. Board paired 2's, all three went all in.
> > > > > > KK
> > > > > > won the pot of about $3,000.
> > > > >
> > > > > You're folding JJ to in that situation with deep stacks and you are
> > > > > trying to give out lessons?
> > > >
> > > > Wow... you think that playing JJ against a reraise for 12.5% of your
> > > > stack
> > > > is a good play???
> > > >
> > > > Fell
> > > > --
> > > > Website: http://www.fellknight.com/
> > > > Email: fellknight at gmail dot com
> > > He said he had over $1000, doesn't give an amount. The raise is $95
> > > more.
> >
> > The raise was $125 more.
> >
> > I knew the hand was no good.
> >
> > What if 3 small came? Do I call?
> >
> > I take the $30 loss, NEXT hand.
> >
> > Russ Georgiev
> >
>
> With that kind of thinking, and you really have enough confidence to give
> lessons? Lesons in what? How to lose?
>
> In your own words, you think this table is very loose, and the punters are
> 'waiting to give their money away'. So by that standard, you call for 125
> more,
> confident in that you will also have callers behind you preflop to boost your
> pot odds, and also that they will be likely to stack off with their
> TP/overpair
> and such-likes.
>
> Now in this situation, you said know you are behind preflop with your JJ, but
> you are getting huge implied odds for your 125, yet you mucked because you
> dont
> know what to do on a rags flop?
>
> Ok, here is a free lesson, you check-fold on any flop that doesnt contain a
> jack, and you bet like crazy or check raise like crazy when you hit your set.
> See, easy, isnt it? And I am not even trying to make any money from the mug
> punters who takes lessons from you

Do you call this raise in this spot if you have 88? How about 44?

Bryan

_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 29 Nov 2006 10:50:35
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Nov 29 2006 4:25 AM, Bryan Kimmes wrote:

> Do you call this raise in this spot if you have 88? How about 44?
>
> Bryan

Jacks are purty.

Fell
--
Website: www.fellknight.com
Email: fellknight at gmail dot com

______________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com

Date: 29 Nov 2006 11:02:51
From: brewmaster
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Nov 29 2006 10:50 AM, FellKnight wrote:

> On Nov 29 2006 4:25 AM, Bryan Kimmes wrote:
>
> > Do you call this raise in this spot if you have 88? How about 44?
> >
> > Bryan
>
> Jacks are purty.

Well he said he would play it purely for set value, which means he knows
he's beat by at least one bigger pair, so he should play any pair down to
22, shouldn't he? By his logic?

>
> Fell
> --
> Website: www.fellknight.com
> Email: fellknight at gmail dot com

________________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com

Date: 29 Nov 19:09:15
From: steve1127
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Nov 29 2006 2:02 PM, brewmaster wrote:

> On Nov 29 2006 10:50 AM, FellKnight wrote:
>
> > On Nov 29 2006 4:25 AM, Bryan Kimmes wrote:
> >
> > > Do you call this raise in this spot if you have 88? How about 44?
> > >
> > > Bryan
> >
> > Jacks are purty.
>
> Well he said he would play it purely for set value, which means he knows
> he's beat by at least one bigger pair, so he should play any pair down to
> 22, shouldn't he? By his logic?
>
Yeah, but that's assuming he open raises utg with 22 in the first place.
Personally, I do think that calling with any pair (except KK and AA) here is
probably right, once we're in this situation.

> >
> > Fell
> > --
> > Website: http://www.fellknight.com/
> > Email: fellknight at gmail dot com

_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 29 Nov 2006 12:42:43
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Nov 29 2006 12:02 PM, brewmaster wrote:

> On Nov 29 2006 10:50 AM, FellKnight wrote:
>
> > On Nov 29 2006 4:25 AM, Bryan Kimmes wrote:
> >
> > > Do you call this raise in this spot if you have 88? How about 44?
> > >
> > > Bryan
> >
> > Jacks are purty.
>
> Well he said he would play it purely for set value, which means he knows
> he's beat by at least one bigger pair, so he should play any pair down to
> 22, shouldn't he? By his logic?

Yes, but Jacks are Purty.

Fell
--
Website: www.fellknight.com
Email: fellknight at gmail dot com

----
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com

Date: 30 Nov 2006 22:57:28
From: Douglas Dunn
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

brewmaster wrote:
> On Nov 29 2006 10:40 PM, Douglas Dunn wrote:
>
> > brewmaster wrote:
> > > On Nov 29 2006 10:50 AM, FellKnight wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Nov 29 2006 4:25 AM, Bryan Kimmes wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Do you call this raise in this spot if you have 88? How about 44?
> > > > >
> > > > > Bryan
> > > >
> > > > Jacks are purty.
> > >
> > > Well he said he would play it purely for set value, which means he knows
> > > he's beat by at least one bigger pair, so he should play any pair down to
> > > 22, shouldn't he? By his logic?
> > >
> >
> >
> > Well hopefully he wouldn't put himself in this position with 22, but if
> > he did make a -EV UTG raise, then yes I still think the call of the
> > re-raise is +EV, although I'd much rather have JJ and be on the better
> > end of the set over set more often.
> >
>
> I think the problem is not that he is holding JJ and may be beat by a
> bigger pair at this stage. The problem is there is a raise caller in
> between him and the reraiser. So say Russ calls the $125 raise, and the
> in between guy makes it $1000, and re-raiser (with KK we now know) calls,
> are you gonna call with JJ? No way... And since you don't know what
> tweener will do, the play is to fold.
>
> > Doug

You are absolutely correct that I don't know for sure what tweener will
do. This certainly hurts my case for a call. But I should have a
pretty good idea of what the tweeners will do. All it will take is for
me to look over to my left before I make the call.

Doug

Date: 29 Nov 2006 00:08:05
From: Douglas Dunn
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

pokerchimp wrote:
> NIck, if you can't see that Russ made the correct play, maybe it is you
> that ought to give up poker. Read "follow"'s response from 9:26 pm today.
> He expresses the logic better than I can.

I hope that's not true. Follow not only strays way off from the hand
in question, his numbers are all wrong. Nobody doubts the play style
Russ presents is a winning strategy for these games, it's just not pro
level. Calling with Jacks there is definately +EV, and there are no
reasons presented that would make him pass on any +EV play in this
game.

Doug

Date: 29 Nov 18:16:35
From: Follow
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Nov 29 2006 1:08 AM, Douglas Dunn wrote:

> pokerchimp wrote:
> > NIck, if you can't see that Russ made the correct play, maybe it is you
> > that ought to give up poker. Read "follow"'s response from 9:26 pm today.
> > He expresses the logic better than I can.
>
> I hope that's not true. Follow not only strays way off from the hand
> in question, his numbers are all wrong. Nobody doubts the play style
> Russ presents is a winning strategy for these games, it's just not pro
> level. Calling with Jacks there is definately +EV, and there are no
> reasons presented that would make him pass on any +EV play in this
> game.
>
> Doug

There have been about 3-4 replies on this thread telling me my numbers are "all
wrong." But when I ask these people to tell me where my numbers fail, the
response I get is something along the lines of "I'm too lazy to do them myself."

So how about it Doug, are you too lazy to do the math and prove me wrong? I'm
more than willing to admit error if I'm wrong, and those numbers took me all of
2-3 minutes to compile as I was composing the message itself, so I have no doubt
that I might have made an error somewhere. But prove it instead of just saying
it over and over, it's been done, and it's lame.

Follow :)

_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 29 Nov 2006 22:24:56
From: Douglas Dunn
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

Follow wrote:
> On Nov 29 2006 1:08 AM, Douglas Dunn wrote:
>
> > pokerchimp wrote:
> > > NIck, if you can't see that Russ made the correct play, maybe it is you
> > > that ought to give up poker. Read "follow"'s response from 9:26 pm today.
> > > He expresses the logic better than I can.
> >
> > I hope that's not true. Follow not only strays way off from the hand
> > in question, his numbers are all wrong. Nobody doubts the play style
> > Russ presents is a winning strategy for these games, it's just not pro
> > level. Calling with Jacks there is definately +EV, and there are no
> > reasons presented that would make him pass on any +EV play in this
> > game.
> >
> > Doug
>
> There have been about 3-4 replies on this thread telling me my numbers are "all
> wrong." But when I ask these people to tell me where my numbers fail, the
> response I get is something along the lines of "I'm too lazy to do them myself."
>
> So how about it Doug, are you too lazy to do the math and prove me wrong? I'm
> more than willing to admit error if I'm wrong, and those numbers took me all of
> 2-3 minutes to compile as I was composing the message itself, so I have no doubt
> that I might have made an error somewhere. But prove it instead of just saying
> it over and over, it's been done, and it's lame.
>
>
>
>
> Follow :)
>
> _______________________________________________________________
> Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com

Re-read my first response, I did provide them.

Date: 30 Nov 19:00:20
From: Follow
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Nov 29 2006 11:24 PM, Douglas Dunn wrote:

> Re-read my first response, I did provide them.

Then I must be blind, I've combed through your older responses on this thread
and I've seen not a single thing I would call a proof anywhere in those
responses. Maybe you would do me the service of copying and pasting in a reply,
please?

I'd like to see your math.

Follow :)

_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 30 Nov
From: Bryan Kimmes
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Nov 29 2006 2:08 AM, Douglas Dunn wrote:

> pokerchimp wrote:
> > NIck, if you can't see that Russ made the correct play, maybe it is you
> > that ought to give up poker. Read "follow"'s response from 9:26 pm today.
> > He expresses the logic better than I can.
>
> I hope that's not true. Follow not only strays way off from the hand
> in question, his numbers are all wrong. Nobody doubts the play style
> Russ presents is a winning strategy for these games, it's just not pro
> level. Calling with Jacks there is definately +EV, and there are no
> reasons presented that would make him pass on any +EV play in this
> game.
>
> Doug

The only place this call could be +ev is the penny games. You are not in
position, and you're simply not going to bust someone every time you hit a set.

You realize sometimes hitting that Jack will cause you to get busted yourself?

Bryan

_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 28 Nov 2006 14:01:33
From: DennisP
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas "GCA"

FellKnight wrote:
> On Nov 28 2006 2:34 PM, DennisP wrote:
>
> > RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
> > I laid down JJ under the
> > > gun when I made it $30 to go in a $5-$10 game and had three callers,
> > > only to be raised $125 by the button. I had over $1,000 in my stack.
> > >
> > > I folded, the flop came J-10-2 rainbow and three players called $200
> > > from the original raiser. Board paired 2's, all three went all in. KK
> > > won the pot of about $3,000.
> >
> > You're folding JJ to in that situation with deep stacks and you are
> > trying to give out lessons?
>
> Wow... you think that playing JJ against a reraise for 12.5% of your stack
> is a good play???
>
> Fell
> --
> Website: www.fellknight.com
> Email: fellknight at gmail dot com
>
> -----
> RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com

He said he had over $1000, doesn't give an amount. The raise is $95
more.

Unless I have reason to believe that one of the callers was going to RR
then yes, I think it is generally bad in this type of game.

Knowing all the exact stacks would make it easier to know for sure.

Date: 28 Nov 2006 18:03:14
From: Mark B $Diputsur$
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas "GCA"

"DennisP" <dennis.picht@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1164751293.063583.159590@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> FellKnight wrote:
>> On Nov 28 2006 2:34 PM, DennisP wrote:
>>
>> > RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
>> > I laid down JJ under the
>> > > gun when I made it $30 to go in a $5-$10 game and had three callers,
>> > > only to be raised $125 by the button. I had over $1,000 in my stack.
>> > >
>> > > I folded, the flop came J-10-2 rainbow and three players called $200
>> > > from the original raiser. Board paired 2's, all three went all in. KK
>> > > won the pot of about $3,000.
>> >
>> > You're folding JJ to in that situation with deep stacks and you are
>> > trying to give out lessons?
>>
>> Wow... you think that playing JJ against a reraise for 12.5% of your stack
>> is a good play???
>>
>> Fell
>> --
>> Website: www.fellknight.com
>> Email: fellknight at gmail dot com
>>
>> -----
>> RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
>
>
> He said he had over $1000, doesn't give an amount. The raise is $95
> more.

He said: "raised $125" not "raised to $125" ... sounded to me like it was
$125 more ... if so, there would have been $290 in the pot when it came
back to him. He's getting a little better than 2:1 as a probable 4:1
underdog, but he's not even sure if he'll be able to see a flop for another
$125 because there's still 3 people waiting to act behind him.
Additionally, he's UTG and got the shittiest seat in the house this hand.

> Unless I have reason to believe that one of the callers was going to RR
> then yes, I think it is generally bad in this type of game.

Is it me? Or are you contradicting yourself with that statement?
If the table is loose then you have reason to believe that one of
the callers may RR... If it's tight then you have reason to believe
that you've only got 2 cards in the deck which will help and
about an 1 in 8 chance of seeing one of them on the flop.
What type of game are you referring to?

Mark
--
www.myspace.com/diputsur

Date: 28 Nov 23:10:17
From: steve1127
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Nov 28 2006 6:03 PM, Mark B $Diputsur$ wrote:

> "DennisP" wrote in message
> news:1164751293.063583.159590@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > FellKnight wrote:
> >> On Nov 28 2006 2:34 PM, DennisP wrote:
> >>
> >> > RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
> >> > I laid down JJ under the
> >> > > gun when I made it $30 to go in a $5-$10 game and had three callers,
> >> > > only to be raised $125 by the button. I had over $1,000 in my stack.
> >> > >
> >> > > I folded, the flop came J-10-2 rainbow and three players called $200
> >> > > from the original raiser. Board paired 2's, all three went all in. KK
> >> > > won the pot of about $3,000.
> >> >
> >> > You're folding JJ to in that situation with deep stacks and you are
> >> > trying to give out lessons?
> >>
> >> Wow... you think that playing JJ against a reraise for 12.5% of your stack
> >> is a good play???
> >>
> >> Fell
> >> --
> >> Website: http://www.fellknight.com/
> >> Email: fellknight at gmail dot com
> > He said he had over $1000, doesn't give an amount. The raise is $95
> > more.
>
> He said: "raised $125" not "raised to $125" ... sounded to me like it was
> $125 more ... if so, there would have been $290 in the pot when it came
> back to him. He's getting a little better than 2:1 as a probable 4:1
> underdog, but he's not even sure if he'll be able to see a flop for another
> $125 because there's still 3 people waiting to act behind him.
> Additionally, he's UTG and got the shittiest seat in the house this hand.
>
> > Unless I have reason to believe that one of the callers was going to RR
> > then yes, I think it is generally bad in this type of game.
>
> Is it me? Or are you contradicting yourself with that statement?
> If the table is loose then you have reason to believe that one of
> the callers may RR... If it's tight then you have reason to believe
> that you've only got 2 cards in the deck which will help and
> about an 1 in 8 chance of seeing one of them on the flop.
> What type of game are you referring to?
>
It's you. Loose does not equal aggressive. And it doesn't matter that the odds
of hitting the set are only 1 in 8, you're getting ridiculous implied odds, as
evidenced by the KK dying with the hand on the JJT2 board. As long as you can
get away from a 258 flop or something like that, a call is right here, IMO.

> Mark
> --
> http://www.myspace.com/diputsur

_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 29 Nov 2006 13:24:26
From: Mark B $Diputsur$
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

"steve1127" <43080896@recpoker.com > wrote in message
news:1164755417$912603@recpoker.com...
> On Nov 28 2006 6:03 PM, Mark B $Diputsur$ wrote:
>
>> "DennisP" wrote in message
>> news:1164751293.063583.159590@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > FellKnight wrote:
>> >> On Nov 28 2006 2:34 PM, DennisP wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
>> >> > I laid down JJ under the
>> >> > > gun when I made it $30 to go in a $5-$10 game and had three callers,
>> >> > > only to be raised $125 by the button. I had over $1,000 in my stack.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > I folded, the flop came J-10-2 rainbow and three players called $200
>> >> > > from the original raiser. Board paired 2's, all three went all in.
>> >> > > KK
>> >> > > won the pot of about $3,000.
>> >> >
>> >> > You're folding JJ to in that situation with deep stacks and you are
>> >> > trying to give out lessons?
>> >>
>> >> Wow... you think that playing JJ against a reraise for 12.5% of your
>> >> stack
>> >> is a good play???
>> >>
>> >> Fell
>> >> --
>> >> Website: http://www.fellknight.com/
>> >> Email: fellknight at gmail dot com
>> > He said he had over $1000, doesn't give an amount. The raise is $95
>> > more.
>>
>> He said: "raised $125" not "raised to $125" ... sounded to me like it was
>> $125 more ... if so, there would have been $290 in the pot when it came
>> back to him. He's getting a little better than 2:1 as a probable 4:1
>> underdog, but he's not even sure if he'll be able to see a flop for another
>> $125 because there's still 3 people waiting to act behind him.
>> Additionally, he's UTG and got the shittiest seat in the house this hand.
>>
>> > Unless I have reason to believe that one of the callers was going to RR
>> > then yes, I think it is generally bad in this type of game.
>>
>> Is it me? Or are you contradicting yourself with that statement?
>> If the table is loose then you have reason to believe that one of
>> the callers may RR... If it's tight then you have reason to believe
>> that you've only got 2 cards in the deck which will help and
>> about an 1 in 8 chance of seeing one of them on the flop.
>> What type of game are you referring to?
>>
> It's you. Loose does not equal aggressive. And it doesn't matter that the
> odds
> of hitting the set are only 1 in 8, you're getting ridiculous implied odds,
> as
> evidenced by the KK dying with the hand on the JJT2 board. As long as you
> can
> get away from a 258 flop or something like that, a call is right here, IMO.

Granted, but in the OP Russ clearly stated that his opponents were aggressive.

Mark
--
www.myspace.com/diputsur

Date: 29 Nov 19:07:08
From: steve1127
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Nov 29 2006 1:24 PM, Mark B $Diputsur$ wrote:

> "steve1127" <43080896@recpoker.com> wrote in message
> news:1164755417$912603@recpoker.com...
> > On Nov 28 2006 6:03 PM, Mark B $Diputsur$ wrote:
> >
> >> "DennisP" wrote in message
> >> news:1164751293.063583.159590@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> > FellKnight wrote:
> >> >> On Nov 28 2006 2:34 PM, DennisP wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
> >> >> > I laid down JJ under the
> >> >> > > gun when I made it $30 to go in a $5-$10 game and had three callers,
> >> >> > > only to be raised $125 by the button. I had over $1,000 in my stack.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > I folded, the flop came J-10-2 rainbow and three players called $200
> >> >> > > from the original raiser. Board paired 2's, all three went all in.
> >> >> > > KK
> >> >> > > won the pot of about $3,000.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You're folding JJ to in that situation with deep stacks and you are
> >> >> > trying to give out lessons?
> >> >>
> >> >> Wow... you think that playing JJ against a reraise for 12.5% of your
> >> >> stack
> >> >> is a good play???
> >> >>
> >> >> Fell
> >> >> --
> >> >> Website: http://www.fellknight.com/
> >> >> Email: fellknight at gmail dot com
> >> > He said he had over $1000, doesn't give an amount. The raise is $95
> >> > more.
> >>
> >> He said: "raised $125" not "raised to $125" ... sounded to me like it was
> >> $125 more ... if so, there would have been $290 in the pot when it came
> >> back to him. He's getting a little better than 2:1 as a probable 4:1
> >> underdog, but he's not even sure if he'll be able to see a flop for another
> >> $125 because there's still 3 people waiting to act behind him.
> >> Additionally, he's UTG and got the shittiest seat in the house this hand.
> >>
> >> > Unless I have reason to believe that one of the callers was going to RR
> >> > then yes, I think it is generally bad in this type of game.
> >>
> >> Is it me? Or are you contradicting yourself with that statement?
> >> If the table is loose then you have reason to believe that one of
> >> the callers may RR... If it's tight then you have reason to believe
> >> that you've only got 2 cards in the deck which will help and
> >> about an 1 in 8 chance of seeing one of them on the flop.
> >> What type of game are you referring to?
> >>
> > It's you. Loose does not equal aggressive. And it doesn't matter that the
> > odds
> > of hitting the set are only 1 in 8, you're getting ridiculous implied odds,
> > as
> > evidenced by the KK dying with the hand on the JJT2 board. As long as you
> > can
> > get away from a 258 flop or something like that, a call is right here, IMO.
>
> Granted, but in the OP Russ clearly stated that his opponents were aggressive.
>
That's what I thought too, but then I reread it: "Here, was a place where the
average age was about 30. Yes, you had your
local young pro's, thinking there're the 'new wave', but outside of
being aggressive, none were really dangerous."

So some of the young pros are aggressive, but if the average age is 30, then the
young pros don't make up most of the table.

> Mark
> --
> http://www.myspace.com/diputsur

_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 29 Nov 2006 12:37:42
From: David Nicoson
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

steve1127 wrote:
> It's you. Loose does not equal aggressive. And it doesn't matter that the odds
> of hitting the set are only 1 in 8, you're getting ridiculous implied odds, as
> evidenced by the KK dying with the hand on the JJT2 board. As long as you can
> get away from a 258 flop or something like that, a call is right here, IMO.

The board has 22 not JJ.

If he calls and continues if and only if he hits a set, his equity is:

11.8% x (70% equity in $4000 pot - 845 ) = $230
88.2% x 0 equity. Folds.

70 % equity is my estimate for his equity on the hands he hits a jack.
That's pretty generous really against 3 other players who like their
hand well enough to push. Against just one overpair the JJ is only
about a 4:1 favorite.

So, in this case where *3* other players stack off with us, calling
with the JJ trades $125 for $230 in equity for a profit of $105.

Let's assume only 1 player stacks off with us.

11.8% x (82% equity in $2100 pot - 845 ) = 103
88.2% x 0 equity. Folds.

Now we're losing 22 bucks. What if he doesn't always stack off with us?

Date: 29 Nov 2006 13:40:27
From: David Nicoson
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

steve1127 wrote:
> On Nov 29 2006 3:37 PM, David Nicoson wrote:
> > If he calls and continues if and only if he hits a set, his equity is:
> >
> > 11.8% x (70% equity in $4000 pot - 845 ) = $230
> > 88.2% x 0 equity. Folds.
> >
> > 70 % equity is my estimate for his equity on the hands he hits a jack.
> > That's pretty generous really against 3 other players who like their
> > hand well enough to push. Against just one overpair the JJ is only
> > about a 4:1 favorite.
>
> That's not true.

For the assumptions I've laid out, I'm pretty confident in the 4:1
ratio.

> Assuming you DON'T push on hands like AKJ, then I don't really
> see why you think we only have 70% equity.

Well, you're making an entirely different assumption. If you're going
to fold on some flops that contain a jack, then 70% is too low but
11.8% is too high. Are we not stacking off if the flop contains an
ace, king, or queen?

> On a flop like JT2, even if you're
> against KQ, you're at 72%. And if you're against KK, you're at 88%. That's
> better than 7 to 1. And you're 90% against AA (less likely to make a straight),
> and 87% against QQ.
>
> 4-handed, if you're against AA, JT, and KQ, you're still at 73% equity. Most
> times you'll be better off than that. Call it 80% with me being generous.

Well, sure. With a rainbow flop and no oversets, we're in great shape.
We need to consider less friendly flops as well.

Date: 29 Nov 21:01:17
From: steve1127
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Nov 29 2006 3:37 PM, David Nicoson wrote:

> steve1127 wrote:
> > It's you. Loose does not equal aggressive. And it doesn't matter that the
> > odds
> > of hitting the set are only 1 in 8, you're getting ridiculous implied odds,
> > as
> > evidenced by the KK dying with the hand on the JJT2 board. As long as you
> > can
> > get away from a 258 flop or something like that, a call is right here, IMO.
>
> The board has 22 not JJ.

Yeah. Sorry. Typo.
>
> If he calls and continues if and only if he hits a set, his equity is:
>
> 11.8% x (70% equity in $4000 pot - 845 ) = $230
> 88.2% x 0 equity. Folds.
>
> 70 % equity is my estimate for his equity on the hands he hits a jack.
> That's pretty generous really against 3 other players who like their
> hand well enough to push. Against just one overpair the JJ is only
> about a 4:1 favorite.

That's not true. Assuming you DON'T push on hands like AKJ, then I don't really
see why you think we only have 70% equity. On a flop like JT2, even if you're
against KQ, you're at 72%. And if you're against KK, you're at 88%. That's
better than 7 to 1. And you're 90% against AA (less likely to make a straight),
and 87% against QQ.

4-handed, if you're against AA, JT, and KQ, you're still at 73% equity. Most
times you'll be better off than that. Call it 80% with me being generous.

So, in that case, your equity 4-handed is $377.60 minus the $125 = $252.60 each
time you play the hand.
>
> So, in this case where *3* other players stack off with us, calling
> with the JJ trades $125 for $230 in equity for a profit of $105.
>
> Let's assume only 1 player stacks off with us.
>
> 11.8% x (82% equity in $2100 pot - 845 ) = 103
> 88.2% x 0 equity. Folds.
>
> Now we're losing 22 bucks. What if he doesn't always stack off with us?

Again, that's a possibility. But given the level of play Russ has described, I
think it's safer to assume they will than that they won't.

_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 28 Nov 2006 13:55:36
From: Iceman
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas "GCA"

> I won over $10,000.

Sure you did.

> but in reality, I was given the money. I didn't gamble, but if I did, I would've won $20,000.

These stories only work on Susan. And I thought you were afraid to go
to Vegas - what happened to all the death threats?

> This is basically, $150-$200K tax free money.

Make up all the crap you want - almost no one is dumb enough to believe
anything you say. I suppose next week you'll make $35,000 in
California. The week after that, $65,000 in Tunica. Then $100,000 in
Atlantic City. Pretty soon you'll be the next Bill Gates.

Date: 28 Nov 2006 16:58:52
From: pokerchimp
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas "GCA"

On Nov 28 2006 4:55 PM, Iceman wrote:

> > I won over $10,000.
>
> Sure you did.
>
> > but in reality, I was given the money. I didn't gamble, but if I did, I
would've won $20,000.
>
> These stories only work on Susan. And I thought you were afraid to go
> to Vegas - what happened to all the death threats?

THEY WORK ON ME TOO!
>
> > This is basically, $150-$200K tax free money.
>
> Make up all the crap you want - almost no one is dumb enough to believe
> anything you say. I suppose next week you'll make $35,000 in
> California. The week after that, $65,000 in Tunica. Then $100,000 in
> Atlantic City. Pretty soon you'll be the next Bill Gates.

thumbers on stars, pokerchimp1 on absolute

-------
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com

Date: 28 Nov 2006 19:10:28
From: Susan
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas "GCA"

"pokerchimp" <mixthing@se.rr.com > wrote in message
news:cj2v34x78h.ln2@recgroups.com...
> On Nov 28 2006 4:55 PM, Iceman wrote:

> THEY WORK ON ME TOO!

teehee - He is just in awe that someone could win $10,000. Guess you
can't do that where he plays.

Date: 28 Nov 2006 17:48:18
From: brewmaster
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas "GCA"

On Nov 28 2006 5:10 PM, Susan wrote:

> "pokerchimp" <mixthing@se.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:cj2v34x78h.ln2@recgroups.com...
> > On Nov 28 2006 4:55 PM, Iceman wrote:
>
> > THEY WORK ON ME TOO!
>
> teehee - He is just in awe that someone could win $10,000. Guess you
> can't do that where he plays.

No, HE can't do that where he plays.

_______________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com

Date: 28 Nov 2006 19:05:28
From: pokerchimp
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas "GCA"

Tell u what Brew. I am sure I can set something up with Russ. I might be
able to get him to play you for as little as $25,000, but I am not sure.
I would be happy to provide a dealers I know to be trustworthy and
efficient, and a nice, secure place for the game here in Florida at a
private home.

On Nov 28 2006 8:48 PM, brewmaster wrote:

> On Nov 28 2006 5:10 PM, Susan wrote:
>
> > "pokerchimp" <mixthing@se.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:cj2v34x78h.ln2@recgroups.com...
> > > On Nov 28 2006 4:55 PM, Iceman wrote:
> >
> > > THEY WORK ON ME TOO!
> >
> > teehee - He is just in awe that someone could win $10,000. Guess you
> > can't do that where he plays.
>
> No, HE can't do that where he plays.

thumbers on stars, pokerchimp1 on absolute

______________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com

Date: 29 Nov
From: Super Steamer
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Nov 28 2006 7:05 PM, pokerchimp wrote:

> Tell u what Brew. I am sure I can set something up with Russ. I might be
> able to get him to play you for as little as $25,000, but I am not sure.
> I would be happy to provide a dealers I know to be trustworthy and
> efficient, and a nice, secure place for the game here in Florida at a
> private home.

I have not taken sides in this debate, but I'm pretty sure that brewmaster was
referring to Iceman.

_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 28 Nov 2006 21:42:21
From: brewmaster
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Nov 28 2006 7:26 PM, Super Steamer wrote:

> On Nov 28 2006 7:05 PM, pokerchimp wrote:
>
> > Tell u what Brew. I am sure I can set something up with Russ. I might be
> > able to get him to play you for as little as $25,000, but I am not sure.
> > I would be happy to provide a dealers I know to be trustworthy and
> > efficient, and a nice, secure place for the game here in Florida at a
> > private home.
>
> I have not taken sides in this debate, but I'm pretty sure that brewmaster
was
> referring to Iceman.

Yeah, I'm gonna challenge Russ....LOL.

______________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com

Date: 28 Nov 2006 21:19:09
From: pokerchimp
Subject: OOPS, sorry Brew

On Nov 28 2006 10:26 PM, Super Steamer wrote:

> On Nov 28 2006 7:05 PM, pokerchimp wrote:
>
> > Tell u what Brew. I am sure I can set something up with Russ. I might be
> > able to get him to play you for as little as $25,000, but I am not sure.
> > I would be happy to provide a dealers I know to be trustworthy and
> > efficient, and a nice, secure place for the game here in Florida at a
> > private home.
>
> I have not taken sides in this debate, but I'm pretty sure that brewmaster
was
> referring to Iceman.

thumbers on stars, pokerchimp1 on absolute

____________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com

Date: 28 Nov 2006 20:10:43
From: Susan
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas "GCA"

who HE?

"brewmaster" <brewmaster@brewcam.com > wrote in message
news:2g5v34x1gh.ln2@recgroups.com...

> No, HE can't do that where he plays.
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
>

Date: 28 Nov 2006 17:06:25
From: Susan
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas "GCA"

You really refuse to do any googling before you post nonsense, don't you.

And if you think that $10,000 is out of line and that Russ is lying about
the number, it tells me a lot more about you. You must figure that to be an
overly large win, right?

sad

"Iceman" <oneofcold@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1164750936.494989.232270@45g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>> I won over $10,000.
>
> Sure you did.
>
>> but in reality, I was given the money. I didn't gamble, but if I did, I
>> would've won $20,000.
>
> These stories only work on Susan. And I thought you were afraid to go
> to Vegas - what happened to all the death threats?
>
>> This is basically, $150-$200K tax free money.
>
> Make up all the crap you want - almost no one is dumb enough to believe
> anything you say. I suppose next week you'll make $35,000 in
> California. The week after that, $65,000 in Tunica. Then $100,000 in
> Atlantic City. Pretty soon you'll be the next Bill Gates.
>

Date: 29 Nov 2006 07:50:16
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas "GCA"

"Susan" <sdbratt48@netscape.net > wrote in message
news:0h3bh.30$Xw2.20@newsfe06.lga...
> You really refuse to do any googling before you post nonsense, don't you.
>

Don't you know that Iceman was one of the very top high limit Omaha players
at Party Poker? Didn't you know that?

And don't forget. He graduated from a top-5 law school and is a corporate
lawyer for major financial corporations.

Can you believe the audacity of this puke? And he never misses a chance to
talk shit to Russ. I'll tellya, if I was such a hotshot corporate lawyer,
the LAST thing I'd be doing is talking like a child on RGP.

-Paul Popinjay

Date: 28 Nov 2006 13:43:09
From: DennisP
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas "GCA"

The implied odds there are huge, as is shown by the KK not laying down
in a monster pot.

If he calls and folds any time he doesn't hit a set he only needs to
win about $750 to break even.

Susan wrote:
> and he should have played it why?
>
>
> "DennisP" <dennis.picht@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1164749669.688069.172570@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
> > I laid down JJ under the
> >> gun when I made it $30 to go in a $5-$10 game and had three callers,
> >> only to be raised $125 by the button. I had over $1,000 in my stack.
> >>
> >> I folded, the flop came J-10-2 rainbow and three players called $200
> >> from the original raiser. Board paired 2's, all three went all in. KK
> >> won the pot of about $3,000.
> >
> > You're folding JJ to in that situation with deep stacks and you are
> > trying to give out lessons?
> >

Date: 28 Nov 2006 13:34:29
From: DennisP
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas "GCA"

RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
I laid down JJ under the
> gun when I made it $30 to go in a $5-$10 game and had three callers,
> only to be raised $125 by the button. I had over $1,000 in my stack.
>
> I folded, the flop came J-10-2 rainbow and three players called $200
> from the original raiser. Board paired 2's, all three went all in. KK
> won the pot of about $3,000.

You're folding JJ to in that situation with deep stacks and you are
trying to give out lessons?

Date: 28 Nov 2006 13:56:45
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas "GCA"

On Nov 28 2006 2:34 PM, DennisP wrote:

> RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
> I laid down JJ under the
> > gun when I made it $30 to go in a $5-$10 game and had three callers,
> > only to be raised $125 by the button. I had over $1,000 in my stack.
> >
> > I folded, the flop came J-10-2 rainbow and three players called $200
> > from the original raiser. Board paired 2's, all three went all in. KK
> > won the pot of about $3,000.
>
> You're folding JJ to in that situation with deep stacks and you are
> trying to give out lessons?

Wow... you think that playing JJ against a reraise for 12.5% of your stack
is a good play???

Fell
--
Website: www.fellknight.com
Email: fellknight at gmail dot com

-----
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com

Date: 28 Nov 22:29:48
From: Nick Wool
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Nov 28 2006 9:56 PM, FellKnight wrote:

> On Nov 28 2006 2:34 PM, DennisP wrote:
>
> > RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
> > I laid down JJ under the
> > > gun when I made it $30 to go in a $5-$10 game and had three callers,
> > > only to be raised $125 by the button. I had over $1,000 in my stack.
> > >
> > > I folded, the flop came J-10-2 rainbow and three players called $200
> > > from the original raiser. Board paired 2's, all three went all in. KK
> > > won the pot of about $3,000.
> >
> > You're folding JJ to in that situation with deep stacks and you are
> > trying to give out lessons?
>
> Wow... you think that playing JJ against a reraise for 12.5% of your stack
> is a good play???
>
> Fell
> --
> Website: http://www.fellknight.com/
> Email: fellknight at gmail dot com

12.5%??? How did you get that figure? He raised to 30 coming, so whether he
calls the reraise or not, 3% of his stack is in the pot already. He would be
calling a reraise of 9.5% of his stack with JJ...not great if the table is full
of rocks, mean that he was probable beat, but unlikely to be paid off if he hits
his set. But on a loose table, why the hell would you not call?

Let's work the figures....he raised 30 coming in, 3 callers, 120 in the pot so
far, button raised to 125, 225 in the pot now. Assuming the blinds fold,
another 15, making it 240 in the pot. You are getting 2.4 to 1 now, assuming
that the players behind you fold. It is unlikely that they will be able to
reraise, what sort of a hand can they have to call an UTG raise in MP, yet repop
a button reraise here? They may be idiots, but Russ didnt say that were
complete morons.

So the worse you are looking at is 2.5 to 1 odds before preflop, and with the
table being loose, you are likely to get much better odds as the players behind,
being loose, are likely to see the flop by calling. Assuming just 2 out of the
3 call, there will be 430 in the pot without inculding your 95, offering you
odds of about 4.4 to 1.

You have 875 left after calling. Any sort of a bet by anyone at flop would see
you getting the right implied odds to chase the set. Add to that, the table was
loose, so you are likely to be paid off way above the necessary implied
odds needed for a call, and some idiot/s was always likely stack off with
TP/overpair. And you say that folding was the right play?

Hey, I thought you say that you like playing for huge implied odds? Why the
different tune here?

_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 28 Nov 2006 15:38:33
From: Susan
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas "GCA"

and he should have played it why?

"DennisP" <dennis.picht@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1164749669.688069.172570@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
>
> RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
> I laid down JJ under the
>> gun when I made it $30 to go in a $5-$10 game and had three callers,
>> only to be raised $125 by the button. I had over $1,000 in my stack.
>>
>> I folded, the flop came J-10-2 rainbow and three players called $200
>> from the original raiser. Board paired 2's, all three went all in. KK
>> won the pot of about $3,000.
>
> You're folding JJ to in that situation with deep stacks and you are
> trying to give out lessons?
>

Date: 28 Nov 2006 13:44:34
From: mo_charles
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas "GCA"

> and he should have played it why?

because he would have filled up and made tons of cash!!!! duh.

mo_charles

____________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com

Date: 28 Nov 21:46:47
From: Nick Wool
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Nov 28 2006 9:38 PM, Susan wrote:

> and he should have played it why?
>
>
> "DennisP" wrote in message
> news:1164749669.688069.172570@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
> > I laid down JJ under the
> >> gun when I made it $30 to go in a $5-$10 game and had three callers,
> >> only to be raised $125 by the button. I had over $1,000 in my stack.
> >>
> >> I folded, the flop came J-10-2 rainbow and three players called $200
> >> from the original raiser. Board paired 2's, all three went all in. KK
> >> won the pot of about $3,000.
> >
> > You're folding JJ to in that situation with deep stacks and you are
> > trying to give out lessons?
> >

Implied odds? Isn't that what NL is all about?

He describes the table as wild and loose, so if he gets lucky and hits that J on
that flop, it is very likely that he will be paid off very handsomely.

Now, in a tight table full of rocks, it might be right to muck JJ preflop to a
standard reraise, but with those table conditions?

Sure glad I wasnt taken in by the hype about the Great Russ, 'the best poker
player in the world'

_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 29 Nov 2006 10:00:17
From: David Nicoson
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas "GCA"

RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
> I won over $10,000, but in reality, I was given the money. I didn't
> gamble, but if I did, I would've won $20,000. I laid down JJ under the
> gun when I made it $30 to go in a $5-$10 game and had three callers,
> only to be raised $125 by the button. I had over $1,000 in my stack.
>
> I folded, the flop came J-10-2 rainbow and three players called $200
> from the original raiser. Board paired 2's, all three went all in. KK
> won the pot of about $3,000.

Why is this noteworthy? If you were saying that you're folding to
reduce variance at the expense of expecation to prove a point, then
that might mean something interesting. Your other posts indicate that
you think that a call here is -EV and I tend to agree. So what was the
point?

You know those guys who want to tell you how their 69o would've made a
straight and they're never folding again?

Date: 29 Nov 2006 05:43:43
From: Douglas Dunn
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

Bill Vanek wrote:
<snip stuff >
>You sound more like a gambler than a poker player.

We're going to have to disagree on this one Bill. If Nick can make +EV
plays and maintain an image as a gambler, I'd say that is a sure recipe
for success in NL cash games.

Doug

Date: 29 Nov 2006 17:18:43
From: Bill Vanek
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On 29 Nov 2006 05:43:43 -0800, "Douglas Dunn"
<jack.dunn.ctr@mscrtc.ang.af.mil > wrote:

>
>Bill Vanek wrote:
><snip stuff>
>>You sound more like a gambler than a poker player.
>
>We're going to have to disagree on this one Bill. If Nick can make +EV
>plays and maintain an image as a gambler, I'd say that is a sure recipe
>for success in NL cash games.

If he's making what he feels are +EV plays, but they might be only
slightly plus, or maybe even minus - it's all a judgement call - and
he's doing this in high variance situations, then he is a gambler. Why
on earth you guys think you can determine the implied odds with any
accuracy in this situation is beyond me, especially since you're
basing your claims on a very general description of the game. I'm sure
that your arguments are based mainly on your dislike or Russ.

Date: 29 Nov 17:37:20
From: Nick Wool
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Nov 29 2006 5:18 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:

> On 29 Nov 2006 05:43:43 -0800, "Douglas Dunn"
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Bill Vanek wrote:
> >
> >>You sound more like a gambler than a poker player.
> >
> >We're going to have to disagree on this one Bill. If Nick can make +EV
> >plays and maintain an image as a gambler, I'd say that is a sure recipe
> >for success in NL cash games.
>
> If he's making what he feels are +EV plays, but they might be only
> slightly plus, or maybe even minus - it's all a judgement call - and
> he's doing this in high variance situations, then he is a gambler. Why
> on earth you guys think you can determine the implied odds with any
> accuracy in this situation is beyond me, especially since you're
> basing your claims on a very general description of the game. I'm sure
> that your arguments are based mainly on your dislike or Russ.

I was going on the specifics of what Russ described....nothing more nothing
less. Now we could argue until the cows come home the merits of mucking under
normal conditions, and I most probably agree with that folding would be the
correct play. But conditions as Russ described them, its an auto call
everytime.

As for disliking Russ, I actually find him to be cute, and adds life and colour
on a dull day. I do, however, take him with a large pinch of salt. I have
never met the guy, nor any of the players he has accused of cheating, so I have
no agenda. Russ comes over as a joke because the bitterness in most of his post
towards the 'named' players, either accusing them of being cheats or poor
players, whilst never having the evidence to back it up. The same goes for his
self-proclaimed greatness as a poker player.

I first visited Russ's site a couple of years back, found nothing interesting in
the free section except generalities. Good for a newbie, but certain no great
insights there. His post on strategy such as the 'rule of 7' for limit, seem
like smoke and mirrors, and his post on NL is contradictory ('mostly luck' in
the first paragraph followed by 'can be quite skillful if played correctly' in
the second.

All the above, combined with lame excuses for ducking out of challenges that he
initiated, made me see the guy is a joke. This is from some who doesnt even
know who Russ was 2 years ago, and certainly have no reason to dislike him.

_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 29 Nov 2006 00:23:57
From: Douglas Dunn
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas "GCA"

Paul Popinjay wrote:
> "Susan" <sdbratt48@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:0h3bh.30$Xw2.20@newsfe06.lga...
> > You really refuse to do any googling before you post nonsense, don't you.
> >
>
>
> Don't you know that Iceman was one of the very top high limit Omaha players
> at Party Poker? Didn't you know that?
>
> And don't forget. He graduated from a top-5 law school and is a corporate
> lawyer for major financial corporations.
>
> Can you believe the audacity of this puke? And he never misses a chance to
> talk shit to Russ. I'll tellya, if I was such a hotshot corporate lawyer,
> the LAST thing I'd be doing is talking like a child on RGP.
>
> -Paul Popinjay

And you never miss a chance to talk shit period. Shouldn't you be off
fucking a wine bottle?

Doug

Date: 29 Nov 2006 14:07:11
From: Paul Popinjay
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas "GCA"

"Douglas Dunn" <jack.dunn.ctr@mscrtc.ang.af.mil > wrote in message
>
> And you never miss a chance to talk shit period. Shouldn't you be off
> fucking a wine bottle?
>
> Doug
>

Shouldn't there be a comma before "period"?

Ok, I'm done with you, Dunn. I let that go the first time you said that.
Please don't EVER read a post by me again. You now MUST killfile me at
once, or I will report you. I don't want to be a snitch. Don't make me rat
you off, Dunn.

-Paul Popinjay

Date: 29 Nov 2006 23:01:40
From: Douglas Dunn
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas "GCA"

BottleFucker wrote:
> Ok, I'm done with you, Dunn. I let that go the first time you said that.
> Please don't EVER read a post by me again. You now MUST killfile me at
> once, or I will report you. I don't want to be a snitch. Don't make me rat
> you off, Dunn.

That was the most notable comment I've read from you. So that's how
I'm going to remember you. I can't guarantee not to ever read a post
from you again, as I use Google Groups. I will make you a deal. I'll
stay out of posts about cow tipping, cats, and intercourse with
inanimate objects, where you are obviously the subject matter expert.
And you stay out of posts about poker strategy. That way we'll never
cross paths.

Doug

Date: 29 Nov 2006 22:22:53
From: Douglas Dunn
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

Bill Vanek wrote:

>
> If he's making what he feels are +EV plays, but they might be only
> slightly plus, or maybe even minus - it's all a judgement call - and
> he's doing this in high variance situations, then he is a gambler. Why
> on earth you guys think you can determine the implied odds with any
> accuracy in this situation is beyond me, especially since you're
> basing your claims on a very general description of the game. I'm sure
> that your arguments are based mainly on your dislike or Russ.

I don't have a dislike for Russ. In fact I think he presents a winning
playing style for small stakes full table NL holdem. I just don't
think that is an optimal one. I feel the first situation he describes
is highly +EV not slightly. And yes I base this on the general
description because that is what was given. You should be doing the
same, but it doesn't appear you are.

Doug

Date: 29 Nov 2006 13:34:19
From: Iceman
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas "GCA"

Susan wrote:
> You really refuse to do any googling before you post nonsense, don't you.

You refuse to wait five minutes before sucking up to Russ after anyone
ridicules him.

> And if you think that $10,000 is out of line and that Russ is lying about
> the number, it tells me a lot more about you. You must figure that to be an
> overly large win, right?

No, you stupid fucking bitch. I'm remarking about the way he just
pulls stuff out of his ass, and people like you believe everything he
says.

> sad

dumbest. bitch. alive.

Date: 29 Nov 2006 13:42:27
From: RazzO
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas "GCA"

On Nov 29 2006 1:34 PM, Iceman wrote:

> Susan wrote:
> > You really refuse to do any googling before you post nonsense, don't you.
>
> You refuse to wait five minutes before sucking up to Russ after anyone
> ridicules him.
>
> > And if you think that $10,000 is out of line and that Russ is lying about
> > the number, it tells me a lot more about you. You must figure that to be
an
> > overly large win, right?
>
> No, you stupid fucking bitch. I'm remarking about the way he just
> pulls stuff out of his ass, and people like you believe everything he
> says.
>
> > sad
>
> dumbest. bitch. alive.

heh

RazzO
email:ticorazz (at) yahoo.com
http://www.razzo.com

_______________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com

Date: 30 Nov 2006 20:29:36
From: RussGeorgiev@aol.com
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas "GCA"

You just had to stick your 'azzo' into this post:).

RazzO wrote:
> On Nov 29 2006 1:34 PM, Iceman wrote:
>
> > Susan wrote:
> > > You really refuse to do any googling before you post nonsense, don't you.
> >
> > You refuse to wait five minutes before sucking up to Russ after anyone
> > ridicules him.
> >
> > > And if you think that $10,000 is out of line and that Russ is lying about
> > > the number, it tells me a lot more about you. You must figure that to be
> an
> > > overly large win, right?
> >
> > No, you stupid fucking bitch. I'm remarking about the way he just
> > pulls stuff out of his ass, and people like you believe everything he
> > says.
> >
> > > sad
> >
> > dumbest. bitch. alive.
>
>
>
> heh
>
>
>
>
> RazzO
> email:ticorazz (at) yahoo.com
> http://www.razzo.com
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> : the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com

Date: 04 Dec 2006 15:59:20
From: RussGeorgiev@aol.com
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas "GCA"

Date: 04 Dec 2006 15:57:21
From: RussGeorgiev@aol.com
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas "GCA"

DennisP wrote:
> RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
> I laid down JJ under the
> > gun when I made it $30 to go in a $5-$10 game and had three callers,
> > only to be raised $125 by the button. I had over $1,000 in my stack.
> >
> > I folded, the flop came J-10-2 rainbow and three players called $200
> > from the original raiser. Board paired 2's, all three went all in. KK
> > won the pot of about $3,000.
>
> You're folding JJ to in that situation with deep stacks and you are
> trying to give out lessons?

I'll give you a lesson and pay you. Just bring enough cash. If you
can't fold this hand, you're an idiot. The hand has the same value as
22.

Russ Georgiev

www.pokermafia.com

Date: 05 Dec 2006 11:01:10
From: Mark B $Diputsur$
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas "GCA"

<RussGeorgiev@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1165276641.705323.137540@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> DennisP wrote:
>> RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
>> I laid down JJ under the
>> > gun when I made it $30 to go in a $5-$10 game and had three callers,
>> > only to be raised $125 by the button. I had over $1,000 in my stack.
>> >
>> > I folded, the flop came J-10-2 rainbow and three players called $200
>> > from the original raiser. Board paired 2's, all three went all in. KK
>> > won the pot of about $3,000.
>>
>> You're folding JJ to in that situation with deep stacks and you are
>> trying to give out lessons?
>
> I'll give you a lesson and pay you.

How much would you pay to give ME a lesson ;-)
Make it worth my while and I'll wear my pokermafia
hat & t-shirt to the lessons, AND I'll even let you
win some of your money back ;-)

Mark
--
www.myspace.com/diputsur

Date: 05 Dec 15:26:11
From: Nick Wool
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Dec 4 2006 11:57 PM, RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:

> DennisP wrote:
> > RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
> > I laid down JJ under the
> > > gun when I made it $30 to go in a $5-$10 game and had three callers,
> > > only to be raised $125 by the button. I had over $1,000 in my stack.
> > >
> > > I folded, the flop came J-10-2 rainbow and three players called $200
> > > from the original raiser. Board paired 2's, all three went all in. KK
> > > won the pot of about $3,000.
> >
> > You're folding JJ to in that situation with deep stacks and you are
> > trying to give out lessons?
>
> I'll give you a lesson and pay you. Just bring enough cash. If you
> can't fold this hand, you're an idiot. The hand has the same value as
> 22.
>
> Russ Georgiev
>
> http://www.pokermafia.com/

It was you who gave the strong impression that the table was loose, and the
players poor, willing to stack off with marginal hands...yet you cannot see the
strong implied odds of chasing a set given that? Yes, I would call with 22 if I
was already in the pot, but you wont see me limping or raising with 22 coming in
UTG. Well, certainly not limping, and not normally raising, anyway.

Oh, I suppose you also 'swim through a sea of shit' to play me? Am I suppose to
be honoured or frighten that the 'best player in the world' has offered to play
this no-name player? I would feel honoured, except that you have chickened-out
of so many 'challenges' to name players before.

Maybe on your next trip to the UK, we can meet up at a club somewhere, and I'll
give you some of my hard-earned money. That is, if your life is not in danger
by you being seen in public, or my vacation schedule doesn't clash...

_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 05 Dec 2006 11:12:29
From: David Nicoson
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas "GCA"

RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
> Yes, huge after the fact. However, before the fact, I had to put 20% of
> my stack in, plus had no idea on whether the others would call. NOW,
> please explain how the implied odds are huge? What if an A hits the
> board, didn't you factor this in? What if it comes set vs. set?

RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
> only to be raised $125 by the button. I had over $1,000 in my stack.

125/1000 = 20% ??

All this debate on the play is completely meaningless if we don't know
the stack sizes to some reasonable approximation.

Date: 05 Dec 2006 10:47:58
From: RussGeorgiev@aol.com
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas "GCA"

DennisP wrote:
> The implied odds there are huge, as is shown by the KK not laying down
> in a monster pot.

Yes, huge after the fact. However, before the fact, I had to put 20% of
my stack in, plus had no idea on whether the others would call. NOW,
please explain how the implied odds are huge? What if an A hits the
board, didn't you factor this in? What if it comes set vs. set?

Russ Georgiev

www.pokermafia.com

>
> If he calls and folds any time he doesn't hit a set he only needs to
> win about $750 to break even.
>
>
> Susan wrote:
> > and he should have played it why?
> >
> >
> > "DennisP" <dennis.picht@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1164749669.688069.172570@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
> > > I laid down JJ under the
> > >> gun when I made it $30 to go in a $5-$10 game and had three callers,
> > >> only to be raised $125 by the button. I had over $1,000 in my stack.
> > >>
> > >> I folded, the flop came J-10-2 rainbow and three players called $200
> > >> from the original raiser. Board paired 2's, all three went all in. KK
> > >> won the pot of about $3,000.
> > >
> > > You're folding JJ to in that situation with deep stacks and you are
> > > trying to give out lessons?
> > >

Date: 05 Dec 22:49:56
From: steve1127
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas

On Dec 5 2006 1:47 PM, RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:

> DennisP wrote:
> > The implied odds there are huge, as is shown by the KK not laying down
> > in a monster pot.
>
> Yes, huge after the fact. However, before the fact, I had to put 20% of
> my stack in, plus had no idea on whether the others would call.

$125 of $1000 is not 20%.

NOW,
> please explain how the implied odds are huge? What if an A hits the
> board, didn't you factor this in? What if it comes set vs. set?

Read the posts before you accuse people of not taking these very predictable
scenarios into account. They were discussed ad nauseum.
>
> Russ Georgiev
>
> http://www.pokermafia.com/
>
>
>
>
> >
> > If he calls and folds any time he doesn't hit a set he only needs to
> > win about $750 to break even.
> >
> >
> > Susan wrote:
> > > and he should have played it why?
> > >
> > >
> > > "DennisP" wrote in message
> > > news:1164749669.688069.172570@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
> > > >
> > > > RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
> > > > I laid down JJ under the
> > > >> gun when I made it $30 to go in a $5-$10 game and had three callers,
> > > >> only to be raised $125 by the button. I had over $1,000 in my stack.
> > > >>
> > > >> I folded, the flop came J-10-2 rainbow and three players called $200
> > > >> from the original raiser. Board paired 2's, all three went all in. KK
> > > >> won the pot of about $3,000.
> > > >
> > > > You're folding JJ to in that situation with deep stacks and you are
> > > > trying to give out lessons?
> > > >

_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 05 Dec 2006 09:53:59
From: David Nicoson
Subject: Re: Potential Pro's, move to Vegas "GCA"