| |
Main
Date: 09 Dec 2006 23:09:20
From: alan
Subject: good win, bad loss
|
My son and I both played tonight, but at different casinos and with
different results.
I had a modest win at a $100 no limit table, he got wiped out at a $40
no limit table.
My high point: I was dealt KK in middle position; BB was $3 and I
raised to $30. I got one caller.
The flop comes 9-10-Q rainbow. I bet $30, and the other player calls.
The turn comes some low card, frankly I dont remember. I check. The
other player checks.
The river comes King. I have my set--- but I'm nervous that if the
other player has a jack, he will have a straight. This was similar to
the position I was in a week ago.
So I bet $40. The other player thinks, then folds and shows his 8-8.
My son's problem hand:
He had Qc 9c and raises to $7. He gets four callers.
The flop comes Kc 5c 3c. He has flopped the flush and goes all in with
$220. My first reaction is WHY do you go all in? Wouldnt a bet of
$25 or $30 gotten the same results?
Well, he gets TWO callers, one of the callers goes all-in with $130 and
a second caller had a bigger stack, so he covers my son's all-in.
The turn is a low, non-club.
The river is another club-- there are four clubs on the board.
The players turn over their cards-- and the short stack had the Ac and
takes the hand.
My comment: there was no need to go all in until you knew you had the
hand won. With three cards on the flop you faced not only the danger
of a higher flush but also full house possibilities. A bet of $30 or
even $50 would have told you if you faced any danger.
Or was he correct going all in?
thanks.
|
|
| |
Date: 10 Dec 2006 08:48:56
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
pokerchimp wrote:
> Raising with Q9 suited was at the root of the problem IMO
I think starting-hand analysis is over-rated, especially in cash NL
with a lot of money in the stacks after the initial raise
The stacks were probably shallow enough that raising with or calling
raises with crappy hands like that would eat you up in the long run and
the occasional bonanza would not be big enough to make up for it. If
the stacks are larger, compared to the blinds, playing hands like that
is not a bad idea.
He had, _at the point the real money went in_, the second nuts and the
better hand was unlikely. If he had limped with QcJc, he would have the
same problem. Limping with QJs is probably a great play at the table as
described.
So raising with it in EP and in a shallow-stack game, is a mistake but
it is a seven-dollar mistake. Many people who avoid seven-dollar
mistakes will make mistakes for huge amounts later in the hand. I
would rather play against them than him.
Will in New Haven
--
"Never try to outstubborn a cat." - Robert Heinlein
"I am not stubborn, Mr. Heinlein, I am just in charge." - Feather
>
> On Dec 10 2006 2:09 AM, alan wrote:
>
> > My son and I both played tonight, but at different casinos and with
> > different results.
> >
> > I had a modest win at a $100 no limit table, he got wiped out at a $40
> > no limit table.
> >
> > My high point: I was dealt KK in middle position; BB was $3 and I
> > raised to $30. I got one caller.
> > The flop comes 9-10-Q rainbow. I bet $30, and the other player calls.
> > The turn comes some low card, frankly I dont remember. I check. The
> > other player checks.
> > The river comes King. I have my set--- but I'm nervous that if the
> > other player has a jack, he will have a straight. This was similar to
> > the position I was in a week ago.
> >
> > So I bet $40. The other player thinks, then folds and shows his 8-8.
> >
> > My son's problem hand:
> >
> > He had Qc 9c and raises to $7. He gets four callers.
> >
> > The flop comes Kc 5c 3c. He has flopped the flush and goes all in with
> > $220. My first reaction is WHY do you go all in? Wouldnt a bet of
> > $25 or $30 gotten the same results?
> > Well, he gets TWO callers, one of the callers goes all-in with $130 and
> > a second caller had a bigger stack, so he covers my son's all-in.
> >
> > The turn is a low, non-club.
> > The river is another club-- there are four clubs on the board.
> >
> > The players turn over their cards-- and the short stack had the Ac and
> > takes the hand.
> >
> > My comment: there was no need to go all in until you knew you had the
> > hand won. With three cards on the flop you faced not only the danger
> > of a higher flush but also full house possibilities. A bet of $30 or
> > even $50 would have told you if you faced any danger.
> >
> > Or was he correct going all in?
> >
> > thanks.
>
>
> thumbers on stars, pokerchimp1 on absolute
>
> ------
> : the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 10 Dec 2006 08:09:30
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
alan wrote:
> My son and I both played tonight, but at different casinos and with
> different results.
>
> I had a modest win at a $100 no limit table, he got wiped out at a $40
> no limit table.
>
> My high point: I was dealt KK in middle position; BB was $3 and I
> raised to $30. I got one caller.
Stack sizes would be nice to know. That's a nice size for a raise if it
is around the normal raise at the table and figures to get called.
Winning just the blinds with KK is not a total disaster, as it is with
AA, but it is certainly not a great result. At this point, if either of
you has around the minimum stack size, you are close to "all-in soon"
country.
> The flop comes 9-10-Q rainbow. I bet $30, and the other player calls.
Reasonable bet. I would think $50 would be called also and you want to
bet enough so that he is getting the odds to draw _and as much as he
will call beyond that_
When he calls, we can pretty _much_ rule out a made straight. Anyway,
J8 is a silly hand for him to have and call a raise and KJ isn't a
_good_ hand to call a raise and your KK makes that mathematically
unlikely. We can also rule out QJ as that is a weak hand to call a
raise pre-flop and most people, with top pair and a straight draw would
stack you here. Especially as calling a stack raise, even with KK,
would be nerve-wracking and look at how many OUTS he has. And he might
be ahead.
So he has AQ? No he would have raised you, QX, not likely a call. Two
pair on the flop would probably have raised you. So he hit a T, with
AT, or a 9, with A9 or he has a pair smaller than Nines.
> The turn comes some low card, frankly I dont remember. I check. The
> other player checks.
Why check? There is no draw so bad that it isn't profitably calling a
check? Your opponent cannot make a bad call if you check. If a bet here
is going to commit you to the pot, so much the better. Were you trying
to induce a bluff? Are you going to fold if he bets?
> The river comes King. I have my set--- but I'm nervous that if the
> other player has a jack, he will have a straight. This was similar to
> the position I was in a week ago.
>
> So I bet $40. The other player thinks, then folds and shows his 8-8.
This bet served NO purpose. He folded a losing hand. You might have
gotten a couple more bucks out of him by betting less. Bets with cards
to come need to be big enough to get drawing hands to either be making
an error by calling or fold. On the river, you want to get called if
you are ahead. By betting this amount, you get a losing hand to fold
and you get raised, a LOT, by that straight you fear. If you bet less,
you get called sometims by losing hands (I don't think that this would
matter this time) If you do get raised, it will generally be a smaller
bet that you can call.
Checking HERE to induce a bluff is not the worst move either. It also
cuts down on your losses if he has a straight as he will not overbet
because he wants to get called. You can't check-raise here unless you
know your opponent very well.
So, you got dealt KK: good; made a reasonable raise and got a caller:
good; Made a reasonable (on the small side of reasonable) bet on the
flop: good; Checked the turn: bad, very bad; Made an irrelevant bet on
the river : Not great
Getting dealt KK was your best move.
> My son's problem hand:
>
> He had Qc 9c and raises to $7. He gets four callers.
That wasn't enough of a raise if it is going to get four callers with
that crap hand. On the other hand, the value of that hand, if it has
any value, is in a multi-way pot.
>
> The flop comes Kc 5c 3c. He has flopped the flush and goes all in with
> $220. My first reaction is WHY do you go all in? Wouldnt a bet of
> $25 or $30 gotten the same results?
There is $35+ in the pot. He has the second nuts and he is obviously
not going to worry about someone having AcXc. It isn't as if he has
8c7c. So he wants to bet enough to avoid giving them proper odds to
call and _as much as someone will call_ Someone with the naked Ac
should not call a pot-sized bet but the possibility or the reality of
other callers will make it tempting. Someone with a made set is in
slightly better shape but should not call a pot-sized bet. But he will.
Someone with two pair should not be calling here but many would. If a
lesser hand calls, it is found money. Smaller flushes will proabably
call.
With all those players, I would have overbet the pot to maybe $70 and
moved in on a harmless turn. If I knew, however, that I was going to
get two callers if I moved all-in, I would have moved all-in.
> Well, he gets TWO callers, one of the callers goes all-in with $130 and
>a second caller had a bigger stack, so he covers my son's all-in.
So, as long as one of these guys doesn't have AcXc, he has gotten all
his money in with a huge chance of winning. He has played the hand
better than I would have and much better than you would have.
>The turn is a low, non-club.
Now, I move all-in after my earlier seventy dollar bet. That probably
doesn't get the guy with the Ace out. If it does, it is a lucky
accident. I suppose, knowing that you might lose the hand, you would
have checked.
>The river is another club-- there are four clubs on the board.
>The players turn over their cards-- and the short stack had the Ac and
>takes the hand.
>My comment: there was no need to go all in until you knew you had the
>hand won. With three cards on the flop you faced not only the danger
>of a higher flush but also full house possibilities. A bet of $30 or
>even $50 would have told you if you faced any danger.
You cannot make much money in poker waiting until you "know you have
the hand won." Your son played that hand this way:
Raised from, I guess, early position with Qc9c: Not _normal_ but a
seven-dollar speculation in a NL game, with the huge potential for
profit, is not a big deal.
Flopped well and bet all-in when his judgement told him that he would
get a caller or more than one. And he was correct. This was an
excellent play, especially as more than two callers would not make
things much worse than two callers.
The worst thing that he did was get sucked out on.
It was very humble of you to post a hand where you played badly and one
where your son played much better and lost to a suckout.
Will in New Haven
--
" It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond
of it." - Robert E. Lee
Or was he correct going all in?
|
| |
Date: 10 Dec 2006 07:31:42
From: pokerchimp
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
Raising with Q9 suited was at the root of the problem IMO
On Dec 10 2006 2:09 AM, alan wrote:
> My son and I both played tonight, but at different casinos and with
> different results.
>
> I had a modest win at a $100 no limit table, he got wiped out at a $40
> no limit table.
>
> My high point: I was dealt KK in middle position; BB was $3 and I
> raised to $30. I got one caller.
> The flop comes 9-10-Q rainbow. I bet $30, and the other player calls.
> The turn comes some low card, frankly I dont remember. I check. The
> other player checks.
> The river comes King. I have my set--- but I'm nervous that if the
> other player has a jack, he will have a straight. This was similar to
> the position I was in a week ago.
>
> So I bet $40. The other player thinks, then folds and shows his 8-8.
>
> My son's problem hand:
>
> He had Qc 9c and raises to $7. He gets four callers.
>
> The flop comes Kc 5c 3c. He has flopped the flush and goes all in with
> $220. My first reaction is WHY do you go all in? Wouldnt a bet of
> $25 or $30 gotten the same results?
> Well, he gets TWO callers, one of the callers goes all-in with $130 and
> a second caller had a bigger stack, so he covers my son's all-in.
>
> The turn is a low, non-club.
> The river is another club-- there are four clubs on the board.
>
> The players turn over their cards-- and the short stack had the Ac and
> takes the hand.
>
> My comment: there was no need to go all in until you knew you had the
> hand won. With three cards on the flop you faced not only the danger
> of a higher flush but also full house possibilities. A bet of $30 or
> even $50 would have told you if you faced any danger.
>
> Or was he correct going all in?
>
> thanks.
thumbers on stars, pokerchimp1 on absolute
------
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 10 Dec 2006 00:27:04
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
On Dec 10 2006 12:09 AM, alan wrote:
> My son and I both played tonight, but at different casinos and with
> different results.
>
> I had a modest win at a $100 no limit table, he got wiped out at a $40
> no limit table.
Good for you.
> My high point: I was dealt KK in middle position; BB was $3 and I
> raised to $30. I got one caller.
So far so good.
> The flop comes 9-10-Q rainbow. I bet $30, and the other player calls.
> The turn comes some low card, frankly I dont remember. I check. The
> other player checks.
Uh, why? The best turn card came, and you checked. Terrible poker unless
you had a read that he would bluff or that he only calls the flop with a
monster.
> The river comes King. I have my set--- but I'm nervous that if the
> other player has a jack, he will have a straight. This was similar to
> the position I was in a week ago.
>
> So I bet $40. The other player thinks, then folds and shows his 8-8.
Terrible bet. You are going to get raised by a straight, and you may have
to fold. There is a difference in folding your set on the river if you
get raised (and there is money behind). However, if he does have the
straight, you can check and call a smaller bet. If you checked twice, on
the turn and river, he has to think you are weak, and will not pay off a
big bet, so he would proabbly bet small with a straight.
> My son's problem hand:
>
> He had Qc 9c and raises to $7. He gets four callers.
>
> The flop comes Kc 5c 3c. He has flopped the flush and goes all in with
> $220. My first reaction is WHY do you go all in? Wouldnt a bet of
> $25 or $30 gotten the same results?
Not if the results are getting all your chips in as a huge favourite. If
he thinks that a King, set, or Ac will call an all-in bet on the flop,
then that bet is the correct one by far.
> Well, he gets TWO callers, one of the callers goes all-in with $130 and
> a second caller had a bigger stack, so he covers my son's all-in.
>
> The turn is a low, non-club.
> The river is another club-- there are four clubs on the board.
>
> The players turn over their cards-- and the short stack had the Ac and
> takes the hand.
So? He got his money in with a 75% chance to triple up.
> My comment: there was no need to go all in until you knew you had the
> hand won.
Rid yourself of this thinking now. Winning money is far more important
than winning pots. think about that for awhile.
> With three cards on the flop you faced not only the danger
> of a higher flush
Only the Ac with another club beats you.
>but also full house possibilities.
Not on the flop.
> A bet of $30 or even $50 would have told you if you faced any danger.
What danger? You flopped the 2nd nuts at an obviously loose table
> Or was he correct going all in?
He played his hand much better than you played yours.
> thanks.
Fell
--
Website: www.fellknight.com
Email: fellknight at gmail dot com
____________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 10 Dec 2006 07:35:31
From: pokerchimp
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
I agree with your analysis of the first hand Fell, but I'd need to know
more about the position of the Q9 and chip stacks at the table and how
many people were already in the hand to even play it. Q9 suited is not a
playable hand imo and is not a raising hand unless in the cu or button or
depending on certain circumstances.
On Dec 10 2006 3:27 AM, FellKnight wrote:
> On Dec 10 2006 12:09 AM, alan wrote:
>
> > My son and I both played tonight, but at different casinos and with
> > different results.
> >
> > I had a modest win at a $100 no limit table, he got wiped out at a $40
> > no limit table.
>
> Good for you.
>
> > My high point: I was dealt KK in middle position; BB was $3 and I
> > raised to $30. I got one caller.
>
> So far so good.
>
> > The flop comes 9-10-Q rainbow. I bet $30, and the other player calls.
> > The turn comes some low card, frankly I dont remember. I check. The
> > other player checks.
>
> Uh, why? The best turn card came, and you checked. Terrible poker unless
> you had a read that he would bluff or that he only calls the flop with a
> monster.
>
> > The river comes King. I have my set--- but I'm nervous that if the
> > other player has a jack, he will have a straight. This was similar to
> > the position I was in a week ago.
> >
> > So I bet $40. The other player thinks, then folds and shows his 8-8.
>
> Terrible bet. You are going to get raised by a straight, and you may have
> to fold. There is a difference in folding your set on the river if you
> get raised (and there is money behind). However, if he does have the
> straight, you can check and call a smaller bet. If you checked twice, on
> the turn and river, he has to think you are weak, and will not pay off a
> big bet, so he would proabbly bet small with a straight.
>
> > My son's problem hand:
> >
> > He had Qc 9c and raises to $7. He gets four callers.
> >
> > The flop comes Kc 5c 3c. He has flopped the flush and goes all in with
> > $220. My first reaction is WHY do you go all in? Wouldnt a bet of
> > $25 or $30 gotten the same results?
>
> Not if the results are getting all your chips in as a huge favourite. If
> he thinks that a King, set, or Ac will call an all-in bet on the flop,
> then that bet is the correct one by far.
>
> > Well, he gets TWO callers, one of the callers goes all-in with $130 and
> > a second caller had a bigger stack, so he covers my son's all-in.
> >
> > The turn is a low, non-club.
> > The river is another club-- there are four clubs on the board.
> >
> > The players turn over their cards-- and the short stack had the Ac and
> > takes the hand.
>
> So? He got his money in with a 75% chance to triple up.
>
> > My comment: there was no need to go all in until you knew you had the
> > hand won.
>
> Rid yourself of this thinking now. Winning money is far more important
> than winning pots. think about that for awhile.
>
> > With three cards on the flop you faced not only the danger
> > of a higher flush
>
> Only the Ac with another club beats you.
>
> >but also full house possibilities.
>
> Not on the flop.
>
> > A bet of $30 or even $50 would have told you if you faced any danger.
>
> What danger? You flopped the 2nd nuts at an obviously loose table
>
> > Or was he correct going all in?
>
> He played his hand much better than you played yours.
>
> > thanks.
>
> Fell
> --
> Website: www.fellknight.com
> Email: fellknight at gmail dot com
thumbers on stars, pokerchimp1 on absolute
____________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Dec 2006 11:18:03
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
On Dec 10 2006 8:35 AM, pokerchimp wrote:
> I agree with your analysis of the first hand Fell, but I'd need to know
> more about the position of the Q9 and chip stacks at the table and how
> many people were already in the hand to even play it. Q9 suited is not a
> playable hand imo and is not a raising hand unless in the cu or button or
> depending on certain circumstances.
I did miss the raise preflop.
Fell
--
Website: www.fellknight.com
Email: fellknight at gmail dot com
--------
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 00:19:21
From: Palooka
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
"FellKnight" <jordandevenport@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:b43u44xg4r.ln2@recgroups.com...
> On Dec 10 2006 8:35 AM, pokerchimp wrote:
>
>> I agree with your analysis of the first hand Fell, but I'd need to know
>> more about the position of the Q9 and chip stacks at the table and how
>> many people were already in the hand to even play it. Q9 suited is not a
>> playable hand imo and is not a raising hand unless in the cu or button or
>> depending on certain circumstances.
>
> I did miss the raise preflop.
>
Missed it? I thought you had intentionally avoided commenting on it!
Seriously though, IMHO the way to answer this type of question is to assume
a misclick or whatever, and proceed from here. Given that for whatever
reasons, we have made the decisions which have led to the point we are, OP's
push must surely be right *now*.
My 2c.
Palooka
|
| | | | | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 00:22:59
From: Palooka
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
"Palooka" <nobody@nowhere.com > wrote in message
news:du1fh.8206$n36.3186@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "FellKnight" <jordandevenport@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b43u44xg4r.ln2@recgroups.com...
>> On Dec 10 2006 8:35 AM, pokerchimp wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with your analysis of the first hand Fell, but I'd need to know
>>> more about the position of the Q9 and chip stacks at the table and how
>>> many people were already in the hand to even play it. Q9 suited is not
>>> a
>>> playable hand imo and is not a raising hand unless in the cu or button
>>> or
>>> depending on certain circumstances.
>>
>> I did miss the raise preflop.
>>
> Missed it? I thought you had intentionally avoided commenting on it!
>
> Seriously though, IMHO the way to answer this type of question is to
> assume a misclick or whatever, and proceed from here. Given that for
> whatever reasons, we have made the decisions which have led to the point
> we are, OP's push must surely be right *now*.
>
> My 2c.
>
Correction: OP's son's push.
Palooka
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 00:56:36
From: ben carr
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
I prefer to wait until the turn to make that all in bet (in your son's
hand). Its not terrible to do it his way, just my preference. The
opponents odds are lower on the turn obiously. His flush was good, but
not the nuts. There was no way to make the oppoent fold his draw. Maybe
he was destined to go broke on that flop. I agree with the chimp that
raising with that hand preflop was the big error. He set himself up to
lose big by doing that.
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 00:03:58
From: pokerchimp
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
OMG the earth shook. Someone agreed with me!
On Dec 11 2006 12:56 AM, ben carr wrote:
> I prefer to wait until the turn to make that all in bet (in your son's
> hand). Its not terrible to do it his way, just my preference. The
> opponents odds are lower on the turn obiously. His flush was good, but
> not the nuts. There was no way to make the oppoent fold his draw. Maybe
> he was destined to go broke on that flop. I agree with the chimp that
> raising with that hand preflop was the big error. He set himself up to
> lose big by doing that.
thumbers on stars, dieseldyke on absolute/vegaspoker24/7
----
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 09 Dec 2006 23:48:41
From: Monty_Burns
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
If he knew that another player had the Ace, then yes, he should have
gone allin since he was a 65% winner. If he felt the Ace was not in
someone elses hand then an allin would likely cause everyone to fold
(who knows what the other player had).
|
| |
Date: 10 Dec 2006 22:56:56
From: phlash74
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
On Dec 9, 11:09 pm, "alan" <mone...@aol.com > wrote:
> My son and I both played tonight, but at different casinos and with
> different results.
>
> I had a modest win at a $100 no limit table, he got wiped out at a $40
> no limit table.
>
> My high point: I was dealt KK in middle position; BB was $3 and I
> raised to $30. I got one caller.
10xBB raise, I guess that's pretty standard at these tables.
> The flop comes 9-10-Q rainbow. I bet $30, and the other player calls.
Stack sizes come into play here. You state that you were playing "$100
no limit". I assume that means the max buy-in was $100. If either you
or your lone opponent started the hand with this amount or less, you
would have about $70 left. Given the pot was about $60 after your
preflop raise and his call, I think I'd have to put the $70 in here.
If your opponent has the straight, they made a bad call preflop and got
lucky. Reload and wait for an opportunity to take your money back. If
they have a set, they got lucky and that's poker. Two pair, same as
the straight while giving you a better chance to catch up on this hand.
One pair, and you're a big favorite to double up. Even if they had
QJ, they have just two Queens, two Kings, and two eights to beat you,
making you a solid favorite. I don't see how you're going to fold the
overpair and gutshot straight draw with that amount in the pot, so I
would push here. Your bet would be better if both you and your
opponent had around $200 left.
> The turn comes some low card, frankly I dont remember. I check. The
> other player checks.
Given that you didn't push on the flop, the pot is now ~$120. Your
opponent has merely called both your bets with position on you.
Nothing he has done suggests that he has your KK beat, and a rag turn
didn't help him if he was drawing. A push here is vital to protect
your hand.
> The river comes King. I have my set--- but I'm nervous that if the
> other player has a jack, he will have a straight. This was similar to
> the position I was in a week ago.
>
> So I bet $40. The other player thinks, then folds and shows his 8-8.
Terrible bet. You're not getting called by any hand you beat. If you
had pushed on the flop or turn, your opponent might have called hoping
to hit the Jack (which would have won you the hand). The only card
that could help him was an 8.
> My son's problem hand:
>
> He had Qc 9c and raises to $7. He gets four callers.
I don't like this raise, particularly in early position.
>
> The flop comes Kc 5c 3c. He has flopped the flush and goes all in with
> $220. My first reaction is WHY do you go all in? Wouldnt a bet of
> $25 or $30 gotten the same results?
Bailed out on the flop. I don't like the all-in play myself; however,
a lot of low limit players think that when a player massively overbets
the pot they're on a draw. Thus they may call with hands like top
pair. A pot size bet may be called by a lower club, but will
definitely be called by the Ac. If he could get a caller who's way
behind, all-in is a fine play.
> Well, he gets TWO callers, one of the callers goes all-in with $130 and
> a second caller had a bigger stack, so he covers my son's all-in.
>
> The turn is a low, non-club.
> The river is another club-- there are four clubs on the board.
>
> The players turn over their cards-- and the short stack had the Ac and
> takes the hand.
He made a terrible call and got lucky. At least the big stack didn't
win. What did he have to call the all-in with?
> My comment: there was no need to go all in until you knew you had the
> hand won. With three cards on the flop you faced not only the danger
> of a higher flush but also full house possibilities. A bet of $30 or
> even $50 would have told you if you faced any danger.
There can't be a full house unless the board is paired. There's only
one higher flush which is statistically unlikely. And if you wait to
go all-in until you have the nuts on the river, you're going to be
waiting a looooooonnnnnngggg time (and missing many opportunities to
make money). Making a bet such as you suggest would have been a good
play. Getting all your money in with by far the best hand is an even
better play. He simply got bad beat.
>
> Or was he correct going all in?
>
> thanks.
|
| |
Date: 10 Dec 2006 17:15:58
From: Old Wolf
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
alan wrote:
> Will, you wrote about my son's hand:
> "This was an excellent play,..."
>
> Please explain this to me: he lost more than half of his stack on this
> hand. How could it be an excellent play?
It was an excellent play, based on the information he had available
at the time. When it is time to make a play, you can't predict
the future [*].
Here's another example. Suppose you have Ace Ace. Another
guy who has more money than you goes all-in. Do you call?
Hopefully you will agree that the answer is yes. Now, the odds
are that about one time in five, the other guy will win. You win
80% and the other guy wins 20%. Does that mean that 20% of
the time, it is a bad play to get all-in with aces? No. It is always
a good play, but sometimes it loses money.
[*] Unless you are playing on PokerStars, you flop a set, and
the other guy has a runner runner straight draw.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 15:32:54
From: Alan Gilbert aka brewmaster
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
On Dec 10 2006 5:15 PM, Old Wolf wrote:
> alan wrote:
> > Will, you wrote about my son's hand:
> > "This was an excellent play,..."
> >
> > Please explain this to me: he lost more than half of his stack on this
> > hand. How could it be an excellent play?
>
> It was an excellent play, based on the information he had available
> at the time. When it is time to make a play, you can't predict
> the future [*].
>
> Here's another example. Suppose you have Ace Ace. Another
> guy who has more money than you goes all-in. Do you call?
>
> Hopefully you will agree that the answer is yes. Now, the odds
> are that about one time in five, the other guy will win. You win
> 80% and the other guy wins 20%. Does that mean that 20% of
> the time, it is a bad play to get all-in with aces? No. It is always
> a good play, but sometimes it loses money.
No no, it can't be a good play, because he said you should wait till you
KNOW you will have the best hand at the end before going all in. With 5
cards to come your AA might get cracked.
>
>
> [*] Unless you are playing on PokerStars, you flop a set, and
> the other guy has a runner runner straight draw.
------
brewmaster at brewcam dot com
"Once in awhile you can get shown the light in the strangest of places if
you look at it right" -RH
--------
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 10 Dec 2006 17:06:36
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
Palooka wrote:
> "Will in New Haven" <bill.reich@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in message
> news:1165796666.548503.233450@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Palooka wrote:
> >> "FellKnight" <jordandevenport@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:b43u44xg4r.ln2@recgroups.com...
> >> > On Dec 10 2006 8:35 AM, pokerchimp wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I agree with your analysis of the first hand Fell, but I'd need to
> >> >> know
> >> >> more about the position of the Q9 and chip stacks at the table and how
> >> >> many people were already in the hand to even play it. Q9 suited is
> >> >> not a
> >> >> playable hand imo and is not a raising hand unless in the cu or button
> >> >> or
> >> >> depending on certain circumstances.
> >> >
> >> > I did miss the raise preflop.
> >> >
> >> Missed it? I thought you had intentionally avoided commenting on it!
> >>
> >> Seriously though, IMHO the way to answer this type of question is to
> >> assume
> >> a misclick or whatever, and proceed from here. Given that for whatever
> >> reasons, we have made the decisions which have led to the point we are,
> >> OP's
> >> push must surely be right *now*.
> >>
> >> My 2c.
> >>
> >> Palooka
> >
> > I think you are looking at it exactly correctly. Or it could be that
> > your raises have been getting so much respect that you are getting
> > little or no action. So, you raise and hope to be able to fold to a
> > re-raise; it's only seven bucks. If you get called, you can continue
> > the charade because you HAVE been getting so much respect, or you can
> > fold to the first action. This latter would again cause people to be
> > more suspicious of your raises.
> >
> > Or your SO made the raise and now she has to go to the lady's room and
> > the guys in the bar always let you take over the hand in this
> > situation.
> >
> > So, you make this bizzare play for whatever reason and you wind up in
> > this position. If you think an all-in is going to get called, why not?
> >
> Thanks for the kind words.
> There were *four* callers preflop. I have to price out the naked Ac, and I
> may get one or two along for the ride anyway. Is pushing so bad?
>
> Palooka
Not bad. Ceritainly better than a pot-sized bet since several callers
can make the caller with the best draw right to call. I don't remember
the details but around $100 would make a call riidiculous. I want
someone to call incorrectly. This situation is odd in that one caller
with the naked Ace is dangerous. A caller with a set is dangerous.
However, there are only two dangerous "events," the board pairs or
another Club and any more than two callers just makes the situation
better. Extra callers make the two best draws correct to call but they
still add to my profitibility. I think $100 is better than the fifty I
proposed and I think all-in is great if people are going to call.
Will in New Haven
--
"Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail
better."
Samuel Beckett, "Worstward Ho", 1983
|
| |
Date: 10 Dec 2006 16:24:26
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
Palooka wrote:
> "FellKnight" <jordandevenport@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b43u44xg4r.ln2@recgroups.com...
> > On Dec 10 2006 8:35 AM, pokerchimp wrote:
> >
> >> I agree with your analysis of the first hand Fell, but I'd need to know
> >> more about the position of the Q9 and chip stacks at the table and how
> >> many people were already in the hand to even play it. Q9 suited is not a
> >> playable hand imo and is not a raising hand unless in the cu or button or
> >> depending on certain circumstances.
> >
> > I did miss the raise preflop.
> >
> Missed it? I thought you had intentionally avoided commenting on it!
>
> Seriously though, IMHO the way to answer this type of question is to assume
> a misclick or whatever, and proceed from here. Given that for whatever
> reasons, we have made the decisions which have led to the point we are, OP's
> push must surely be right *now*.
>
> My 2c.
>
> Palooka
I think you are looking at it exactly correctly. Or it could be that
your raises have been getting so much respect that you are getting
little or no action. So, you raise and hope to be able to fold to a
re-raise; it's only seven bucks. If you get called, you can continue
the charade because you HAVE been getting so much respect, or you can
fold to the first action. This latter would again cause people to be
more suspicious of your raises.
Or your SO made the raise and now she has to go to the lady's room and
the guys in the bar always let you take over the hand in this
situation.
So, you make this bizzare play for whatever reason and you wind up in
this position. If you think an all-in is going to get called, why not?
Will in New Haven
--
"Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail
better."
Samuel Beckett, "Worstward Ho", 1983
|
| | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 00:52:25
From: Palooka
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
"Will in New Haven" <bill.reich@taylorandfrancis.com > wrote in message
news:1165796666.548503.233450@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
>
> Palooka wrote:
>> "FellKnight" <jordandevenport@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:b43u44xg4r.ln2@recgroups.com...
>> > On Dec 10 2006 8:35 AM, pokerchimp wrote:
>> >
>> >> I agree with your analysis of the first hand Fell, but I'd need to
>> >> know
>> >> more about the position of the Q9 and chip stacks at the table and how
>> >> many people were already in the hand to even play it. Q9 suited is
>> >> not a
>> >> playable hand imo and is not a raising hand unless in the cu or button
>> >> or
>> >> depending on certain circumstances.
>> >
>> > I did miss the raise preflop.
>> >
>> Missed it? I thought you had intentionally avoided commenting on it!
>>
>> Seriously though, IMHO the way to answer this type of question is to
>> assume
>> a misclick or whatever, and proceed from here. Given that for whatever
>> reasons, we have made the decisions which have led to the point we are,
>> OP's
>> push must surely be right *now*.
>>
>> My 2c.
>>
>> Palooka
>
> I think you are looking at it exactly correctly. Or it could be that
> your raises have been getting so much respect that you are getting
> little or no action. So, you raise and hope to be able to fold to a
> re-raise; it's only seven bucks. If you get called, you can continue
> the charade because you HAVE been getting so much respect, or you can
> fold to the first action. This latter would again cause people to be
> more suspicious of your raises.
>
> Or your SO made the raise and now she has to go to the lady's room and
> the guys in the bar always let you take over the hand in this
> situation.
>
> So, you make this bizzare play for whatever reason and you wind up in
> this position. If you think an all-in is going to get called, why not?
>
Thanks for the kind words.
There were *four* callers preflop. I have to price out the naked Ac, and I
may get one or two along for the ride anyway. Is pushing so bad?
Palooka
|
| |
Date: 10 Dec 2006 15:35:34
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
alan wrote:
> Will, you wrote about my son's hand:
>
> "This was an excellent play,..."
>
> Please explain this to me: he lost more than half of his stack on this
> hand. How could it be an excellent play?
>
> thanks.
Because he would win a great deal of money on that hand much more often
than he would lose. The casinos are rarely in as good a position on
their table games as he was on that hand when two idiots called that
all-in.
We don't know what the other player had. He may have had a smaller
flush, which would be wonderful for your son, or he might have had a
set or he might have had two pair. Or he might have had top pair and
simply been a buffoon. Some people would rather catch a bluffer than
have money.
If the other player had a set, he will make a boat about one-third of
the time. If he does, it won't matter if another Club comes also,
because he will win. If he doesn't make a boat, another Club will come
about thirty percent of the remaining two-two thirds of the time (it
doesn't matter if the extra Club comes when the boat is made) Call that
twenty percent of the time, which is close enough. So your son, in the
worst possible situation, is just under fifty-fifty to triple up.
Long-term, you make money that way.
In the better situation, where the third player calls because he has a
flush himself and it is worse than Queen high, and people do that, that
player is no danger to your son's stack and the naked Ace is going to
make his flush less often, around twenty percent of the time (fewer
Clubs available) So here he's tripling up eighty percent of the time.
I figure his situation where he gets two callers, counting the
occasions where someone has already flopped the nut flush, is that he
is over sixty percent to triple up.
If he gets one caller, he has to worry about someone having the nut
flush, in which case he is dead, the board pairing, which makes him a
two to one favorite to double up, OR (doesn't have to fear both)
another Club, which makes him about a seven to three favorite.
In every case where he gets MORE than two callers, he is better off
than he would be with only two.
Poker is about making the right decisions. Make the right decisions and
you will usually win. Making the right decision is within your control.
The fall of the cards is not within your control.
I wouldn't have played it the way he did because I wouldn't expect to
be called. However, once the harmless card comes on the flop, I would
hope my opponent would feel he had to call all-in on the next bet. He
would not be getting odds to play in either case. If I thought that I
would get callers, I would move in just like he did.
Will in New Haven
--
"Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail
better."
Samuel Beckett, "Worstward Ho", 1983
>
>
> Will in New Haven wrote:
> > alan wrote:
> > > My son and I both played tonight, but at different casinos and with
> > > different results.
> > >
> > > I had a modest win at a $100 no limit table, he got wiped out at a $40
> > > no limit table.
> > >
> > > My high point: I was dealt KK in middle position; BB was $3 and I
> > > raised to $30. I got one caller.
> >
> > Stack sizes would be nice to know. That's a nice size for a raise if it
> > is around the normal raise at the table and figures to get called.
> > Winning just the blinds with KK is not a total disaster, as it is with
> > AA, but it is certainly not a great result. At this point, if either of
> > you has around the minimum stack size, you are close to "all-in soon"
> > country.
> >
> > > The flop comes 9-10-Q rainbow. I bet $30, and the other player calls.
> >
> > Reasonable bet. I would think $50 would be called also and you want to
> > bet enough so that he is getting the odds to draw _and as much as he
> > will call beyond that_
> >
> > When he calls, we can pretty _much_ rule out a made straight. Anyway,
> > J8 is a silly hand for him to have and call a raise and KJ isn't a
> > _good_ hand to call a raise and your KK makes that mathematically
> > unlikely. We can also rule out QJ as that is a weak hand to call a
> > raise pre-flop and most people, with top pair and a straight draw would
> > stack you here. Especially as calling a stack raise, even with KK,
> > would be nerve-wracking and look at how many OUTS he has. And he might
> > be ahead.
> >
> > So he has AQ? No he would have raised you, QX, not likely a call. Two
> > pair on the flop would probably have raised you. So he hit a T, with
> > AT, or a 9, with A9 or he has a pair smaller than Nines.
> >
> > > The turn comes some low card, frankly I dont remember. I check. The
> > > other player checks.
> >
> > Why check? There is no draw so bad that it isn't profitably calling a
> > check? Your opponent cannot make a bad call if you check. If a bet here
> > is going to commit you to the pot, so much the better. Were you trying
> > to induce a bluff? Are you going to fold if he bets?
> >
> > > The river comes King. I have my set--- but I'm nervous that if the
> > > other player has a jack, he will have a straight. This was similar to
> > > the position I was in a week ago.
> > >
> > > So I bet $40. The other player thinks, then folds and shows his 8-8.
> >
> > This bet served NO purpose. He folded a losing hand. You might have
> > gotten a couple more bucks out of him by betting less. Bets with cards
> > to come need to be big enough to get drawing hands to either be making
> > an error by calling or fold. On the river, you want to get called if
> > you are ahead. By betting this amount, you get a losing hand to fold
> > and you get raised, a LOT, by that straight you fear. If you bet less,
> > you get called sometims by losing hands (I don't think that this would
> > matter this time) If you do get raised, it will generally be a smaller
> > bet that you can call.
> >
> > Checking HERE to induce a bluff is not the worst move either. It also
> > cuts down on your losses if he has a straight as he will not overbet
> > because he wants to get called. You can't check-raise here unless you
> > know your opponent very well.
> >
> > So, you got dealt KK: good; made a reasonable raise and got a caller:
> > good; Made a reasonable (on the small side of reasonable) bet on the
> > flop: good; Checked the turn: bad, very bad; Made an irrelevant bet on
> > the river : Not great
> >
> > Getting dealt KK was your best move.
> >
> > > My son's problem hand:
> > >
> > > He had Qc 9c and raises to $7. He gets four callers.
> >
> > That wasn't enough of a raise if it is going to get four callers with
> > that crap hand. On the other hand, the value of that hand, if it has
> > any value, is in a multi-way pot.
> >
> > >
> > > The flop comes Kc 5c 3c. He has flopped the flush and goes all in with
> > > $220. My first reaction is WHY do you go all in? Wouldnt a bet of
> > > $25 or $30 gotten the same results?
> >
> > There is $35+ in the pot. He has the second nuts and he is obviously
> > not going to worry about someone having AcXc. It isn't as if he has
> > 8c7c. So he wants to bet enough to avoid giving them proper odds to
> > call and _as much as someone will call_ Someone with the naked Ac
> > should not call a pot-sized bet but the possibility or the reality of
> > other callers will make it tempting. Someone with a made set is in
> > slightly better shape but should not call a pot-sized bet. But he will.
> > Someone with two pair should not be calling here but many would. If a
> > lesser hand calls, it is found money. Smaller flushes will proabably
> > call.
> >
> > With all those players, I would have overbet the pot to maybe $70 and
> > moved in on a harmless turn. If I knew, however, that I was going to
> > get two callers if I moved all-in, I would have moved all-in.
> >
> > > Well, he gets TWO callers, one of the callers goes all-in with $130 and
> > >a second caller had a bigger stack, so he covers my son's all-in.
> >
> > So, as long as one of these guys doesn't have AcXc, he has gotten all
> > his money in with a huge chance of winning. He has played the hand
> > better than I would have and much better than you would have.
> >
> > >The turn is a low, non-club.
> >
> > Now, I move all-in after my earlier seventy dollar bet. That probably
> > doesn't get the guy with the Ace out. If it does, it is a lucky
> > accident. I suppose, knowing that you might lose the hand, you would
> > have checked.
> >
> >
> > >The river is another club-- there are four clubs on the board.
> >
> >
> > >The players turn over their cards-- and the short stack had the Ac and
> > >takes the hand.
> >
> > >My comment: there was no need to go all in until you knew you had the
> > >hand won. With three cards on the flop you faced not only the danger
> > >of a higher flush but also full house possibilities. A bet of $30 or
> > >even $50 would have told you if you faced any danger.
> >
> > You cannot make much money in poker waiting until you "know you have
> > the hand won." Your son played that hand this way:
> >
> > Raised from, I guess, early position with Qc9c: Not _normal_ but a
> > seven-dollar speculation in a NL game, with the huge potential for
> > profit, is not a big deal.
> >
> > Flopped well and bet all-in when his judgement told him that he would
> > get a caller or more than one. And he was correct. This was an
> > excellent play, especially as more than two callers would not make
> > things much worse than two callers.
> >
> > The worst thing that he did was get sucked out on.
> >
> > It was very humble of you to post a hand where you played badly and one
> > where your son played much better and lost to a suckout.
> >
> > Will in New Haven
> >
> > --
> >
> > " It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond
> > of it." - Robert E. Lee
> > Or was he correct going all in?
|
| |
Date: 10 Dec 2006 15:13:56
From: alan
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
Will, you wrote about my son's hand:
"This was an excellent play,..."
Please explain this to me: he lost more than half of his stack on this
hand. How could it be an excellent play?
thanks.
Will in New Haven wrote:
> alan wrote:
> > My son and I both played tonight, but at different casinos and with
> > different results.
> >
> > I had a modest win at a $100 no limit table, he got wiped out at a $40
> > no limit table.
> >
> > My high point: I was dealt KK in middle position; BB was $3 and I
> > raised to $30. I got one caller.
>
> Stack sizes would be nice to know. That's a nice size for a raise if it
> is around the normal raise at the table and figures to get called.
> Winning just the blinds with KK is not a total disaster, as it is with
> AA, but it is certainly not a great result. At this point, if either of
> you has around the minimum stack size, you are close to "all-in soon"
> country.
>
> > The flop comes 9-10-Q rainbow. I bet $30, and the other player calls.
>
> Reasonable bet. I would think $50 would be called also and you want to
> bet enough so that he is getting the odds to draw _and as much as he
> will call beyond that_
>
> When he calls, we can pretty _much_ rule out a made straight. Anyway,
> J8 is a silly hand for him to have and call a raise and KJ isn't a
> _good_ hand to call a raise and your KK makes that mathematically
> unlikely. We can also rule out QJ as that is a weak hand to call a
> raise pre-flop and most people, with top pair and a straight draw would
> stack you here. Especially as calling a stack raise, even with KK,
> would be nerve-wracking and look at how many OUTS he has. And he might
> be ahead.
>
> So he has AQ? No he would have raised you, QX, not likely a call. Two
> pair on the flop would probably have raised you. So he hit a T, with
> AT, or a 9, with A9 or he has a pair smaller than Nines.
>
> > The turn comes some low card, frankly I dont remember. I check. The
> > other player checks.
>
> Why check? There is no draw so bad that it isn't profitably calling a
> check? Your opponent cannot make a bad call if you check. If a bet here
> is going to commit you to the pot, so much the better. Were you trying
> to induce a bluff? Are you going to fold if he bets?
>
> > The river comes King. I have my set--- but I'm nervous that if the
> > other player has a jack, he will have a straight. This was similar to
> > the position I was in a week ago.
> >
> > So I bet $40. The other player thinks, then folds and shows his 8-8.
>
> This bet served NO purpose. He folded a losing hand. You might have
> gotten a couple more bucks out of him by betting less. Bets with cards
> to come need to be big enough to get drawing hands to either be making
> an error by calling or fold. On the river, you want to get called if
> you are ahead. By betting this amount, you get a losing hand to fold
> and you get raised, a LOT, by that straight you fear. If you bet less,
> you get called sometims by losing hands (I don't think that this would
> matter this time) If you do get raised, it will generally be a smaller
> bet that you can call.
>
> Checking HERE to induce a bluff is not the worst move either. It also
> cuts down on your losses if he has a straight as he will not overbet
> because he wants to get called. You can't check-raise here unless you
> know your opponent very well.
>
> So, you got dealt KK: good; made a reasonable raise and got a caller:
> good; Made a reasonable (on the small side of reasonable) bet on the
> flop: good; Checked the turn: bad, very bad; Made an irrelevant bet on
> the river : Not great
>
> Getting dealt KK was your best move.
>
> > My son's problem hand:
> >
> > He had Qc 9c and raises to $7. He gets four callers.
>
> That wasn't enough of a raise if it is going to get four callers with
> that crap hand. On the other hand, the value of that hand, if it has
> any value, is in a multi-way pot.
>
> >
> > The flop comes Kc 5c 3c. He has flopped the flush and goes all in with
> > $220. My first reaction is WHY do you go all in? Wouldnt a bet of
> > $25 or $30 gotten the same results?
>
> There is $35+ in the pot. He has the second nuts and he is obviously
> not going to worry about someone having AcXc. It isn't as if he has
> 8c7c. So he wants to bet enough to avoid giving them proper odds to
> call and _as much as someone will call_ Someone with the naked Ac
> should not call a pot-sized bet but the possibility or the reality of
> other callers will make it tempting. Someone with a made set is in
> slightly better shape but should not call a pot-sized bet. But he will.
> Someone with two pair should not be calling here but many would. If a
> lesser hand calls, it is found money. Smaller flushes will proabably
> call.
>
> With all those players, I would have overbet the pot to maybe $70 and
> moved in on a harmless turn. If I knew, however, that I was going to
> get two callers if I moved all-in, I would have moved all-in.
>
> > Well, he gets TWO callers, one of the callers goes all-in with $130 and
> >a second caller had a bigger stack, so he covers my son's all-in.
>
> So, as long as one of these guys doesn't have AcXc, he has gotten all
> his money in with a huge chance of winning. He has played the hand
> better than I would have and much better than you would have.
>
> >The turn is a low, non-club.
>
> Now, I move all-in after my earlier seventy dollar bet. That probably
> doesn't get the guy with the Ace out. If it does, it is a lucky
> accident. I suppose, knowing that you might lose the hand, you would
> have checked.
>
>
> >The river is another club-- there are four clubs on the board.
>
>
> >The players turn over their cards-- and the short stack had the Ac and
> >takes the hand.
>
> >My comment: there was no need to go all in until you knew you had the
> >hand won. With three cards on the flop you faced not only the danger
> >of a higher flush but also full house possibilities. A bet of $30 or
> >even $50 would have told you if you faced any danger.
>
> You cannot make much money in poker waiting until you "know you have
> the hand won." Your son played that hand this way:
>
> Raised from, I guess, early position with Qc9c: Not _normal_ but a
> seven-dollar speculation in a NL game, with the huge potential for
> profit, is not a big deal.
>
> Flopped well and bet all-in when his judgement told him that he would
> get a caller or more than one. And he was correct. This was an
> excellent play, especially as more than two callers would not make
> things much worse than two callers.
>
> The worst thing that he did was get sucked out on.
>
> It was very humble of you to post a hand where you played badly and one
> where your son played much better and lost to a suckout.
>
> Will in New Haven
>
> --
>
> " It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond
> of it." - Robert E. Lee
> Or was he correct going all in?
|
| | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 08:17:26
From: XaQ Morphy
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
> Please explain this to me: he lost more than half of his stack on this
> hand. How could it be an excellent play?
Poker isn't about winning pots. It's about making correct decisions.
Morphy
http://donkeymanifesto.blogspot.com
------
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 10:29:27
From: David Nicoson
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
alan wrote:
> I've discussed this with my son, and in retrospect he regreats having
> gone all in. "I would have rather lost $50," he told me. "After the
> fourth club appeared if another player gave me a substantial bet I
> would have known or at least suspected he had the ace. Instead, I left
> myself open to being a dead duck."
If the club fell on the turn, then he would have a chance to make a
good laydown. In this case, with a brick on the turn, I can't see an
intelligent line that doesn't end up down to felt. If he bets the pot
on the the flop, there's 140 in the pot on the turn. It doesn't make
sense to slow down there, so I'd expect at least another 100 there.
When the river beats him, he has the second nuts in a huge pot. He'll
have to be very confident that his opponent has the Ac to make that
laydown.
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 10:21:17
From: cappeca
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
> > The flop comes 9-10-Q rainbow. I bet $30, and the other player calls.
> > The turn comes some low card, frankly I dont remember. I check. The
> > other player checks.
>
> Uh, why? The best turn card came, and you checked. Terrible poker unless
> you had a read that he would bluff or that he only calls the flop with a
> monster.
>
> > The river comes King. I have my set--- but I'm nervous that if the
> > other player has a jack, he will have a straight. This was similar to
> > the position I was in a week ago.
> >
> > So I bet $40. The other player thinks, then folds and shows his 8-8.
>
> Terrible bet. You are going to get raised by a straight, and you may have
> to fold. There is a difference in folding your set on the river if you
> get raised (and there is money behind). However, if he does have the
> straight, you can check and call a smaller bet. If you checked twice, on
> the turn and river, he has to think you are weak, and will not pay off a
> big bet, so he would proabbly bet small with a straight.
I understand the analysis, but I'd like to know what other options
would he have left in the river to build up the pot once he missed the
turn. I mean, he checks on the turn out of insecurity or whatever, and
suddenly realizes it was a mistake when the others check as well. Now
what?
If it was me, I'd have placed a small bet on the river as well, if only
to compensate my bad move on the turn. If someone raised me, I'd fold.
If I check, I'd run the risk of being checked again, and the pot would
stay the same and I would have to go to the showdown. Also, if the guy
with the possible straight would bet small facing my check, I could
just as well represent a straight myself, betting small asking to be
called.
So, I see the bet on the river as a decent try to fix the previous
mistake, not as terrible as you do. What do you think? Was there any
other way to fix previous errors, or the better thing to do was fold
and wait for the next deal?
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 10:08:17
From: David Nicoson
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
alan wrote:
> But wouldnt it have been better for my son to win a little than to lose
> a lot?
Yes, but those aren't his only choices. He can also win a lot.
I would probably also make a smaller flop bet, but for different
reasons that you're citing.
> For those of you who invest or have businesses:
>
> would you rather be earning 5% steadily on your money, then take a wild
> business deal that might return 100% if you are right, but could lose
> 100% if you are wrong?
That depends on how likely the 100% return is and my financial
situation. If a person is concerned about his financial situation at
the poker table, he's probably playing too high.
> I'd rather go for the steady 5% return.
>
> I'm going to take that same approach in poker.
All other things being equal, yes, I'd prefer a steady return. Usually
all of other things aren't equal.
> I admit I'm a beginner at poker, but I don't see any reason to treat
> poker differently from investing or business. I'm looking at my cards
> as an asset, an investment vehicle. I'm not going to throw $220 into
> cards that can return $28.
There's the $35 in the pot. I would be concerned that I would scare
off hands that I want to call. Nevertheless, I don't consider their
calling or hitting a failure on your son's part.
If he wins the pot after a call, he gets not just the $35 but also the
$130 and the $220 from the other players.
> If risking $220 to win $28 is "smart poker," I'll stay stupid.
It fit the circumstances, apparently.
I'm going to suggest that you think less about the outcome and more
about the decisions. Please consider this parable from the New
Testament, a common source of poker insight.
Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into
practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain
came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that
house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock.
But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into
practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain
came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that
house, and it fell with a great crash.
The poker equivalent story is this:
Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into
practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain
came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that
house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock.
But then a meteor came and smashed the house. And the river overflowed
its banks and washed away every timber. But he had faith, and he
rebuilt many houses upon rocks. Over time, his houses tended to stand
firm, while the foolish man's houses tended to collapse.
So when you tell your son that he made a mistake by pushing, it's like
telling him it was foolish to build his house where a meteor might hit
it; wait until all the meteors have fallen before you build any houses.
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 10:05:56
From: Grip
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
I agree that whether his bet or not was correct is debatable but not
because he lost the hand.
>
> If my son had the nut flush, and held the Ac, I would have no problem
> with him going all in as he did-- he would have been guaranteed the
> win, unless the board paired on the turn or river and then a full house
> situation developed.
Why does the possiblity of the board pairing not bother you as much as
the possibility of the higher flush? A full house or quads beats a K
high flush just as much as an A high flush does.
If the hand was played with the cards face up and we knew a player had
Ac 9d and would call an all in bet, then that's the right bet
regardless of what cards come out.
Those two exceptions (we know his cards, we know what he'd call) are
what makes the situation debateable.
>
> But he did not have the nut flush. Indeed, another player had the Ac
> and when a fourth club appeared on the board, my son's hand was doomed.
The chance of another club hitting by the river was roughly 1/3. If
that hand is replayed over and over, your son will win the same amount
of money 2 times for every 1 time he loses it.
> He didn't have a "lock" on the hand; wouldnt it have been prudent to
> make a more reserved bet?
Maybe. You need to figure out what are the chances of someone having
Ax of clubs is, and what the chances are of being called by someone who
doesn't have the Ax clubs.
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 10:01:32
From: alan
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
thank you Morphy.
Best, Alan
XaQ Morphy wrote:
> > Sorry, I am not trying to be disrespectfull.
> >
> > I am a beginner. I am just probing for more information. Im sorry if
> > it comes off being disrespectful.
> >
> > I know very little. I'll say it again: I know very little. And I am
> > learning here.
> >
> > Thanks.
>
> The best advice I can provide here is to think why people are writing what
> they write. Poker is not a mechanical game, especially NL holdem. It's
> not a game of clear cut "if this happens do that" type of decisions. It's
> a game of incomplete information where short term luck affects long term
> outcomes.
>
> In your example post to Will, you lost AA vs. 77 all-in preflop. You
> state that you were wrong because you lost. This is not correct thinking.
> The correct thinking is that in the long run, AA is a 80/20 favorite over
> 77, and that if you play the hand out 100 times, you'll lose 20, but you
> will win 80. Add up the amounts you would have won, subtract the amounts
> you would have lost, and you'll see that you will show a nice profit in
> the long run.
>
> This is what poker is about. You make decisions based on the information
> you have. In the case of your AA hand, your decision is to put as much
> money as possible in the pot as a very large favorite. After that, the
> cards play out, and that's where the short term luck comes into play.
> This part you can't control.
>
> So in summary, before replying to a post with an immediate retort, take a
> few seconds to try and think why the poster wrote what they did. Open
> your mind up a little and think about the possibility that your thinking
> is what might be wrong, and that you're letting results determine your
> thought process. Good luck with it.
>
> Morphy
> http://donkeymanifesto.blogspot.com
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 10:01:07
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
alan wrote:
> Thank you Will. Nothing I post here is with the thought that "I am
> right." Everything I post here is an attempt to gain more information.
> Again, I am sorry if I offended anyone, including you. Again, I am a
> beginner and I am learning-- I just need to be convinced.
>
> This last post has a lot of good information and thought.
BTW, if the stacks, compared to the pot, were a LOT deeper, making a
good-sized bet and being raised would make for a VERY interesting
decision; Somone COULD have the Ace and another Club. It isn't the
amount of money that makes me ignore that possibility. $220 is not a
trivial amount. It is the size of the pot and the stacks don't give us
room to find that out.
If we bet only thirty dollars, we are INVITING the guy with the naked
Ace to make an all-in move. Now, having invited it, do we call or fold?
If we bet one hundred, it is going to seem much less likely we will
fold. However, a big raise now is much more convincing.
Remember, the guy with the naked Ace knows we are not looking at the
nuts.
Will in New Haven
--
>
> thank you again.
>
>
> Will in New Haven wrote:
> > alan wrote:
> > > David wrote:
> > >
> > > "A naked Ac isn't going to call his bet after he missed. So he has to
> > > make bets on the flop and turn while his opponent still has a chance if
> > >
> > > he wants to win any money."
> > >
> > > You are correct, the naked Ac if he missed a fourth club on the board
> > > would not have called.
> > >
> > > But wouldnt it have been better for my son to win a little than to lose
> > > a lot?
> > >
> > > For those of you who invest or have businesses:
> > >
> > > would you rather be earning 5% steadily on your money, then take a wild
> > > business deal that might return 100% if you are right, but could lose
> > > 100% if you are wrong?
> > >
> > > I'd rather go for the steady 5% return.
> > >
> > > I'm going to take that same approach in poker.
> > >
> > > I admit I'm a beginner at poker, but I don't see any reason to treat
> > > poker differently from investing or business. I'm looking at my cards
> > > as an asset, an investment vehicle. I'm not going to throw $220 into
> > > cards that can return $28.
> > >
> > > If risking $220 to win $28 is "smart poker," I'll stay stupid.
> > >
> > > thanks.
> >
> > OK, let's try one more time, just because you are generally polite. He
> > wasn't risking $220 to win $28. That would be true only if he lost
> > every time he were called. That would only be true against a lineup of
> > extremely conservative players. I think you will agree that these were
> > not extremely conservative players.
> >
> > If no one calls him, which would happen a great deal against sensible
> > players, he has overbet the hand. I would want some action, so I would
> > bet fifty or one hundred but NOT because I am trying to minimize my
> > loss. I am trying to win money.
> >
> > If someone with the naked Ace of Clubs is going to call him, he is
> > risking $220 to win $248 _and_ he is a huge favorite to win the pot.
> > Actually, it would be $235 but that makes little difference. The seven
> > bucks he put in there is there to be won.
> >
> > If someone with a made set is going to call him, he is in almost the
> > same position, although he is not AS big a favorite.
> >
> > If someone with a lesser flush calls him, he risks nothing to win the
> > same amount. A lesser made flush, although a "better hand" than the
> > above two, will have no outs or maybe one out to a straight-flush.
> >
> > If someone with a made set and someone else with the naked Ace call
> > him, he is risking $220 to win $475 on a hand where he will win about
> > fifty percent of the time. Any more callers add more to the pot without
> > materially impacting his chance of winning.
> >
> > Obviously, making a smaller bet here gives you a better chance to be
> > called and, with the second nuts, you want to be called. But he knew
> > his customers and charged them the maximum. The other advantage to a
> > smaller bet is that you can REALLY charge them if they miss the turn.
> > Now, they are really making a mistake to call.
> >
> > If I bet $100 on that flop, I might take it down on the turn if the guy
> > with the naked Ace had any chips left. As it is, he would call for his
> > last forty bucks and suck out. In fact, he might as well raise me the
> > last forty bucks. I would have to call as it is only forty more and he
> > would suck out. Ce la vie.
> >
> > Oddly enough, we are looking at a different scenario if we make the
> > thrity-dollar bet you recommend. The guy with the naked Ace should
> > really move in here, as your bet looks weak and the raiser might not
> > have much. If he gets called, he still might win. If that happens, you
> > would undoubtedly fold. I would have to THINK about folding myself .
> >
> > One of these days, you will post something here where you aren't smugly
> > sure that you are right.
> >
> > Maybe
> >
> > Will in New Haven
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > David Nicoson wrote:
> > > > alan wrote:
> > > > > My son's problem hand:
> > > > >
> > > > > He had Qc 9c and raises to $7. He gets four callers.
> > > > >
> > > > > The flop comes Kc 5c 3c. He has flopped the flush and goes all in with
> > > > > $220. My first reaction is WHY do you go all in? Wouldnt a bet of
> > > > > $25 or $30 gotten the same results?
> > > >
> > > > Well, no. Betting $25 or $30 gets $25 of $30 in when he's ahead.
> > > > Betting more gets more money when he's ahead. Now, I'm surprised that
> > > > he got a calls with this bet, so I'd be more concerned about causing my
> > > > opponents to fold correctly.
> > > >
> > > > > Well, he gets TWO callers, one of the callers goes all-in with $130 and
> > > > > a second caller had a bigger stack, so he covers my son's all-in.
> > > > >
> > > > > The turn is a low, non-club.
> > > > > The river is another club-- there are four clubs on the board.
> > > > >
> > > > > The players turn over their cards-- and the short stack had the Ac and
> > > > > takes the hand.
> > > >
> > > > The short stack takes just the main pot, right? So your son gets
> > > > unlucky here and still ends up with $180. He lost only $47, if I'm
> > > > reading this right.
> > > >
> > > > He got his whole stack in with a good edge here.
> > > >
> > > > > My comment: there was no need to go all in until you knew you had the
> > > > > hand won.
> > > >
> > > > A naked Ac isn't going to call his bet after he missed. So he has to
> > > > make bets on the flop and turn while his opponent still has a chance if
> > > > he wants to win any money.
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 09:50:53
From: alan
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
Thank you Will. Nothing I post here is with the thought that "I am
right." Everything I post here is an attempt to gain more information.
Again, I am sorry if I offended anyone, including you. Again, I am a
beginner and I am learning-- I just need to be convinced.
This last post has a lot of good information and thought.
thank you again.
Will in New Haven wrote:
> alan wrote:
> > David wrote:
> >
> > "A naked Ac isn't going to call his bet after he missed. So he has to
> > make bets on the flop and turn while his opponent still has a chance if
> >
> > he wants to win any money."
> >
> > You are correct, the naked Ac if he missed a fourth club on the board
> > would not have called.
> >
> > But wouldnt it have been better for my son to win a little than to lose
> > a lot?
> >
> > For those of you who invest or have businesses:
> >
> > would you rather be earning 5% steadily on your money, then take a wild
> > business deal that might return 100% if you are right, but could lose
> > 100% if you are wrong?
> >
> > I'd rather go for the steady 5% return.
> >
> > I'm going to take that same approach in poker.
> >
> > I admit I'm a beginner at poker, but I don't see any reason to treat
> > poker differently from investing or business. I'm looking at my cards
> > as an asset, an investment vehicle. I'm not going to throw $220 into
> > cards that can return $28.
> >
> > If risking $220 to win $28 is "smart poker," I'll stay stupid.
> >
> > thanks.
>
> OK, let's try one more time, just because you are generally polite. He
> wasn't risking $220 to win $28. That would be true only if he lost
> every time he were called. That would only be true against a lineup of
> extremely conservative players. I think you will agree that these were
> not extremely conservative players.
>
> If no one calls him, which would happen a great deal against sensible
> players, he has overbet the hand. I would want some action, so I would
> bet fifty or one hundred but NOT because I am trying to minimize my
> loss. I am trying to win money.
>
> If someone with the naked Ace of Clubs is going to call him, he is
> risking $220 to win $248 _and_ he is a huge favorite to win the pot.
> Actually, it would be $235 but that makes little difference. The seven
> bucks he put in there is there to be won.
>
> If someone with a made set is going to call him, he is in almost the
> same position, although he is not AS big a favorite.
>
> If someone with a lesser flush calls him, he risks nothing to win the
> same amount. A lesser made flush, although a "better hand" than the
> above two, will have no outs or maybe one out to a straight-flush.
>
> If someone with a made set and someone else with the naked Ace call
> him, he is risking $220 to win $475 on a hand where he will win about
> fifty percent of the time. Any more callers add more to the pot without
> materially impacting his chance of winning.
>
> Obviously, making a smaller bet here gives you a better chance to be
> called and, with the second nuts, you want to be called. But he knew
> his customers and charged them the maximum. The other advantage to a
> smaller bet is that you can REALLY charge them if they miss the turn.
> Now, they are really making a mistake to call.
>
> If I bet $100 on that flop, I might take it down on the turn if the guy
> with the naked Ace had any chips left. As it is, he would call for his
> last forty bucks and suck out. In fact, he might as well raise me the
> last forty bucks. I would have to call as it is only forty more and he
> would suck out. Ce la vie.
>
> Oddly enough, we are looking at a different scenario if we make the
> thrity-dollar bet you recommend. The guy with the naked Ace should
> really move in here, as your bet looks weak and the raiser might not
> have much. If he gets called, he still might win. If that happens, you
> would undoubtedly fold. I would have to THINK about folding myself .
>
> One of these days, you will post something here where you aren't smugly
> sure that you are right.
>
> Maybe
>
> Will in New Haven
>
> --
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > David Nicoson wrote:
> > > alan wrote:
> > > > My son's problem hand:
> > > >
> > > > He had Qc 9c and raises to $7. He gets four callers.
> > > >
> > > > The flop comes Kc 5c 3c. He has flopped the flush and goes all in with
> > > > $220. My first reaction is WHY do you go all in? Wouldnt a bet of
> > > > $25 or $30 gotten the same results?
> > >
> > > Well, no. Betting $25 or $30 gets $25 of $30 in when he's ahead.
> > > Betting more gets more money when he's ahead. Now, I'm surprised that
> > > he got a calls with this bet, so I'd be more concerned about causing my
> > > opponents to fold correctly.
> > >
> > > > Well, he gets TWO callers, one of the callers goes all-in with $130 and
> > > > a second caller had a bigger stack, so he covers my son's all-in.
> > > >
> > > > The turn is a low, non-club.
> > > > The river is another club-- there are four clubs on the board.
> > > >
> > > > The players turn over their cards-- and the short stack had the Ac and
> > > > takes the hand.
> > >
> > > The short stack takes just the main pot, right? So your son gets
> > > unlucky here and still ends up with $180. He lost only $47, if I'm
> > > reading this right.
> > >
> > > He got his whole stack in with a good edge here.
> > >
> > > > My comment: there was no need to go all in until you knew you had the
> > > > hand won.
> > >
> > > A naked Ac isn't going to call his bet after he missed. So he has to
> > > make bets on the flop and turn while his opponent still has a chance if
> > > he wants to win any money.
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 09:46:31
From: alan
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
Thanks Grip. I just want to repeat what I wrote in a response to
Morphy. I am a beginner, I am just learning, I dont mean to show
anyone any disrespect and if my posts offend anyone please don't be
offended as I am just probing for information.
I appreciate your comments.
If my son had the nut flush, and held the Ac, I would have no problem
with him going all in as he did-- he would have been guaranteed the
win, unless the board paired on the turn or river and then a full house
situation developed.
But he did not have the nut flush. Indeed, another player had the Ac
and when a fourth club appeared on the board, my son's hand was doomed.
He didn't have a "lock" on the hand; wouldnt it have been prudent to
make a more reserved bet?
The concensus of the newsgroup is that he did the right thing.
He lost; I think he did the wrong thing. He says he did the wrong
thing-- because he lost-- and he feels damn sick about it.
I'm really having a hard time understanding how "losing" is the "right
thing?"
So please bear with me, and thanks for your understanding.
Grip wrote:
> You're the one that posted here asking the opinion of the group if a
> play was correct. The consensus is that it was, which you disagree
> with. That's fine, but you don't seem to understand WHY the group
> feels that way. I don't think you should agree with something you
> don't understand, but you should try asking questions that will help
> you understand rather than just disagreeing.
>
> > would you rather be earning 5% steadily on your money, then take a wild
> > business deal that might return 100% if you are right, but could lose
> > 100% if you are wrong?
>
> That's not enough information for me to decide. If the chance of the
> business deal succeeding is 70% and failing is 30%, then I'll take it
> because over the long run...
>
> 'Guaranteed 5%' on 100 = 105
>
> 'Wild business deal' = 110
> 200 * .7 =140
> 100*.3 = -30
>
> For me, tournaments are a little different, but in a cash game I'm
> making 10% rather than 5%.
>
> >
> > I'd rather go for the steady 5% return.
>
> If you're making 5% when you could be making 10%, you're actually
> losing 5%. I know I know the 70/30 split wasn't part of the original
> question, but the point is you lose money when you don't take advantage
> of situations where you expectation is positive.
>
> G
|
| | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 10:00:09
From: XaQ Morphy
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
> But he did not have the nut flush. Indeed, another player had the Ac
> and when a fourth club appeared on the board, my son's hand was doomed.
>
> He didn't have a "lock" on the hand; wouldnt it have been prudent to
> make a more reserved bet?
Here's a question for you. Your son has Qc9c. Flop is Kc5c3c. Let's say
he knows for certain his opponent has exactly the Ac and another card that
doesn't pair the board.
Based on this information what % of the time will another club hit the
turn?
Morphy
http://donkeymanifesto.blogspot.com
_____________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 09:45:54
From: Grip
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
alan wrote:
>
> It wasnt the correct decision. He lost the pot.
>
No offense here, but that's terrible poker thinking. Look at it this
way. You're playing heads up against someone and you're playing with
your cards face up. You're dealt AA, your opponent is dealt 99. He
goes all in, you call.
Board is dealt and he catches a 9 and you don't improve. You lose the
pot. Was your call correct?
Instead, the board is dealth and he doesn't improve. You win the pot.
Was your call correct?
G
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 09:43:05
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
alan wrote:
> David wrote:
>
> "A naked Ac isn't going to call his bet after he missed. So he has to
> make bets on the flop and turn while his opponent still has a chance if
>
> he wants to win any money."
>
> You are correct, the naked Ac if he missed a fourth club on the board
> would not have called.
>
> But wouldnt it have been better for my son to win a little than to lose
> a lot?
>
> For those of you who invest or have businesses:
>
> would you rather be earning 5% steadily on your money, then take a wild
> business deal that might return 100% if you are right, but could lose
> 100% if you are wrong?
>
> I'd rather go for the steady 5% return.
>
> I'm going to take that same approach in poker.
>
> I admit I'm a beginner at poker, but I don't see any reason to treat
> poker differently from investing or business. I'm looking at my cards
> as an asset, an investment vehicle. I'm not going to throw $220 into
> cards that can return $28.
>
> If risking $220 to win $28 is "smart poker," I'll stay stupid.
>
> thanks.
OK, let's try one more time, just because you are generally polite. He
wasn't risking $220 to win $28. That would be true only if he lost
every time he were called. That would only be true against a lineup of
extremely conservative players. I think you will agree that these were
not extremely conservative players.
If no one calls him, which would happen a great deal against sensible
players, he has overbet the hand. I would want some action, so I would
bet fifty or one hundred but NOT because I am trying to minimize my
loss. I am trying to win money.
If someone with the naked Ace of Clubs is going to call him, he is
risking $220 to win $248 _and_ he is a huge favorite to win the pot.
Actually, it would be $235 but that makes little difference. The seven
bucks he put in there is there to be won.
If someone with a made set is going to call him, he is in almost the
same position, although he is not AS big a favorite.
If someone with a lesser flush calls him, he risks nothing to win the
same amount. A lesser made flush, although a "better hand" than the
above two, will have no outs or maybe one out to a straight-flush.
If someone with a made set and someone else with the naked Ace call
him, he is risking $220 to win $475 on a hand where he will win about
fifty percent of the time. Any more callers add more to the pot without
materially impacting his chance of winning.
Obviously, making a smaller bet here gives you a better chance to be
called and, with the second nuts, you want to be called. But he knew
his customers and charged them the maximum. The other advantage to a
smaller bet is that you can REALLY charge them if they miss the turn.
Now, they are really making a mistake to call.
If I bet $100 on that flop, I might take it down on the turn if the guy
with the naked Ace had any chips left. As it is, he would call for his
last forty bucks and suck out. In fact, he might as well raise me the
last forty bucks. I would have to call as it is only forty more and he
would suck out. Ce la vie.
Oddly enough, we are looking at a different scenario if we make the
thrity-dollar bet you recommend. The guy with the naked Ace should
really move in here, as your bet looks weak and the raiser might not
have much. If he gets called, he still might win. If that happens, you
would undoubtedly fold. I would have to THINK about folding myself .
One of these days, you will post something here where you aren't smugly
sure that you are right.
Maybe
Will in New Haven
--
>
>
>
>
> David Nicoson wrote:
> > alan wrote:
> > > My son's problem hand:
> > >
> > > He had Qc 9c and raises to $7. He gets four callers.
> > >
> > > The flop comes Kc 5c 3c. He has flopped the flush and goes all in with
> > > $220. My first reaction is WHY do you go all in? Wouldnt a bet of
> > > $25 or $30 gotten the same results?
> >
> > Well, no. Betting $25 or $30 gets $25 of $30 in when he's ahead.
> > Betting more gets more money when he's ahead. Now, I'm surprised that
> > he got a calls with this bet, so I'd be more concerned about causing my
> > opponents to fold correctly.
> >
> > > Well, he gets TWO callers, one of the callers goes all-in with $130 and
> > > a second caller had a bigger stack, so he covers my son's all-in.
> > >
> > > The turn is a low, non-club.
> > > The river is another club-- there are four clubs on the board.
> > >
> > > The players turn over their cards-- and the short stack had the Ac and
> > > takes the hand.
> >
> > The short stack takes just the main pot, right? So your son gets
> > unlucky here and still ends up with $180. He lost only $47, if I'm
> > reading this right.
> >
> > He got his whole stack in with a good edge here.
> >
> > > My comment: there was no need to go all in until you knew you had the
> > > hand won.
> >
> > A naked Ac isn't going to call his bet after he missed. So he has to
> > make bets on the flop and turn while his opponent still has a chance if
> > he wants to win any money.
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 09:38:53
From: Grip
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
You're the one that posted here asking the opinion of the group if a
play was correct. The consensus is that it was, which you disagree
with. That's fine, but you don't seem to understand WHY the group
feels that way. I don't think you should agree with something you
don't understand, but you should try asking questions that will help
you understand rather than just disagreeing.
> would you rather be earning 5% steadily on your money, then take a wild
> business deal that might return 100% if you are right, but could lose
> 100% if you are wrong?
That's not enough information for me to decide. If the chance of the
business deal succeeding is 70% and failing is 30%, then I'll take it
because over the long run...
'Guaranteed 5%' on 100 = 105
'Wild business deal' = 110
200 * .7 =140
100*.3 = -30
For me, tournaments are a little different, but in a cash game I'm
making 10% rather than 5%.
>
> I'd rather go for the steady 5% return.
If you're making 5% when you could be making 10%, you're actually
losing 5%. I know I know the 70/30 split wasn't part of the original
question, but the point is you lose money when you don't take advantage
of situations where you expectation is positive.
G
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 09:36:48
From: alan
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
Morphy wrote:
"Alan, you go out of your way to say that you are a beginner at poker.
Yet, you also go out of your way to argue with everyone on RGP,
including
some very successful professional players. Why is this?"
Sorry, I am not trying to be disrespectfull.
I am a beginner. I am just probing for more information. Im sorry if
it comes off being disrespectful.
I know very little. I'll say it again: I know very little. And I am
learning here.
Thanks.
XaQ Morphy wrote:
> > I admit I'm a beginner at poker
>
> Alan, you go out of your way to say that you are a beginner at poker.
> Yet, you also go out of your way to argue with everyone on RGP, including
> some very successful professional players. Why is this? Do you think
> it's possible that when the entire newsgroup disagrees with your thinking
> that maybe your thinking is not correct?
>
> Based on reading your posts, there are some very obvious poker theory and
> poker math skills that if you took the time to learn, would open up your
> eyes as to why everyone disagrees with your thinking.
>
> Good luck with it either way. This newsgroup is a lot of things, but
> there are people that will go out of their way to help. However, if a
> person seems to not want help and just wants to argue their incorrect
> thinking, they will soon be ignored and/or made fun of. Keep these things
> in mind when posting.
>
> Morphy
> http://donkeymanifesto.blogspot.com
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
> * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 09:51:21
From: XaQ Morphy
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
> Sorry, I am not trying to be disrespectfull.
>
> I am a beginner. I am just probing for more information. Im sorry if
> it comes off being disrespectful.
>
> I know very little. I'll say it again: I know very little. And I am
> learning here.
>
> Thanks.
The best advice I can provide here is to think why people are writing what
they write. Poker is not a mechanical game, especially NL holdem. It's
not a game of clear cut "if this happens do that" type of decisions. It's
a game of incomplete information where short term luck affects long term
outcomes.
In your example post to Will, you lost AA vs. 77 all-in preflop. You
state that you were wrong because you lost. This is not correct thinking.
The correct thinking is that in the long run, AA is a 80/20 favorite over
77, and that if you play the hand out 100 times, you'll lose 20, but you
will win 80. Add up the amounts you would have won, subtract the amounts
you would have lost, and you'll see that you will show a nice profit in
the long run.
This is what poker is about. You make decisions based on the information
you have. In the case of your AA hand, your decision is to put as much
money as possible in the pot as a very large favorite. After that, the
cards play out, and that's where the short term luck comes into play.
This part you can't control.
So in summary, before replying to a post with an immediate retort, take a
few seconds to try and think why the poster wrote what they did. Open
your mind up a little and think about the possibility that your thinking
is what might be wrong, and that you're letting results determine your
thought process. Good luck with it.
Morphy
http://donkeymanifesto.blogspot.com
_____________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 09:33:39
From: alan
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
Will, I am just blown away by what you consider to be the right
decision or excellent play.
Last night I was at $100 buy-in NL table. blinds are $3 and $5.
My stack is about $370 -- Ive had several nice hands.
Im dealt AA in middle position. I raise to $50. Everyone folds except
the BB who goes all in to $98. I call the extra $48.
He has pocket sevens. There is a 7 on the flop. He wins.
by your logic I made the right play.
by my logic, I made the wrong play.
I should have folded. Realistically, I should have just called the BB
for $5 and if I was lucky no one would have raised, and my loss would
have been just $5 on the hand.
Making the so-called "right play" with AA cost me $98.
Will in New Haven wrote:
> XaQ Morphy wrote:
> > > Please explain this to me: he lost more than half of his stack on this
> > > hand. How could it be an excellent play?
> >
> > Poker isn't about winning pots. It's about making correct decisions.
>
> Give up. He isn't here to learn. He's here to brag. It's like trying to
> teach a stranger about rock 'n roll.
>
> Will in New Haven
>
> --
>
>
> >
> > Morphy
> > http://donkeymanifesto.blogspot.com
> >
> > ------
> > * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 20:21:04
From: kurtissimo
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
How do you consider calling the BB to be the correct decision?
You still would have lost $5 that you needn't have lost. Calling
this "correct" is totally absurd.
The correct play, obviously, would have been to fold preflop,
to avoid losing ANY money at all to the future set of 7's.
Honestly, you RGP maniacs, you just can't wait to give all your money
away...
On Dec 11 2006 1:33 PM, alan wrote:
> I should have folded. Realistically, I should have just called the BB
> for $5 and if I was lucky no one would have raised, and my loss would
> have been just $5 on the hand.
-------
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 18:18:11
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
On Dec 11 2006 10:33 AM, alan wrote:
> Will, I am just blown away by what you consider to be the right
> decision or excellent play.
>
> Last night I was at $100 buy-in NL table. blinds are $3 and $5.
>
> My stack is about $370 -- Ive had several nice hands.
>
> Im dealt AA in middle position. I raise to $50. Everyone folds except
> the BB who goes all in to $98. I call the extra $48.
>
> He has pocket sevens. There is a 7 on the flop. He wins.
>
> by your logic I made the right play.
>
> by my logic, I made the wrong play.
>
> I should have folded. Realistically, I should have just called the BB
> for $5 and if I was lucky no one would have raised, and my loss would
> have been just $5 on the hand.
>
> Making the so-called "right play" with AA cost me $98.
When you figure out how to tell in advance that you wil win or lose, let
me in on the secret mmmkay?
Serious question: Based on your philosophy on how to play NLHE, why do
you ever raise preflop?
Fell
--
Website: www.fellknight.com
Email: fellknight at gmail dot com
______________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 03:29:45
From: Palooka
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
"FellKnight" <jordandevenport@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:34g154xr42.ln2@recgroups.com...
> On Dec 11 2006 10:33 AM, alan wrote:
>
>> Will, I am just blown away by what you consider to be the right
>> decision or excellent play.
>>
>> Last night I was at $100 buy-in NL table. blinds are $3 and $5.
>>
>> My stack is about $370 -- Ive had several nice hands.
>>
>> Im dealt AA in middle position. I raise to $50. Everyone folds except
>> the BB who goes all in to $98. I call the extra $48.
>>
>> He has pocket sevens. There is a 7 on the flop. He wins.
>>
>> by your logic I made the right play.
>>
>> by my logic, I made the wrong play.
>>
>> I should have folded. Realistically, I should have just called the BB
>> for $5 and if I was lucky no one would have raised, and my loss would
>> have been just $5 on the hand.
>>
>> Making the so-called "right play" with AA cost me $98.
>
> When you figure out how to tell in advance that you wil win or lose, let
> me in on the secret mmmkay?
>
> Serious question: Based on your philosophy on how to play NLHE, why do
> you ever raise preflop?
>
Give it up. He MUST be trollling.
Palooka
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 20:10:33
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
On Dec 11 2006 8:29 PM, Palooka wrote:
> "FellKnight" <jordandevenport@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:34g154xr42.ln2@recgroups.com...
> > On Dec 11 2006 10:33 AM, alan wrote:
> >
> >> Will, I am just blown away by what you consider to be the right
> >> decision or excellent play.
> >>
> >> Last night I was at $100 buy-in NL table. blinds are $3 and $5.
> >>
> >> My stack is about $370 -- Ive had several nice hands.
> >>
> >> Im dealt AA in middle position. I raise to $50. Everyone folds except
> >> the BB who goes all in to $98. I call the extra $48.
> >>
> >> He has pocket sevens. There is a 7 on the flop. He wins.
> >>
> >> by your logic I made the right play.
> >>
> >> by my logic, I made the wrong play.
> >>
> >> I should have folded. Realistically, I should have just called the BB
> >> for $5 and if I was lucky no one would have raised, and my loss would
> >> have been just $5 on the hand.
> >>
> >> Making the so-called "right play" with AA cost me $98.
> >
> > When you figure out how to tell in advance that you wil win or lose, let
> > me in on the secret mmmkay?
> >
> > Serious question: Based on your philosophy on how to play NLHE, why do
> > you ever raise preflop?
> >
> Give it up. He MUST be trollling.
>
> Palooka
Nope, I don't think so.
Fell
--
Website: www.fellknight.com
Email: fellknight at gmail dot com
_____________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | | |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 15:38:22
From: Palooka
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
"FellKnight" <jordandevenport@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:pmm154xoe2.ln2@recgroups.com...
> On Dec 11 2006 8:29 PM, Palooka wrote:
>
>> Give it up. He MUST be trollling.
>>
>> Palooka
>
> Nope, I don't think so.
>
> Fell
I found it difficult to believe that someone could be not only that obtuse
but equally stubborn. However, I shall defer to your judgement.
Palooka
|
| | |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 15:36:19
From: Alan Gilbert aka brewmaster
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
On Dec 11 2006 9:33 AM, alan wrote:
> Will, I am just blown away by what you consider to be the right
> decision or excellent play.
>
> Last night I was at $100 buy-in NL table. blinds are $3 and $5.
>
> My stack is about $370 -- Ive had several nice hands.
>
> Im dealt AA in middle position. I raise to $50. Everyone folds except
> the BB who goes all in to $98. I call the extra $48.
>
> He has pocket sevens. There is a 7 on the flop. He wins.
>
> by your logic I made the right play.
>
> by my logic, I made the wrong play.
>
> I should have folded. Realistically, I should have just called the BB
> for $5 and if I was lucky no one would have raised, and my loss would
> have been just $5 on the hand.
>
> Making the so-called "right play" with AA cost me $98.
>
>
By the way, where in hell do you play that the blinds are 3/5 with 100 buy
in? You are only allowed to buy in for 20 BBs? Must be quite a few all
ins there. I find Pechanga's 2/3 100 game blinds to be too high already.
The 3/5 300 game is better... at least that is 60 bbs and people can play
a little.
> Will in New Haven wrote:
> > XaQ Morphy wrote:
> > > > Please explain this to me: he lost more than half of his stack on this
> > > > hand. How could it be an excellent play?
> > >
> > > Poker isn't about winning pots. It's about making correct decisions.
> >
> > Give up. He isn't here to learn. He's here to brag. It's like trying to
> > teach a stranger about rock 'n roll.
> >
> > Will in New Haven
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Morphy
> > > http://donkeymanifesto.blogspot.com
> > >
------
brewmaster at brewcam dot com
"Once in awhile you can get shown the light in the strangest of places if
you look at it right" -RH
----
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 15:33:58
From: Alan Gilbert aka brewmaster
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
On Dec 11 2006 9:33 AM, alan wrote:
> Will, I am just blown away by what you consider to be the right
> decision or excellent play.
>
> Last night I was at $100 buy-in NL table. blinds are $3 and $5.
>
> My stack is about $370 -- Ive had several nice hands.
>
> Im dealt AA in middle position. I raise to $50. Everyone folds except
> the BB who goes all in to $98. I call the extra $48.
>
> He has pocket sevens. There is a 7 on the flop. He wins.
>
> by your logic I made the right play.
>
> by my logic, I made the wrong play.
>
> I should have folded. Realistically, I should have just called the BB
> for $5 and if I was lucky no one would have raised, and my loss would
> have been just $5 on the hand.
>
> Making the so-called "right play" with AA cost me $98.
>
You are an idiot.
>
> Will in New Haven wrote:
> > XaQ Morphy wrote:
> > > > Please explain this to me: he lost more than half of his stack on this
> > > > hand. How could it be an excellent play?
> > >
> > > Poker isn't about winning pots. It's about making correct decisions.
> >
> > Give up. He isn't here to learn. He's here to brag. It's like trying to
> > teach a stranger about rock 'n roll.
> >
> > Will in New Haven
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Morphy
> > > http://donkeymanifesto.blogspot.com
> > >
------
brewmaster at brewcam dot com
"Once in awhile you can get shown the light in the strangest of places if
you look at it right" -RH
-----
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 00:24:42
From: Palooka
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
"Alan Gilbert aka brewmaster" <ae2dad2@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:6sq354xrt5.ln2@recgroups.com...
> On Dec 11 2006 9:33 AM, alan wrote:
>
>> Will, I am just blown away by what you consider to be the right
>> decision or excellent play.
>>
>> Last night I was at $100 buy-in NL table. blinds are $3 and $5.
>>
>> My stack is about $370 -- Ive had several nice hands.
>>
>> Im dealt AA in middle position. I raise to $50. Everyone folds except
>> the BB who goes all in to $98. I call the extra $48.
>>
>> He has pocket sevens. There is a 7 on the flop. He wins.
>>
>> by your logic I made the right play.
>>
>> by my logic, I made the wrong play.
>>
>> I should have folded. Realistically, I should have just called the BB
>> for $5 and if I was lucky no one would have raised, and my loss would
>> have been just $5 on the hand.
>>
>> Making the so-called "right play" with AA cost me $98.
>>
>
> You are an idiot.
>
Now do you believe me about the other alan?
Palooka
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 09:18:32
From: alan
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
Morphy, you wrote: "Poker isn't about winning pots. It's about making
correct decisions."
It wasnt the correct decision. He lost the pot.
XaQ Morphy wrote:
> > Please explain this to me: he lost more than half of his stack on this
> > hand. How could it be an excellent play?
>
> Poker isn't about winning pots. It's about making correct decisions.
>
> Morphy
> http://donkeymanifesto.blogspot.com
>
> ------
> * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 09:47:03
From: GrouchySmurf1002
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
On Dec 11 2006 12:18 PM, alan wrote:
> Morphy, you wrote: "Poker isn't about winning pots. It's about making
> correct decisions."
>
> It wasnt the correct decision. He lost the pot.
By that logic, the correct decision was to fold the 2nd nuts on the flop.
--------
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 09:31:09
From: XaQ Morphy
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
> Morphy, you wrote: "Poker isn't about winning pots. It's about making
> correct decisions."
>
> It wasnt the correct decision. He lost the pot.
Alan, what poker books have you read?
Morphy
http://donkeymanifesto.blogspot.com
----
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 15:40:03
From: Alan Gilbert aka brewmaster
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
On Dec 11 2006 9:18 AM, alan wrote:
> Morphy, you wrote: "Poker isn't about winning pots. It's about making
> correct decisions."
>
> It wasnt the correct decision. He lost the pot.
Here, I have a question for you. Quite awhile back I was playing a
tourney at Bellagio ($1000 buy in I think). Richard Brodie (QuietLion) is
to my right. QL just won a huge pot limping with QQ and flopping a set.
Very next hand QL comes in raising. I have a pretty big chip stack,
similar to QL's, and I look down to find AdQd. I muck it. A shorter
stack moves in and QL calls. QL had KQo, all-in guy has QJo, and the flop
comes with two aces. Damn, I would have a HUUUGE stack if I had called.
I must have made the wrong decision. My (incorrect obviously) thinking
was that I can't call a big raise with AQ with players yet to act after
me. Silly me, I should have known I'd win the pot.
>
>
> XaQ Morphy wrote:
> > > Please explain this to me: he lost more than half of his stack on this
> > > hand. How could it be an excellent play?
> >
> > Poker isn't about winning pots. It's about making correct decisions.
> >
> > Morphy
> > http://donkeymanifesto.blogspot.com
> >
------
brewmaster at brewcam dot com
"Once in awhile you can get shown the light in the strangest of places if
you look at it right" -RH
______________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 18:55:46
From: Mark B \(Diputsur\)
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
"Alan Gilbert aka brewmaster" <ae2dad2@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:j7r354xfu5.ln2@recgroups.com...
> On Dec 11 2006 9:18 AM, alan wrote:
>
> Here, I have a question for you. Quite awhile back I was playing a
> tourney at Bellagio ($1000 buy in I think). Richard Brodie (QuietLion) is
> to my right. QL just won a huge pot limping with QQ and flopping a set.
> Very next hand QL comes in raising. I have a pretty big chip stack,
> similar to QL's, and I look down to find AdQd. I muck it. A shorter
> stack moves in and QL calls. QL had KQo, all-in guy has QJo, and the flop
> comes with two aces. Damn, I would have a HUUUGE stack if I had called.
> I must have made the wrong decision. My (incorrect obviously) thinking
> was that I can't call a big raise with AQ with players yet to act after
> me. Silly me, I should have known I'd win the pot.
define: question
sorry, couldn't resist ;-)
Mark
--
www.myspace.com/diputsur
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 16:02:51
From: Alan Gilbert aka brewmaster
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
On Dec 12 2006 3:55 PM, Mark B (Diputsur) wrote:
> "Alan Gilbert aka brewmaster" <ae2dad2@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:j7r354xfu5.ln2@recgroups.com...
> > On Dec 11 2006 9:18 AM, alan wrote:
> >
> > Here, I have a question for you. Quite awhile back I was playing a
> > tourney at Bellagio ($1000 buy in I think). Richard Brodie (QuietLion) is
> > to my right. QL just won a huge pot limping with QQ and flopping a set.
> > Very next hand QL comes in raising. I have a pretty big chip stack,
> > similar to QL's, and I look down to find AdQd. I muck it. A shorter
> > stack moves in and QL calls. QL had KQo, all-in guy has QJo, and the flop
> > comes with two aces. Damn, I would have a HUUUGE stack if I had called.
> > I must have made the wrong decision. My (incorrect obviously) thinking
> > was that I can't call a big raise with AQ with players yet to act after
> > me. Silly me, I should have known I'd win the pot.
>
> define: question
>
> sorry, couldn't resist ;-)
Sorry, forgot the last line (directed to the other alan): did I make the
correct decision?
>
> Mark
> --
> www.myspace.com/diputsur
------
brewmaster at brewcam dot com
"Once in awhile you can get shown the light in the strangest of places if
you look at it right" -RH
_______________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 09:16:07
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
XaQ Morphy wrote:
> > Please explain this to me: he lost more than half of his stack on this
> > hand. How could it be an excellent play?
>
> Poker isn't about winning pots. It's about making correct decisions.
Give up. He isn't here to learn. He's here to brag. It's like trying to
teach a stranger about rock 'n roll.
Will in New Haven
--
>
> Morphy
> http://donkeymanifesto.blogspot.com
>
> ------
> * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 09:25:14
From: XaQ Morphy
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
> Give up. He isn't here to learn. He's here to brag. It's like trying to
> teach a stranger about rock 'n roll.
This reminds me a lot of the Verizon thread. At least I know Paul was
trolling there. Whereas, I'm afraid Alan isn't trolling here at all.
Morphy
http://donkeymanifesto.blogspot.com
______________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 09:15:05
From: alan
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
David wrote:
"A naked Ac isn't going to call his bet after he missed. So he has to
make bets on the flop and turn while his opponent still has a chance if
he wants to win any money."
You are correct, the naked Ac if he missed a fourth club on the board
would not have called.
But wouldnt it have been better for my son to win a little than to lose
a lot?
For those of you who invest or have businesses:
would you rather be earning 5% steadily on your money, then take a wild
business deal that might return 100% if you are right, but could lose
100% if you are wrong?
I'd rather go for the steady 5% return.
I'm going to take that same approach in poker.
I admit I'm a beginner at poker, but I don't see any reason to treat
poker differently from investing or business. I'm looking at my cards
as an asset, an investment vehicle. I'm not going to throw $220 into
cards that can return $28.
If risking $220 to win $28 is "smart poker," I'll stay stupid.
thanks.
David Nicoson wrote:
> alan wrote:
> > My son's problem hand:
> >
> > He had Qc 9c and raises to $7. He gets four callers.
> >
> > The flop comes Kc 5c 3c. He has flopped the flush and goes all in with
> > $220. My first reaction is WHY do you go all in? Wouldnt a bet of
> > $25 or $30 gotten the same results?
>
> Well, no. Betting $25 or $30 gets $25 of $30 in when he's ahead.
> Betting more gets more money when he's ahead. Now, I'm surprised that
> he got a calls with this bet, so I'd be more concerned about causing my
> opponents to fold correctly.
>
> > Well, he gets TWO callers, one of the callers goes all-in with $130 and
> > a second caller had a bigger stack, so he covers my son's all-in.
> >
> > The turn is a low, non-club.
> > The river is another club-- there are four clubs on the board.
> >
> > The players turn over their cards-- and the short stack had the Ac and
> > takes the hand.
>
> The short stack takes just the main pot, right? So your son gets
> unlucky here and still ends up with $180. He lost only $47, if I'm
> reading this right.
>
> He got his whole stack in with a good edge here.
>
> > My comment: there was no need to go all in until you knew you had the
> > hand won.
>
> A naked Ac isn't going to call his bet after he missed. So he has to
> make bets on the flop and turn while his opponent still has a chance if
> he wants to win any money.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 10:09:57
From: GrouchySmurf1002
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
On Dec 11 2006 12:15 PM, alan wrote:
> would you rather be earning 5% steadily on your money, then take a wild
> business deal that might return 100% if you are right, but could lose
> 100% if you are wrong?
If I'm investing 100% of my financial worth in something, I'll take the
steady 5%. Most poker players aren't investing that much into poker
though.
If your goal is to maximize your money over the life of your poker career,
then risks such as putting 1% (or whatever) of your bankroll on the line
in an event where you can double it 75% of the time should be welcomed
with open arms.
> I admit I'm a beginner at poker, but I don't see any reason to treat
> poker differently from investing or business. I'm looking at my cards
> as an asset, an investment vehicle. I'm not going to throw $220 into
> cards that can return $28.
See, his expected return isn't $28 in this situation. In a moderately
reasonable situation where the only people who call his ridiculous $220
bet are people with sets, flushes, or the Ac, he can expect to win the pot
71.115% of the time. That number increased if he's only called by a
made flush, to 73.817%. We'll stick with the first spot though.
He's risking $220 to win 71.115% of a $468 pot. He can expect to come
out with $332.98 after all is said and done.
$332.98 > $28.
So if you pushed that amount of money in everytime you flopped the 2nd nut
flush, and every time you got called by that range...you're increasing
your money by 51%.
So I ask you, would you rather take a long term steady 5% with limited to
no volatility or take 51% with swings that require a cushion to absorb?
There's no correct answer to that. You'll still say the 5%. You don't
like to lose money, and mentally won't handle it, which means you'll
probably plateau as a player, and that's fine.
Most in this newsgroup can tolerate risk, and will go for the play with
the highest long-term expectation over the play that will win a particular
pot. You don't have to agree with them, but that's the perspective of
"professional" play.
Poker is what you make out of it.
-------
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 09:29:44
From: XaQ Morphy
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
> I admit I'm a beginner at poker
Alan, you go out of your way to say that you are a beginner at poker.
Yet, you also go out of your way to argue with everyone on RGP, including
some very successful professional players. Why is this? Do you think
it's possible that when the entire newsgroup disagrees with your thinking
that maybe your thinking is not correct?
Based on reading your posts, there are some very obvious poker theory and
poker math skills that if you took the time to learn, would open up your
eyes as to why everyone disagrees with your thinking.
Good luck with it either way. This newsgroup is a lot of things, but
there are people that will go out of their way to help. However, if a
person seems to not want help and just wants to argue their incorrect
thinking, they will soon be ignored and/or made fun of. Keep these things
in mind when posting.
Morphy
http://donkeymanifesto.blogspot.com
____________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 18:08:36
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
On Dec 11 2006 10:15 AM, alan wrote:
> If risking $220 to win $28 is "smart poker," I'll stay stupid.
Good for you. Speaking of, make sure you tell me where and when you'll be
playing if I ever come visit LA.
Fell
--
Website: www.fellknight.com
Email: fellknight at gmail dot com
---
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 08:50:46
From: David Nicoson
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
alan wrote:
> My son's problem hand:
>
> He had Qc 9c and raises to $7. He gets four callers.
>
> The flop comes Kc 5c 3c. He has flopped the flush and goes all in with
> $220. My first reaction is WHY do you go all in? Wouldnt a bet of
> $25 or $30 gotten the same results?
Well, no. Betting $25 or $30 gets $25 of $30 in when he's ahead.
Betting more gets more money when he's ahead. Now, I'm surprised that
he got a calls with this bet, so I'd be more concerned about causing my
opponents to fold correctly.
> Well, he gets TWO callers, one of the callers goes all-in with $130 and
> a second caller had a bigger stack, so he covers my son's all-in.
>
> The turn is a low, non-club.
> The river is another club-- there are four clubs on the board.
>
> The players turn over their cards-- and the short stack had the Ac and
> takes the hand.
The short stack takes just the main pot, right? So your son gets
unlucky here and still ends up with $180. He lost only $47, if I'm
reading this right.
He got his whole stack in with a good edge here.
> My comment: there was no need to go all in until you knew you had the
> hand won.
A naked Ac isn't going to call his bet after he missed. So he has to
make bets on the flop and turn while his opponent still has a chance if
he wants to win any money.
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 08:24:48
From: alan
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
Thanks for putting up with me, Will. Im sorry I frustrated you.
But I look at the bottom line:
I won my hand, he lost his.
Enjoy your condo.
Alan
Will in New Haven wrote:
> alan wrote:
> > Will, when I play poker, I want to maximize my wins, BUT minimize my
> > losses.
> >
> > You seem to want to go for the gusto, the big win, all the time, and
> > you disregard the loss potential.
> >
> > You wrote: "You cannot control the fall of the cards; all you can do
> > is make the
> > play that will win you the most money in the long run."
> >
> > As I said in my original post:
> >
> > "there was no need to go all in until (he) knew you (he) the
> > hand won. With three cards on the flop (he) faced not only the danger
> > of a higher flush but also full house possibilities. A bet of $30 or
> > even $50 would have told (him) if (he) faced any danger."
> >
> > I consider the "all in" reckless and unnesecessary, and I think your
> > poker strategy (even if it is widely accepted by the others in the
> > newsgroup) to also be reckless. it's not the way I'm playing poker,
> > and frankly, I have a net gain playing albeit in a short poker career
> > of less than one year.
>
> I bought half of a condo with a (large) fraction of my poker bankroll.
> On the way, I had some losing sessions and several losing months. I
> don't want to trade. Fell has had a better run than I have and I don't
> think he wants to trade with you either.
>
> >
> > Thanks for your input, however, because it is worth reading.
> >
> > I've discussed this with my son, and in retrospect he regreats having
> > gone all in. "I would have rather lost $50," he told me. "After the
> > fourth club appeared if another player gave me a substantial bet I
> > would have known or at least suspected he had the ace. Instead, I left
> > myself open to being a dead duck."
>
> The big problem with the all-in was that it seems unlikely to be
> called. Of course, it is also open to someone having Ace and another
> Club. I said that I wouldn't go all-in here but that was because it
> wouldn't be called. I don't judge the chances of a suited Ace to be
> something to worry about. Not with the pot this size and the stacks as
> small as they are. Of course, your son was there and I will admit that
> he knew the table better than I and he was there to watch them see the
> flop. So, his play was right.
>
> With the stacks much larger, a substantial bet is better than an
> all-in. For one thing, a raiser could convince you that he has AX
> suited. For another, no one is going to call an all-in that is a MUCH
> bigger multiople of the pot. I am surprised that anyone called his
> all-in. '
>
>
> You a
> >
> > Thanks again and good luck.
> >
> > I appreciate the discussion.
>
> Your check on the turn and your inane bet on the river on the other
> hand were both so bad, and it is clear that no one can tell you that
> you aren't playing it right, that you are clearly hopeless. He's your
> son, so I suppose he has to talk poker with you. But I don't.
>
> Good luck
>
> Will in New Haven
>
> --
>
>
> >
> > Will in New Haven wrote:
> > > alan wrote:
> > > > Will, give me a break.
> > > >
> > > > You wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Because he would win a great deal of money on that hand much more
> > > > often
> > > > than he would lose. The casinos are rarely in as good a position on
> > > > their table games as he was on that hand when two idiots called that
> > > > all-in."
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately, one of those idiots won the pot.
> > > >
> > > > Your analysis reminds me of the old joke with the punchline that went
> > > > like this:
> > > >
> > > > "the operation was a success, but the patient died."
> > >
> > > You cannot control the fall of the cards; all you can do is make the
> > > play that will win you the most money in the long run. I can see that
> > > you don't accept that. Which means that you have nothing to contribute
> > > to the analysis of good play.
> > >
> > > Sometimes, in fact several times a day, someone has her or his number
> > > come up on the roullette wheel. The casino pays off at thirty-five to
> > > one. In the long run they make money. If you don't understand this, you
> > > remind me of several old jokes.
> > >
> > > Will in New Haven
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Will in New Haven wrote:
> > > > > alan wrote:
> > > > > > Will, you wrote about my son's hand:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "This was an excellent play,..."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please explain this to me: he lost more than half of his stack on this
> > > > > > hand. How could it be an excellent play?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > thanks.
> > > > >
> > > > > Because he would win a great deal of money on that hand much more often
> > > > > than he would lose. The casinos are rarely in as good a position on
> > > > > their table games as he was on that hand when two idiots called that
> > > > > all-in.
> > > > >
> > > > > We don't know what the other player had. He may have had a smaller
> > > > > flush, which would be wonderful for your son, or he might have had a
> > > > > set or he might have had two pair. Or he might have had top pair and
> > > > > simply been a buffoon. Some people would rather catch a bluffer than
> > > > > have money.
> > > > >
> > > > > If the other player had a set, he will make a boat about one-third of
> > > > > the time. If he does, it won't matter if another Club comes also,
> > > > > because he will win. If he doesn't make a boat, another Club will come
> > > > > about thirty percent of the remaining two-two thirds of the time (it
> > > > > doesn't matter if the extra Club comes when the boat is made) Call that
> > > > > twenty percent of the time, which is close enough. So your son, in the
> > > > > worst possible situation, is just under fifty-fifty to triple up.
> > > > > Long-term, you make money that way.
> > > > >
> > > > > In the better situation, where the third player calls because he has a
> > > > > flush himself and it is worse than Queen high, and people do that, that
> > > > > player is no danger to your son's stack and the naked Ace is going to
> > > > > make his flush less often, around twenty percent of the time (fewer
> > > > > Clubs available) So here he's tripling up eighty percent of the time.
> > > > >
> > > > > I figure his situation where he gets two callers, counting the
> > > > > occasions where someone has already flopped the nut flush, is that he
> > > > > is over sixty percent to triple up.
> > > > >
> > > > > If he gets one caller, he has to worry about someone having the nut
> > > > > flush, in which case he is dead, the board pairing, which makes him a
> > > > > two to one favorite to double up, OR (doesn't have to fear both)
> > > > > another Club, which makes him about a seven to three favorite.
> > > > >
> > > > > In every case where he gets MORE than two callers, he is better off
> > > > > than he would be with only two.
> > > > >
> > > > > Poker is about making the right decisions. Make the right decisions and
> > > > > you will usually win. Making the right decision is within your control.
> > > > > The fall of the cards is not within your control.
> > > > >
> > > > > I wouldn't have played it the way he did because I wouldn't expect to
> > > > > be called. However, once the harmless card comes on the flop, I would
> > > > > hope my opponent would feel he had to call all-in on the next bet. He
> > > > > would not be getting odds to play in either case. If I thought that I
> > > > > would get callers, I would move in just like he did.
> > > > >
> > > > > Will in New Haven
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > "Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail
> > > > > better."
> > > > > Samuel Beckett, "Worstward Ho", 1983
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Will in New Haven wrote:
> > > > > > > alan wrote:
> > > > > > > > My son and I both played tonight, but at different casinos and with
> > > > > > > > different results.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I had a modest win at a $100 no limit table, he got wiped out at a $40
> > > > > > > > no limit table.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My high point: I was dealt KK in middle position; BB was $3 and I
> > > > > > > > raised to $30. I got one caller.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Stack sizes would be nice to know. That's a nice size for a raise if it
> > > > > > > is around the normal raise at the table and figures to get called.
> > > > > > > Winning just the blinds with KK is not a total disaster, as it is with
> > > > > > > AA, but it is certainly not a great result. At this point, if either of
> > > > > > > you has around the minimum stack size, you are close to "all-in soon"
> > > > > > > country.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The flop comes 9-10-Q rainbow. I bet $30, and the other player calls.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Reasonable bet. I would think $50 would be called also and you want to
> > > > > > > bet enough so that he is getting the odds to draw _and as much as he
> > > > > > > will call beyond that_
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > When he calls, we can pretty _much_ rule out a made straight. Anyway,
> > > > > > > J8 is a silly hand for him to have and call a raise and KJ isn't a
> > > > > > > _good_ hand to call a raise and your KK makes that mathematically
> > > > > > > unlikely. We can also rule out QJ as that is a weak hand to call a
> > > > > > > raise pre-flop and most people, with top pair and a straight draw would
> > > > > > > stack you here. Especially as calling a stack raise, even with KK,
> > > > > > > would be nerve-wracking and look at how many OUTS he has. And he might
> > > > > > > be ahead.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So he has AQ? No he would have raised you, QX, not likely a call. Two
> > > > > > > pair on the flop would probably have raised you. So he hit a T, with
> > > > > > > AT, or a 9, with A9 or he has a pair smaller than Nines.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The turn comes some low card, frankly I dont remember. I check. The
> > > > > > > > other player checks.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why check? There is no draw so bad that it isn't profitably calling a
> > > > > > > check? Your opponent cannot make a bad call if you check. If a bet here
> > > > > > > is going to commit you to the pot, so much the better. Were you trying
> > > > > > > to induce a bluff? Are you going to fold if he bets?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The river comes King. I have my set--- but I'm nervous that if the
> > > > > > > > other player has a jack, he will have a straight. This was similar to
> > > > > > > > the position I was in a week ago.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So I bet $40. The other player thinks, then folds and shows his 8-8.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This bet served NO purpose. He folded a losing hand. You might have
> > > > > > > gotten a couple more bucks out of him by betting less. Bets with cards
> > > > > > > to come need to be big enough to get drawing hands to either be making
> > > > > > > an error by calling or fold. On the river, you want to get called if
> > > > > > > you are ahead. By betting this amount, you get a losing hand to fold
> > > > > > > and you get raised, a LOT, by that straight you fear. If you bet less,
> > > > > > > you get called sometims by losing hands (I don't think that this would
> > > > > > > matter this time) If you do get raised, it will generally be a smaller
> > > > > > > bet that you can call.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Checking HERE to induce a bluff is not the worst move either. It also
> > > > > > > cuts down on your losses if he has a straight as he will not overbet
> > > > > > > because he wants to get called. You can't check-raise here unless you
> > > > > > > know your opponent very well.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, you got dealt KK: good; made a reasonable raise and got a caller:
> > > > > > > good; Made a reasonable (on the small side of reasonable) bet on the
> > > > > > > flop: good; Checked the turn: bad, very bad; Made an irrelevant bet on
> > > > > > > the river : Not great
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Getting dealt KK was your best move.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My son's problem hand:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > He had Qc 9c and raises to $7. He gets four callers.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That wasn't enough of a raise if it is going to get four callers with
> > > > > > > that crap hand. On the other hand, the value of that hand, if it has
> > > > > > > any value, is in a multi-way pot.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The flop comes Kc 5c 3c. He has flopped the flush and goes all in with
> > > > > > > > $220. My first reaction is WHY do you go all in? Wouldnt a bet of
> > > > > > > > $25 or $30 gotten the same results?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There is $35+ in the pot. He has the second nuts and he is obviously
> > > > > > > not going to worry about someone having AcXc. It isn't as if he has
> > > > > > > 8c7c. So he wants to bet enough to avoid giving them proper odds to
> > > > > > > call and _as much as someone will call_ Someone with the naked Ac
> > > > > > > should not call a pot-sized bet but the possibility or the reality of
> > > > > > > other callers will make it tempting. Someone with a made set is in
> > > > > > > slightly better shape but should not call a pot-sized bet. But he will.
> > > > > > > Someone with two pair should not be calling here but many would. If a
> > > > > > > lesser hand calls, it is found money. Smaller flushes will proabably
> > > > > > > call.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > With all those players, I would have overbet the pot to maybe $70 and
> > > > > > > moved in on a harmless turn. If I knew, however, that I was going to
> > > > > > > get two callers if I moved all-in, I would have moved all-in.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Well, he gets TWO callers, one of the callers goes all-in with $130 and
> > > > > > > >a second caller had a bigger stack, so he covers my son's all-in.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, as long as one of these guys doesn't have AcXc, he has gotten all
> > > > > > > his money in with a huge chance of winning. He has played the hand
> > > > > > > better than I would have and much better than you would have.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >The turn is a low, non-club.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now, I move all-in after my earlier seventy dollar bet. That probably
> > > > > > > doesn't get the guy with the Ace out. If it does, it is a lucky
> > > > > > > accident. I suppose, knowing that you might lose the hand, you would
> > > > > > > have checked.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >The river is another club-- there are four clubs on the board.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >The players turn over their cards-- and the short stack had the Ac and
> > > > > > > >takes the hand.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >My comment: there was no need to go all in until you knew you had the
> > > > > > > >hand won. With three cards on the flop you faced not only the danger
> > > > > > > >of a higher flush but also full house possibilities. A bet of $30 or
> > > > > > > >even $50 would have told you if you faced any danger.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You cannot make much money in poker waiting until you "know you have
> > > > > > > the hand won." Your son played that hand this way:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Raised from, I guess, early position with Qc9c: Not _normal_ but a
> > > > > > > seven-dollar speculation in a NL game, with the huge potential for
> > > > > > > profit, is not a big deal.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Flopped well and bet all-in when his judgement told him that he would
> > > > > > > get a caller or more than one. And he was correct. This was an
> > > > > > > excellent play, especially as more than two callers would not make
> > > > > > > things much worse than two callers.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The worst thing that he did was get sucked out on.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It was very humble of you to post a hand where you played badly and one
> > > > > > > where your son played much better and lost to a suckout.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Will in New Haven
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > " It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond
> > > > > > > of it." - Robert E. Lee
> > > > > > > Or was he correct going all in?
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 08:09:52
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
alan wrote:
> Will, when I play poker, I want to maximize my wins, BUT minimize my
> losses.
>
> You seem to want to go for the gusto, the big win, all the time, and
> you disregard the loss potential.
>
> You wrote: "You cannot control the fall of the cards; all you can do
> is make the
> play that will win you the most money in the long run."
>
> As I said in my original post:
>
> "there was no need to go all in until (he) knew you (he) the
> hand won. With three cards on the flop (he) faced not only the danger
> of a higher flush but also full house possibilities. A bet of $30 or
> even $50 would have told (him) if (he) faced any danger."
>
> I consider the "all in" reckless and unnesecessary, and I think your
> poker strategy (even if it is widely accepted by the others in the
> newsgroup) to also be reckless. it's not the way I'm playing poker,
> and frankly, I have a net gain playing albeit in a short poker career
> of less than one year.
I bought half of a condo with a (large) fraction of my poker bankroll.
On the way, I had some losing sessions and several losing months. I
don't want to trade. Fell has had a better run than I have and I don't
think he wants to trade with you either.
>
> Thanks for your input, however, because it is worth reading.
>
> I've discussed this with my son, and in retrospect he regreats having
> gone all in. "I would have rather lost $50," he told me. "After the
> fourth club appeared if another player gave me a substantial bet I
> would have known or at least suspected he had the ace. Instead, I left
> myself open to being a dead duck."
The big problem with the all-in was that it seems unlikely to be
called. Of course, it is also open to someone having Ace and another
Club. I said that I wouldn't go all-in here but that was because it
wouldn't be called. I don't judge the chances of a suited Ace to be
something to worry about. Not with the pot this size and the stacks as
small as they are. Of course, your son was there and I will admit that
he knew the table better than I and he was there to watch them see the
flop. So, his play was right.
With the stacks much larger, a substantial bet is better than an
all-in. For one thing, a raiser could convince you that he has AX
suited. For another, no one is going to call an all-in that is a MUCH
bigger multiople of the pot. I am surprised that anyone called his
all-in. '
You a
>
> Thanks again and good luck.
>
> I appreciate the discussion.
Your check on the turn and your inane bet on the river on the other
hand were both so bad, and it is clear that no one can tell you that
you aren't playing it right, that you are clearly hopeless. He's your
son, so I suppose he has to talk poker with you. But I don't.
Good luck
Will in New Haven
--
>
> Will in New Haven wrote:
> > alan wrote:
> > > Will, give me a break.
> > >
> > > You wrote:
> > >
> > > "Because he would win a great deal of money on that hand much more
> > > often
> > > than he would lose. The casinos are rarely in as good a position on
> > > their table games as he was on that hand when two idiots called that
> > > all-in."
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, one of those idiots won the pot.
> > >
> > > Your analysis reminds me of the old joke with the punchline that went
> > > like this:
> > >
> > > "the operation was a success, but the patient died."
> >
> > You cannot control the fall of the cards; all you can do is make the
> > play that will win you the most money in the long run. I can see that
> > you don't accept that. Which means that you have nothing to contribute
> > to the analysis of good play.
> >
> > Sometimes, in fact several times a day, someone has her or his number
> > come up on the roullette wheel. The casino pays off at thirty-five to
> > one. In the long run they make money. If you don't understand this, you
> > remind me of several old jokes.
> >
> > Will in New Haven
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Will in New Haven wrote:
> > > > alan wrote:
> > > > > Will, you wrote about my son's hand:
> > > > >
> > > > > "This was an excellent play,..."
> > > > >
> > > > > Please explain this to me: he lost more than half of his stack on this
> > > > > hand. How could it be an excellent play?
> > > > >
> > > > > thanks.
> > > >
> > > > Because he would win a great deal of money on that hand much more often
> > > > than he would lose. The casinos are rarely in as good a position on
> > > > their table games as he was on that hand when two idiots called that
> > > > all-in.
> > > >
> > > > We don't know what the other player had. He may have had a smaller
> > > > flush, which would be wonderful for your son, or he might have had a
> > > > set or he might have had two pair. Or he might have had top pair and
> > > > simply been a buffoon. Some people would rather catch a bluffer than
> > > > have money.
> > > >
> > > > If the other player had a set, he will make a boat about one-third of
> > > > the time. If he does, it won't matter if another Club comes also,
> > > > because he will win. If he doesn't make a boat, another Club will come
> > > > about thirty percent of the remaining two-two thirds of the time (it
> > > > doesn't matter if the extra Club comes when the boat is made) Call that
> > > > twenty percent of the time, which is close enough. So your son, in the
> > > > worst possible situation, is just under fifty-fifty to triple up.
> > > > Long-term, you make money that way.
> > > >
> > > > In the better situation, where the third player calls because he has a
> > > > flush himself and it is worse than Queen high, and people do that, that
> > > > player is no danger to your son's stack and the naked Ace is going to
> > > > make his flush less often, around twenty percent of the time (fewer
> > > > Clubs available) So here he's tripling up eighty percent of the time.
> > > >
> > > > I figure his situation where he gets two callers, counting the
> > > > occasions where someone has already flopped the nut flush, is that he
> > > > is over sixty percent to triple up.
> > > >
> > > > If he gets one caller, he has to worry about someone having the nut
> > > > flush, in which case he is dead, the board pairing, which makes him a
> > > > two to one favorite to double up, OR (doesn't have to fear both)
> > > > another Club, which makes him about a seven to three favorite.
> > > >
> > > > In every case where he gets MORE than two callers, he is better off
> > > > than he would be with only two.
> > > >
> > > > Poker is about making the right decisions. Make the right decisions and
> > > > you will usually win. Making the right decision is within your control.
> > > > The fall of the cards is not within your control.
> > > >
> > > > I wouldn't have played it the way he did because I wouldn't expect to
> > > > be called. However, once the harmless card comes on the flop, I would
> > > > hope my opponent would feel he had to call all-in on the next bet. He
> > > > would not be getting odds to play in either case. If I thought that I
> > > > would get callers, I would move in just like he did.
> > > >
> > > > Will in New Haven
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > "Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail
> > > > better."
> > > > Samuel Beckett, "Worstward Ho", 1983
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Will in New Haven wrote:
> > > > > > alan wrote:
> > > > > > > My son and I both played tonight, but at different casinos and with
> > > > > > > different results.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I had a modest win at a $100 no limit table, he got wiped out at a $40
> > > > > > > no limit table.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My high point: I was dealt KK in middle position; BB was $3 and I
> > > > > > > raised to $30. I got one caller.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Stack sizes would be nice to know. That's a nice size for a raise if it
> > > > > > is around the normal raise at the table and figures to get called.
> > > > > > Winning just the blinds with KK is not a total disaster, as it is with
> > > > > > AA, but it is certainly not a great result. At this point, if either of
> > > > > > you has around the minimum stack size, you are close to "all-in soon"
> > > > > > country.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The flop comes 9-10-Q rainbow. I bet $30, and the other player calls.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Reasonable bet. I would think $50 would be called also and you want to
> > > > > > bet enough so that he is getting the odds to draw _and as much as he
> > > > > > will call beyond that_
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When he calls, we can pretty _much_ rule out a made straight. Anyway,
> > > > > > J8 is a silly hand for him to have and call a raise and KJ isn't a
> > > > > > _good_ hand to call a raise and your KK makes that mathematically
> > > > > > unlikely. We can also rule out QJ as that is a weak hand to call a
> > > > > > raise pre-flop and most people, with top pair and a straight draw would
> > > > > > stack you here. Especially as calling a stack raise, even with KK,
> > > > > > would be nerve-wracking and look at how many OUTS he has. And he might
> > > > > > be ahead.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So he has AQ? No he would have raised you, QX, not likely a call. Two
> > > > > > pair on the flop would probably have raised you. So he hit a T, with
> > > > > > AT, or a 9, with A9 or he has a pair smaller than Nines.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The turn comes some low card, frankly I dont remember. I check. The
> > > > > > > other player checks.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why check? There is no draw so bad that it isn't profitably calling a
> > > > > > check? Your opponent cannot make a bad call if you check. If a bet here
> > > > > > is going to commit you to the pot, so much the better. Were you trying
> > > > > > to induce a bluff? Are you going to fold if he bets?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The river comes King. I have my set--- but I'm nervous that if the
> > > > > > > other player has a jack, he will have a straight. This was similar to
> > > > > > > the position I was in a week ago.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So I bet $40. The other player thinks, then folds and shows his 8-8.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This bet served NO purpose. He folded a losing hand. You might have
> > > > > > gotten a couple more bucks out of him by betting less. Bets with cards
> > > > > > to come need to be big enough to get drawing hands to either be making
> > > > > > an error by calling or fold. On the river, you want to get called if
> > > > > > you are ahead. By betting this amount, you get a losing hand to fold
> > > > > > and you get raised, a LOT, by that straight you fear. If you bet less,
> > > > > > you get called sometims by losing hands (I don't think that this would
> > > > > > matter this time) If you do get raised, it will generally be a smaller
> > > > > > bet that you can call.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Checking HERE to induce a bluff is not the worst move either. It also
> > > > > > cuts down on your losses if he has a straight as he will not overbet
> > > > > > because he wants to get called. You can't check-raise here unless you
> > > > > > know your opponent very well.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, you got dealt KK: good; made a reasonable raise and got a caller:
> > > > > > good; Made a reasonable (on the small side of reasonable) bet on the
> > > > > > flop: good; Checked the turn: bad, very bad; Made an irrelevant bet on
> > > > > > the river : Not great
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Getting dealt KK was your best move.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > My son's problem hand:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > He had Qc 9c and raises to $7. He gets four callers.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That wasn't enough of a raise if it is going to get four callers with
> > > > > > that crap hand. On the other hand, the value of that hand, if it has
> > > > > > any value, is in a multi-way pot.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The flop comes Kc 5c 3c. He has flopped the flush and goes all in with
> > > > > > > $220. My first reaction is WHY do you go all in? Wouldnt a bet of
> > > > > > > $25 or $30 gotten the same results?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is $35+ in the pot. He has the second nuts and he is obviously
> > > > > > not going to worry about someone having AcXc. It isn't as if he has
> > > > > > 8c7c. So he wants to bet enough to avoid giving them proper odds to
> > > > > > call and _as much as someone will call_ Someone with the naked Ac
> > > > > > should not call a pot-sized bet but the possibility or the reality of
> > > > > > other callers will make it tempting. Someone with a made set is in
> > > > > > slightly better shape but should not call a pot-sized bet. But he will.
> > > > > > Someone with two pair should not be calling here but many would. If a
> > > > > > lesser hand calls, it is found money. Smaller flushes will proabably
> > > > > > call.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > With all those players, I would have overbet the pot to maybe $70 and
> > > > > > moved in on a harmless turn. If I knew, however, that I was going to
> > > > > > get two callers if I moved all-in, I would have moved all-in.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Well, he gets TWO callers, one of the callers goes all-in with $130 and
> > > > > > >a second caller had a bigger stack, so he covers my son's all-in.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, as long as one of these guys doesn't have AcXc, he has gotten all
> > > > > > his money in with a huge chance of winning. He has played the hand
> > > > > > better than I would have and much better than you would have.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >The turn is a low, non-club.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now, I move all-in after my earlier seventy dollar bet. That probably
> > > > > > doesn't get the guy with the Ace out. If it does, it is a lucky
> > > > > > accident. I suppose, knowing that you might lose the hand, you would
> > > > > > have checked.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >The river is another club-- there are four clubs on the board.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >The players turn over their cards-- and the short stack had the Ac and
> > > > > > >takes the hand.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >My comment: there was no need to go all in until you knew you had the
> > > > > > >hand won. With three cards on the flop you faced not only the danger
> > > > > > >of a higher flush but also full house possibilities. A bet of $30 or
> > > > > > >even $50 would have told you if you faced any danger.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You cannot make much money in poker waiting until you "know you have
> > > > > > the hand won." Your son played that hand this way:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Raised from, I guess, early position with Qc9c: Not _normal_ but a
> > > > > > seven-dollar speculation in a NL game, with the huge potential for
> > > > > > profit, is not a big deal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Flopped well and bet all-in when his judgement told him that he would
> > > > > > get a caller or more than one. And he was correct. This was an
> > > > > > excellent play, especially as more than two callers would not make
> > > > > > things much worse than two callers.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The worst thing that he did was get sucked out on.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It was very humble of you to post a hand where you played badly and one
> > > > > > where your son played much better and lost to a suckout.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Will in New Haven
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > >
> > > > > > " It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond
> > > > > > of it." - Robert E. Lee
> > > > > > Or was he correct going all in?
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 07:44:55
From: alan
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
Will, when I play poker, I want to maximize my wins, BUT minimize my
losses.
You seem to want to go for the gusto, the big win, all the time, and
you disregard the loss potential.
You wrote: "You cannot control the fall of the cards; all you can do
is make the
play that will win you the most money in the long run."
As I said in my original post:
"there was no need to go all in until (he) knew you (he) the
hand won. With three cards on the flop (he) faced not only the danger
of a higher flush but also full house possibilities. A bet of $30 or
even $50 would have told (him) if (he) faced any danger."
I consider the "all in" reckless and unnesecessary, and I think your
poker strategy (even if it is widely accepted by the others in the
newsgroup) to also be reckless. it's not the way I'm playing poker,
and frankly, I have a net gain playing albeit in a short poker career
of less than one year.
Thanks for your input, however, because it is worth reading.
I've discussed this with my son, and in retrospect he regreats having
gone all in. "I would have rather lost $50," he told me. "After the
fourth club appeared if another player gave me a substantial bet I
would have known or at least suspected he had the ace. Instead, I left
myself open to being a dead duck."
Thanks again and good luck.
I appreciate the discussion.
Will in New Haven wrote:
> alan wrote:
> > Will, give me a break.
> >
> > You wrote:
> >
> > "Because he would win a great deal of money on that hand much more
> > often
> > than he would lose. The casinos are rarely in as good a position on
> > their table games as he was on that hand when two idiots called that
> > all-in."
> >
> > Unfortunately, one of those idiots won the pot.
> >
> > Your analysis reminds me of the old joke with the punchline that went
> > like this:
> >
> > "the operation was a success, but the patient died."
>
> You cannot control the fall of the cards; all you can do is make the
> play that will win you the most money in the long run. I can see that
> you don't accept that. Which means that you have nothing to contribute
> to the analysis of good play.
>
> Sometimes, in fact several times a day, someone has her or his number
> come up on the roullette wheel. The casino pays off at thirty-five to
> one. In the long run they make money. If you don't understand this, you
> remind me of several old jokes.
>
> Will in New Haven
>
> --
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Will in New Haven wrote:
> > > alan wrote:
> > > > Will, you wrote about my son's hand:
> > > >
> > > > "This was an excellent play,..."
> > > >
> > > > Please explain this to me: he lost more than half of his stack on this
> > > > hand. How could it be an excellent play?
> > > >
> > > > thanks.
> > >
> > > Because he would win a great deal of money on that hand much more often
> > > than he would lose. The casinos are rarely in as good a position on
> > > their table games as he was on that hand when two idiots called that
> > > all-in.
> > >
> > > We don't know what the other player had. He may have had a smaller
> > > flush, which would be wonderful for your son, or he might have had a
> > > set or he might have had two pair. Or he might have had top pair and
> > > simply been a buffoon. Some people would rather catch a bluffer than
> > > have money.
> > >
> > > If the other player had a set, he will make a boat about one-third of
> > > the time. If he does, it won't matter if another Club comes also,
> > > because he will win. If he doesn't make a boat, another Club will come
> > > about thirty percent of the remaining two-two thirds of the time (it
> > > doesn't matter if the extra Club comes when the boat is made) Call that
> > > twenty percent of the time, which is close enough. So your son, in the
> > > worst possible situation, is just under fifty-fifty to triple up.
> > > Long-term, you make money that way.
> > >
> > > In the better situation, where the third player calls because he has a
> > > flush himself and it is worse than Queen high, and people do that, that
> > > player is no danger to your son's stack and the naked Ace is going to
> > > make his flush less often, around twenty percent of the time (fewer
> > > Clubs available) So here he's tripling up eighty percent of the time.
> > >
> > > I figure his situation where he gets two callers, counting the
> > > occasions where someone has already flopped the nut flush, is that he
> > > is over sixty percent to triple up.
> > >
> > > If he gets one caller, he has to worry about someone having the nut
> > > flush, in which case he is dead, the board pairing, which makes him a
> > > two to one favorite to double up, OR (doesn't have to fear both)
> > > another Club, which makes him about a seven to three favorite.
> > >
> > > In every case where he gets MORE than two callers, he is better off
> > > than he would be with only two.
> > >
> > > Poker is about making the right decisions. Make the right decisions and
> > > you will usually win. Making the right decision is within your control.
> > > The fall of the cards is not within your control.
> > >
> > > I wouldn't have played it the way he did because I wouldn't expect to
> > > be called. However, once the harmless card comes on the flop, I would
> > > hope my opponent would feel he had to call all-in on the next bet. He
> > > would not be getting odds to play in either case. If I thought that I
> > > would get callers, I would move in just like he did.
> > >
> > > Will in New Haven
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > "Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail
> > > better."
> > > Samuel Beckett, "Worstward Ho", 1983
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Will in New Haven wrote:
> > > > > alan wrote:
> > > > > > My son and I both played tonight, but at different casinos and with
> > > > > > different results.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I had a modest win at a $100 no limit table, he got wiped out at a $40
> > > > > > no limit table.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My high point: I was dealt KK in middle position; BB was $3 and I
> > > > > > raised to $30. I got one caller.
> > > > >
> > > > > Stack sizes would be nice to know. That's a nice size for a raise if it
> > > > > is around the normal raise at the table and figures to get called.
> > > > > Winning just the blinds with KK is not a total disaster, as it is with
> > > > > AA, but it is certainly not a great result. At this point, if either of
> > > > > you has around the minimum stack size, you are close to "all-in soon"
> > > > > country.
> > > > >
> > > > > > The flop comes 9-10-Q rainbow. I bet $30, and the other player calls.
> > > > >
> > > > > Reasonable bet. I would think $50 would be called also and you want to
> > > > > bet enough so that he is getting the odds to draw _and as much as he
> > > > > will call beyond that_
> > > > >
> > > > > When he calls, we can pretty _much_ rule out a made straight. Anyway,
> > > > > J8 is a silly hand for him to have and call a raise and KJ isn't a
> > > > > _good_ hand to call a raise and your KK makes that mathematically
> > > > > unlikely. We can also rule out QJ as that is a weak hand to call a
> > > > > raise pre-flop and most people, with top pair and a straight draw would
> > > > > stack you here. Especially as calling a stack raise, even with KK,
> > > > > would be nerve-wracking and look at how many OUTS he has. And he might
> > > > > be ahead.
> > > > >
> > > > > So he has AQ? No he would have raised you, QX, not likely a call. Two
> > > > > pair on the flop would probably have raised you. So he hit a T, with
> > > > > AT, or a 9, with A9 or he has a pair smaller than Nines.
> > > > >
> > > > > > The turn comes some low card, frankly I dont remember. I check. The
> > > > > > other player checks.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why check? There is no draw so bad that it isn't profitably calling a
> > > > > check? Your opponent cannot make a bad call if you check. If a bet here
> > > > > is going to commit you to the pot, so much the better. Were you trying
> > > > > to induce a bluff? Are you going to fold if he bets?
> > > > >
> > > > > > The river comes King. I have my set--- but I'm nervous that if the
> > > > > > other player has a jack, he will have a straight. This was similar to
> > > > > > the position I was in a week ago.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So I bet $40. The other player thinks, then folds and shows his 8-8.
> > > > >
> > > > > This bet served NO purpose. He folded a losing hand. You might have
> > > > > gotten a couple more bucks out of him by betting less. Bets with cards
> > > > > to come need to be big enough to get drawing hands to either be making
> > > > > an error by calling or fold. On the river, you want to get called if
> > > > > you are ahead. By betting this amount, you get a losing hand to fold
> > > > > and you get raised, a LOT, by that straight you fear. If you bet less,
> > > > > you get called sometims by losing hands (I don't think that this would
> > > > > matter this time) If you do get raised, it will generally be a smaller
> > > > > bet that you can call.
> > > > >
> > > > > Checking HERE to induce a bluff is not the worst move either. It also
> > > > > cuts down on your losses if he has a straight as he will not overbet
> > > > > because he wants to get called. You can't check-raise here unless you
> > > > > know your opponent very well.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, you got dealt KK: good; made a reasonable raise and got a caller:
> > > > > good; Made a reasonable (on the small side of reasonable) bet on the
> > > > > flop: good; Checked the turn: bad, very bad; Made an irrelevant bet on
> > > > > the river : Not great
> > > > >
> > > > > Getting dealt KK was your best move.
> > > > >
> > > > > > My son's problem hand:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > He had Qc 9c and raises to $7. He gets four callers.
> > > > >
> > > > > That wasn't enough of a raise if it is going to get four callers with
> > > > > that crap hand. On the other hand, the value of that hand, if it has
> > > > > any value, is in a multi-way pot.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The flop comes Kc 5c 3c. He has flopped the flush and goes all in with
> > > > > > $220. My first reaction is WHY do you go all in? Wouldnt a bet of
> > > > > > $25 or $30 gotten the same results?
> > > > >
> > > > > There is $35+ in the pot. He has the second nuts and he is obviously
> > > > > not going to worry about someone having AcXc. It isn't as if he has
> > > > > 8c7c. So he wants to bet enough to avoid giving them proper odds to
> > > > > call and _as much as someone will call_ Someone with the naked Ac
> > > > > should not call a pot-sized bet but the possibility or the reality of
> > > > > other callers will make it tempting. Someone with a made set is in
> > > > > slightly better shape but should not call a pot-sized bet. But he will.
> > > > > Someone with two pair should not be calling here but many would. If a
> > > > > lesser hand calls, it is found money. Smaller flushes will proabably
> > > > > call.
> > > > >
> > > > > With all those players, I would have overbet the pot to maybe $70 and
> > > > > moved in on a harmless turn. If I knew, however, that I was going to
> > > > > get two callers if I moved all-in, I would have moved all-in.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Well, he gets TWO callers, one of the callers goes all-in with $130 and
> > > > > >a second caller had a bigger stack, so he covers my son's all-in.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, as long as one of these guys doesn't have AcXc, he has gotten all
> > > > > his money in with a huge chance of winning. He has played the hand
> > > > > better than I would have and much better than you would have.
> > > > >
> > > > > >The turn is a low, non-club.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now, I move all-in after my earlier seventy dollar bet. That probably
> > > > > doesn't get the guy with the Ace out. If it does, it is a lucky
> > > > > accident. I suppose, knowing that you might lose the hand, you would
> > > > > have checked.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >The river is another club-- there are four clubs on the board.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >The players turn over their cards-- and the short stack had the Ac and
> > > > > >takes the hand.
> > > > >
> > > > > >My comment: there was no need to go all in until you knew you had the
> > > > > >hand won. With three cards on the flop you faced not only the danger
> > > > > >of a higher flush but also full house possibilities. A bet of $30 or
> > > > > >even $50 would have told you if you faced any danger.
> > > > >
> > > > > You cannot make much money in poker waiting until you "know you have
> > > > > the hand won." Your son played that hand this way:
> > > > >
> > > > > Raised from, I guess, early position with Qc9c: Not _normal_ but a
> > > > > seven-dollar speculation in a NL game, with the huge potential for
> > > > > profit, is not a big deal.
> > > > >
> > > > > Flopped well and bet all-in when his judgement told him that he would
> > > > > get a caller or more than one. And he was correct. This was an
> > > > > excellent play, especially as more than two callers would not make
> > > > > things much worse than two callers.
> > > > >
> > > > > The worst thing that he did was get sucked out on.
> > > > >
> > > > > It was very humble of you to post a hand where you played badly and one
> > > > > where your son played much better and lost to a suckout.
> > > > >
> > > > > Will in New Haven
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > " It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond
> > > > > of it." - Robert E. Lee
> > > > > Or was he correct going all in?
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 06:32:48
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
alan wrote:
> Will, give me a break.
>
> You wrote:
>
> "Because he would win a great deal of money on that hand much more
> often
> than he would lose. The casinos are rarely in as good a position on
> their table games as he was on that hand when two idiots called that
> all-in."
>
> Unfortunately, one of those idiots won the pot.
>
> Your analysis reminds me of the old joke with the punchline that went
> like this:
>
> "the operation was a success, but the patient died."
You cannot control the fall of the cards; all you can do is make the
play that will win you the most money in the long run. I can see that
you don't accept that. Which means that you have nothing to contribute
to the analysis of good play.
Sometimes, in fact several times a day, someone has her or his number
come up on the roullette wheel. The casino pays off at thirty-five to
one. In the long run they make money. If you don't understand this, you
remind me of several old jokes.
Will in New Haven
--
>
>
>
> Will in New Haven wrote:
> > alan wrote:
> > > Will, you wrote about my son's hand:
> > >
> > > "This was an excellent play,..."
> > >
> > > Please explain this to me: he lost more than half of his stack on this
> > > hand. How could it be an excellent play?
> > >
> > > thanks.
> >
> > Because he would win a great deal of money on that hand much more often
> > than he would lose. The casinos are rarely in as good a position on
> > their table games as he was on that hand when two idiots called that
> > all-in.
> >
> > We don't know what the other player had. He may have had a smaller
> > flush, which would be wonderful for your son, or he might have had a
> > set or he might have had two pair. Or he might have had top pair and
> > simply been a buffoon. Some people would rather catch a bluffer than
> > have money.
> >
> > If the other player had a set, he will make a boat about one-third of
> > the time. If he does, it won't matter if another Club comes also,
> > because he will win. If he doesn't make a boat, another Club will come
> > about thirty percent of the remaining two-two thirds of the time (it
> > doesn't matter if the extra Club comes when the boat is made) Call that
> > twenty percent of the time, which is close enough. So your son, in the
> > worst possible situation, is just under fifty-fifty to triple up.
> > Long-term, you make money that way.
> >
> > In the better situation, where the third player calls because he has a
> > flush himself and it is worse than Queen high, and people do that, that
> > player is no danger to your son's stack and the naked Ace is going to
> > make his flush less often, around twenty percent of the time (fewer
> > Clubs available) So here he's tripling up eighty percent of the time.
> >
> > I figure his situation where he gets two callers, counting the
> > occasions where someone has already flopped the nut flush, is that he
> > is over sixty percent to triple up.
> >
> > If he gets one caller, he has to worry about someone having the nut
> > flush, in which case he is dead, the board pairing, which makes him a
> > two to one favorite to double up, OR (doesn't have to fear both)
> > another Club, which makes him about a seven to three favorite.
> >
> > In every case where he gets MORE than two callers, he is better off
> > than he would be with only two.
> >
> > Poker is about making the right decisions. Make the right decisions and
> > you will usually win. Making the right decision is within your control.
> > The fall of the cards is not within your control.
> >
> > I wouldn't have played it the way he did because I wouldn't expect to
> > be called. However, once the harmless card comes on the flop, I would
> > hope my opponent would feel he had to call all-in on the next bet. He
> > would not be getting odds to play in either case. If I thought that I
> > would get callers, I would move in just like he did.
> >
> > Will in New Haven
> >
> > --
> >
> > "Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail
> > better."
> > Samuel Beckett, "Worstward Ho", 1983
> > >
> > >
> > > Will in New Haven wrote:
> > > > alan wrote:
> > > > > My son and I both played tonight, but at different casinos and with
> > > > > different results.
> > > > >
> > > > > I had a modest win at a $100 no limit table, he got wiped out at a $40
> > > > > no limit table.
> > > > >
> > > > > My high point: I was dealt KK in middle position; BB was $3 and I
> > > > > raised to $30. I got one caller.
> > > >
> > > > Stack sizes would be nice to know. That's a nice size for a raise if it
> > > > is around the normal raise at the table and figures to get called.
> > > > Winning just the blinds with KK is not a total disaster, as it is with
> > > > AA, but it is certainly not a great result. At this point, if either of
> > > > you has around the minimum stack size, you are close to "all-in soon"
> > > > country.
> > > >
> > > > > The flop comes 9-10-Q rainbow. I bet $30, and the other player calls.
> > > >
> > > > Reasonable bet. I would think $50 would be called also and you want to
> > > > bet enough so that he is getting the odds to draw _and as much as he
> > > > will call beyond that_
> > > >
> > > > When he calls, we can pretty _much_ rule out a made straight. Anyway,
> > > > J8 is a silly hand for him to have and call a raise and KJ isn't a
> > > > _good_ hand to call a raise and your KK makes that mathematically
> > > > unlikely. We can also rule out QJ as that is a weak hand to call a
> > > > raise pre-flop and most people, with top pair and a straight draw would
> > > > stack you here. Especially as calling a stack raise, even with KK,
> > > > would be nerve-wracking and look at how many OUTS he has. And he might
> > > > be ahead.
> > > >
> > > > So he has AQ? No he would have raised you, QX, not likely a call. Two
> > > > pair on the flop would probably have raised you. So he hit a T, with
> > > > AT, or a 9, with A9 or he has a pair smaller than Nines.
> > > >
> > > > > The turn comes some low card, frankly I dont remember. I check. The
> > > > > other player checks.
> > > >
> > > > Why check? There is no draw so bad that it isn't profitably calling a
> > > > check? Your opponent cannot make a bad call if you check. If a bet here
> > > > is going to commit you to the pot, so much the better. Were you trying
> > > > to induce a bluff? Are you going to fold if he bets?
> > > >
> > > > > The river comes King. I have my set--- but I'm nervous that if the
> > > > > other player has a jack, he will have a straight. This was similar to
> > > > > the position I was in a week ago.
> > > > >
> > > > > So I bet $40. The other player thinks, then folds and shows his 8-8.
> > > >
> > > > This bet served NO purpose. He folded a losing hand. You might have
> > > > gotten a couple more bucks out of him by betting less. Bets with cards
> > > > to come need to be big enough to get drawing hands to either be making
> > > > an error by calling or fold. On the river, you want to get called if
> > > > you are ahead. By betting this amount, you get a losing hand to fold
> > > > and you get raised, a LOT, by that straight you fear. If you bet less,
> > > > you get called sometims by losing hands (I don't think that this would
> > > > matter this time) If you do get raised, it will generally be a smaller
> > > > bet that you can call.
> > > >
> > > > Checking HERE to induce a bluff is not the worst move either. It also
> > > > cuts down on your losses if he has a straight as he will not overbet
> > > > because he wants to get called. You can't check-raise here unless you
> > > > know your opponent very well.
> > > >
> > > > So, you got dealt KK: good; made a reasonable raise and got a caller:
> > > > good; Made a reasonable (on the small side of reasonable) bet on the
> > > > flop: good; Checked the turn: bad, very bad; Made an irrelevant bet on
> > > > the river : Not great
> > > >
> > > > Getting dealt KK was your best move.
> > > >
> > > > > My son's problem hand:
> > > > >
> > > > > He had Qc 9c and raises to $7. He gets four callers.
> > > >
> > > > That wasn't enough of a raise if it is going to get four callers with
> > > > that crap hand. On the other hand, the value of that hand, if it has
> > > > any value, is in a multi-way pot.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The flop comes Kc 5c 3c. He has flopped the flush and goes all in with
> > > > > $220. My first reaction is WHY do you go all in? Wouldnt a bet of
> > > > > $25 or $30 gotten the same results?
> > > >
> > > > There is $35+ in the pot. He has the second nuts and he is obviously
> > > > not going to worry about someone having AcXc. It isn't as if he has
> > > > 8c7c. So he wants to bet enough to avoid giving them proper odds to
> > > > call and _as much as someone will call_ Someone with the naked Ac
> > > > should not call a pot-sized bet but the possibility or the reality of
> > > > other callers will make it tempting. Someone with a made set is in
> > > > slightly better shape but should not call a pot-sized bet. But he will.
> > > > Someone with two pair should not be calling here but many would. If a
> > > > lesser hand calls, it is found money. Smaller flushes will proabably
> > > > call.
> > > >
> > > > With all those players, I would have overbet the pot to maybe $70 and
> > > > moved in on a harmless turn. If I knew, however, that I was going to
> > > > get two callers if I moved all-in, I would have moved all-in.
> > > >
> > > > > Well, he gets TWO callers, one of the callers goes all-in with $130 and
> > > > >a second caller had a bigger stack, so he covers my son's all-in.
> > > >
> > > > So, as long as one of these guys doesn't have AcXc, he has gotten all
> > > > his money in with a huge chance of winning. He has played the hand
> > > > better than I would have and much better than you would have.
> > > >
> > > > >The turn is a low, non-club.
> > > >
> > > > Now, I move all-in after my earlier seventy dollar bet. That probably
> > > > doesn't get the guy with the Ace out. If it does, it is a lucky
> > > > accident. I suppose, knowing that you might lose the hand, you would
> > > > have checked.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >The river is another club-- there are four clubs on the board.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >The players turn over their cards-- and the short stack had the Ac and
> > > > >takes the hand.
> > > >
> > > > >My comment: there was no need to go all in until you knew you had the
> > > > >hand won. With three cards on the flop you faced not only the danger
> > > > >of a higher flush but also full house possibilities. A bet of $30 or
> > > > >even $50 would have told you if you faced any danger.
> > > >
> > > > You cannot make much money in poker waiting until you "know you have
> > > > the hand won." Your son played that hand this way:
> > > >
> > > > Raised from, I guess, early position with Qc9c: Not _normal_ but a
> > > > seven-dollar speculation in a NL game, with the huge potential for
> > > > profit, is not a big deal.
> > > >
> > > > Flopped well and bet all-in when his judgement told him that he would
> > > > get a caller or more than one. And he was correct. This was an
> > > > excellent play, especially as more than two callers would not make
> > > > things much worse than two callers.
> > > >
> > > > The worst thing that he did was get sucked out on.
> > > >
> > > > It was very humble of you to post a hand where you played badly and one
> > > > where your son played much better and lost to a suckout.
> > > >
> > > > Will in New Haven
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > " It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond
> > > > of it." - Robert E. Lee
> > > > Or was he correct going all in?
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 01:01:35
From: alan
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
Will, give me a break.
You wrote:
"Because he would win a great deal of money on that hand much more
often
than he would lose. The casinos are rarely in as good a position on
their table games as he was on that hand when two idiots called that
all-in."
Unfortunately, one of those idiots won the pot.
Your analysis reminds me of the old joke with the punchline that went
like this:
"the operation was a success, but the patient died."
Will in New Haven wrote:
> alan wrote:
> > Will, you wrote about my son's hand:
> >
> > "This was an excellent play,..."
> >
> > Please explain this to me: he lost more than half of his stack on this
> > hand. How could it be an excellent play?
> >
> > thanks.
>
> Because he would win a great deal of money on that hand much more often
> than he would lose. The casinos are rarely in as good a position on
> their table games as he was on that hand when two idiots called that
> all-in.
>
> We don't know what the other player had. He may have had a smaller
> flush, which would be wonderful for your son, or he might have had a
> set or he might have had two pair. Or he might have had top pair and
> simply been a buffoon. Some people would rather catch a bluffer than
> have money.
>
> If the other player had a set, he will make a boat about one-third of
> the time. If he does, it won't matter if another Club comes also,
> because he will win. If he doesn't make a boat, another Club will come
> about thirty percent of the remaining two-two thirds of the time (it
> doesn't matter if the extra Club comes when the boat is made) Call that
> twenty percent of the time, which is close enough. So your son, in the
> worst possible situation, is just under fifty-fifty to triple up.
> Long-term, you make money that way.
>
> In the better situation, where the third player calls because he has a
> flush himself and it is worse than Queen high, and people do that, that
> player is no danger to your son's stack and the naked Ace is going to
> make his flush less often, around twenty percent of the time (fewer
> Clubs available) So here he's tripling up eighty percent of the time.
>
> I figure his situation where he gets two callers, counting the
> occasions where someone has already flopped the nut flush, is that he
> is over sixty percent to triple up.
>
> If he gets one caller, he has to worry about someone having the nut
> flush, in which case he is dead, the board pairing, which makes him a
> two to one favorite to double up, OR (doesn't have to fear both)
> another Club, which makes him about a seven to three favorite.
>
> In every case where he gets MORE than two callers, he is better off
> than he would be with only two.
>
> Poker is about making the right decisions. Make the right decisions and
> you will usually win. Making the right decision is within your control.
> The fall of the cards is not within your control.
>
> I wouldn't have played it the way he did because I wouldn't expect to
> be called. However, once the harmless card comes on the flop, I would
> hope my opponent would feel he had to call all-in on the next bet. He
> would not be getting odds to play in either case. If I thought that I
> would get callers, I would move in just like he did.
>
> Will in New Haven
>
> --
>
> "Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail
> better."
> Samuel Beckett, "Worstward Ho", 1983
> >
> >
> > Will in New Haven wrote:
> > > alan wrote:
> > > > My son and I both played tonight, but at different casinos and with
> > > > different results.
> > > >
> > > > I had a modest win at a $100 no limit table, he got wiped out at a $40
> > > > no limit table.
> > > >
> > > > My high point: I was dealt KK in middle position; BB was $3 and I
> > > > raised to $30. I got one caller.
> > >
> > > Stack sizes would be nice to know. That's a nice size for a raise if it
> > > is around the normal raise at the table and figures to get called.
> > > Winning just the blinds with KK is not a total disaster, as it is with
> > > AA, but it is certainly not a great result. At this point, if either of
> > > you has around the minimum stack size, you are close to "all-in soon"
> > > country.
> > >
> > > > The flop comes 9-10-Q rainbow. I bet $30, and the other player calls.
> > >
> > > Reasonable bet. I would think $50 would be called also and you want to
> > > bet enough so that he is getting the odds to draw _and as much as he
> > > will call beyond that_
> > >
> > > When he calls, we can pretty _much_ rule out a made straight. Anyway,
> > > J8 is a silly hand for him to have and call a raise and KJ isn't a
> > > _good_ hand to call a raise and your KK makes that mathematically
> > > unlikely. We can also rule out QJ as that is a weak hand to call a
> > > raise pre-flop and most people, with top pair and a straight draw would
> > > stack you here. Especially as calling a stack raise, even with KK,
> > > would be nerve-wracking and look at how many OUTS he has. And he might
> > > be ahead.
> > >
> > > So he has AQ? No he would have raised you, QX, not likely a call. Two
> > > pair on the flop would probably have raised you. So he hit a T, with
> > > AT, or a 9, with A9 or he has a pair smaller than Nines.
> > >
> > > > The turn comes some low card, frankly I dont remember. I check. The
> > > > other player checks.
> > >
> > > Why check? There is no draw so bad that it isn't profitably calling a
> > > check? Your opponent cannot make a bad call if you check. If a bet here
> > > is going to commit you to the pot, so much the better. Were you trying
> > > to induce a bluff? Are you going to fold if he bets?
> > >
> > > > The river comes King. I have my set--- but I'm nervous that if the
> > > > other player has a jack, he will have a straight. This was similar to
> > > > the position I was in a week ago.
> > > >
> > > > So I bet $40. The other player thinks, then folds and shows his 8-8.
> > >
> > > This bet served NO purpose. He folded a losing hand. You might have
> > > gotten a couple more bucks out of him by betting less. Bets with cards
> > > to come need to be big enough to get drawing hands to either be making
> > > an error by calling or fold. On the river, you want to get called if
> > > you are ahead. By betting this amount, you get a losing hand to fold
> > > and you get raised, a LOT, by that straight you fear. If you bet less,
> > > you get called sometims by losing hands (I don't think that this would
> > > matter this time) If you do get raised, it will generally be a smaller
> > > bet that you can call.
> > >
> > > Checking HERE to induce a bluff is not the worst move either. It also
> > > cuts down on your losses if he has a straight as he will not overbet
> > > because he wants to get called. You can't check-raise here unless you
> > > know your opponent very well.
> > >
> > > So, you got dealt KK: good; made a reasonable raise and got a caller:
> > > good; Made a reasonable (on the small side of reasonable) bet on the
> > > flop: good; Checked the turn: bad, very bad; Made an irrelevant bet on
> > > the river : Not great
> > >
> > > Getting dealt KK was your best move.
> > >
> > > > My son's problem hand:
> > > >
> > > > He had Qc 9c and raises to $7. He gets four callers.
> > >
> > > That wasn't enough of a raise if it is going to get four callers with
> > > that crap hand. On the other hand, the value of that hand, if it has
> > > any value, is in a multi-way pot.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The flop comes Kc 5c 3c. He has flopped the flush and goes all in with
> > > > $220. My first reaction is WHY do you go all in? Wouldnt a bet of
> > > > $25 or $30 gotten the same results?
> > >
> > > There is $35+ in the pot. He has the second nuts and he is obviously
> > > not going to worry about someone having AcXc. It isn't as if he has
> > > 8c7c. So he wants to bet enough to avoid giving them proper odds to
> > > call and _as much as someone will call_ Someone with the naked Ac
> > > should not call a pot-sized bet but the possibility or the reality of
> > > other callers will make it tempting. Someone with a made set is in
> > > slightly better shape but should not call a pot-sized bet. But he will.
> > > Someone with two pair should not be calling here but many would. If a
> > > lesser hand calls, it is found money. Smaller flushes will proabably
> > > call.
> > >
> > > With all those players, I would have overbet the pot to maybe $70 and
> > > moved in on a harmless turn. If I knew, however, that I was going to
> > > get two callers if I moved all-in, I would have moved all-in.
> > >
> > > > Well, he gets TWO callers, one of the callers goes all-in with $130 and
> > > >a second caller had a bigger stack, so he covers my son's all-in.
> > >
> > > So, as long as one of these guys doesn't have AcXc, he has gotten all
> > > his money in with a huge chance of winning. He has played the hand
> > > better than I would have and much better than you would have.
> > >
> > > >The turn is a low, non-club.
> > >
> > > Now, I move all-in after my earlier seventy dollar bet. That probably
> > > doesn't get the guy with the Ace out. If it does, it is a lucky
> > > accident. I suppose, knowing that you might lose the hand, you would
> > > have checked.
> > >
> > >
> > > >The river is another club-- there are four clubs on the board.
> > >
> > >
> > > >The players turn over their cards-- and the short stack had the Ac and
> > > >takes the hand.
> > >
> > > >My comment: there was no need to go all in until you knew you had the
> > > >hand won. With three cards on the flop you faced not only the danger
> > > >of a higher flush but also full house possibilities. A bet of $30 or
> > > >even $50 would have told you if you faced any danger.
> > >
> > > You cannot make much money in poker waiting until you "know you have
> > > the hand won." Your son played that hand this way:
> > >
> > > Raised from, I guess, early position with Qc9c: Not _normal_ but a
> > > seven-dollar speculation in a NL game, with the huge potential for
> > > profit, is not a big deal.
> > >
> > > Flopped well and bet all-in when his judgement told him that he would
> > > get a caller or more than one. And he was correct. This was an
> > > excellent play, especially as more than two callers would not make
> > > things much worse than two callers.
> > >
> > > The worst thing that he did was get sucked out on.
> > >
> > > It was very humble of you to post a hand where you played badly and one
> > > where your son played much better and lost to a suckout.
> > >
> > > Will in New Haven
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > " It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond
> > > of it." - Robert E. Lee
> > > Or was he correct going all in?
|
| | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 08:05:01
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
On Dec 11 2006 2:01 AM, alan wrote:
> Will, give me a break.
Alan,
You have been given tons of good advice and explanations, but you cannot
seem to look past the results. You will never be a winning poker player
with that outlook.
Fell
--
Website: www.fellknight.com
Email: fellknight at gmail dot com
----
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 19:35:55
From: Lottery Larry
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
> He had Qc 9c and raises to $7. He gets four callers.
>
> The flop comes Kc 5c 3c. He has flopped the flush and goes all in with
> $220. My first reaction is WHY do you go all in? Wouldnt a bet of
> $25 or $30 gotten the same results?
> Well, he gets TWO callers, one of the callers goes all-in with $130 and
> a second caller had a bigger stack, so he covers my son's all-in.
>
> The turn is a low, non-club.
> The river is another club-- there are four clubs on the board.
>
> The players turn over their cards-- and the short stack had the Ac and
> takes the hand.
Hey, at least he got a $180 rebate on the suckout.
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 14:09:49
From: Old Wolf
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
FellKnight wrote:
> You have been given tons of good advice and explanations, but you cannot
> seem to look past the results. You will never be a winning poker player
> with that outlook.
His weak rock style would work against chronic calling stations
who have no clue. I guess this is what he means when he says
he made a small profit.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 15:31:45
From: Alan Gilbert aka brewmaster
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
On Dec 11 2006 2:09 PM, Old Wolf wrote:
> FellKnight wrote:
> > You have been given tons of good advice and explanations, but you cannot
> > seem to look past the results. You will never be a winning poker player
> > with that outlook.
>
> His weak rock style would work against chronic calling stations
> who have no clue. I guess this is what he means when he says
> he made a small profit.
I'm confused by the whole thing. He (the other alan) made a terrible
terrible river bet with his set of kings, and only won the hand because
the other player had to fold to four overs and 4 card straight on the
board (that's one of those situations where you will not get called by
anything, but WILL get reraised by the winning hand). And then he
criticizes his son for getting all of his money in as a big favorite and
getting called by not one but two other players. He has it completely
backwards. Both of these hands seem very obvious to me.
------
brewmaster at brewcam dot com
"Once in awhile you can get shown the light in the strangest of places if
you look at it right" -RH
_______________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 12:02:17
From: phlash74
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
On Dec 11, 9:18 am, "alan" <mone...@aol.com > wrote:
> Morphy, you wrote: "Poker isn't about winning pots. It's about makingcorrect decisions."
>
> It wasnt the correct decision. He lost the pot.
>
>
>
> XaQ Morphy wrote:
> > > Please explain this to me: he lost more than half of his stack on this
> > > hand. How could it be an excellent play?
>
> > Poker isn't about winning pots. It's about making correct decisions.
>
> > Morphy
> >http://donkeymanifesto.blogspot.com
>
> > ------
> > * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more..www.recgroups.com- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
Making correct decisions is what puts you in position to win big pots
and win money. Losing half your stack should be irrelevant in a cash
game, because you shouldn't have your entire bankroll or entire
session's worth of money on the table at one time. In a tournament, I
can understand the need to be a bit more cautious and extract chips
from your opponent while protecting your stack (although getting all
your chips in with a great chance to double up is usually the right
move). In a cash game, ANY chance to get all your chips in the middle
with a significant edge can't be ignored. Your son's bet would have
been an incorrect decision if the only person who would call would be
someone with the nut flush. It would be an incorrect decision if most
of the time the caller would have the nut flush. Given that he got not
one but TWO calls from people who had worse hands, he made the correct
decision (for the game he was in, his bet might be a mistake against
other players). I'm not saying I would necessarily play it the same
way, but if the end result was being all-in as a solid favorite, the
play is correct. The problem with your thinking is that it is very
difficult to get all the money in the pot when you have the nuts on the
river, since the situation occurs so rarely and your opponents will
likely realize they have no chance to win.
Let me give you a couple hands from a $1-$2 NL (max $200 buy-in)
session I played at Mandalay Bay a few months back.
1) Me on the button, the aggressive opponent to my right raises to $20.
I call with AcQc. Flop comes Ad Qs 9s, giving me top two pair. My
opponent checks, and I bet $60. He raises all-in for $115 more, and I
call (I had him covered by about $100). He shows As Js for top pair
and nut flush draw. The turn is a blank, but the river is the Ts
giving him a winning flush.
2) Me on the button again, facing two limpers. I've built my stack
back up to almost $200 now. I hold 66 and decide to raise to $20 to
represent a big hand. The BB and one of the limpers call. Flop comes
AKT rainbow, about as bad as can be for my 66. My opponents both check
to me and I bet $50 to continue my steal. The BB calls quickly and the
other player folds. I'm ready to give it up when the turn comes a
third six. The BB pushes all-in (he has me barely covered). I quickly
call, thinking I've gotten lucky to catch up to his two pair or
whatever. Unfortunately for me, he turns over QJ for the flopped
straight. Fortunately for me, the river is another Ace, pairing the
board and giving me the winning full house.
Question: Which hand did I play correctly, and which hand did I play
incorrectly?
Michael
|
| |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 10:45:21
From: David Nicoson
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
Palooka wrote:
> I found it difficult to believe that someone could be not only that obtuse
> but equally stubborn.
I don't find that hard to believe at all.
The most trollish part for me is the lack of a cloud of indirection and
rationalization that usually separates the actual fallacy and the
writing. But a nice troll is very rare.
|
| |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 07:38:12
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
Palooka wrote:
> "FellKnight" <jordandevenport@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:pmm154xoe2.ln2@recgroups.com...
> > On Dec 11 2006 8:29 PM, Palooka wrote:
> >
> >> Give it up. He MUST be trollling.
> >>
> >> Palooka
> >
> > Nope, I don't think so.
> >
> > Fell
>
> I found it difficult to believe that someone could be not only that obtuse
> but equally stubborn. However, I shall defer to your judgement.
>
> Palooka
I probably know UseNet trolls better than most people and I don't think
he fits. He MIGHT be a really brilliant troll but I think he is just a
smug and self-satisfied player who has no real desire to improve his
game, or at least no clue that his general approach could be wrong. I
think a troll would be handing out some abuse by now and would
certainly attract more abuse. He has been polite and cheerful.
Of course, there are several layers of trolling:
People who really believe what they say but know that it will get a
reaction and post mostly for the reaction.
There are also trolls who make a bad and annoyiing case for the side of
a debate to which they are opposed. There has been a long discussion in
several newsgroups whether Sound of Trumpets is a loon or is someone
mocking religion by pretending to be a loon.
Alan isn't like that. He's a nice guy who thinks he knows how to play
poker.
Will in New Haven
--
|
| |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 23:07:30
From: alan
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
I dont have enough information. How big was your stack, how much was
the initial raise, what were the remaining stacks at the table, what
was your feel for the other players, your place in the tourney... gosh
there have to be a dozen factors I would have to take into
consideration. These and more are some of the things I look at in a
Tourney. I play differently during rebuy periods than I do after the
rebuy, and I play differently near the bubble and at the final table
when Im already in the money... the list goes on and on.
Sorry, I can't answer your question about AQ suited.
best, Alan
Alan Gilbert aka brewmaster wrote:
> On Dec 12 2006 4:19 PM, alan wrote:
>
> > if I had suited AQ with a big stack, I certainly would play it pre
> > flop.
> >
> > Did the short stack move all in before it was your turn to bet? If he
> > did, I would have to consider the size of his stack vs your stack. If
> > the short stack player's bet was relatively insignificant to your
> > stack, of course I would call. But if his stack and potential win
> > would take a big chunk out of your stack, I would think twice.
> >
> > I lost in a tournament with AQ suited a couple of weeks ago. I made a
> > big bet, and another player reraised, and I called. The board didnt
> > help me, and the other player had KK. I was a smaller stack and that
> > knocked me out. Thats the risk of poker, I guess.
>
> QuietLion raised from UTG, I was immediately to his left with the AQs, and
> we had similar stacks. There were 7 players yet to act. The player who
> moved in was on the button. QL called the all in and won the hand. Let
> me ask you, do you think I should have called an UTG raise with AQs with 7
> players yet to act, yes or no?
>
> As an aside, I didn't know QL at the time, and didn't know just how much
> of a maniac he is. Had this hand occurred today I would have pushed
> all-in over the top, but ONLY because I know the player.
>
> >
> >
> > Alan Gilbert aka brewmaster wrote:
> > > On Dec 12 2006 3:55 PM, Mark B (Diputsur) wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Alan Gilbert aka brewmaster" <ae2dad2@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> > > > news:j7r354xfu5.ln2@recgroups.com...
> > > > > On Dec 11 2006 9:18 AM, alan wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Here, I have a question for you. Quite awhile back I was playing a
> > > > > tourney at Bellagio ($1000 buy in I think). Richard Brodie
> (QuietLion) is
> > > > > to my right. QL just won a huge pot limping with QQ and flopping a
> set.
> > > > > Very next hand QL comes in raising. I have a pretty big chip stack,
> > > > > similar to QL's, and I look down to find AdQd. I muck it. A shorter
> > > > > stack moves in and QL calls. QL had KQo, all-in guy has QJo, and the
> flop
> > > > > comes with two aces. Damn, I would have a HUUUGE stack if I had
> called.
> > > > > I must have made the wrong decision. My (incorrect obviously) thinking
> > > > > was that I can't call a big raise with AQ with players yet to act after
> > > > > me. Silly me, I should have known I'd win the pot.
> > > >
> > > > define: question
> > > >
> > > > sorry, couldn't resist ;-)
> > >
> > > Sorry, forgot the last line (directed to the other alan): did I make the
> > > correct decision?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Mark
> > > > --
> > > > www.myspace.com/diputsur
> > >
> > >
> > > ------
> > > brewmaster at brewcam dot com
> > >
> > > "Once in awhile you can get shown the light in the strangest of places if
> > > you look at it right" -RH
> > >
>
>
> ------
> brewmaster at brewcam dot com
>
> "Once in awhile you can get shown the light in the strangest of places if
> you look at it right" -RH
>
> ---
> looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 08:16:22
From: Alan Gilbert aka brewmaster
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
On Dec 12 2006 11:07 PM, alan wrote:
> I dont have enough information. How big was your stack, how much was
> the initial raise, what were the remaining stacks at the table, what
> was your feel for the other players, your place in the tourney... gosh
> there have to be a dozen factors I would have to take into
> consideration. These and more are some of the things I look at in a
> Tourney. I play differently during rebuy periods than I do after the
> rebuy, and I play differently near the bubble and at the final table
> when Im already in the money... the list goes on and on.
>
> Sorry, I can't answer your question about AQ suited.
Actually, it's pretty easy. An UTG raise from a player with a stack
similar to yours (which is about 50 BB probably) well into the middle
stages of a 1000 buy in tourney, and many people to act after you (some
with bigger stacks, and some are well known pros). Auto fold in my
opinion. YMMV.
>
> best, Alan
>
>
> Alan Gilbert aka brewmaster wrote:
> > On Dec 12 2006 4:19 PM, alan wrote:
> >
> > > if I had suited AQ with a big stack, I certainly would play it pre
> > > flop.
> > >
> > > Did the short stack move all in before it was your turn to bet? If he
> > > did, I would have to consider the size of his stack vs your stack. If
> > > the short stack player's bet was relatively insignificant to your
> > > stack, of course I would call. But if his stack and potential win
> > > would take a big chunk out of your stack, I would think twice.
> > >
> > > I lost in a tournament with AQ suited a couple of weeks ago. I made a
> > > big bet, and another player reraised, and I called. The board didnt
> > > help me, and the other player had KK. I was a smaller stack and that
> > > knocked me out. Thats the risk of poker, I guess.
> >
> > QuietLion raised from UTG, I was immediately to his left with the AQs, and
> > we had similar stacks. There were 7 players yet to act. The player who
> > moved in was on the button. QL called the all in and won the hand. Let
> > me ask you, do you think I should have called an UTG raise with AQs with 7
> > players yet to act, yes or no?
> >
> > As an aside, I didn't know QL at the time, and didn't know just how much
> > of a maniac he is. Had this hand occurred today I would have pushed
> > all-in over the top, but ONLY because I know the player.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Alan Gilbert aka brewmaster wrote:
> > > > On Dec 12 2006 3:55 PM, Mark B (Diputsur) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Alan Gilbert aka brewmaster" <ae2dad2@webnntp.invalid> wrote in
message
> > > > > news:j7r354xfu5.ln2@recgroups.com...
> > > > > > On Dec 11 2006 9:18 AM, alan wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Here, I have a question for you. Quite awhile back I was playing a
> > > > > > tourney at Bellagio ($1000 buy in I think). Richard Brodie
> > (QuietLion) is
> > > > > > to my right. QL just won a huge pot limping with QQ and flopping a
> > set.
> > > > > > Very next hand QL comes in raising. I have a pretty big chip
stack,
> > > > > > similar to QL's, and I look down to find AdQd. I muck it. A
shorter
> > > > > > stack moves in and QL calls. QL had KQo, all-in guy has QJo, and
the
> > flop
> > > > > > comes with two aces. Damn, I would have a HUUUGE stack if I had
> > called.
> > > > > > I must have made the wrong decision. My (incorrect obviously)
thinking
> > > > > > was that I can't call a big raise with AQ with players yet to act
after
> > > > > > me. Silly me, I should have known I'd win the pot.
> > > > >
> > > > > define: question
> > > > >
> > > > > sorry, couldn't resist ;-)
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, forgot the last line (directed to the other alan): did I make
the
> > > > correct decision?
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Mark
> > > > > --
> > > > > www.myspace.com/diputsur
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------
> > > > brewmaster at brewcam dot com
> > > >
> > > > "Once in awhile you can get shown the light in the strangest of places
if
> > > > you look at it right" -RH
> > > >
> >
> >
> > ------
> > brewmaster at brewcam dot com
> >
> > "Once in awhile you can get shown the light in the strangest of places if
> > you look at it right" -RH
> >
------
brewmaster at brewcam dot com
"Once in awhile you can get shown the light in the strangest of places if
you look at it right" -RH
-----
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 16:19:19
From: alan
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
if I had suited AQ with a big stack, I certainly would play it pre
flop.
Did the short stack move all in before it was your turn to bet? If he
did, I would have to consider the size of his stack vs your stack. If
the short stack player's bet was relatively insignificant to your
stack, of course I would call. But if his stack and potential win
would take a big chunk out of your stack, I would think twice.
I lost in a tournament with AQ suited a couple of weeks ago. I made a
big bet, and another player reraised, and I called. The board didnt
help me, and the other player had KK. I was a smaller stack and that
knocked me out. Thats the risk of poker, I guess.
Alan Gilbert aka brewmaster wrote:
> On Dec 12 2006 3:55 PM, Mark B (Diputsur) wrote:
>
> > "Alan Gilbert aka brewmaster" <ae2dad2@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:j7r354xfu5.ln2@recgroups.com...
> > > On Dec 11 2006 9:18 AM, alan wrote:
> > >
> > > Here, I have a question for you. Quite awhile back I was playing a
> > > tourney at Bellagio ($1000 buy in I think). Richard Brodie (QuietLion) is
> > > to my right. QL just won a huge pot limping with QQ and flopping a set.
> > > Very next hand QL comes in raising. I have a pretty big chip stack,
> > > similar to QL's, and I look down to find AdQd. I muck it. A shorter
> > > stack moves in and QL calls. QL had KQo, all-in guy has QJo, and the flop
> > > comes with two aces. Damn, I would have a HUUUGE stack if I had called.
> > > I must have made the wrong decision. My (incorrect obviously) thinking
> > > was that I can't call a big raise with AQ with players yet to act after
> > > me. Silly me, I should have known I'd win the pot.
> >
> > define: question
> >
> > sorry, couldn't resist ;-)
>
> Sorry, forgot the last line (directed to the other alan): did I make the
> correct decision?
>
> >
> > Mark
> > --
> > www.myspace.com/diputsur
>
>
> ------
> brewmaster at brewcam dot com
>
> "Once in awhile you can get shown the light in the strangest of places if
> you look at it right" -RH
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 16:33:07
From: Alan Gilbert aka brewmaster
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
On Dec 12 2006 4:19 PM, alan wrote:
> if I had suited AQ with a big stack, I certainly would play it pre
> flop.
>
> Did the short stack move all in before it was your turn to bet? If he
> did, I would have to consider the size of his stack vs your stack. If
> the short stack player's bet was relatively insignificant to your
> stack, of course I would call. But if his stack and potential win
> would take a big chunk out of your stack, I would think twice.
>
> I lost in a tournament with AQ suited a couple of weeks ago. I made a
> big bet, and another player reraised, and I called. The board didnt
> help me, and the other player had KK. I was a smaller stack and that
> knocked me out. Thats the risk of poker, I guess.
QuietLion raised from UTG, I was immediately to his left with the AQs, and
we had similar stacks. There were 7 players yet to act. The player who
moved in was on the button. QL called the all in and won the hand. Let
me ask you, do you think I should have called an UTG raise with AQs with 7
players yet to act, yes or no?
As an aside, I didn't know QL at the time, and didn't know just how much
of a maniac he is. Had this hand occurred today I would have pushed
all-in over the top, but ONLY because I know the player.
>
>
> Alan Gilbert aka brewmaster wrote:
> > On Dec 12 2006 3:55 PM, Mark B (Diputsur) wrote:
> >
> > > "Alan Gilbert aka brewmaster" <ae2dad2@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> > > news:j7r354xfu5.ln2@recgroups.com...
> > > > On Dec 11 2006 9:18 AM, alan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Here, I have a question for you. Quite awhile back I was playing a
> > > > tourney at Bellagio ($1000 buy in I think). Richard Brodie
(QuietLion) is
> > > > to my right. QL just won a huge pot limping with QQ and flopping a
set.
> > > > Very next hand QL comes in raising. I have a pretty big chip stack,
> > > > similar to QL's, and I look down to find AdQd. I muck it. A shorter
> > > > stack moves in and QL calls. QL had KQo, all-in guy has QJo, and the
flop
> > > > comes with two aces. Damn, I would have a HUUUGE stack if I had
called.
> > > > I must have made the wrong decision. My (incorrect obviously) thinking
> > > > was that I can't call a big raise with AQ with players yet to act after
> > > > me. Silly me, I should have known I'd win the pot.
> > >
> > > define: question
> > >
> > > sorry, couldn't resist ;-)
> >
> > Sorry, forgot the last line (directed to the other alan): did I make the
> > correct decision?
> >
> > >
> > > Mark
> > > --
> > > www.myspace.com/diputsur
> >
> >
> > ------
> > brewmaster at brewcam dot com
> >
> > "Once in awhile you can get shown the light in the strangest of places if
> > you look at it right" -RH
> >
------
brewmaster at brewcam dot com
"Once in awhile you can get shown the light in the strangest of places if
you look at it right" -RH
---
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 16:06:03
From: alan
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
My error: $100 buy in has $3/$2 blinds; $200 buy in has $5/$3 blinds.
Alan Gilbert aka brewmaster wrote:
> On Dec 11 2006 9:33 AM, alan wrote:
>
> > Will, I am just blown away by what you consider to be the right
> > decision or excellent play.
> >
> > Last night I was at $100 buy-in NL table. blinds are $3 and $5.
> >
> > My stack is about $370 -- Ive had several nice hands.
> >
> > Im dealt AA in middle position. I raise to $50. Everyone folds except
> > the BB who goes all in to $98. I call the extra $48.
> >
> > He has pocket sevens. There is a 7 on the flop. He wins.
> >
> > by your logic I made the right play.
> >
> > by my logic, I made the wrong play.
> >
> > I should have folded. Realistically, I should have just called the BB
> > for $5 and if I was lucky no one would have raised, and my loss would
> > have been just $5 on the hand.
> >
> > Making the so-called "right play" with AA cost me $98.
> >
> >
>
> By the way, where in hell do you play that the blinds are 3/5 with 100 buy
> in? You are only allowed to buy in for 20 BBs? Must be quite a few all
> ins there. I find Pechanga's 2/3 100 game blinds to be too high already.
> The 3/5 300 game is better... at least that is 60 bbs and people can play
> a little.
>
> > Will in New Haven wrote:
> > > XaQ Morphy wrote:
> > > > > Please explain this to me: he lost more than half of his stack on this
> > > > > hand. How could it be an excellent play?
> > > >
> > > > Poker isn't about winning pots. It's about making correct decisions.
> > >
> > > Give up. He isn't here to learn. He's here to brag. It's like trying to
> > > teach a stranger about rock 'n roll.
> > >
> > > Will in New Haven
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Morphy
> > > > http://donkeymanifesto.blogspot.com
> > > >
>
>
> ------
> brewmaster at brewcam dot com
>
> "Once in awhile you can get shown the light in the strangest of places if
> you look at it right" -RH
>
> ----
> : the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 13:16:31
From: alan
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
Hi and let me make a suggestion here: please don't turn this into a
discussion of personalities or make it a thread of personal attacks.
Again I am sorry for being stubborn and for the way I phrased comments
and posts.
I actually am not stubborn-- but again was probing for information.
I appreciate the information.
I am learning, I am a beginner, and I wouldn't even consider playing
for big money or for more than recreation because I don't know enough.
thanks again.
Will in New Haven wrote:
> Palooka wrote:
> > "FellKnight" <jordandevenport@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:pmm154xoe2.ln2@recgroups.com...
> > > On Dec 11 2006 8:29 PM, Palooka wrote:
> > >
> > >> Give it up. He MUST be trollling.
> > >>
> > >> Palooka
> > >
> > > Nope, I don't think so.
> > >
> > > Fell
> >
> > I found it difficult to believe that someone could be not only that obtuse
> > but equally stubborn. However, I shall defer to your judgement.
> >
> > Palooka
>
> I probably know UseNet trolls better than most people and I don't think
> he fits. He MIGHT be a really brilliant troll but I think he is just a
> smug and self-satisfied player who has no real desire to improve his
> game, or at least no clue that his general approach could be wrong. I
> think a troll would be handing out some abuse by now and would
> certainly attract more abuse. He has been polite and cheerful.
>
> Of course, there are several layers of trolling:
>
> People who really believe what they say but know that it will get a
> reaction and post mostly for the reaction.
>
> There are also trolls who make a bad and annoyiing case for the side of
> a debate to which they are opposed. There has been a long discussion in
> several newsgroups whether Sound of Trumpets is a loon or is someone
> mocking religion by pretending to be a loon.
>
> Alan isn't like that. He's a nice guy who thinks he knows how to play
> poker.
>
> Will in New Haven
>
> --
|
| | |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 22:55:41
From: Palooka
Subject: Re: good win, bad loss
|
"alan" <moneyla@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1165958191.040525.82640@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi and let me make a suggestion here: please don't turn this into a
> discussion of personalities or make it a thread of personal attacks.
Since you have posted at the top, it is difficult to determine to whom you
were replying.
As far as I am concerned though, there was no personal attack. You may well
be a jolly decent chap. My comments were solely in relation to your posts,
which, since this is a Usenet group, are quite rightly subject to dicussion,
criticism, attack, ridicule, or whatever.
And since your posts were clearly arrant nonsense (obvious enough even to
those of us who claim no great skill at this game), my comments stand.
Regards,
Palooka
|
|
