81 replies to this topic

[Pot Odds RAC]

XXEddie, on Monday, April 4th, 2011, 2:23 PM, said:

My goodness, arrogant much? You're taking a shot at people saying 'lol fold' when you're sitting there saying 'lol obv snapcall'Given reads on villains I highly doubt they are stacking off with AA or KK with no diamond. There are no straights on board or even straight draws, sets are possible, and 2 pair is unlikely again considering reads. You know what else people love to stack off with on boards like this? Flushes. Yes. People at 1/2 generally suck. However that's all I am getting from your responses. 1/2 players suck so blah blah blah. While all three four players may be terrible, I don't see how the 'Nitty old man' and the 'solid tight' woman are easily stacking off with worse as you're so quick to assume. Again, best case scenario is you're facing Ax, set and lower flush. I'm not throwing in two pair because it's only possibly from the UTG donk and even then it's rare. Also given reads I don't think either nitty player has a lower flush. Even 65dd and 54dd are stretches for them. And with the nitty woman seemingly decent I don't see her stacking off with those hands. So let's say UTG donk shows 65dd, Nitty man has AxQd and woman has 22. You're still only 50% to win.So it's 50% the rare times when we are ahead and .01% the likely times when we are behind. Yes, your pot odds are so huge, but I'm not convinced they are big enough.

FYP

[Pot Odds RAC]

XXEddie, on Monday, April 4th, 2011, 2:23 PM, said:

So it's 50% the rare times when we are ahead and .01% the likely times when we are behind. Yes, your pot odds are so huge, but I'm not convinced they are big enough.

FWIW I think I misinterpreted your intent the first time I read this. I think we can all agree that Cash Poker is all about making moves when your Pot Odds (+ Implied Odds) > Actual Odds and being fearless in doing so.If you are getting better than 3:1 to make a call and you are even money to win the hand you need to make the call. At first I thought you were disputing this and implying that we need to pass on opportunities where we are getting Pot Odds > Actual Odds especially when thin. But I think you are just making the argument that you need to assess the overall EV. You also seem to be saying that the marginal situations turn into scenarios where discretion being the better part of valor and finding a Fold. Ultimately you are just saying that there is still a wide range to consider before arriving @ a final +/-EV assessment. Having 3 unknowns who have pushed ahead of us makes it that much more confusing.

[hartman72]

There are 5 or 6 flushes that we beat. It is just as likely villains have a lower flush than the nuts. Our 'nitty old man' is stacking off w a draw. Didn't mean to imply its a snap call, but I think it is way closer to calling than others have indicated

[XXEddie]

hartman72, on Monday, April 4th, 2011, 3:50 PM, said:

There are 5 or 6 flushes that we beat. It is just as likely villains have a lower flush than the nuts. Our 'nitty old man' is stacking off w a draw. Didn't mean to imply its a snap call, but I think it is way closer to calling than others have indicated

I don't see how the nitty old man and woman are limping 96dd/65dd/54dd/etc just as likely has Axdd/Kxdd/etc...

[donk4life]

Yeah, they're nitty for a reason.

[Ninja Ace]

hartman72, on Monday, April 4th, 2011, 1:50 PM, said:

There are 5 or 6 flushes that we beat.

I think the issue here is what I like to call "but I HAS" syndrome. In this case it's BUT I HASSES A FRUSH HOW ARE IT POSSIBLY TO BE NO GOOD?And three other players who have all made moves that indicate incredible strength.If you had the naked Ad here it'd be a snapcall.If you had top or mid set, it'd be a snapcall.But with this low flush we actually need to find a fold.It sounds completely retarded when you look at immediate showdown value of hands (absolute hand strength), but the reality is, that in a scenario like this the relative hand strength is much much more important.The fact that our hand can, and likely (probably greater than 50% of the time), have ZERO (repeat ZERO) equity in this spot completely and utterly destroys any value our hand has.

[hartman72]

I'd agree and lean more towards a fold if we were deeper and didn't put in much money in the pot yet.

[donk4life]

Yeah, how shallow we are is the 1 reason I might call here, but meh with that action it's just so rare that we are going to have the best hand and more than likely we're drawing dead.

[mtdesmoines]

Ninja Ace, on Monday, April 4th, 2011, 6:43 PM, said:

I think the issue here is what I like to call "but I HAS" syndrome. In this case it's BUT I HASSES A FRUSH HOW ARE IT POSSIBLY TO BE NO GOOD?And three other players who have all made moves that indicate incredible strength.If you had the naked Ad here it'd be a snapcall.If you had top or mid set, it'd be a snapcall.But with this low flush we actually need to find a fold.It sounds completely retarded when you look at immediate showdown value of hands (absolute hand strength), but the reality is, that in a scenario like this the relative hand strength is much much more important.The fact that our hand can, and likely (probably greater than 50% of the time), have ZERO (repeat ZERO) equity in this spot completely and utterly destroys any value our hand has.

If one of the villains is an old man, this is a snap fold. They play suited aces yo

[hartman72]

Nitty old man plays 56 dd same way yo

[hartman72]

Ninja Ace, on Monday, April 4th, 2011, 3:43 PM, said:

I think the issue here is what I like to call "but I HAS" syndrome. In this case it's BUT I HASSES A FRUSH HOW ARE IT POSSIBLY TO BE NO GOOD?And three other players who have all made moves that indicate incredible strength.If you had the naked Ad here it'd be a snapcall.If you had top or mid set, it'd be a snapcall.But with this low flush we actually need to find a fold.It sounds completely retarded when you look at immediate showdown value of hands (absolute hand strength), but the reality is, that in a scenario like this the relative hand strength is much much more important.The fact that our hand can, and likely (probably greater than 50% of the time), have ZERO (repeat ZERO) equity in this spot completely and utterly destroys any value our hand has.

I think the issue here is you think "3 people alls inzz they must has the nuttttzzzz everytimezzzz. No channzzze they has Ad Q, Kd Q, Q 7, Q 2, 22, 77, QQ, Ad 2, Ad 3, Ad4, Ad 5, Ad 6, Ad 7, Ad 8, Ad 9, Ad 10, 34dd, 45dd, 56 dd, 69dd,etc"

[XXEddie]

hartman72, on Thursday, April 7th, 2011, 1:10 PM, said:

I think the issue here is you think "3 people alls inzz they must all suz0rzzzzzzzzzzz. No chance they haz a better flush. They all obv have 2 pair/sets/lower flush/AdX...."

See what you sound like?

[hartman72]

Yes, all 3 players can have sets, 2 pair, or lower flushes. Or in this case, 2 sets and a draw

[Ninja Ace]

hartman72, on Thursday, April 7th, 2011, 11:10 AM, said:

I think the issue here is you think "3 people alls inzz they must has the nuttttzzzz everytimezzzz. No channzzze they has Ad Q, Kd Q, Q 7, Q 2, 22, 77, QQ, Ad 2, Ad 3, Ad4, Ad 5, Ad 6, Ad 7, Ad 8, Ad 9, Ad 10, 34dd, 45dd, 56 dd, 69dd,etc"

Not at all, I probably play one of the widest ranges here and definitely never discredit lulz from people's range. It's just that, when show action that indicates LOL strength, in some spots that obv can 100% never be bluffs, we need to have our equity live at least 50% of the time to be profiting here. It's actually the 3rd player count that kills this threshold. Against 2 players this is a semi-sigh call, and one it's an obvious snapI understand that flush over flushes are rare... but for a second disreguard our hand and the board. Say we hold XX and flop is XXX and we see this action, now, we are certainly going to need a strong draw/near nut hand here, are we not?

[mtdesmoines]

hartman72, on Thursday, April 7th, 2011, 7:52 AM, said:

Nitty old man plays 56 dd same way yo

Yeah but he doesn't find himself all in 5 ways without the nuts very often.

[hartman72]

Ninja Ace, on Friday, April 8th, 2011, 5:18 AM, said:

Not at all, I probably play one of the widest ranges here and definitely never discredit lulz from people's range. It's just that, when show action that indicates LOL strength, in some spots that obv can 100% never be bluffs, we need to have our equity live at least 50% of the time to be profiting here. It's actually the 3rd player count that kills this threshold. Against 2 players this is a semi-sigh call, and one it's an obvious snapI understand that flush over flushes are rare... but for a second disreguard our hand and the board. Say we hold XX and flop is XXX and we see this action, now, we are certainly going to need a strong draw/near nut hand here, are we not?

With only 3 hands beating us, putting in 25% of our stack, I still think it's a call here. I understand everyone's points, but op's situation is the reason I'm not changing my mind.

[Ninja Ace]

hartman72, on Friday, April 8th, 2011, 5:58 AM, said:

putting in 25% of our stack

This made me doubletake. 25% would be so super committed it'd be an easy call for a blind manIt's 75% of our stack thoughPot odds we are getting are roughly 4:1

[FARGOpokerND]

We've put in $42, we have $118 left. so 160x3=480+42=522. 522:118 is 4.4:1If we are drawing dead 3/4 the time and flipping 1/4 the time, 3/4 the time we lose $118, 1/4 the time we win $320 (640x.5) which is a SLIGHT underdog, but I HIGHLY doubt we are drawing dead THAT often...so I am probably calling.

[Milton]

This hand is a perfect example of how important reads are (and in this scenario, I mean opponent modeling).OP, I can give you the right answer as to whether or not your call is right for you based on your answers to a few questions.Do you think UTG idiot is acting how he did with any AA (including those with no diamond)?Do you think UTG idiot is acting how he did with KdQx?Do you think UTG idiot is acting how he did with a flush that beats yours? if so, which flushes?Do you think UTG idiot is acting how he did with just an Ad? If so, is he liable to limp with any AdXx?Which flushes that you beat do you think UTG idiot limped with?Do you think UTG+1 is acting how he did with a flush that you beat? If so, which flushes?Do you think UTG+1 is acting how he did with just an Ad? If so, which AdXx do you think he's limping with?Do you think LP is acting how she did with just an Ad? If so, which AdXx do you think she's limping with?These are all quite important questions that have to be asked if you want to know the right answer. These questions determine the hand combinations you're up against, and the subsequent (and in this scenario, complex) equity calculations that must be gone through.You can argue with my logic on this, but here are some thoughts from my live experience.Idiot is easily shoving with as little as a naked AA or KdQx.Old man might actually tank call with a flush that beats yours, but almost never call with a flush you beat. (Edit: omitted a key word in my first post)Old man will marry something like AdQx, KdKx, AdAx for some reason, but be more prone to lay down AdXx depending on the type of nit you're dealing with.LP will tank call with just the Ad. Either way, the odds I came up with of you winning this hand based on what you're up against (according to my evaluation of their ranges) comes to a grand total of 37.8%. Basically, you gladly make the call.

[hartman72]

Ninja Ace, on Friday, April 8th, 2011, 7:38 AM, said:

This made me doubletake. 25% would be so super committed it'd be an easy call for a blind manIt's 75% of our stack thoughPot odds we are getting are roughly 4:1

Right, and we have the opportunity to go from ~160 to ~640. I believe we are dead here MAYBE 50% of the time, meaning we are ahead 50%. Of that 50%, we will win maybe 2/3 of the time when we are ahead. Which is why I call here. Again, if we are 300bbs deep, its totally different.