10 replies to this topic

[Rainman312]

Tonight I was playin in a 109 NLH tournament and there were 94 people left out of a field of 294. I have around 4500 in chips and pick up AA. The blinds are 100-200 and I raise 600 and the next guy reraises 2400 and then the guy after him goes all in for about 5000. So obviosly I call and they have 99 and KK........no help on the flop or turn....9 on the river...busted. That would have put me in 3rd place with 93 to go and the winner gets 8,000. Its so hard shaking off these bad beats. Any advice for trying to think clearly again?

[Swift_Psycho]

Turkey sandwich with mayo and then a nap.

[gobears]

Maybe it's because I've been playing more but bad beats don't bother me anymore. That's poker.I had my aces cracked tonight by KQo - out of the satellite tournament I went when i could have hopped into the top ten.You're going to bad beat other players and they are going to bad beat you. If it really bugs you, take a break, you never want to play poker when you are on tilt.

[Rocketwadster]

Your raise pre-flop stunk...way too small. When it got raised and re-raised for $5000, you said that is was an obvious call. I think it was obvious that you were going to be up against at least one pretty good hand, and may get unlucky with your aces, so perhaps you could fold, losing only your 600? I doubt that I personally could do it, but you are always at risk when you put your chips into the pot, especially pre-flop. :wink:

[otnemem]

Rocketwadster said:

Your raise pre-flop stunk...way too small. When it got raised and re-raised for $5000, you said that is was an obvious call. I think it was obvious that you were going to be up against at least one pretty good hand, and may get unlucky with your aces, so perhaps you could fold, losing only your 600? I doubt that I personally could do it, but you are always at risk when you put your chips into the pot, especially pre-flop. :wink:

I'm assuming you're joking (that's what the wink is for?). If your not, this might be the most horrible advice ever. And I mean EVER, and every part of it. The preflop raise was NOT way too small. At 100-200 you should be raising to between 500 and 800, and usually somewhere right around 6-700. The aces part... You MUST be joking. I feel stupider even taking you seriously, as I probably should. But you just sound so sincere...

[Rocketwadster]

Quote

I'm assuming you're joking (that's what the wink is for?). If your not, this might be the most horrible advice ever. And I mean EVER, and every part of it. The preflop raise was NOT way too small. At 100-200 you should be raising to between 500 and 800, and usually somewhere right around 6-700.

says who? you cannot always make the standard 3-4X the BB raise anymore in online poker. Also, the opponents you are playing against will dictate the size of the raise you need to induce action, but to discourage the chasers (pocket nines is not very strong). There was a recent article (might have been in card player) that talks about this matter. Definate reading material for anyone who plays online. It was discussed recently as well in another posting, but unfortunately I cannot recall the topic.

Quote

The aces part... You MUST be joking. I feel stupider even taking you seriously, as I probably should. But you just sound so sincere...

I was joking, but there is also a bit of truth in the post, in that you very well could have folded pre-flop with your aces, losing only the $600. What number of players that went all-in would have had you thinking that maybe I should fold here rather than put my fate in the cards rather than leaving my faith in my skill? If 6 players were in, would you still make the all-in? The more players there are in the pot, the less likely your aces are going to hold up. As I indicated, I highly doubt I would have been able to lay them down, but being able to make a big laydown is a good sign of a good poker player. Look at Hellmuth, who makes big laydowns all the time, as he knows his skill will allow him to prevail more often than not, rather than putting his fate into coin flip situations or leaving it to the poker gods. :wink:

Quote

this might be the most horrible advice ever

I doubt that. :roll:

[DKE_XP120]

meh, it sucks, but you can pretty much assume you're up against 2 pocket pairs.... That puts you at what? 64.5%... You are getting your money in when you have the best hand, but you werent a huge favorite to win like you might think. Getting 3-1 on your money with 1.529-1 to win isnt bad to call... But its not like you lost AA vs some one with AK

[Rocketwadster]

DKE_XP120 said:

meh, it sucks, but you can pretty much assume you're up against 2 pocket pairs.... That puts you at what? 64.5%... You are getting your money in when you have the best hand, but you werent a huge favorite to win like you might think. Getting 3-1 on your money with 1.529-1 to win isnt bad to call... But its not like you lost AA vs some one with AK

exactly, which is why I was saying that maybe we (and I do mean we as I should consider this also) could consider folding here, giving our skill a chance to prevail for us, rather than leaving it to chance without even seeing any cards...

[otnemem]

Rocketwadster said:

DKE_XP120 said:

meh, it sucks, but you can pretty much assume you're up against 2 pocket pairs.... That puts you at what? 64.5%... You are getting your money in when you have the best hand, but you werent a huge favorite to win like you might think. Getting 3-1 on your money with 1.529-1 to win isnt bad to call... But its not like you lost AA vs some one with AK

exactly, which is why I was saying that maybe we (and I do mean we as I should consider this also) could consider folding here, giving our skill a chance to prevail for us, rather than leaving it to chance without even seeing any cards...

Against two all-ins, folding aces is NEVER a good laydown. 65-35 is closer to 2:1 (not 1.52:1 - this would be closer to 60-40). This is like saying someone's all in with a club flush draw, no pair, and you have aces with no clubs. You know he has a flush draw, like he's laid the cards out in front of you, but fold to his all in because he might make the flush. This is flawed logic if you ever want to be a successful poker player. This is a huge edge, and you should take it every time...And by the way - Phil Hellmuth's "good" laydowns are often not very good. Like laying down Queens when you think someone has sevens, because they could hit a seven and bust you (he said this in a column once.)

[Rocketwadster]

Against two all-ins, folding aces is NEVER a good laydown. 65-35 is closer to 2:1 (not 1.52:1 - this would be closer to 60-40). This is like saying someone's all in with a club flush draw, no pair, and you have aces with no clubs. You know he has a flush draw, like he's laid the cards out in front of you, but fold to his all in because he might make the flush. This is flawed logic if you ever want to be a successful poker player. This is a huge edge, and you should take it every time...I agree that against two players it is not a good laydown over the long haul (but would have been here but results don't matter), but my point is that at some quantity of players, the laydown would be correct though, wouldn't it. What that quantity is though is beyond me. And by the way - Phil Hellmuth's "good" laydowns are often not very good. Like laying down Queens when you think someone has sevens, because they could hit a seven and bust you (he said this in a column once.)[/quote]what if we were the person with the kings? would it have been a correct laydown then? think about it...

[otnemem]

Rocketwadster said:

Against two all-ins, folding aces is NEVER a good laydown. 65-35 is closer to 2:1 (not 1.52:1 - this would be closer to 60-40). This is like saying someone's all in with a club flush draw, no pair, and you have aces with no clubs. You know he has a flush draw, like he's laid the cards out in front of you, but fold to his all in because he might make the flush. This is flawed logic if you ever want to be a successful poker player. This is a huge edge, and you should take it every time...I agree that against two players it is not a good laydown over the long haul (but would have been here but results don't matter), but my point is that at some quantity of players, the laydown would be correct though, wouldn't it.  What that quantity is though is beyond me.  And by the way - Phil Hellmuth's "good" laydowns are often not very good. Like laying down Queens when you think someone has sevens, because they could hit a seven and bust you (he said this in a column once.)

what if we were the person with the kings? would it have been a correct laydown then? think about it...There's only been one occasion in my life that laying down kings would have been correct. I was playing in an SnG satellite for the NEPC at Foxwoods, and this donkey (he was truly awful) only raised twice in his short tourney, and both times he raised all in (first round raising the T50 blind to T1000) he showed aces, smiling as if he had done something right. I would not call with kings here. Every other time, calling is "correct" no matter what you're up against, because the percentage of times that you're up against aces is very small, and you have every other hand in the deck crushed. IMO raising or calling all in with Kings is ALWAYS correct (unless you're physically shown aces, or know that your opponent holds aces).