ps

Well, if we attach the play to one specific example hand and are also allowed to debunk it by criticizing the preflop play things get easy. Obviously there are times when it (open-folding) would be a pretty stupid move, and obviously those times make up >99% of all hands you'll ever play. I'm just saying that I can construct a situation including tournament payout structure, chip stacks, opponent reads, hole cards, preflop action and flop so that I cannot immediately say that it would not be a realmoney +EV move.

You don't always have a backdoor straight draw. And I wouldn't overestimate the profitability of runner runner trips. If someone refuses to make a position-bet twice in a row, I'd wager that the possibility that you were drawing dead against top set is bigger than the chance of hitting said runner-runner trips.

The idea was that with a tournament payout ladder, you'd in some cases increase your realmoney EV by folding first to act with a hopeless hand - thereby giving the other players one less player to worry about and increasing their incentive to play agressively and risk elimination.I myself can not immediately discard that there are situations where this idea has some merit. Perhaps the vocal, smiley-spouting openfarreling-adversaries are just smarter and more experienced than me.

If I remember it correctly, Murphy had a (2-way?) straight draw and a flush draw, still a gutsy semi-bluff but he knew he had a lot of outs. Raymer can't call on a draw, so both of Murphys draws must be live.

Sklansky states that he's not as big of an underdog as some people think in a heads up game of NL holdem where the blinds fastly become fairly large in relation to stack sizes. You are suggesting that he proves this by sitting down in a 5-8 people mixed cash game. That is not quite the same thing.

If daniel really said that Sklansky would be a 1-2 dog to Ivey or Chan, then I can understand why David is busting out the long paragraphs.

I agree almost completely. I would never raise it though, not against weaker opponents either. To me that move screams of too much fix limit play. The value of disguising this hand far outwheighs the extra bets you get in the pot by raising preflop. The value of playing AQ out of position with a preflop raise to follow up on shouldn't be overestimated, it's not really a great spot. I believe a lot of people will lose money on that.What you want is for people with (very likely) marginal hands like KQ, AJ, AT, JQ to believe they are the best when they hit. It's twice as true in NL that it's abou

Eli Elezra Chris Moneymaker Tom McEvoy Mimi TranCindy Violette Chris Ferguson Gus Hansen Curtis Bibbs Yosh Nakano Mike SextonTodd Brunson Erick LindgrenPrahlad Friedman Sammy Farha Hasin HabibPhil Gordon Barry Greenstein Lee Salem Doyle Brunson Billy Baxter John Juanda Chau Giang Amir Vahedi John Myung Nick Frangos TJ CloutierScotty Nguyen Mike Caro John Hennigan Layne Flack Chip Reese Henry Orenstein Lyle Berman Freddie Deeb David Grey Jennifer Harman Bobby Baldwin Evelyn Ng David Williams Carlos Mortenson Greg Raymer Kathy Liebert David Pham Huck Seed Dewey Tomko Paul Phillips Phil He

I'll go with the call for the sake of argument. Here are my reasons:First, risking the tourney on a coinflip is not inherently a bad idea here. It is only bad if you either consider yourself significantly better than your opponents (so you feel confident you can get chips in the middle in better spots than the others) or if there is a money ladder that you'd like to advance in. Now in this case, there is a really good player directly to our left who will have position on us in most of the future hands. If this guy wants to play us for all the chips on a coinflip, I say it's a deal we should ta

0.15% (edit: the same trips). Everytime you do flop trips with an unpaired hand, the fourth card will have been dealt to either opponent 8.9% of the time though. There is no way to lay that down 3-handed, just bad luck.

There are 4 cards on the table and each player holds 2 cards. We're counting the AA as seen since the assumption is that we have 4 outs - for that he can't have a 10. That leaves 44 unseen cards (52-4-2-2). 4 tens to 40 blanks, or 10 to 1.It's a bad call though, that I agree with.

Can't say I agree to this. Do you expect someone to 5-bet a pot after a possible straight hit on the river?

It's 9% for a 10 to 1 shot. Add implied odds for the river and perhaps some value in getting you on tilt, and it's not such a horrible call. If you want to be able to make people pay more than their draw is worth, try NL or PL. Of course first you should be able to do the math without making mistakes even when you are frustrated (the percentages for the other hand you described are off too), and you MUST be able to tell when you play worse due to tilt and take a break. This is not as trivial as it sounds.