Party jackpot: do you play differently?

[donkeyradish]

At the moment I play these tables just as I would if there was no jackpot. My question is:

With the jackpot set at Aces over sixes, Should I be ever be inclined to see a flop with weak hands like A6s more often than would be normal?

[TimM]

[ QUOTE ]
With the jackpot set at Aces over sixes, Should I be ever be inclined to see a flop with weak hands like A6s more often than would be normal?

[/ QUOTE ]

A6s is a monster hand:

Paradise Poker 2/4 Hold'em (10 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is BB with 6/images/graemlins/spade.gif, A/images/graemlins/spade.gif. MP2 posts a blind of $2. MP3 posts a blind of $2.
<font color="666666">1 fold</font>, UTG+1 calls, UTG+2 calls, MP1 calls, MP2 (poster) checks, MP3 (poster) checks, <font color="666666">1 fold</font>, Button calls, SB completes, <font color="CC3333">Hero raises</font>, UTG+1 calls, UTG+2 calls, MP1 calls, MP2 calls, MP3 folds, <font color="CC3333">Button 3-bets</font>, SB calls, Hero calls, <font color="CC3333">UTG+1 caps</font>, UTG+2 folds, MP1 calls, MP2 folds, Button calls, SB calls, Hero calls.

Flop: (25 SB) T/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 7/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 5/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="blue">(5 players)</font>
SB checks, <font color="CC3333">Hero bets</font>, UTG+1 calls, MP1 calls, Button calls, SB calls.

Turn: (15 BB) 4/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="blue">(5 players)</font>
SB checks, <font color="CC3333">Hero bets</font>, UTG+1 folds, MP1 calls, Button calls, SB calls.

River: (19 BB) T/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="blue">(4 players)</font>
SB checks, <font color="CC3333">Hero bets</font>, MP1 calls, Button calls, SB folds.

Final Pot: 22 BB
<font color="green">Main Pot: 22 BB, between MP1, Button and Hero.</font> &gt; <font color="white">Pot won by Hero (22 BB).</font>

Results in white below: <font color="white">
Hero shows 6s As (flush, ace high).
MP1 shows Tc Qd (three of a kind, tens).
Button shows 3s 3c (two pair, tens and threes).
Outcome: Hero wins 22 BB. </font>

[TylerD]

Post deleted by TylerD

[moondogg]

[ QUOTE ]
Its Aces full of sixes, right? You need to use both hole cards as well, so you could never get the jackpot if your hole cards were A6s. That doesn't mean you shouldn't be playing A6s though...

[/ QUOTE ]

Did Lee Jones say that the jackpot shouldn't impact the way you play? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Thythe]

Why do you say you can never get the jackpot with A6s? What if the flop is AA6? Both hole cards are playing here...

[Lori]

Did Lee Jones say that the jackpot shouldn't impact the way you play?

I haven't looked into the jackpot at all yet, it's something that occured during my 10 weeks off.
However a sweeping statement like that is dangerous.

If the Jackpot is $100,000,000 then I would imagine that some adjustments would be necessary.

I have no idea how high it needs to be before you should realistically play more hands, but there must be a figure.

Lori

[moondogg]

[ QUOTE ]
Did Lee Jones say that the jackpot shouldn't impact the way you play?

I haven't looked into the jackpot at all yet, it's something that occured during my 10 weeks off.
However a sweeping statement like that is dangerous.

If the Jackpot is $100,000,000 then I would imagine that some adjustments would be necessary.

I have no idea how high it needs to be before you should realistically play more hands, but there must be a figure.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry Lori, it was a beaten-to-death joke from a few weeks ago. You missed quite an exchange in Books/Software when Lee Jones showed up to construtively discuss the differences between WLLH and SSHE. Sklansky caused a lot of ire by essentially claiming that it would be a waste of time because one could be assumed that Ed Miller would be right the vast majority of the time just based on the fact that Ed went to MIT and because Lee published statements like this. It made some interesting reading material; the absolutely bizarre nature of the conversation suggested that Sklansky was just trolling to amuse himself.

[Lori]

Thanks Moondog, I'm going to need people to put me right on such things for a while.

Lori

[moondogg]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks Moondog, I'm going to need people to put me right on such things for a while.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

np. If you want to find the thread, just look for the last two posts from "Lee Jones". He has not been back since...

[donkeyradish]

What I'm getting at is, should the a bad beat jackpot ever influence your starting hand requrements?

For example if there is a raise before me at a full table I'm frequently going to fold with things like A6s or AJ or 66.

[cardcounter0]

I would rather the flop come A66, more chance of being on the short end and getting bad beat.

[moondogg]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you say you can never get the jackpot with A6s? What if the flop is AA6? Both hole cards are playing here...

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you cannot get the jackpot with A6s. The best hand that you can make with both cards is AAA66, but this hand does not qualify for the jackpot.

According to Party's website (http://www.partypoker.com/news/badbeat.html):
"The losing hand must contain Aces full of Tens (A, A, A, 10, 10) or better to qualify." You can't ever make the winning or losing hand which would qualify.

[cthomer5000]

If I do even start playing those tables, It won't change the way I play pre-flop.

It might only cause me to call an extra bet when I'm damn sure I'm drawing dead, but can potentially draw to a bad beat hand.

[moondogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why do you say you can never get the jackpot with A6s? What if the flop is AA6? Both hole cards are playing here...

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you cannot get the jackpot with A6s. The best hand that you can make with both cards is AAA66, but this hand does not qualify for the jackpot.

According to Party's website (http://www.partypoker.com/news/badbeat.html):
"The losing hand must contain Aces full of Tens (A, A, A, 10, 10) or better to qualify." You can't ever make the winning or losing hand which would qualify.

[/ QUOTE ]

One possible correction:
If the flop comes 666, this may qualify, because your final hand will be A6666, using the A as your kicker. However, this may be an issue of some dispute. At InterPoker, I was not given the jackpot because they said you have to have a pocket pair to have quads qualify, and you can't use the other hole card as a kicker, even if would be the highest kicker (yes, I was VERY pissed about this).

[donkeyradish]

Well they change these hand requirements daily. It was Queens full of Tens not very long ago, and Aces full of Sixes yesterday or the day before.

[Rudbaeck]

That's horrible. There is nothing in their Bad Beat policy that implies that this is the case. So scream bloody murder until they pony up.

" 2. Texas Holdem: Four of a Kind of Jacks or better beaten. Both hole cards must be used in both winning and losing hand. "

If I have AJ in the hole and flop comes JJJ and I am beat by a runner runner straight flush I'd fully expect to get the bad beat jackpot.

Was the ace counterfeited on the board, and the winner had a royal? (This would make it more iffy, but visually the software always uses hole cards over counterfeited cards when making your hand. I'd still expect it.)

[moondogg]

[ QUOTE ]
That's horrible. There is nothing in their Bad Beat policy that implies that this is the case. So scream bloody murder until they pony up.

" 2. Texas Holdem: Four of a Kind of Jacks or better beaten. Both hole cards must be used in both winning and losing hand. "

If I have AJ in the hole and flop comes JJJ and I am beat by a runner runner straight flush I'd fully expect to get the bad beat jackpot.

Was the ace counterfeited on the board, and the winner had a royal? (This would make it more iffy, but visually the software always uses hole cards over counterfeited cards when making your hand. I'd still expect it.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I did scream for a while. However, their response was basically "it's debatable, but our interpretation is that it does not qualify, so we are not going to play you, period." At some point, I realized that there was really no way for force them to pay me.

I was faced with either boycotting them or getting over it and moving on. Since I was the winner of the hand and it was a small stakes game (which doesn't award the entire jackpot balance), my portion of the jackpot would only have been about $800. I made more than that at the Crypto skins over the next 3 months, so a boycott would not really have been profitable.

Oh well. At least I got a story out of it.

[moondogg]

[ QUOTE ]
That's horrible. There is nothing in their Bad Beat policy that implies that this is the case. So scream bloody murder until they pony up.

" 2. Texas Holdem: Four of a Kind of Jacks or better beaten. Both hole cards must be used in both winning and losing hand. "

If I have AJ in the hole and flop comes JJJ and I am beat by a runner runner straight flush I'd fully expect to get the bad beat jackpot.

Was the ace counterfeited on the board, and the winner had a royal? (This would make it more iffy, but visually the software always uses hole cards over counterfeited cards when making your hand. I'd still expect it.)

[/ QUOTE ]

This was back when the T&amp;C was you had to beat AAAKK or better.

I was the winner (which gets a smaller payout than the loser). I had JJ and the loser had Q9. The final board was JJ999, so his final 5-card hand was Q9999. Yes, if he won, the software would have raised both his cards, but apparently that's not relevant. /images/graemlins/mad.gif

[Thythe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why do you say you can never get the jackpot with A6s? What if the flop is AA6? Both hole cards are playing here...

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you cannot get the jackpot with A6s. The best hand that you can make with both cards is AAA66, but this hand does not qualify for the jackpot.

According to Party's website (http://www.partypoker.com/news/badbeat.html):
"The losing hand must contain Aces full of Tens (A, A, A, 10, 10) or better to qualify." You can't ever make the winning or losing hand which would qualify.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, I was going off what another poster said when he mentioned aces full of sixes was the requirement. If it is now aces full of tens then A6 probably can't qualify unless the ace kicker counts in quads getting beat (which it should IMHO).

[jasonHoldEm]

[ QUOTE ]
He has not been back since...

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is very disappointing, and a loss to the boards IMHO. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[moondogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He has not been back since...

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is very disappointing, and a loss to the boards IMHO. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Definitely, regardless of what people say about WLLH making you into a weak-tight pansey. Given the pre-existing popularity of WLLH and its domination of the small stakes book market, I think an actual debate between Lee and Ed would have invaluable, if for no reason other than to appreciate the SSHE view of the world better.

[razor]

Waste of time.

Read, study, discuss SSH.

Spending time debating who is right on issues where Ed and Lee differ and Ed is sure is a waste of time. Pining for said debate is a waste of time. There are better ways to spend your time and energy.

[moondogg]

[ QUOTE ]
Pining for said debate is a waste of time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Apparently you're right.

[ QUOTE ]
There are better ways to spend your time and energy.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, but then, there are better ways to spend my time and energy than playing poker in the first place. However, most people choose to forgo an optimal use of their time and energy for in order to gain some form of pleasure or diversion. Hence, many people play poker instead of focusing 100% of their time and energy on their more profitable careers.
[ QUOTE ]

Spending time debating who is right on issues where Ed and Lee differ and Ed is sure is a waste of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. (I'm assume this is a joke, but just in case it's not...)
IMHO, that is just a silly statement. Hell-bent on ignorance as well. One of the primary factors of SSHE is that you understand it, rather than just following it. While I don't doubt that SSHE is right where WLLH is wrong, I think it would be very worthwhile for a lot of people to see a debate between the two. SSHE extremely thorough, but it can get pretty complex and but it is not possible for a book to cover every detail of every situation. Even after a few reads, many people may still not truly understand some of the more subtle differences, much which would be brought to light in a such a debate.

You might not get much out of it, but I don't think it really matters much what you personally would get out of it. I think it matters much more that many other people would get a lot out of it.

IMHO, saying that it's not worth discussing is like saying that posting in the strategy forums is a waste of time. Why post and discuss a hand when you can just read SSHE over and over?

[razor]

[ QUOTE ]
IMHO, saying that it's not worth discussing is like saying that posting in the strategy forums is a waste of time. Why post and discuss a hand when you can just read SSHE over and over?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess what I'm getting at is that those who are pining for a Ed v Lee debate on issues with which the differ seem to be implying that there is some sort of reasonable chance Lee might be right... well he is NOT. So in that sense I think a debate in which he tries to defend his position is a WASTE OF TIME.

However, I agree that SSH can be complex and not easy to understand and apply (I wouldn't for a second suggest that I really grasp much of the book yet) and therefore discussing it is important. I simply don't think getting Mr. Jones involved in the discussion is going to help me better understand SSH. Insofar as any debate would help people understand SSH better than I would agree that such a debate may have some value. But if people are thinking there is some change Mr. Jones might be right I'm saying let that notion go NOW.

Why focus on the wrong when you can focus on the correct?

[AAmaz0n]

I've been wondering about the effect of jackpot hands, particularly when you have a high pocket pair.

I had the following experience recently, which led me to start thinking about jackpot requirements/payouts and how that might affect my play.

I was visiting the Bay area and played the 3/6 HE at Lucky Chances. It didn't occur to me to ask if they had a bad beat jackpot before I started playing (I won't do that again).

The very last hand before I was going to leave I had QQ UTG and raised. The player to my left - who had commented on how tight I was and folded as quickly as possible most of the pots that I entered - called as did the button. The flop came A with two rags, so I bet out to represent AK and see what I was up against. They both called, so I assumed that at least one of them had the A – with no straight or flush draw on board I really couldn’t envision both calling without one of them having AA, KK, or at least A/Good Kicker or A/rag that had flopped two pair. The turn was another A; I checked, the middle player bet and the button called. I folded, convinced that I was drawing dead or close to it.

The river was another A, and finally the light bulb went on that maybe the case A was not in either hand. The button had flopped two pair with some rags (??????) and UTG+1 had KK for Aces full. I would have lost with Aces full of Queens.

In retrospect, I saved a bet because I was beat; though not in the way that I thought. But if one of them did have the A and it was 40 -1 against the case A coming on the river with a fair chance that they held AK- A9 or so and their kicker would play in their quads (I think the highest non Ace on board was an 8) to beat my Aces full, or 20 – 1 if neither had an Ace. To invest $6 in calling the turn and another $6 on the river if the A arrived would be very +EV if the jackpot was in the order of magnitude of $500 or more on my end of it.

I thought about asking about the jackpot as I was leaving, but then again I realized that I really didn't want to know if I threw away a potential for several hundred dollars for lack of investing $12 in the pot so my partner and I went for a drink.

This had led me to start thinking about how to play AA – XX and AK – AY (where the jackpot criteria are Aces full of XX, and Y is a larger kicker than the board) when an Ace or two shows up and how large the jackpot would have to be in order to make calling when you think that you are way behind would be correct. If the losing end of the jackpot is say 50x the BB or more it seems like calling when beat should be +EV. I also ask before taking a hand what the jackpot requirements and payout are. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

There is probably a much better analysis of this somewhere, I just haven’t run across it yet. Please post a link if you know one.

Shauna

[uaw420rook]

Do you have to see the flop at the table, to get any of the jackpot money, if your table hits.

[34TheTruth34]

[ QUOTE ]
However, most people choose to forgo an optimal use of their time and energy for in order to gain some form of pleasure or diversion

[/ QUOTE ]

ahh, I remember the good old days when I used to get pleasure from playing poker. *sigh*

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you have to see the flop at the table, to get any of the jackpot money, if your table hits.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you just have to be dealt cards in that hand (can't be sitting out).

[Wyrm2]

No, you just have to get dealt in. I won $115.64 for folding 84o /images/graemlins/grin.gif