Confusing tilt hand

[aaronjacobg]

You know that hand from tilt with the trip deuces where the matador beats him on the end? What does he pull? From what they were saying, it sounded like he pulled a straight, but he had 64 and it looked like the river was a king. BTW, i found the episode quite entertaining and i'm sure i will watch again.

[RowdyZ]

[ QUOTE ]
You know that hand from tilt with the trip deuces where the matador beats him on the end? What does he pull? From what they were saying, it sounded like he pulled a straight, but he had 64 and it looked like the river was a king. BTW, i found the episode quite entertaining and i'm sure i will watch again.

[/ QUOTE ]

He made the straight on the turn and that when all the money went in. The drama was on the river because only way the mark could win was if it paired the board or was the case 2.

[TimTimSalabim]

Remember though, when you think you have ten outs, the Matador will bet into you as if you only had one. Whatever the hell that means. Could this show be more stupid?

[UMTerp]

[ QUOTE ]
Remember though, when you think you have ten outs, the Matador will bet into you as if you only had one. Whatever the hell that means.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was the whole point of why the bald guy thought he got cheated. The other players at the table where using their chip placement, etc. to tell The Matador that most of the 10 outs were in their hands. That's why he bet into him "as if he only had one out".

I feel kinda dumb explaning the plot of such a silly show, but that's what they were trying to get at.

[TimTimSalabim]

Ok, that makes more sense. Were there even enough fellow cheaters at the table to have nine dead cards though? But like you say, it's trying to analyze a silly show.

[Cleveland Guy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You know that hand from tilt with the trip deuces where the matador beats him on the end? What does he pull? From what they were saying, it sounded like he pulled a straight, but he had 64 and it looked like the river was a king. BTW, i found the episode quite entertaining and i'm sure i will watch again.

[/ QUOTE ]

He made the straight on the turn and that when all the money went in. The drama was on the river because only way the mark could win was if it paired the board or was the case 2.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since a 2 was on the board, wouldn't the case 2 also count for "Pairing the board?

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
Remember though, when you think you have ten outs, the Matador will bet into you as if you only had one. Whatever the hell that means. Could this show be more stupid?

[/ QUOTE ]

clearly, you can be confident pushing on the turn when villain has 1 out. however, when he has 10, it's more prudent to give a free card.

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Remember though, when you think you have ten outs, the Matador will bet into you as if you only had one. Whatever the hell that means.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was the whole point of why the bald guy thought he got cheated. The other players at the table where using their chip placement, etc. to tell The Matador that most of the 10 outs were in their hands. That's why he bet into him "as if he only had one out".

I feel kinda dumb explaning the plot of such a silly show, but that's what they were trying to get at.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why the hell would they even need to cheat to take a sucker like that? This show is really silly, but I"ll watch it again next week.

[pshreck]

Here is a relevant poker question to that hand.

If its heads up and you are first to act, and you say what the Matador says.... "I know you want to bet at it, so im gonna let you". Is that really considered checking to him? I dont here any verbal check or see any hand motion, so I was confused as to why the sheriff guy checked behind right there.

[sweetjazz]

Ok, so the plot is that there is an elaborate use of hand signals by 8 players at the table in order to tell Matador what 16 of the dead cards are. In the 46s vs 22 hand, he knows that 9 of the 10 cards that could pair the board are gone, so he moves all in on the turn. The casino is involved in this scam, and has a great way to keep it a secret by giving nice watches to the other people involved (floorperson, etc.). But they will take the watch away if they make a minor screwup, but of course they are given a chance to earn it back.

This is a really good idea for casinos. It makes a lot more sense than just making money by taking in the rake. Or doing something relatively uncomplicated, like having a dealer who pulls certain cards from the deck at opportune times. No, it's much better to have everyone involved in a really complicated scheme that can easily be traced back to the casino, and one that gives only a marginal amount of extra information to the intended recipient.

Man, I love this show! Next time I'll have to watch the entire episode. I can't wait for aces and kings to start getting cracked by Q5o and J8s. Hopefully, someone will fold a small set "knowing" that a better hand is out there (b/c obviously the mistake that the guy who had 22 made is not recognizing that he was beaten by a straight). And more raising of players who you think are bluffing on the river. It's always a good idea to open yourself up to another raise, which obviously must be another bluff (b/c you "know" the first one is). This show rocks.

[Russ McGinley]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is a relevant poker question to that hand.

If its heads up and you are first to act, and you say what the Matador says.... "I know you want to bet at it, so im gonna let you". Is that really considered checking to him? I dont here any verbal check or see any hand motion, so I was confused as to why the sheriff guy checked behind right there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Saying "check", "bet", or any of those "old poker lingo terms" is for suckers. Only the best say "I know you want to bet, so I'm gonna let you". I know I can't wait to say that on every hand.