Calling allin in the dark (with poll)

[steaknshake925]

$5 buyin home game with $.05/.10 blinds. I'm on the button.

Folded to CO who raises 10 cents in the dark for $.20. I smell weakness (who the hell dark-raises the minimum?) and reraise 40 cents to $.60 in the dark. SB folds, and BB goes allin for about 4 dollars, also in the dark.

Now the CO looks at his cards and folds (my read was correct), and action is on me.

What's the play here? Obviously dark-calling the allin is +EV, since my random two cards are a coinflip against BB's random two and there's about $1 dead money in the pot. However, does anyone look at their cards before calling? The problem with looking is you might see 23o or something, and suddenly it's -EV to call, so you just turned a +EV situation into a -EV one. Is looking at your holecards even correct here, since by blind-calling you're guaranteed +EV, and by looking you risk it becoming -EV?

[Muisyle]

What? Just look, and happily fold when you have 23o. Geez.

[kurto]

I'm not theorist but... this seems the silliest question ever. And pointless to play this way. You might as well all just put all your money into a pot and then draw straws.

The odds of you winning or losing a hand does not change whether or not you look at your cards. The only thing that changes is that you have a better idea of whether or not you're likely to be ahead.

Your random 2 cards have no higher expectation to win then his random 2 cards.

[TheIrishThug]

first of all i don't like any minimun raises, but in the dark makes no sense. but what makes less is that there is all this action without anyone looking.

dark action is a good way to get around the fact that u r out of position, and it might throw ur opponent a little, but i'm still curious to see y nobody was looking until there might be a big pot.

[kurto]

"I smell weakness (who the hell dark-raises the minimum?)" Ummm, considering no one has seen their cards, what could you possibly smell? If he bet a dollar betting in the dark... would you smell strenght?

I think the only weaker play then what he did would be to reraise him in the dark. Look at your cards and play accordingly. Anyone who raises in the dark is just asking to give their money away. Don't be him.

[Sephus]

uh, it's not like you have some sort of complicated strategy question here.

you look at your cards, because it's free information that helps you. if your hand beats a random hand often enough to justify the odds the pot is offering, you call.

look first and RISK seeing 23o? what are you risking? would you rather see 23o before you call or after?

[soah]

Calling all-in with 32o is -EV regardless of whether you look at the cards first.

[amoeba]

this has got to be a joke right?

[edtost]

there needs to be an IQ test for new forum members......

[BobboFitos]

I was the only one who chose darkcall...

GAMBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL BABY

[kurto]

"I was the only one who chose darkcall...
GAMBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL BABY"

I smell weakness. I would reraise you blind this hand AND on the next three hands! I bet that'll slow you down.

[Kaz The Original]

Take the blind call. It's +EV AND gives you a great loose image.

Rebuy, rebuy, rebuy, and eventually you'll bust these fish.

[TrailofTears]

Okay, so I smelled a lot of sarcasm here, but apparently no one else did. Will the OP please respond and tell us what the meaning of this post is? I just took it to be a post that was for fun and was not to be taken seriously, but now I'm confused. Oh, and in this situation, I take off my shirt, throw it in the pot (being careful not to spill beer, which is very -EV) and raise him "the shirt of my back." If he doesn't do the same, consider it a fold and take it down. Trust me, it is one hell of a bluff move.

I can't imagine you are playing this game for actual profit potential, so of course I would call and have another drink.

- ToT

[TheWorstPlayer]

I think you should play "pocket stakes" instead of "table stakes" like in the good old days where you could put your house and your wife on the table as a bet. Then let's see if he looks at his cards! The wimp!

[amoeba]

maybe if villain was a she instead of a he.

otherwise you just have a bunch of dumb, cocky, half naked dudes.

[TrailofTears]

Yeah, you have to have a good read that you won't get called with this move or you risk a Greek orgy ensuing. And no one wants to end up like poor old Ganymede.

[mythrilfox]

Yeah but if everyone at the table is pushing blind how can your image be any better than the next guy's?

[BobboFitos]

[ QUOTE ]
"I was the only one who chose darkcall...
GAMBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL BABY"

I smell weakness. I would reraise you blind this hand AND on the next three hands! I bet that'll slow you down.

[/ QUOTE ]

But I thought if I looked into my opponents' soul..

[BobboFitos]

I dont have a wife so I wouldn't be able to call your bet...

[MarkL444]

this is one of the dumbest questions ever. you have a lot to learn.

[steaknshake925]

well, in the hand I of course dark called immediately, and flopped two pair with my J7o to win.

Oh ya, and I wasn't really looking to "project a loose image so I could bust these fish later." It was more of a friendly home game thing and everyone was a fish, including me. All the strategical EV thinking came later, when I thought about it and realized that the dark-call was actually a +EV move and may be better than looking first, from an actual serious poker perspective.

and for everyone who answered look first, you're missing one key factor: when you raise in the dark, you always hit better flops than if you look first .

[BobboFitos]

[ QUOTE ]
and for everyone who answered look first, you're missing one key factor: when you raise in the dark, you always hit better flops than if you look first .


[/ QUOTE ]

pure and simple genius

[TheWorstPlayer]

You could gamble your presumed future family if you want.

[BobboFitos]

[ QUOTE ]
You could gamble your presumed future family if you want.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow! That's a serious gamble..

If I agree to that, I think my habits should be classified as a gambling addiction. hasn't come quite to that yet ;p

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
well, in the hand I of course dark called immediately, and flopped two pair with my J7o to win.

Oh ya, and I wasn't really looking to "project a loose image so I could bust these fish later." It was more of a friendly home game thing and everyone was a fish, including me. All the strategical EV thinking came later, when I thought about it and realized that the dark-call was actually a +EV move and may be better than looking first, from an actual serious poker perspective.

and for everyone who answered look first, you're missing one key factor: when you raise in the dark, you always hit better flops than if you look first .

[/ QUOTE ]

wow it doesnt sound like you're kidding but i hope you are. this is just asinine.

you only "realized" that not looking is better from a serious poker perspective because of all the PCP you and your buddies were doin after the game.

as a public service, ill risk looking like a sap and explain it to you. if you arent allowed to look at your cards calling is +EV because the average of all the EVs of the different hand combinations is positive.

if you are allowed to look at your cards, you can fold every time calling is -EV and call every time it's positive EV, thus making the EV of looking first much greater.

i hope i didnt just fall for the joke...

[TheWorstPlayer]

UHOH. What does that say about me?

[steaknshake925]

[ QUOTE ]
if your hand beats a random hand often enough to justify the odds the pot is offering, you call.


[/ QUOTE ]

My bad, maybe 23o wasn't a good example. What if you see 75o, or 84o, etc? How do you know if it beats a random hand often enough to justify the odds the pot is offering? The thing is you don't. Which means after you look, and see something like 85o, you then have to choose between folding and calling, and only one of them will be the correct play. Without sitting down and grinding out the math, you have a 50/50 chance of making the wrong move. So by looking first, you risk making a potential mistake, whereas darkcalling is gauranteed +EV.

Thats my take on it, the logic is probably flawed but I'm not seeing where so I'm just waiting for someone to destroy the argument.

[Sephus]

good you arent kidding. see above.

[Sephus]

you have a 50/50 chance of making the wrong move if you DONT look. ok, not really, it depends on the pot odds. but even if you know to fold 32o and ONLY 32o and the rest of the time you just call you are still better off looking. get it? most players can do a lot better in calculating EV than just knowing to fold 32o.

[steaknshake925]

Another possibility I feel is superior to looking is to only look at one card, and then call. That way if you see a deuce, you can call immediately, and thus eliminate the risk of seeing the other card be an offsuit trey. However, the drawback to this line is that your flops will only be half as good as if you called completely in the blind.

[Sephus]

ok, you're [censored]ing with us. thanks.

[BobboFitos]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
well, in the hand I of course dark called immediately, and flopped two pair with my J7o to win.

Oh ya, and I wasn't really looking to "project a loose image so I could bust these fish later." It was more of a friendly home game thing and everyone was a fish, including me. All the strategical EV thinking came later, when I thought about it and realized that the dark-call was actually a +EV move and may be better than looking first, from an actual serious poker perspective.

and for everyone who answered look first, you're missing one key factor: when you raise in the dark, you always hit better flops than if you look first .

[/ QUOTE ]

wow it doesnt sound like you're kidding but i hope you are. this is just asinine.

you only "realized" that not looking is better from a serious poker perspective because of all the PCP you and your buddies were doin after the game.

as a public service, ill risk looking like a sap and explain it to you. if you arent allowed to look at your cards calling is +EV because the average of all the EVs of the different hand combinations is positive.

if you are allowed to look at your cards, you can fold every time calling is -EV and call every time it's positive EV, thus making the EV of looking first much greater.

i hope i didnt just fall for the joke...

[/ QUOTE ]

I miss alot of stuff, but wow, sephus, you're a hardass :P

[Entity]

Your title for this post is misleading. It should be called Schrodinger's hand.

Rob

[BobboFitos]

[ QUOTE ]
Your title for this post is misleading. It should be called Schrodinger's hand.

Rob

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't do so hot in physics, but isn't it Heisingberg, not schrodinger, who had the uncertainity principle?

... not to be nitpicky or anything

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your title for this post is misleading. It should be called Schrodinger's hand.

Rob

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't do so hot in physics, but isn't it Heisingberg, not schrodinger, who had the uncertainity principle?

... not to be nitpicky or anything

[/ QUOTE ]

Schrodinger's cat. (http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci341236,00.html)

[BobboFitos]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your title for this post is misleading. It should be called Schrodinger's hand.

Rob

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't do so hot in physics, but isn't it Heisingberg, not schrodinger, who had the uncertainity principle?

... not to be nitpicky or anything

[/ QUOTE ]

Schrodinger's cat. (http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci341236,00.html)

[/ QUOTE ]

I cant believe that scientists would kill an innocent cat w/ cyanide. WOW, what awful people.

Uncertain??? (http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg)

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your title for this post is misleading. It should be called Schrodinger's hand.

Rob

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't do so hot in physics, but isn't it Heisingberg, not schrodinger, who had the uncertainity principle?

... not to be nitpicky or anything

[/ QUOTE ]

Schrodinger's cat. (http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci341236,00.html)

[/ QUOTE ]

I cant believe that scientists would kill an innocent cat w/ cyanide. WOW, what awful people.

Uncertain??? (http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg)

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha. Are you joking? They never actually killed the cat or performed the experiment (or if you prefer, the cat is still both dead and alive).

Anyway, I was just alluding to that to point out that the situation is both +EV and -EV until he observes his hand, at wihch point it is either -EV or +EV.

Rob

[amoeba]

hey entity, I rarely see you on these NL boards.

[BobboFitos]

[ QUOTE ]
Haha. Are you joking?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes

[ QUOTE ]
They never actually killed the cat or performed the experiment (or if you prefer, the cat is still both dead and alive).

[/ QUOTE ]

I live and breath logic. Rob, (My name is Rob as well) please give me the benefit of the doubt.

Sorry my post wasn't funny, I was trying a little bit of humor, guess it didn't work out /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Haha. Are you joking?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes

[ QUOTE ]
They never actually killed the cat or performed the experiment (or if you prefer, the cat is still both dead and alive).

[/ QUOTE ]

I live and breath logic. Rob, (My name is Rob as well) please give me the benefit of the doubt.

Sorry my post wasn't funny, I was trying a little bit of humor, guess it didn't work out /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I play poker frequently, and thus am also humor-impaired.

Rob

[tbach24]

Wow, what a wimp the CO in your game is...looking at his cards. Seriously. I think you insta-call and pick off his bluff. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
I miss alot of stuff, but wow, sephus, you're a hardass :P

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe, but i'm not entirely convinced that he wasn't serious at first.

[edge]

I like how you sensed weakness in his dark minraise. That's a pretty cool skill.

[steaknshake925]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I miss alot of stuff, but wow, sephus, you're a hardass :P


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



maybe, but i'm not entirely convinced that he wasn't serious at first.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it was more of a fun post by me. Although in all fairness to Sephus I was kinda serious at first, since I thought I had a valid question that was pretty interesting. After some of the harsher responses I guess even I wasn't sure if I was serious or not, so instead of defending my point to the death I just turned on the sarcasm, but unfortunately it didn't make it past Sephus's detector. Oh well.

[steaknshake925]

[ QUOTE ]
I like how you sensed weakness in his dark minraise. That's a pretty cool skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just don't try it at home. Dark-reraising a dark-raiser may look "cool" and effortless when I do it, but it takes years of practice and experience to hone these dark-reading skills. This is a very difficult move and should not be attempted by amateurs.

[kyro]

before reading any of the replies i'm already nominating this for POTD.