Willing to go broke? [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

Rushmore

02-28-2005, 02:53 PM

I would have no problem folding bottom set early in a big tournament with no read whatsoever.

It all depends, of course, upon what your priorities are, and how well you stack up against the field. David points out a number of times in TPFAP that if you feel like you might be outclassed, you have to be willing to gamble more for big pots, for obvious reasons.

Otherwise, I see no reason to make this CALL with bottom set.

jojobinks

02-28-2005, 02:54 PM

sounds like 6 limpers? smells like 2pair to me. if everyone had limped, i call.

TStoneMBD

02-28-2005, 04:01 PM

with the information you gave, folding this is ridiculous. its quite possible that you could assume that you are up against a higher set 50% of the time, or that your predicted equity in the pot is less than 50%, so a fold is in order. under most circumstances hwoever, your equity is going to be enormous in this situation, and under those conditions, folding your set is simply terrible imho.

Tevyee

02-28-2005, 04:42 PM

Call. My philosophy is you're there to place first, so going out 350th or 117th doesn't make much of a difference. I don't see anyone limping in with a higher pocket pair in this situation unless someone is getting very crafty early and is slowplaying pocket Aces. But even then he's gambling by giving the other limpers a chance to catch two-pair or better. What the other guy said about how you feel your skill level is related to the other players there is also very important. If you feel you can be outperformed in the long run you have to take more gambles. Call.

Paluka

02-28-2005, 04:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Call. My philosophy is you're there to place first, so going out 350th or 117th doesn't make much of a difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, because coming in 3rd really blows.

TStoneMBD

02-28-2005, 04:55 PM

well, i agree and disagree with you. i think its important to play for first place in tournaments that you can properly bankroll, but in tournaments where the money is significant to me i will definitely take less risks to hang in there and bump my payout. i think its +EV to play to win in tournaments, but the variance for me is -EV. 40k 50/100 times is better than 300k 1/100 times for me, because adding that amount of money to my bankroll should propel me into higher limits and more $/hr.

Tevyee

02-28-2005, 05:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, because coming in 3rd really blows.

[/ QUOTE ]
It was early in the tournament bro. Pay attention! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

riffraff

02-28-2005, 06:13 PM

I'd probably call because someone with a higher set would not bet so much on the flop (they'd milk such an uncoordinated flop to SOME extent). If the flop was 8 4 2 or 7 4 2 I'd be a lot more concerned. I beleive a situation similar to this was covered in the NL section of supersystem where doyle talks about folding a low set.

citanul

02-28-2005, 07:33 PM

your question is really terribly posed, and sort of entirely information free, but i'm trying to figure out if you pulled it straight from supersystem 2 or not. you make a decision on your opponent's cards, and then you play. if you don't think it's possible anyone has a 44 or JJ enough of the time, you call.

why is there a question every 2 days about "would you fold KK on the first day of the wsop" or someting like that?

in this situation, it's unlikely either 44 or JJ would have played the hand like that, but if there's people left ot act behind you, any of them could easily have 44 in the unraised pot.

so my question is, in what way is this question *remarkably* different from the "it's the first hand of the wsop and you're dealt KK in the bb. folded to the sb, who pushes, what do you do?" answer, it's really not. don't post stupid crap.

citanul

drewjustdrew

02-28-2005, 07:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Call. My philosophy is you're there to place first, so going out 350th or 117th doesn't make much of a difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't disagree with the philosophy or decision, but I question the analysis. It doesn't make sense to CALL what I assume to be an enormous overbet without first determining whether you think you are ahead in the hand. I would call because I would think it quite likely that my set was a strong favorite. You can't stick with level I thinking and say "I got a set, I have to play it, because if I don't, what else would I be willing to call with?" Clearly Rushmore feels that there will very likely be better opportunities to risk chips on other hands. I'm sure he thinks there is a decent chance he has the best hand, but it's not worth playing considering the risk. You can't win a tournament early, but you can lose it mentality. This thought process is not inconsistent with playing for first place.

drewjustdrew

02-28-2005, 07:37 PM

After my last reply it dawned on me...wrong forum.

Tevyee

02-28-2005, 09:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Call. My philosophy is you're there to place first, so going out 350th or 117th doesn't make much of a difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't disagree with the philosophy or decision, but I question the analysis. It doesn't make sense to CALL what I assume to be an enormous overbet without first determining whether you think you are ahead in the hand. I would call because I would think it quite likely that my set was a strong favorite. You can't stick with level I thinking and say "I got a set, I have to play it, because if I don't, what else would I be willing to call with?" Clearly Rushmore feels that there will very likely be better opportunities to risk chips on other hands. I'm sure he thinks there is a decent chance he has the best hand, but it's not worth playing considering the risk. You can't win a tournament early, but you can lose it mentality. This thought process is not inconsistent with playing for first place.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh no, that's not what I meant to be interpreted. I always take the situation into greater context and try to narrow down the range of hands of my opponents. In that specific situation, with the little information available /images/graemlins/mad.gif, I would call with my set of 2's. If I know from my gut, I'm not up against a higher set I call instantly. Now having a situation like this come up would be rare if not ludacris. Players tend to play much more conservatively early in tournaments (especially ones with higher buy-ins) and pushing all-in on such a small pot is just asinine. So, my call is based just on that specific situation, I'm sure there would be places I would certainly fold that same hand if the situation dictated it.

GFunk911

02-28-2005, 11:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
well, i agree and disagree with you. i think its important to play for first place in tournaments that you can properly bankroll, but in tournaments where the money is significant to me i will definitely take less risks to hang in there and bump my payout. i think its +EV to play to win in tournaments, but the variance for me is -EV. 40k 50/100 times is better than 300k 1/100 times for me, because adding that amount of money to my bankroll should propel me into higher limits and more $/hr.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you mean 40k 5/100 times? Also could you clarify what you mean by EV, since you use it in numerous different ways throughout the same paragraph.

Michael C.

02-28-2005, 11:17 PM

I would call and most of the time sweep in the pot. I can't imagine anyone playing JJ that stupidly, so the only hand to fear is 44. If they put in all of their money in the hope someone had 22 or an overpair and would call them, as opposed to milking in more chips, more power to them. So what could someone have to make a bet like that? Hard to say since it's so out there. But it smells like two pair or an overpair to me.

3rdEye

03-01-2005, 12:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Lets say it's a BIG WPT tourney. The blinds are 25-50 and a total of 6 people call. You have pocket 2's and no read on anyone because the tourney basically just started. The flop is J-4-2. Someone goes all-in before you and has you covered.

What do you do and why?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't care what anyone says, ANYONE AND EVERYONE who has any sense about himself calls here, period.

There is nothing anyone can say to convince me otherwise, unless the guy who pushes ONLY scratches his balls during a hand when he has top set, and that he scratched his balls before he pushed.

Seriously, when is it not disgustingly weak-tight to fold a set in such a situation?

Tevyee

03-01-2005, 01:11 AM

This thread is stupid. I'm not posting in it anymore!

A_C_Slater

03-01-2005, 02:02 AM

I would fold if my life was on the line and I had to win the tourney or die. But there will always be another tournament. Call.

ZeeJustin

03-01-2005, 05:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
no read on anyone because the tourney basically just started.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's impossible for this scenario to come up without having any form of a significant read. Often you can just look at a person and tell if he is intelligent or not. You can often tell if he is aggressive or passive. This is before the cards are even dealt. When you get to see him play this hand, you get even more information. I'm not saying that his cards will be face up, but you should be able to give a somewhat ballpark range as to how often he will have a set.

curtains

03-01-2005, 07:04 AM

I dunno what the blind structures are or anything, but most of the time they won't have a set here.

wray

03-01-2005, 09:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
your question is really terribly posed, and sort of entirely information free, but i'm trying to figure out if you pulled it straight from supersystem 2 or not. you make a decision on your opponent's cards, and then you play. if you don't think it's possible anyone has a 44 or JJ enough of the time, you call.

why is there a question every 2 days about "would you fold KK on the first day of the wsop" or someting like that?

in this situation, it's unlikely either 44 or JJ would have played the hand like that, but if there's people left ot act behind you, any of them could easily have 44 in the unraised pot.

so my question is, in what way is this question *remarkably* different from the "it's the first hand of the wsop and you're dealt KK in the bb. folded to the sb, who pushes, what do you do?" answer, it's really not. don't post stupid crap.

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

You sure seem to come across bitter. I realize there's many kids on here posting silly questions. I'm not one of them I'm a 34 y/o trying to learn more about poker. The reason I said early in the tournament was if I didn't there would be many peoples responses who said something like "what kind of players were in there". So early in the tournament = no read. The reason I said something like the main event of a WPT was if I just said "in a tournament" then some people who mainly play in 50$ entry fee tournaments would play much looser and not think a second thought.

Hopefully you see my logic a bit more and you can come across a little less brash.

wray

03-01-2005, 09:28 AM

To answer.... yes this did come from Super System 2. Doyle's response of saying he'd fold the majority of the time really surprised me. So I decided to post it here w/o saying who it came from to hear everyone's responses.

I'll never be world class I guess cause I'm callin.

RiverTheNuts

03-01-2005, 12:55 PM

I call, and its not even close... Doyle is getting up there in the years and doesnt play that well anymore, he should call too

freemont

03-01-2005, 01:13 PM

As hard as it is to fold a set, and last I checked I don't think I've ever done it to an all-in on the flop, I think you have to here. I'm assuming the flop was a rainbow which means it's not someone way overplaying a flushdraw. Ok, if it's an online tournament I probably call in a heartbeat and expect to get shown slowplayed aces or something like that... But really, at the 25-50 level of a deep stack (10k to start) tournament what kinds of hands is someone going to bet something in the neighborhood of 35 times the pot with??? In this situation it seems like (to me) he probably has 44. Two pair seems really unlikely J4? J2? 42? and jacks he probably would have raised preflop...

Granted this player has horribly misplayed his hand no matter what he has, but this reminds me of something Paul Phillips once said on here about facing a massive all-in overbet, and how his experience has taught him it usually means the guy has the nuts. I believe he was refering preflop to giving his opponent credit for aces, but it seems to apply here.

A number of things could change my opinion from call to fold, but this situation existing in the vacuum of little to no information you've tried to create I think I muck. I'm all about pushing my edges early, but here it seems that the majority of the time you're drawing to one out...

asofel

03-01-2005, 01:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Call. My philosophy is you're there to place first, so going out 350th or 117th doesn't make much of a difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't disagree with the philosophy or decision, but I question the analysis. It doesn't make sense to CALL what I assume to be an enormous overbet without first determining whether you think you are ahead in the hand. I would call because I would think it quite likely that my set was a strong favorite. You can't stick with level I thinking and say "I got a set, I have to play it, because if I don't, what else would I be willing to call with?" Clearly Rushmore feels that there will very likely be better opportunities to risk chips on other hands. I'm sure he thinks there is a decent chance he has the best hand, but it's not worth playing considering the risk. You can't win a tournament early, but you can lose it mentality. This thought process is not inconsistent with playing for first place.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh no, that's not what I meant to be interpreted. I always take the situation into greater context and try to narrow down the range of hands of my opponents. In that specific situation, with the little information available /images/graemlins/mad.gif, I would call with my set of 2's. If I know from my gut, I'm not up against a higher set I call instantly. Now having a situation like this come up would be rare if not ludacris.

[/ QUOTE ]

how did this turn into a rap discussion?

Easy E

03-01-2005, 01:44 PM

If they're THAT stupid then I'd be glad I folded so I could identify their play

wray

03-01-2005, 02:14 PM

"If you flopped a set in an unraised pot and it was a raggedy flop, you'd have to play the hand quite differently. Depending on what set you flopped, you might not even play it at all. You'll see what I mean in a minute. But the concept you should understand is this: In no-limit play, you must be very careful you don't lose all your chips in an unraised pot, unless you have the nuts at the point you go all-in.

Here's what I mean: let's say you and six other players got in for the absolute minimum, that is, you all limped in for a 50$ force, the blind bet. Everbody just called. Nobody raised-so the field wasn't weeded out at all. Now, a J-4-2 flops. You flop 3 deuces. In a previous situation-with this same flop-you should lead right into the raiser with your set. He's probably got an overpair and will raise as expected. But in the present situation, you must plaay it carefully. Very carefully. You flopped a hand that's easy to go broke with. There's nothing in the pot, and you don't want to go broke in a nothing pot.

The 6 people in the pot with you tried to flop the nuts for free. And one of them might have the nuts, or close to it. So if 1 of the other players commits all his money when there's only a few hundred dollars in the pot, you better watch out. Your three dueces probably aren't any good.

You could be up against 3 jacks, but that's not as likely as 3 4's, since there was no raise befoere the flop. That's the hand you should be afraid of.

I'm not saying you shouldn't play the hand. I'm just saying that you have to play it carefully. Since nobody showed any early strength, you're not likely to be up against a big pair, but you could be facing another set. Nevertheless, if it's checked to you, you've got to bet it.

But you don't want to get broke with the hand because it was a nothing pot to begin with. If you get raised, your own judgement in the particular situation will have to prevail. With the third set,dueces, you might want to go on with the hand, but then you might not. With the second set,fours, you can't get away from it. Someone's going to have to show you three jacks. That's all there is to it."

Paluka

03-01-2005, 02:42 PM

I'd just like to point out that I actually folded a set to an all-in on hand #3 of the WSOP this year.

Boris

03-01-2005, 02:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Often you can just look at a person and tell if he is intelligent or not. You can often tell if he is aggressive or passive. This is before the cards are even dealt.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't be serious.

Boris

03-01-2005, 02:54 PM

Why?

Paluka

03-01-2005, 02:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought I was beat.

MLG

03-01-2005, 02:57 PM

I absolutely think its true. You're not always going to be right, but you should be trying to figure out how people think way before the cards are dealt.

Boris

03-01-2005, 03:03 PM

lol. No [censored]. I'm curious about the action leading up to your decision to lay it down.

Paluka

03-01-2005, 03:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
lol. No [censored]. I'm curious about the action leading up to your decision to lay it down.

[/ QUOTE ]

I posted the hand and there was a thread about it right after the WSOP, but I can't find it now when I search. If anyone can find it that would be great.

TStoneMBD

03-01-2005, 03:06 PM

i agree with ZJ. when i sit down in a tournament i usually look over the players at the table and judge who is intelligent, who is tight passive, who is loose aggressive etc. i am usually pretty accurate, with probably 1 or 2 people being a different player type than what i had predicted. stereotypes truly are a good way to judge a person, at least in poker.

J.R.

03-01-2005, 03:26 PM

Paluka's laydown (http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=tv&Number=708692&Forum=f23 &Words=&Searchpage=0&Limit=2500&Main=708692&Search =true&where=bodysub&Name=1968&daterange=1&newerval =10&newertype=y&olderval=&oldertype=&bodyprev=#Pos t708692)

3rdEye

03-01-2005, 04:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
As hard as it is to fold a set, and last I checked I don't think I've ever done it to an all-in on the flop, I think you have to here. I'm assuming the flop was a rainbow which means it's not someone way overplaying a flushdraw. Ok, if it's an online tournament I probably call in a heartbeat and expect to get shown slowplayed aces or something like that... But really, at the 25-50 level of a deep stack (10k to start) tournament what kinds of hands is someone going to bet something in the neighborhood of 35 times the pot with??? In this situation it seems like (to me) he probably has 44. Two pair seems really unlikely J4? J2? 42? and jacks he probably would have raised preflop...

Granted this player has horribly misplayed his hand no matter what he has, but this reminds me of something Paul Phillips once said on here about facing a massive all-in overbet, and how his experience has taught him it usually means the guy has the nuts. I believe he was refering preflop to giving his opponent credit for aces, but it seems to apply here.

A number of things could change my opinion from call to fold, but this situation existing in the vacuum of little to no information you've tried to create I think I muck. I'm all about pushing my edges early, but here it seems that the majority of the time you're drawing to one out...

[/ QUOTE ]

Who pushes on the flop with a set when the flop is a rainbow, non-straight-draw type of board?

Boris

03-01-2005, 04:47 PM

Wow. I really doubt I make that fold. But I respect your strategy posts so I can't really critize your play.

valenzuela

03-01-2005, 04:49 PM

Anyone who pushes a set of jacks its an Idiot, anyone who pushes a set of fours is an idiot, anyone who pushes two pairs is an idiot, anyone who pushes is an idiot, going all-in for ur last 9950 on a pot of 300 doesnt seem right to me.

Boris

03-01-2005, 04:56 PM

Sorry but you can't tell gauge a person's intelligence by their appearance unless they have down's syndrome or something. And even if you could you wouldn't be able to map their intelligence level to how they play.

Rushmore

03-01-2005, 07:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry but you can't tell gauge a person's intelligence by their appearance unless they have down's syndrome or something. And even if you could you wouldn't be able to map their intelligence level to how they play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Everything you say is absolutely true.

Now let's see if we can properly differentiate between knowing and assessing.

Jeez, guys.

Lacking anything else, and requiring a read on basic skill/accumen/poker intelligence, OF COURSE you need to make at least some sort of assessment based upon any number of factors, each of which has at least something to do with appearance.

What--you don't size up the table before the first hand?

Michael C.

03-01-2005, 11:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who pushes a set of jacks its an Idiot, anyone who pushes a set of fours is an idiot, anyone who pushes two pairs is an idiot, anyone who pushes is an idiot, going all-in for ur last 9950 on a pot of 300 doesnt seem right to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Totally agree, and that's a big reason why barring any other information I definitely call. The guy is an idiot, but even an idiot knows better than to go all in with the first or second nuts. But if he's an idiot who's just come from playing online, he might bet an overpair like that trying to protect his hand. Of course it's a moronic play, but I've seen similar plays like that in even a 215 SNG where a bad player will rish his 1000 chips on a 10-15 blind pot. But even morons can compute "three of a kind- I'm going to slow play..."

jedi

03-02-2005, 11:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
To answer.... yes this did come from Super System 2. Doyle's response of saying he'd fold the majority of the time really surprised me. So I decided to post it here w/o saying who it came from to hear everyone's responses.

I'll never be world class I guess cause I'm callin.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doyle is Doyle and he can do very well in the tournament without risking all of his chips here by calling.

I on the other hand, am not nearly as good as Doyle is. I call.

feelixthegreek

03-02-2005, 12:27 PM

True. Why would a bigger set want to shut everyone out?

jackdaniels

03-02-2005, 01:39 PM

I was watching the Caro tells DVD and there are some interesting points about reading players - before any hands are dealt - that could be beneficial to the observant player. Some of the points he discusses are how one buys chips, how one stacks their chips etc... and how those same people are likely to play (gambler/conservative etc...) I would recommend seeing it, very interesting stuff.

Rushmore

03-02-2005, 02:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I was watching the Caro tells DVD and there are some interesting points about reading players - before any hands are dealt - that could be beneficial to the observant player. Some of the points he discusses are how one buys chips, how one stacks their chips etc... and how those same people are likely to play (gambler/conservative etc...) I would recommend seeing it, very interesting stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are TELLS. The poster was referring to profiling, which I still think is fine in the absence of any other information.

Kaz The Original

03-02-2005, 05:50 PM

There were the exact cards used in supersystem. The flop was J42 and it was 6 ways. He says you only have to be scared of 444. I call this.

Paul Phillips

03-02-2005, 06:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Granted this player has horribly misplayed his hand no matter what he has, but this reminds me of something Paul Phillips once said on here about facing a massive all-in overbet, and how his experience has taught him it usually means the guy has the nuts.

[/ QUOTE ]

At least, often enough to make me usually fold the first time they do it. But as usual with poker, the differences between the situation I was talking about (I raise to 150 with KK, guy jams for 10000) and this one may seem immaterial but they're not.

If I call with KK I'm hoping to be a 4.5-1 favorite in the best realistic case, and I could easily only be 7-3 even if I'm right that he doesn't have aces. And as someone else pointed out about that case, there is a real risk they're playing "the system" in which case they DO have aces.

Exercise to the reader to show that the situation with a set of deuces is vastly better, almost no matter what assumptions you make about the other player. If you add a single possible hand beyond JJ and 44 then you should call. I think here, the chances that they're expecting not to be called are dramatically higher than that they're betting a set.

Also relevant is whether you're close to closing the action. Six people limped, so the sickest outcome here is to call with all the limpers behind you and then see the gigantic smile break out on the face of the button as he overcalls with an overset. It may seem like a small risk but it comes with severe consequences.

I'd be real, real slow to fold this. I'd at least stare the guy down until they put the clock on me. I'd have much more trouble living with this fold than I would folding KK preflop or a flopped second-nut flush to a huge overbet, which are much likelier scenarios in real life.

Shaun

03-05-2005, 01:21 AM

Yes. Absolutely. J24 is not a scary board. Unless I know the player very well, I'm calling with trip 2s here.

Arnfinn Madsen

03-05-2005, 09:00 PM

I have noted the names of all who wrote here that they would fold so that i can push in the same situation with 38 offsuit. Looking forward to WSOP /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

housenuts

03-08-2005, 07:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I would fold if my life was on the line and I had to win the tourney or die. But there will always be another tournament. Call.

[/ QUOTE ]

wouldn't that make your more willing to call? if you have to WIN the tourney then you need to take chances of accumulating chips. if you only needed to finish in the money to avoid dying then i can see the argument for folding. but if you MUST win this tourney i think you have to call here.