Taking Marginal -EV Spots to Set Up a Profitable Image

[ZeeJustin]

The button has been playing a ton of hands, and he has been notorious for slowplaying his big hands. He's a good player, but very aggro, and not aggro enough when he has a big hand.

He would never make an all-in like that on the flop with a big hand. I think it's pretty obvious he's on a draw. He could just have ace high, or JT for a straight draw, but I think a flush draw is by far the most likely hand for him.

I have 6 outs to make a pair (4 if he has a flush draw), a back door straight draw, and a back door flush draw (which is unfortunately no good when he also has a flush draw.)

Also, and I understand this isn't common, but the fact that he may be on a complete bluff also gives me some chance of splitting the pot if say a 2 and an ace come on the turn/river (or something similar).

Let's not forget how much money is in the pot already as well. My pot odds can't be ignored.

Yes, I know this spot is -ev, but given I have so many different ways to win, and my pot odds, it's barely -ev.

The idea behind this play is to set up a profitable image. Players will stop bluffing vs me making my river decisions very easy, and they will make many thin value bets vs me that I will happily call with marginal hands. Also, I did bet the flop, so the players can't even respect me when I'm aggressive. By the time they figured out that I am not the player they think I am, I will already have a ton of their money.

All comments are appreciated.

Party Poker No-Limit Hold'em, $ BB (6 max, 6 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

saw flop|<font color="#C00000">saw showdown</font>

CO ($5391.25)
<font color="#C00000">Button ($1071)</font>
SB ($1285)
BB ($855.25)
<font color="#C00000">Hero ($1265.75)</font>
MP ($1069.65)

Preflop: Hero is UTG with 3/images/graemlins/club.gif, 4/images/graemlins/spade.gif. SB posts a blind of $5.
Hero calls $10, <font color="#666666">2 folds</font>, Button calls $10, SB (poster) completes, <font color="#CC3333">BB raises to $30</font>, Hero calls $30, Button calls $30, SB folds.

Flop: ($130) 2/images/graemlins/club.gif, 9/images/graemlins/spade.gif, Q/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
BB checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets $150</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Button is all-in [$1031]</font>, BB folds, Hero calls $881.

Turn: ($1161) 3/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>

River: ($1161) 4/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>

Final Pot: $1161

Results in white below: <font color="#FFFFFF">
Hero has 3c 4s (two pair, fours and threes).
Button has 8c Tc (high card, queen).
Outcome: Hero wins $1161. </font>

Edit: for some reason the all-in wasn't showing from the converter.
Edit: Ugh. I messed up when I manually put the all-in in the hand. It was the button who shoved.

[LuvDemNutz]

I can't follow the action -

[Benal]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't follow the action -

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm guessing button pushed, and Justin, ummmmmm, called?

[mgsimpleton]

i'm confused about the flop action. you bet 150, then bb puts you all-in?

as it is, i realllly don't like it. he could be 'bluffing' with 9x of clubs or something like that. even if your read is dead on, you're still -EV, as you said... but if it isn't you could be drawing nearly dead.

of course it's another story if you put him all-in so can you clear that one up?

[drexah]

[ QUOTE ]
Flop: ($130) 2/images/graemlins/club.gif, 9/images/graemlins/spade.gif, Q/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
BB checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets $150</font>, <font color="#CC3333">BB is all-in [$1031]</font>, BB folds, Hero calls $881.

[/ QUOTE ]


??? bisonbison's converter screws up a lot.

[Popinjay]

I think you have vastly overestimated your EV here.

Here are the results of some calcs I ran on PokerStove (from the flop):

if he has:

JdTd he is 75.808% to win
Ad5d he is 73.636% to win

even if he has 5d6d he is 68.939% to win

In summary I think this play is not good given that the loss in EV even in the best case scenarios is too great to overcome possible future +EV that might come from your image.

[Yeti]

Did you really just call $900 more with 4 high?

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
Did you really just call $900 more with 4 high?

[/ QUOTE ]

Reread my post. There's more to poker than just your hand. There are draws, bluffs and pot odds in this hand. Most importantly though, it was an image play. You need to start thinking on the next level.

[Yeti]

Heh. Ok.

[Popinjay]

Do you really think this is that profitable an image play too? I mean if there was a guy who I knew was calling all-ins with 4 high on the flop I'd just play tight, wait for two-pair or better, then cash in! Maybe some people would start putting you in with middle pair but smart players wouldn't just because they know they can wait for much better spots.

[drexah]

wait, is this a joke? i mean ok, how hard can it be to set up a profitable image? just make a dumb ass call where you have basically 0.5% of winning. why are you talking about pot odds, and even if he can't make this play with a "big hand" what the hell do you have? you have 4 high... ok, so even if you put him on a flush draw (the worst he can have is like 5c6c) 34o vs 8cTc is 14% to win after the flop. If you are going to 'set up an image' im sure you can find a way to do it so you maybe have a little more of a chance to suck out or outdraw someone after making a really dumb flop call.

[gomberg]

I don't really like it - this seems very -ev for me, not marginally -ev unless he's on a pure bluff. If he has a flush draw, you are at least 4:1 against. If strt draw, also 4:1 against. flush + gut = 5.5:1 against. Even a pure bluff is 2:1 against around. So you're taking 1.5:1 odds with at best a 2:1 shot? Most likely you are way worse than that as well.

did it work? Did people start value betting the hell out of you? Interested to hear how the session panned out -

ni han /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe some people would start putting you in with middle pair but smart players wouldn't just because they know they can wait for much better spots.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? I hope you're not serious. This isn't tournament poker. You can rebuy. There's no reason to ever pass up a +ev spot. If you are playing anywhere near the 5/10 level, this should be blatantly obvious to you. These players aren't idiots. They won't just sit back and wait expecting my money to fall into their laps. They're going to try to play what they believe is optimal poker against me, and given that I call with "4 high", they're going to be making marginal value bets against me before the other players do.

[Yeti]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe some people would start putting you in with middle pair but smart players wouldn't just because they know they can wait for much better spots.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? I hope you're not serious. This isn't tournament poker. You can rebuy. There's no reason to ever pass up a +ev spot. If you are playing anywhere near the 5/10 level, this should be blatantly obvious to you. These players aren't idiots. They won't just sit back and wait expecting my money to fall into their laps. They're going to try to play what they believe is optimal poker against me, and given that I call with "4 high", they're going to be making marginal value bets against me before the other players do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, you realise you're playing on Party Poker, yes?

You're trying to defend this hand as if it's a 50-100 hand with huge metagame considerations against a player who will actually remember your screen name.

[Popinjay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe some people would start putting you in with middle pair but smart players wouldn't just because they know they can wait for much better spots.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? I hope you're not serious. This isn't tournament poker. You can rebuy. There's no reason to ever pass up a +ev spot. If you are playing anywhere near the 5/10 level, this should be blatantly obvious to you. These players aren't idiots. They won't just sit back and wait expecting my money to fall into their laps. They're going to try to play what they believe is optimal poker against me, and given that I call with "4 high", they're going to be making marginal value bets against me before the other players do.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a good story in Doyle's Poker Wisdom from a Champion book about this. I'll try to recollect as best I can from memory. He's playing stud and there is a complete idiot in the game. He somehow sees the guy's cards and knows he is a 55-45 favorite and gets it all-in. The guy draws on him and busts him. The point is that there was no point in putting all your cash in in that spot when you could just wait and have him all-in drawing dead.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
why are you talking about pot odds

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would I ignore them? They are very relevant. The size of the pot is one of the most crucial factors in poker when making any decision. Surely you understand this basic concept.

[ QUOTE ]
If you are going to 'set up an image' im sure you can find a way to do it so you maybe have a little more of a chance to suck out or outdraw someone after making a really dumb flop call.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you vastly underestimate how much EV I will gain from the players at the table adjusting to their new read on me.

[turnipmonster]

I think a lot about this stuff, especially when playing live against the same players all the time. however, it seems to me to be a little misguided to think that someone's image of you is changed with the outcome of one hand. it's easy to think you misclicked here, so you can't just fold for the next hour and then expect people to start calling you down with ace high and value betting bottom pair against you.

in a lot of ways, an image is built, not created outright. if this hand is part of an overall image you are representing, great, but it's a mistake to think good players will place too much weight on an isolated event. we've all been burned by that rather dangerous assumption.

if you played this hand this way against me I would assume you misclicked.

--turnipmonster

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe some people would start putting you in with middle pair but smart players wouldn't just because they know they can wait for much better spots.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? I hope you're not serious. This isn't tournament poker. You can rebuy. There's no reason to ever pass up a +ev spot. If you are playing anywhere near the 5/10 level, this should be blatantly obvious to you. These players aren't idiots. They won't just sit back and wait expecting my money to fall into their laps. They're going to try to play what they believe is optimal poker against me, and given that I call with "4 high", they're going to be making marginal value bets against me before the other players do.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a good story in Doyle's Poker Wisdom from a Champion book about this. I'll try to recollect as best I can from memory. He's playing stud and there is a complete idiot in the game. He somehow sees the guy's cards and knows he is a 55-45 favorite and gets it all-in. The guy draws on him and busts him. The point is that there was no point in putting all your cash in in that spot when you could just wait and have him all-in drawing dead.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doyle Brunson, while he may be a world class poker player, is a horrible writer. He also wrote in the same book about how AKo is the best hand, and how it's even more profitable than Aces.

Doyle's point here is flawed. First this is not a heads up scenario. The players will try to bust me before someone else does. They know I won't be around forever, and they havea limited time to take my cash.

So Doyle must be assuming his opponent will stick around forever, or at least until he goes bust. If this is the case, if you never pass up a +ev scenario, you are gaurenteed to bust the opponent, so there really is no point in waiting for a sure thing since you already have one.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a lot about this stuff, especially when playing live against the same players all the time. however, it seems to me to be a little misguided to think that someone's image of you is changed with the outcome of one hand. it's easy to think you misclicked here, so you can't just fold for the next hour and then expect people to start calling you down with ace high and value betting bottom pair against you.

in a lot of ways, an image is built, not created outright. if this hand is part of an overall image you are representing, great, but it's a mistake to think good players will place too much weight on an isolated event. we've all been burned by that rather dangerous assumption.

if you played this hand this way against me I would assume you misclicked.

--turnipmonster

[/ QUOTE ]

The misclick point is valid, but when the hand actually played out, I thought for a long time before calling.

You definatrely bring up a good point. I agree with your sentiment. I should have said something like, "I know you're bluffing" before I called so that there would be no way to think I misclicked.

[Popinjay]

[ QUOTE ]
in a lot of ways, an image is built, not created outright. if this hand is part of an overall image you are representing, great, but it's a mistake to think good players will place too much weight on an isolated event. we've all been burned by that rather dangerous assumption.


[/ QUOTE ]

great point

[BobboFitos]

the call is awful

[gomberg]

ok - lets figure out around how -ev this is. You'll win this pot roughly 25% (probably a little high) vs his range lets say.

So 25%($881 + $150 + $150 + $130) - 75%($881) = 327.75 - 660.75 = -$333. If you can make up this plus more EV because of that play in the next 15 minutes, it'd be a good play. Being 6-handed party, there's a lot of turnover and a lot of players won't / can't adjust because they don't pay attention and / or are multitabling.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
the call is awful

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for adding absolutely nothing to this thread. Obviously I realize this post will create a lot of controversy, but if you fully understand my line, it's a great start to thinking on the next level. However, you'd be better off back in the small stakes forum posting about ABC strategy.

[BobboFitos]

The story you refer to is about chip reese, and does not apply because he ran out of money he physically brought with him. online you can just click those chips in the tray. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[LuvDemNutz]

[ QUOTE ]
ok - lets figure out around how -ev this is. You'll win this pot roughly 25% (probably a little high) vs his range lets say.

So 25%($881 + $150 + $150 + $130) - 75%($881) = 327.75 - 660.75 = -$333. If you can make up this plus more EV because of that play in the next 15 minutes, it'd be a good play. Being 6-handed party, there's a lot of turnover and a lot of players won't / can't adjust because they don't pay attention and / or are multitabling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gomberger makes good points - it just seems a bit too expensive of an image builder to me.

[creedofhubris]

Yay, you got your money in as a 6:1 dog.

The only hands that go in on flops like this are two small pair and big draws, either of which are big favorites against you.

Counting a 3 as a runner flush draw is rationalization.

If you had ace high with an A/images/graemlins/club.gif, and thus might be ahead and might have REAL flush outs, then I think some of your points might be more valid. For instance, an A/images/graemlins/club.gif4/images/graemlins/spade.gif has .41 EV against his holding. A/images/graemlins/club.gifT/images/graemlins/spade.gif is +EV.

[Atropos]

I would not call this spot marginally -EV but you know this as well.

I think much depends on the game you play and your opponents. If you play against multi-table monsters, I think this play is not so good. Because:
a) They do not notice at all. If that is the case, you would not need such fancy image plays to beat them, otherwise you should not be playing them.

b) They notice, but have a large database from datamining on you. They probably know you are good and get confused. If I am confused, I most often try to play smaller pots against the opponent who made me confused, since I know I dont have a good read on him.

But I see this working good against bad weak-tight players, who dont know you are not a fish. I see this working even better against a player that is very likely to go on tilt after being sucked out on with 43o. Against such an opponent you could easily make up the money very fast.

[BobboFitos]

ZJ, I dont think you are awful, but this play is. You can argue about metagame / pot odds / image / whatever you want, things that "I wouldn't know about playing such low stakes compared to you", (which may be true, also) but I cant see any way to defend the play...

I read through the replies after (and your take) and it's very interesting, but... there are a bunch of hands which you are drawing dead against. EVen if he wouldn't fastplay a monster he could still have a pair+draw which has you crushed. Also...

[ QUOTE ]
f you fully understand my line

[/ QUOTE ]

You know what, i dont. I dont understand open limping 43o utg. I dont understand calling a raise. I dont understand (even though you eloquently argued why it's good) caling the all in. Maybe that makes you better then I do. But Im interested in knowing why you think these plays are great.

As for arguing ABC style, I do prefer textbook plays, but this is so unorthodox by me asserting my point I think it's bad hardly proves I only like one way to play a hand / etc.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
ok - lets figure out around how -ev this is. You'll win this pot roughly 25% (probably a little high) vs his range lets say.

So 25%($881 + $150 + $150 + $130) - 75%($881) = 327.75 - 660.75 = -$333. If you can make up this plus more EV because of that play in the next 15 minutes, it'd be a good play. Being 6-handed party, there's a lot of turnover and a lot of players won't / can't adjust because they don't pay attention and / or are multitabling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for making this post. Your point is very good, but again, I think you are vastly underestimating how +EV an image change can be. When you see someone make a call like this with 43o, you aren't thinking, "that was a bad play." Be honest. Your gut reaction will say, "wow, this guys a complete moron. He's an ATM." That's what I want!

The next time someone finds top pair with no kicker, it's very likely that I'll be able to take his entire stack. I can even stack people with ahnds worse than that. Even if I only have a 1/3 chance of stacking someone before the realize they've been duped, this is +EV given the math above. Since a ton of my edge will also come from pots where I don't stack people, and it will take more than a few solidly played hands to make players realize that I'm actually TAG, all of those small pots I play along with the few big pots I play should be more than enough to counterract my -ev from this specific hand.

[dtbog]

I appreciate your metagame/image points, as well as your pot equity analysis -- but I think you simply out-thought yourself here.

I agree with your sentiments -- he probably doesn't have anything good, you have outs, and this will set up a profitable image -- but can't you apply this knowledge next time you're in a hand against this guy? When you at least have ace high?

If you make this play for image reasons, then you clearly plan to play more hands against these same players.
... so, if you're going to be playing many more hands with the same players, then you can wait until next time this guy bluffs the flop -- and call his bluff with ace high or one pair.

-dB

[CamelZoo]

not an attack on your thinking, just an attempt to understand your call better... but what hands other than yours, and 34 without the club, are WORSE here? i can't think of any. thanks.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
I would not call this spot marginally -EV but you know this as well.

I think much depends on the game you play and your opponents. If you play against multi-table monsters, I think this play is not so good. Because:
a) They do not notice at all. If that is the case, you would not need such fancy image plays to beat them, otherwise you should not be playing them.

b) They notice, but have a large database from datamining on you. They probably know you are good and get confused. If I am confused, I most often try to play smaller pots against the opponent who made me confused, since I know I dont have a good read on him.

But I see this working good against bad weak-tight players, who dont know you are not a fish. I see this working even better against a player that is very likely to go on tilt after being sucked out on with 43o. Against such an opponent you could easily make up the money very fast.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously I'm not going to make this play against a table full of multi-tablers that already know exactly how I play. I didn't have a significant # of pokertracker hands with any of the players at the table, so I knew for sure that these guys were still forming their opinion of me. Also, I didn't recognize their names, so they probably aren't multitablers.

Maybe I should have mentioned that this was played on Eurobet where my name is NOT ZeeJustin. I am positive these players did not have a good read on my play.

[creedofhubris]

Here's another way to look at it, Justin. Your call just cost you $560.

Are you going to make $560 in the future from that one play?

Heck, your cards aren't even going to flash if you lose, since you are the caller, are they?

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
not an attack on your thinking, just an attempt to understand your call better... but what hands other than yours, and 34 without the club, are WORSE here? i can't think of any. thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly the extent of which I expect my opponents thinking to stop at. I called with the nut low, so I must be a huge fish, right? That's what I want them to think!

[Atropos]

[ QUOTE ]

When you see someone make a call like this with 43o, you aren't thinking, "that was a bad play." Be honest. Your gut reaction will say, "wow, this guys a complete moron. He's an ATM." That's what I want!


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm really not too sure about this one. Calling all-in with 43o there isnt a typical fish error like overplaying bottom pair, bluffing dry pots etc... It's so downright crazy and bad that only a rich monkey could do somethink like this.

However if I have not seen another questionable play in the last 10 minutes, I am not too fast to consider the rich monkey option.

[JaBlue]

this whole hand is incredibly stupid.

If you had ace-high it wouldn't be nearly as bad.

[Benal]

[ QUOTE ]
wow, this guys a complete moron. He's an ATM.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. Those are exactly the notes I'd take on you if I didn't know who you were. So I guess, mission accomplished.

[creedofhubris]

Let me also add that villain played this hand perfectly.

[CamelZoo]

fair enough, your thought process makes sense, and i am sure with the image you cultivated you were able to make your money back... but my point is that your original post title is misleading, regarding your hand being marginally -EV. i think it is the worst hand possible (can anybody give me a worse holding, short of 34 w/o a club?) given the flop, thus making it ----EV, not marginally -EV...

[BobboFitos]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me also add that villain played this hand perfectly.

[/ QUOTE ]

i like how he played it too, but somtimes i'd raise that on the button

[Popinjay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ok - lets figure out around how -ev this is. You'll win this pot roughly 25% (probably a little high) vs his range lets say.

So 25%($881 + $150 + $150 + $130) - 75%($881) = 327.75 - 660.75 = -$333. If you can make up this plus more EV because of that play in the next 15 minutes, it'd be a good play. Being 6-handed party, there's a lot of turnover and a lot of players won't / can't adjust because they don't pay attention and / or are multitabling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for making this post. Your point is very good, but again, I think you are vastly underestimating how +EV an image change can be. When you see someone make a call like this with 43o, you aren't thinking, "that was a bad play." Be honest. Your gut reaction will say, "wow, this guys a complete moron. He's an ATM." That's what I want!

The next time someone finds top pair with no kicker, it's very likely that I'll be able to take his entire stack. I can even stack people with ahnds worse than that. Even if I only have a 1/3 chance of stacking someone before the realize they've been duped, this is +EV given the math above. Since a ton of my edge will also come from pots where I don't stack people, and it will take more than a few solidly played hands to make players realize that I'm actually TAG, all of those small pots I play along with the few big pots I play should be more than enough to counterract my -ev from this specific hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I play my image as much as anyone on this forum and have probably experimented with image plays far too much. From experience I can tell you that yes you have set up a nice little image, but it's not going to last forever. If players are smart enough to adapt and put you all-in with top pair small kicker then they are also smart enough to adapt to you when they realize you've folded your last 15 hands. So you've cost yourself a significant amount of EV here and in order to make it up you have to get into a good situation in the near future. When I say near future I mean next 10 hands, if that. Now think about probability, it's certainly not guarenteed, nor is it even that likely, that someone else will flop top pair low kicker when you have him beat in the next 10 hands.

And another point, say you get AQo next hand and raise preflop. You get called in one spot. Flop comes Q78. Yes you have TPTK! You bet out, your opponent raises all-in for a huge overbet. Yes! He must think you have nothing again and is raising all-in with QT!! So you of course call off his 2k all-in. Turn river blank. Showdown, you TPTK, him 78. Oops?

[ZeeJustin]

I didn't want people to think I was being results oriented, so I intentionally left this out of my original post. I'm surprised no one has brought it up yet.

After the hand, the player I "sucked out on" went on crazy tilt. He proceeded to lose several buyins before he left the table. Even without the tilt factor, I still think this play is +EV, but the tilt makes it a great play.

[dtbog]

[ QUOTE ]
After the hand, the player I "sucked out on" went on crazy tilt.

[/ QUOTE ]

He only goes on tilt the 20% of the time that you win!

I'm surprised that no one agrees with my previous post. Just wait a few hands... and when this guy c/r you all-in again, you can at least call with a low pair or something. That will actually make people think you're a fish, as opposed to thinking that you misclicked.

-dB

[Shaun]

I think there are better spots to achieve the desired effect.

[Ulysses]

This is really just a question of reads. Definitely not a standard play early in a session, but if you know how the players will react, it can be a very worthwhile play. I'd say I probably pull something that looks like this once every three or so sessions. I agree that you should not have any piece or any draws - it only works if your hand is basically "no hand, no draw."

[Shaun]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a lot about this stuff, especially when playing live against the same players all the time. however, it seems to me to be a little misguided to think that someone's image of you is changed with the outcome of one hand. it's easy to think you misclicked here, so you can't just fold for the next hour and then expect people to start calling you down with ace high and value betting bottom pair against you.

in a lot of ways, an image is built, not created outright. if this hand is part of an overall image you are representing, great, but it's a mistake to think good players will place too much weight on an isolated event. we've all been burned by that rather dangerous assumption.

if you played this hand this way against me I would assume you misclicked.

--turnipmonster

[/ QUOTE ]

Great point. You have to continue to play loose (if not that loose) in order to "sell" the initial crazy play.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
I think there are better spots to achieve the desired effect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ugh. Why do so many players keep saying this? I don't mind taking a marginally +EV spot even if I'm risking a ton of chips. It's a cash game, and I will rebuy if I go bust. There is no reason to ever pass up a +EV spot in a cash game if you are properly bankrolled.

[Popinjay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think there are better spots to achieve the desired effect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ugh. Why do so many players keep saying this? I don't mind taking a marginally +EV spot even if I'm risking a ton of chips. It's a cash game, and I will rebuy if I go bust. There is no reason to ever pass up a +EV spot in a cash game if you are properly bankrolled.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think his point was that there are better spots to establish a good image or set people on tilt than this.

As well there are certainly places to pass up +EV situations if you are passing it up to get even more EV. An extreme and obvious example of this would be this hand:

You have top two pair on the flop. You are out of position heads up, and a bad opponent raises your flop bet. You KNOW he has some sort of straight and flush draw. Of course he will call your all-in here, and of course it would be +EV for you. However you also know that if you call and push any non straightening or flush card turn he will STILL call. So should you pass up this +EV flop situation? Quite clearly yes.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think there are better spots to achieve the desired effect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ugh. Why do so many players keep saying this? I don't mind taking a marginally +EV spot even if I'm risking a ton of chips. It's a cash game, and I will rebuy if I go bust. There is no reason to ever pass up a +EV spot in a cash game if you are properly bankrolled.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think his point was that there are better spots to establish a good image or set people on tilt than this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok great. I'll take those spots too! That doesn't change the fact that my line of play was +EV.

[Popinjay]

[ QUOTE ]
That doesn't change the fact that my line of play was +EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where's the proof?

[Murderous]

[ QUOTE ]
This is exactly the extent of which I expect my opponents thinking to stop at. I called with the nut low, so I must be a huge fish, right? That's what I want them to think!

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going out on a limb here, but IMO, players at the 3/6 NL level will either (as some have said earlier) consider it a "miss click" or pick up on exactly what you are trying to do with respect to your metagame.

I imagine their first reaction will be something similar to that which you describe but then rationalization will take over. Your action has very few purposes/desired outcomes in this context and I think its very easy to eliminate the "gamble" aspect (due to the amount you called and the cards you called with).

For me, that only leaves "miss click" and/or "image". Both of which won't be providing +EV scenarios in future hands because your call was A) on "accident" and I can laugh about it and at the same time forget about it or B) a bad attempt to set me up in one way or another for later hands.

I can't help but feel like you are trying to rationalize your decision in someway because you caught a hand. Honestly, would this thread ever have seen the light of day if you lost?

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is exactly the extent of which I expect my opponents thinking to stop at. I called with the nut low, so I must be a huge fish, right? That's what I want them to think!

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going out on a limb here, but IMO, players at the 3/6 NL level will either (as some have said earlier) consider it a "miss click" or pick up on exactly what you are trying to do with respect to your metagame.

I imagine their first reaction will be something similar to that which you describe but then rationalization will take over. Your action has very few purposes/desired outcomes in this context and I think its very easy to eliminate the "gamble" aspect (due to the amount you called and the cards you called with).

For me, that only leaves "miss click" and/or "image". Both of which won't be providing +EV scenarios in future hands because your call was A) on "accident" and I can laugh about it and at the same time forget about it or B) a bad attempt to set me up in one way or another for later hands.

I can't help but feel like you are trying to rationalize your decision in someway because you caught a hand. Honestly, would this thread ever have seen the light of day if you lost?

[/ QUOTE ]

RE the misclick, please see my above comments.

And yes, I would have posted this hand even if I lost. Anyone here should know that the turn and the river don't change my play at all. What matters is the hands when the money goes in, and as I've already stated, I knew I was an underdog when I made the call.

[Murderous]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't want people to think I was being results oriented, so I intentionally left this out of my original post. I'm surprised no one has brought it up yet.

After the hand, the player I "sucked out on" went on crazy tilt. He proceeded to lose several buyins before he left the table. Even without the tilt factor, I still think this play is +EV, but the tilt makes it a great play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, ok...so this thread had "outs". I'm still not sold on it being a "great" play though. You've definately closed the gap on +EV but only if you can be gauranteed this play will produce the same effect next time.

Thank you for making me think differently today.

[Marnixvdb]

my read is that there are too many 2+2'ers on the 5/10 party tables so now you are trying to talk us into calling allin with the nut low on the flop

very +EV post if we'd listen

[Shaun]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think there are better spots to achieve the desired effect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ugh. Why do so many players keep saying this? I don't mind taking a marginally +EV spot even if I'm risking a ton of chips. It's a cash game, and I will rebuy if I go bust. There is no reason to ever pass up a +EV spot in a cash game if you are properly bankrolled.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are raising all-in and then showing if you don't get called, I like the play. If you get called and lose, your hand will show.

But if you call and lose, your hand just goes into the muck, no? What if you make this uber-genius play and no one even sees it? By being the raiser you guarantee that people see your hand and they still think you're an ATM.

So, IMHO there are better spots to make a play with identical effects.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
my read is that there are too many 2+2'ers on the 5/10 party tables so now you are trying to talk us into calling allin with the nut low on the flop

very +EV post if we'd listen

[/ QUOTE ]

No one on here knows the name I play 5/10 under, so your theory makes no sense.

[tpir90036]

I was with you the whole time I was reading the text portion of the post... then I got to the hand portion of the post and became a little confused. I am not going to argue with the hand you picked to show off your donk image.... but I think "barely -ev" is stretching it. But that is not really the point....

[ QUOTE ]
The idea behind this play is to set up a profitable image.

[/ QUOTE ]
At what cost though? I understand the image you are trying to establish, I really do. But aren't there cheaper/closer to 0 EV ways to donk advertise? There is quite a parlay that needs to hit to make this worthwhile:

1) Your opponents are paying attention
2) Your opponents stay in the game long enough that it matters
3) They adjust in a way that can be profitable to you and/or go on tilt
4) You catch hands to take advantage of their attempted exploitation of your donkness and/or their tilting.

I am not saying that what you did can not be valuable in some NL game somewhere at some time. However, I think you are overvaluing it and that the EV you gain is not going to be worth the $400 you "lost" on this hand in the long run given the conditions of on-line play.

Good post. Interesting stuff.
-tpir

[Murderous]

The main point of my post was that if I see you make that play I'm reducing to (more or less) nill any of its potential value by diregarding it as a miss click or identifying it as a image/metagame strategy.

How can that possibly be considered +EV? Do you really believe your opponents to be that disconnected from the game?

[Marnixvdb]

your screenname isnt relevant at all for my post to make sense

anyway, in most cases the play seems like a waste of money to me. Too expensive for what you are trying to achieve.

In a tough game, where this play seems to make most sense, most players won't start just giving their money away after they see one hand like this. In a good game, you don't need this play.

But if you know the player well, and you know with a fair degree of certainty that he will stick around if you tilt him (which is hard to tell online) and that other players will actually notice - yeah, I can how this play could have some value. You need to be very sure though, that it wont affect your own play negatively if you'd lose the pot, which is the most likely outcome. If you lose it, he will most likely check what your hand was, but would it affect him as much as when you suck out? Also - is this the most effective way of achieving what you are trying to achieve?

A lot of 'ifs' that need to be evaluated before you can say this play is metagame +EV. I severely doubt it is.

[CamelZoo]

i don't think 34 with one club has more outs than ANY other hand in this situation, other than 34 w/o a club. meaning, i think (please chime in if i am wrong) as far as winning the hand given the flop and holding, 34 is the WORST hand as far as EV.

this is separate from the "+EV" original poster claims to get in the long-term from people thinking he is a loose cannon, this is a separate issue altogether, one which IMHO most people can see through, esp at higher limits...

don't confuse the two issues of the hand being crap and horribly -EV, from his purported +EV from looking like a clueless maniac.

[elindauer]

Hi ZeeJustin,

The biggest problem with this play is that, in your search for a metagame advantage, you have just thrown away a hugely profitable situation. Here you have an opponent who you know only makes this big bet when he has no hand. How profitable is this knowledge? It's HUGE. You can wait this guy out, check fold check fold, and then BAM, take all his money.

Now, instead of doing this, you go and call this guy with no hand no draw. Now he thinks you can't be bluffed, and he STOPS making this hugely profitable play for you. You've taken an opponent making big mistakes and made him play better.

So now, you have to not only compensate for all the money you've just lost, but you have to compensate for all the potential money you would have won from this guy making this move had you just waited him out. This is highly unlikely in an online game.

You should also note that it can be very hard to predict how players will respond to this new information. As you see in this thread, some people are going to think you misclicked. Others are going to tighten up and wait for the nuts. Your arguments that they SHOULDN'T play this way are irrelevent. Many people do think like this. So now you can create even more problems for yourself, when you call off huge all-in bets from nut peddlers over the next couple hands thinking they are willing to move in with middle pair when in fact they've shut down into ultra-tight mode.

Good luck.
Eric

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think there are better spots to achieve the desired effect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ugh. Why do so many players keep saying this? I don't mind taking a marginally +EV spot even if I'm risking a ton of chips. It's a cash game, and I will rebuy if I go bust. There is no reason to ever pass up a +EV spot in a cash game if you are properly bankrolled.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi ZeeJustin,

There are many situations where you should pass on a marginally +EV situation. For example, let's say that you, oh, just hypothetically now, that have some yahoo who will only make huge flop bets when he has no hand.

Now, he makes one of these bets, and you look down and find 4 high. You say to yourself, hey, I can call here because I know he has no hand, and with some metagame considerations, this will be slightly +EV. Should you call? No. Even if you know you make a little money with this call, you should still fold.

The reason is simply that by calling, you change the way he plays, and you elliminate a potentially much more profitable opportunity in the future. If you show a little patience and let him keep bluffing, you can nail him with a much bigger edge and much more profit. If you announce that you will call all bets, he will stop bluffing this way.

Good luck.
Eric

[mks]

Shaun basically pointed it out.

Unless you are planning to make image plays like this repeatedly, you only need to make *ONE* such image play to get the effect you are looking for.

There are other spots/ways to make such an image play via a huge call (like if you had 56o here) or preferably a big raise with crap and a few outs, that are far more EV than the route you chose.

Comparisons to passing up a 55-45 (or 51-49) edge to wait for a bigger edge against the "fish" are completely misplaced. Even if you think this play is +EV, it is NOT correct in this instance to say you should take the bet just b/c it is +EV.

The reason is that this is a one-shot play. If you want to make a comparison to taking a 51-49 edge vs a fish instead of waiting for a bigger edge, you must make a comparison where you only get ONE chance to go all in against the fish. If it's a one-shot deal, then you wait for a better spot. Just like you should have waited for a better spot for this one-shot chance to improve your image.

And that's even giving you the benefit of the doubt that this play actually is +EV, which is questionable on its face.

[augie00]

If I were sitting across from you at a 5/10 NL table and saw you call off all your chips with 4 high, I would assume you are an idiot. However, I think you are overestimating how much your opponents will take that into account from just one donkified play.

I do not agree with you that players will be making "thin value bets" against you with practically nothing in their hand. Players who think on that level won't label you as a complete donk that quickly.

I would need to see you do something like this at least a couple more times to earn credit for being a complete idiot. The first time my reaction would be more like "ummm...wtf???"

Keep in mind, my experience at 5/10 is limited (about 2k hands or so) but even against the biggest donks I will not be expecting them to call with 4 high all day long.

And, furthermore, the typical 5/10 opponent is NOT willing to risk a huge amount of chips for every EV+ situation as you are. I am quite sure of this, even though I don't have many hands at 5/10. You mentioned that you don't have any hands with these guys, and they don't look familliar. How do you know they will start going apeshit against you with horrible hands? A typical player will wait for a hand and then just bet the crap out of it against you "knowing" that you will call.

Are you honestly going to turn into a super-loose calling station after a hand like this? How will you be able to distinguish a thin value bet from a very strong hand, begging you to raise?

You'll have to call every freakin' time you have a hand, and that is NOT EV+. AT ALL.

I read the entire thread and I've seen you defending this to death, but I don't think you are going to change anyone's mind that this was a good call. Many of us understand image building plays, this is not a new concept, but I think you took it a little too far with 4 high.

Next time you want to try this, call all in with a flush draw, or a straight draw, or something better than 4 high.

[Triumph36]

The point is being made that this is SO insane that most players won't give it consideration. I think I agree with them. An all in call here with AK looks much more 'fishy.' I think the fact that you won probably tilted the whole table, and maybe that has to be taken into account, but I feel it's more likely that if people were taking shots at you, it's more out of anger because you were the fish who called AND won with 4 high, not because you called with 4 high.

[augie00]

[ QUOTE ]
Ugh. Why do so many players keep saying this? I don't mind taking a marginally +EV spot even if I'm risking a ton of chips. It's a cash game, and I will rebuy if I go bust. There is no reason to ever pass up a +EV spot in a cash game if you are properly bankrolled.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are mis-interpreting this. He's saying, there are better spots to make yourself look like an idiot than with 4 high.

[augie00]

I forgot a few things. This isn't "marginally" -EV. It is "hugely" -EV (for lack of a better term.)

Also, you said you didn't want to be results oriented, but the villian went on supertilt after this hand. Had you won, he wouldn't have gone on supertilt. Thus, this is not at all what you wanted to accomplish, just a pleasant side effect of outdrawing someone with 4 high.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
i don't think 34 with one club has more outs than ANY other hand in this situation, other than 34 w/o a club. meaning, i think (please chime in if i am wrong) as far as winning the hand given the flop and holding, 34 is the WORST hand as far as EV.

this is separate from the "+EV" original poster claims to get in the long-term from people thinking he is a loose cannon, this is a separate issue altogether, one which IMHO most people can see through, esp at higher limits...

don't confuse the two issues of the hand being crap and horribly -EV, from his purported +EV from looking like a clueless maniac.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I make this call with a flush draw or something, I don't get nearly the same image I get as I do when I call with the nut low.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
The biggest problem with this play is that, in your search for a metagame advantage, you have just thrown away a hugely profitable situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Knowing that a player likes to go all-in with flush draws isn't exactly hugely profitable. It's not like he does this often with nothing. I said he's a good player, and he wouldn't make a play like this without considerable fold equity. He's NOT a maniac.

[ QUOTE ]
You should also note that it can be very hard to predict how players will respond to this new information.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a little hard to predict how much merit they will give this small amount of information, but from my experience, it will be profitable in this situation. There is zero chance of them adjusting in a way that will hurt me in the long run.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
Shaun basically pointed it out.

Unless you are planning to make image plays like this repeatedly, you only need to make *ONE* such image play to get the effect you are looking for.

There are other spots/ways to make such an image play via a huge call (like if you had 56o here) or preferably a big raise with crap and a few outs, that are far more EV than the route you chose.

Comparisons to passing up a 55-45 (or 51-49) edge to wait for a bigger edge against the "fish" are completely misplaced. Even if you think this play is +EV, it is NOT correct in this instance to say you should take the bet just b/c it is +EV.

The reason is that this is a one-shot play. If you want to make a comparison to taking a 51-49 edge vs a fish instead of waiting for a bigger edge, you must make a comparison where you only get ONE chance to go all in against the fish. If it's a one-shot deal, then you wait for a better spot. Just like you should have waited for a better spot for this one-shot chance to improve your image.

And that's even giving you the benefit of the doubt that this play actually is +EV, which is questionable on its face.

[/ QUOTE ]

Waiting for a better hand defeats the purpose of the play. I want it to look like I'm a complete retard that has no clue how to play holdem, and will go all the way with hands like nut low because I have 3 to a straight.

[Ghazban]

I understand your logic and the metagame benefits of such a move; however, I still don't like the play. Obviously, in the one-hand-in-a-vacuum sense, this is -EV-- the benefits come from the effect it has on future hands. Therefore, why do it here on this hand? This is about as -EV as you can get. You could make a similar advertising play with J-high or something along those lines (i.e. not a missed draw bluff or something but still better than 4-high). It would have the same effect on your opponents (I think) but would cost you less in EV on the hand you do it on. Does that make sense? Basically, its like making a -$40 EV move instead of a -$100 EV move; both get you the advertising and image benefits but one is cheaper than the other. What do you think?

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
I do not agree with you that players will be making "thin value bets" against you with practically nothing in their hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

You make waaaay too many assumptions in your post.
I never said they would make big bets with practically nothing against me. They will, however, make more value bets because they won't give me credit for a big hand. If you disagree with this point, you should quit poker and take up bowling.

[ QUOTE ]
I would need to see you do something like this at least a couple more times to earn credit for being a complete idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe you. When someone calls an all-in with the nut low, that's not enough for you to give them credit as a moron??!

[ QUOTE ]
How do you know they will start going apeshit against you with horrible hands?

[/ QUOTE ]
I never said they would. You can't make a value bet with a horrible hand. Use some commmon sense.

[ QUOTE ]
You'll have to call every freakin' time you have a hand, and that is NOT EV+. AT ALL.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're saying that turning into a calling station will become optimal strategy for me, and that won't have a positive expectation??? This statement is so ludicrous I don't know how to refute it. Do you really believe after this play that I will be a break even or -ev player at this table because of the way they adjust? This makes absolutely no sense. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point here.

[ QUOTE ]
Next time you want to try this, call all in with a flush draw, or a straight draw, or something better than 4 high.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, this doesn't make me look like that big of a moron. I've seen winning players that routinely make these plays. No winning player on earth calls all-ins with the NUT LOW.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
I forgot a few things. This isn't "marginally" -EV. It is "hugely" -EV (for lack of a better term.)

Also, you said you didn't want to be results oriented, but the villian went on supertilt after this hand. Had you won, he wouldn't have gone on supertilt. Thus, this is not at all what you wanted to accomplish, just a pleasant side effect of outdrawing someone with 4 high.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? I DID win the hand, and he DID go on supertilt. And this was a consideration before I made my play. Obviously I knew I wasn't going to be winning a large percent of the time, so it wasn't my primary goal, but that doesn't mean that I can't factor it in to my EV and make it a consideration of the hand.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand your logic and the metagame benefits of such a move; however, I still don't like the play. Obviously, in the one-hand-in-a-vacuum sense, this is -EV-- the benefits come from the effect it has on future hands. Therefore, why do it here on this hand? This is about as -EV as you can get. You could make a similar advertising play with J-high or something along those lines (i.e. not a missed draw bluff or something but still better than 4-high). It would have the same effect on your opponents (I think) but would cost you less in EV on the hand you do it on. Does that make sense? Basically, its like making a -$40 EV move instead of a -$100 EV move; both get you the advertising and image benefits but one is cheaper than the other. What do you think?

[/ QUOTE ]

Vs his range of hands, calling with jack high has virtually the same EV as calling with the nut low, but the nut low leaves a much worse image of me at the table, so why notgo wih it? Also, with jack high, I'm missing 2 backdoor draws that I do have with 43o.

[augie00]

I heard that the special olympics is having a $10,000 buyin poker tournament this year. You should go sign up. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
I heard that the special olympics is having a $10,000 buyin poker tournament this year. You should go sign up. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I took the time to respond to the flaws in your logic individually, and this is the only response you can come up with? All you did was make outlandish assumptions that didn't apply to the hand at all, and used them to form your opinion. You can't even respond to me pointing out my flaws, so instead you call me a retard? Very classy.

[DireWolf]

How long do you have to play a session to make that profitable?

[The_Bends]

I think the point that calling here will stop this guys playing badly against you in the future was a great one and must be taken into account.

The main point however is that you are trying to have your cake and eat it. You want to trap the thinking players but the thinking players that will not think enought to see something fishy in a call with four high. If someone did this against me I would be extremely suspicious of thier motives because even the biggest idiots would call with that hand. You'd certainly have to do it a second time for me to change my play to give you a EV advantage. It would be much more believable if your money had gone in with a 30% chance, then I'd assume you simply misunderstand odds.

From your first post to your most recent you've offered a series of reasons why this was a good play, some good some clearly stretching to justify your play. Personally I don't like it because you have to make a whole series of assumptions about your opponents play for it to work

1. Watching
2. Thinking but not too clever
3. Not using PT
4. Not about to leave in 15 minutes.

You can never be sure of these online.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the point that calling here will stop this guys playing badly against you in the future was a great one and must be taken into account.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate having to repeat myself. HE IS A GOOD PLAYER. On this hand, he even made a fine play. I don't want him to continue playing the way he he is playing, because HE'S PLAYING WELL.

[ QUOTE ]
1. Watching
2. Thinking but not too clever
3. Not using PT
4. Not about to leave in 15 minutes.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are 5 other players at the table. Even if I'm wrong about 1 or 2 of them, I still have a decent chance of stacking one of the other guys in a situation that would never come up otherwise.

I think most of you guys are overestimating youselves. "He can't be an idiot if he calls with the nut low because that play is just too bad." You are lying to yoursleves if you truly believe this. If you see this play, the only logical thought other than, "hes an idiot" would be "he misclicked", and we've already been over that subject.

Also, I don't care if they use PT, because I know these players don't have a significant number of hands vs me.

[augie00]

Dude. I was joking. Geez. Isn't that what the smileys are for?

[CanKid]

2 things come to mind

1) wouldn't most good players (especially the ones that know you) assume you misclicked the all-in call?

2) since button pushed and will win most the time here, his hand will be shown and yours mucked? or would you show?

really interesting ..

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
You know what, i dont. I dont understand open limping 43o utg. I dont understand calling a raise. I dont understand (even though you eloquently argued why it's good) caling the all in. Maybe that makes you better then I do. But Im interested in knowing why you think these plays are great.

[/ QUOTE ]

The limp I made for several reasons. I can outplay these guys postflop and often push them off hands when I sense weakness. But also, I was trying to set up an image play from the beginning. It doesn't necessarily have to be an all-in call, but just getting to a showdown accomplishes something (although not nearly as much as calling all-in with the nut low).

The raise was small enough that it's a fine call in a multi-way pot when you consider the many different routes I can go with it postflop (-ev image play, bluffing players off their hands, or hitting a big flop).

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
Dude. I was joking. Geez. Isn't that what the smileys are for?

[/ QUOTE ]

I sometimes miss blatantly obvious jokes. I guess we have something in common. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
2 things come to mind

1) wouldn't most good players (especially the ones that know you) assume you misclicked the all-in call?

2) since button pushed and will win most the time here, his hand will be shown and yours mucked? or would you show?

really interesting ..

[/ QUOTE ]

I have already discussed the all-in issue. Scroll up.

Yes my hand will be mucked, but every player at the table will see it when they look at the hand history, which they will inevitably do when they see 10 high win.

[augie00]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dude. I was joking. Geez. Isn't that what the smileys are for?

[/ QUOTE ]

I sometimes miss blatantly obvious jokes. I guess we have something in common. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

For someone who is (now) "in the know," that was hilarious. Oh man. I am honestly laughing out loud right now.

[CamelZoo]

"Vs his range of hands, calling with jack high has virtually the same EV as calling with the nut low, but the nut low leaves a much worse image of me at the table, so why notgo wih it? Also, with jack high, I'm missing 2 backdoor draws that I do have with 43o. "

calling with j high on a Q92 board has significantly higher EV than 34, bc instead of 56 or A5 you can get KT or T8, plus your "kicker" is better

[butihaveajob2]

I've never seen money so easy to make as the situation you created. Therefore, when I see you make 2-3 mildly intelligent plays later in this session I will disregard what happened. If you beat me in that pot, I would tilt something north of 3 buy-ins.

[neon]

[ QUOTE ]
This is really just a question of reads. Definitely not a standard play early in a session, but if you know how the players will react, it can be a very worthwhile play. I'd say I probably pull something that looks like this once every three or so sessions. I agree that you should not have any piece or any draws - it only works if your hand is basically "no hand, no draw."

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, I haven't read all of the replies, so I apologize if I'm just repeating things that have already been said.

First of, I really hope that you're making this play at a table *full* of regulars. Otherwise I immediately start to like it less b/c the play is obviously only worthwhile for metagame purposes.

That said, I think this is a great post, b/c it gets at what I think makes the winningest players in the highest stakes games profitable against such tough competition: setting people up, or fashioning an image and then playing off of that image.

I also think, however, that this play loses quite a bit of its luster (and I'm willing to be convinced otherwise) when you're calling off all your chips w/ no hand, no draw, as opposed to betting all of your chips w/ no hand, no draw.

That is, in terms of the future profitability that will result from this play, which will reap greater rewards for you when you start playing TAG poker? Calling off your stack w/ 4 high, or pushing w/ 4 high? I would contend the latter, by a long shot.

I mean, so you called a huge raise w/ four high. Big deal. When you flop top set or the nut straight and you go all-in, is the seed of doubt going to be in your opponents' head that you could be making this bet w/ air? Maybe. But what if you had gone all-in w/ four high? Now the other guys have seen you betting HUGE w/ air, so when you bet likewise w/ a lock, you're going to get paid.

Isn't it more profitable to fashion an image where you can bet your good hands and get paid off, than it is to have your opponents thinking they can bet their marginal hands and get paid off?

Again, I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but I just don't see how putting all your chips into the pot as a caller w/ absolutely no hand could be more profitable than putting all your chips in as the bettor w/ the same garbage.

Interesting post though.

[soah]

[ QUOTE ]
No winning player on earth calls all-ins with the NUT LOW.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think everyone is in agreement on this point. =P

[spahk]

[ QUOTE ]

I think most of you guys are overestimating youselves. "He can't be an idiot if he calls with the nut low because that play is just too bad." You are lying to yoursleves if you truly believe this. If you see this play, the only logical thought other than, "hes an idiot" would be "he misclicked", and we've already been over that subject.


[/ QUOTE ]

1. you are right on about this. if i saw someone make this call one time, i'd be dying to get my chips in against him. so would everyone else.

2. the point about the hand history is an obvious one.

3. i don't see what all the f'ing fuss is. this just seems to be a variation of what doyle brunson talks about. he loses a buy-in early so that he can play the game he wants. this is not revolutionary. just kind of an extreme example. i'm glad it worked out well for you.

4. i couldn't make this play myself. please don't ever use this against me. or at least remind me to leave after i take the first buy-in off you.

[FoxwoodsFiend]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the call is awful

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for adding absolutely nothing to this thread. Obviously I realize this post will create a lot of controversy, but if you fully understand my line, it's a great start to thinking on the next level. However, you'd be better off back in the small stakes forum posting about ABC strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you don't have to be a small-stakes player to thinkt his call is horrible. As much as you like to exaggerate the genius of this move, I think you vastly overrate
a) The chance that you'll get many good spots against these players before they pick up
b) The chance that these players will pay you off in these spots
c) The chance that these players are all paying attention
Furthermore, if they are paying attention they'll probably notice that you've stopped playing like a maniac after that hand. If I see a guy go crazy, and then he calms down, I assume he was on tilt or trying to set up an image.
I agree with your basic principle about making supposedly fishy plays to set players up, but this is too much cost and not enough pay-off.

[diddle]

OK, so you have this player who only goes all in with a draw. You know this.

Possible counter-strategies:
-Call his all-in with a hand better than a draw
-Fold
-Call his hand with the nut low

You chose the third option and now want us all to believe you are a genius?

[Huskiez]

I think your plan is pretty interesting. I'll tell you that if I saw someone make a call with the nut low, I'm not going to be suspicious and careful with my chips like everyone is saying. I am going to be betting out TPTK and anything remotely close very hard, making thin value bets, etc. There's only so much time before you get up, so it's time to stick the money in asap.

What I think might be hard is for you to figure out which opponents are adjusting and which aren't. There are probably one or two people who won't notice this call. They could be watching TV or reading internet on the side. Or they could be multitabling. Keep in mind someone could be playing under another account name which you have no hands logged for, so multitablers aren't out of the question. If you don't know who's adjusting, then it makes it a lot harder to know whose bets are very marginal.

With regards to the misclick issue, I think you could have made it certain you did not by saying something like "gambool" before your call. But by taking some time you made it somewhat clear you intended to call. Even contemplating this call makes me lose any respect I have for you as a player.

Interesting to note that you made a loose call preflop, a loose bet on the flop, and a huge all in call on the flop as well. So it appears you're just a total fish ready for the taking. You easily can have nothing when you bet, and are willing to make huge calls as a severe underdog.

You have definitely baited me.

[irishken]

Ive been lately in to the this stuff. And actually thought to made a post about how valuable fishy image and how much -ev situation I can take and its still +ev over long run.
I have tried limping with 52o utg, raising 92o on the button etc etc. But as far it seems like best way to get a good image is to raise river couple of times with complete [censored] and show those bluffs.. after that they just cant fold hands against you. Its like slot-machine fest when those guys start calling your river raises with 2nd pair on 3flush 3straight boards.

[mks]

there are far less expensive ways of accomplishing (essentially) the same thing. it's that simple. true you look "worse" here than if you instead called with 53o, but if you called (or raised) $900 with 53o on this board, your opponent's are all thinking "fish" just the same.

also, for this to really pay off, you better hit some hands in the next hour or so. otherwise you just threw away $600 for...nothing.

[spahk]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, so you have this player who only goes all in with a draw. You know this.

Possible counter-strategies:
-Call his all-in with a hand better than a draw
-Fold
-Call his hand with the nut low

You chose the third option and now want us all to believe you are a genius?

[/ QUOTE ]


suppose you see an A56 flop with 78. opponent bets, you raise, he moves in with what you know to be AK. his stack is large enough to make the call significantly -ev.

options:
- you wait for a similar situation in which you beat TPTK
- you fold
- you call with 8 high

if your particular style requires that you pick up a lot of small pots, and if the call will make opponents much less likely to play back at you, i can see a strong argument for option three. in fact this argument is made in supersystem by doyle brunson. i'm not sure how convincing you find it personally, but it isn't a joke.

zee justin's play takes this general idea to another level. if he is right, his call makes his opponents far less likely to bluff and far more likely to make bad value bets. this play has the potential to transform a tough game into a complete joke, in the same way that doyle's call allowed him to run over a table.

the major difference, as far as i can see: doyle can play his style every day against the same people. they can catch on, but still need skills and heart to beat him. once people catch on to zee justin, the gig is up, and the person lucky enough to run off with his first buy-in can safely continue to play his normal game without feeling like he is leaving thousands on the table every time he checks top pair.

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]

Preflop: Hero is UTG with 3/images/graemlins/club.gif, 4/images/graemlins/spade.gif. SB posts a blind of $5.
Hero calls $10, <font color="#666666">2 folds</font>, Button calls $10, SB (poster) completes, <font color="#CC3333">BB raises to $30</font>, Hero calls $30, Button calls $30, SB folds.

Flop: ($130) 2/images/graemlins/club.gif, 9/images/graemlins/spade.gif, Q/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
BB checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets $150</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Button is all-in [$1031]</font>, BB folds, Hero calls $881.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, I really don't think the nut low is good here.

I'd probably fold this.

[Alexthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dude. I was joking. Geez. Isn't that what the smileys are for?

[/ QUOTE ]

I sometimes miss blatantly obvious jokes. I guess we have something in common. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

For someone who is (now) "in the know," that was hilarious. Oh man. I am honestly laughing out loud right now.

[/ QUOTE ]



WTF. Did I read the whole thread only to find out that this is a joke?

[ethan]

[ QUOTE ]
All comments are appreciated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Looks pretty standard. Ni han.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
I have 6 outs to make a pair (4 if he has a flush draw)

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe it's 5 if he has a flush draw. Which makes it even less marginal! /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

You know, sometimes I really play like a complete stupid for a while. Especially calling all the way down with garbage, which is even stronger than calling all-in.

Suppose you have nothing (43o is a good hand to go with) you limp PF, someone raises you, you call, now you hit NOTHING, you have no pair no draw, you check he bets you call. It's very important for the bet not to be all-in in this point, because calling all-in sometimes looks too much like a misclick, or an image builer. So you just call the 3/4 pot bet or whatever.

Turn doesn't help you at all. No draws, nothing. You check, your opponent bets again, you CALL. River: no help, no improvement at all. Complete trash. You check, your opponent bets (he could be putting you all-in at this point, and that's fine), and NOW you call again. Now this is fishiness in my book. When you call all-in on the flop you almost always have some kinds of outs. Not here. Let them adjust to THAT!

[ZeeJustin]

While this hand actually ocurred, I was not the hero. Someone in the 2+2 IRC chatroom was the T8s player, and he posted this badbeat on pokerhand.org, and we all laughed at the terrible play and the terrible beat.

Then B_Dids had this brilliant idea. He said someone should post this hand on 2+2 and pretend to be the hero with 43o, and try to defend the play.

I decided to do it as a joke, but I am shocked how many people took me seriously. I would never play a hand similar to the one this hand played, and can't believe people have considered this as a possibly good play.

I have to say my favorite part of the thread was El Diablo. I told someone to start thinking on the next level, and Diablo quoted this, and said something to the effect of, "ZJ, it looks like you need to start thinking on a previous level entirely." I promptly IMed him, told him that this hand was a joke, and he quickly deleted his post and replaced it with the one that is now in this thread.

Man, I really had everyone going. I called an $850 all-in in a pot under $300 with the NUT LOW, and had people convinced I was serious, and even a few people convinced that this play was +ev. Some of you guys really need to learn to think for yourselves.

Well, I guess that's it. Flame away!

[PrayingMantis]

Honestly, when I've read El Diablo's "I'd say I probably pull something that looks like this once every three or so sessions", I laughed out loud. It's a pretty crazy thread. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Chris Daddy Cool]

nh.

though you didn't fool me for a second. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[RYL]

LOL /images/graemlins/grin.gif.

[fsuplayer]

[ QUOTE ]
While this hand actually ocurred, I was not the hero. Someone in the 2+2 IRC chatroom was the T8s player, and he posted this badbeat on pokerhand.org, and we all laughed at the terrible play and the terrible beat.

Then B_Dids had this brilliant idea. He said someone should post this hand on 2+2 and pretend to be the hero with 43o, and try to defend the play.

I decided to do it as a joke, but I am shocked how many people took me seriously. I would never play a hand similar to the one this hand played, and can't believe people have considered this as a possibly good play.

I have to say my favorite part of the thread was El Diablo. I told someone to start thinking on the next level, and Diablo quoted this, and said something to the effect of, "ZJ, it looks like you need to start thinking on a previous level entirely." I promptly IMed him, told him that this hand was a joke, and he quickly deleted his post and replaced it with the one that is now in this thread.

Man, I really had everyone going. I called an $850 all-in in a pot under $300 with the NUT LOW, and had people convinced I was serious, and even a few people convinced that this play was +ev. Some of you guys really need to learn to think for yourselves.

Well, I guess that's it. Flame away!

[/ QUOTE ]

90% of the mid-,high-stakes PL/NL forum= pwned /images/graemlins/laugh.gif


zee, nice to see that you dont take everything so seriously. well done.

[The_Bends]

Anybody else who called BS feel they just passed some sort of test?

[Rotating Rabbit]

Nice ! I didnt reply to this thread because I would have been very rude, and after reading your mtt reports I didnt want to do that !

[B Dids]

Here's the highlights from the chat transcript.

&lt;B_Dids&gt; we need to get a very respected poster
&lt;B_Dids&gt; to post XXXX's hand
&lt;B_Dids&gt; from the 43o perpective
&lt;orbflux&gt; page diablo
&lt;B_Dids&gt; mike l. would be a good choice, because people seem to fawn over his idiot plays
&lt;B_Dids&gt; Diablo would be too obvious a joke, we need somebody humorless
&lt;B_Dids&gt; or at least with that perception
&lt;B_Dids&gt; ZeeJustin?
&lt;ZeeJustin&gt; hi
&lt;ZeeJustin&gt; i see my name
&lt;kipin&gt; zee we have a favor
&lt;kipin&gt; want to post a joke hand in the midhigh nl?
&lt;kipin&gt; http://www.pokerhand.org/index.php?page=view&amp;hand=xxxxx
&lt;kipin&gt; you would post from the perspective of 43o
&lt;B_Dids&gt; and you have a slightly better change of being taken seriously
&lt;ZeeJustin&gt; i dont think there's any chance
&lt;ZeeJustin&gt; what would i say?
&lt;B_Dids&gt; I think the topic for our post is "Image Play"
&lt;B_Dids&gt; "Image Play + Backdoor Draws"
&lt;cnfuzzd&gt; buster???
&lt;ZeeJustin&gt; oooh, image play, i didn't think of that

ZJ did an amazing job and really ran with this. I have since removed him from my "humorless" list /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[Yeti]

The best was augie, after he goes and posts about 5 serious replies.

me : um dude, just thought i better tell you, that whole zeej thread is a joke.
augie : yeah, i figured.

[steve_dave]

Obviously I'm not going to make this play against a table full of multi-tablers that already know exactly how I play. I didn't have a significant # of pokertracker hands with any of the players at the table, so I knew for sure that these guys were still forming their opinion of me. Also, I didn't recognize their names, so they probably aren't multitablers.

You realize that the fact that -you- don't have a large number of hands played against these particular opponents doesn't mean that -they- don't have a large number of the hands you've played against other opponents... right?

[psuasskicker]

Responding as I read through this thread, which I find fascinating...

So 25%($881 + $150 + $150 + $130) - 75%($881) = 327.75 - 660.75 = -$333. If you can make up this plus more EV because of that play

This is the key part of the post. I'm not familiar with turnover at the 6-max PP NL $1K tables, but my guess is if any of them saw someone call $900 with 4 high the turnover rate at the table would decrease dramatically.

Problem I see with that is this play is dramatically lower EV if villain has a hand like T /images/graemlins/club.gif 9 /images/graemlins/club.gif in which case you're almost dead in the hand. At that point your break even is closer probably to $800, which I struggle to think you'll ever make up. Simplifying the math dramatically, I'd say maybe there's a 20% chance at a -$800 equity and 80% at -$333, which puts your total negative equity at right around &lt;$425&gt;. I would say this is the absolute minimum floor you have to assume here, it might be worse if you start adding in legit hands he could be "bluffing" with like 96 or 32/42.

Do you think you can scalp $425 more based on your image alone after you buy back in (or double up)? That part in italics is pretty key. If you think you can't get your image itself to win you $425 more than you would have if you simply fold here, this is an unquestionably horrible play.

I see this working even better against a player that is very likely to go on tilt after being sucked out on with 43o. Against such an opponent you could easily make up the money very fast.
...
Be honest. Your gut reaction will say, "wow, this guys a complete moron. He's an ATM." That's what I want!

Implied tilt odds are huge, there's little question about that. But $425 good?

This is a guy that HERO already has a good read on. If he knows when the guy is bluffing/semi-bluffing vs. when he's strong, there's a LOT to be said for waiting for a slightly better time to allow yourself to be all in. You know, like when you actually flop a pair.

Personally I think that's the underlying point. I think your image play here works just as well if you're on a hand like 98 or even 32 with that flop. And in that case, you're actually a favorite against the guy that went all in. The extra image you'll get from the call with 43 will be marginal to what you get with a call with something like bottom or middle pair, but the EV on the particular hand goes from &lt;$425&gt; to probably $425.

You don't like $850 of EV for almost nothing given away in image?

This is exactly the extent of which I expect my opponents thinking to stop at. I called with the nut low, so I must be a huge fish, right? That's what I want them to think!

Personally I'm gonna be suspicious of a guy that calls an all in with the nut low. There are fish, and there are super-fish, but I don't know a whole lot of people that will make calls like that. Personally, I'd suspect an image play more than a fishy one if I saw it.

That's just me. Lots others won't, I'll give you that.

Crap...I've gotta run, will try to catch up more later. Mental note: I'm at El Diablo's first response...

- C -

[Yeti]

[ QUOTE ]
Responding as I read through this thread, which I find fascinating...

[/ QUOTE ]

Next time I'd advise reading the whole thread before replying.

[Rotating Rabbit]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Responding as I read through this thread, which I find fascinating...

[/ QUOTE ]

Next time I'd advise reading the whole thread before replying.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this dude ever becomes the forum king we'll always have a link to that post to savour !

[tpir90036]

I would like to point out that I discovered the truth with plenty of time to spare to delete/edit my post but left it up anyway as acknowledgement of how badly I had been whored out.

Well played,
tpir

[Dr. Strangelove]

The key to this hand is the patter mapper reading. By my calculations you have to have a 34.2 on the PM for this to be +ev.

[augie00]

I had to basically call BS when Zee made a post defending the pf limp saying he could "outplay his opponents when he sensed weakness or soemthing" and yeti confirmed my suspicions.

I am not one to flame, but before I found out I sort of just wanted to call Zee an idiot and not give a serious response...but I couldn't help myself.

[diddle]

hilarious that people were defending this play

[nokona13]

[ QUOTE ]
Anybody else who called BS feel they just passed some sort of test?

[/ QUOTE ]

Does thinking that ZJ just turned out to be either way crazier or way dumber than we all thought count?

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
The key to this hand is the patter mapper reading. By my calculations you have to have a 34.2 on the PM for this to be +ev.

[/ QUOTE ]

34.2?!?! Cheesus crust, are you still using log base 8?!?!

[Rotating Rabbit]

what?

[runnerunner]

You are missing a key fact from the story: Doyle didn't have the roll to reload if he busted. Any reasonable player would take that bet EVERY time, even more so against a bad player, because if you lose you are more likely to get the money back. The ONLY way you wouldn't take the bet is if you couldn't reload.

[Steve Giufre]

You guys are dicks. I bet there was a few dozen people floating around party calling with 7 high and such for the last two days. My favorite part was when you said, "for this play to work properly, you have to make sure you have no hand no draw."

[Shaun]

[ QUOTE ]

Man, I really had everyone going. I called an $850 all-in in a pot under $300 with the NUT LOW, and had people convinced I was serious, and even a few people convinced that this play was +ev. Some of you guys really need to learn to think for yourselves.

Well, I guess that's it. Flame away!

[/ QUOTE ]

I was wondering why you kept calling it the nut low. Everyone knows the nut low is A3.

[elindauer]

Hi neon,

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't it more profitable to fashion an image where you can bet your good hands and get paid off, than it is to have your opponents thinking they can bet their marginal hands and get paid off?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right on.

-Eric

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
If you disagree with this point, you should quit poker and take up bowling.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol. It takes some big balls to make a post where you call off your stack with the nut low, stand in the face of almost unanimous criticism, and not only refuse to concede even a hint that just maybe you might be wrong, but actually start telling players they are so bad THEY are so bad, they should quit poker.

You're on fire this thread.

-Eric

[Slappz]

Sweet post

[BobboFitos]

[ QUOTE ]
I had to basically call BS when Zee made a post defending the pf limp saying he could "outplay his opponents when he sensed weakness or soemthing" and yeti confirmed my suspicions.

I am not one to flame, but before I found out I sort of just wanted to call Zee an idiot and not give a serious response...but I couldn't help myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually PMed ZeeJustin about the pf limp and call of the raise... wasn't too satisfied with the answer, but figured I said enough in this thread.

[emil3000]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Man, I really had everyone going. I called an $850 all-in in a pot under $300 with the NUT LOW, and had people convinced I was serious, and even a few people convinced that this play was +ev. Some of you guys really need to learn to think for yourselves.

Well, I guess that's it. Flame away!

[/ QUOTE ]

I was wondering why you kept calling it the nut low. Everyone knows the nut low is A3.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok now I get the joke. He kept calling it the nut low, when actually A3 is the nut low. LMFAO, you jopkester.

[Tyler Durden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Man, I really had everyone going. I called an $850 all-in in a pot under $300 with the NUT LOW, and had people convinced I was serious, and even a few people convinced that this play was +ev. Some of you guys really need to learn to think for yourselves.

Well, I guess that's it. Flame away!

[/ QUOTE ]

I was wondering why you kept calling it the nut low. Everyone knows the nut low is A3.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it's not.

[Shaun]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Man, I really had everyone going. I called an $850 all-in in a pot under $300 with the NUT LOW, and had people convinced I was serious, and even a few people convinced that this play was +ev. Some of you guys really need to learn to think for yourselves.

Well, I guess that's it. Flame away!

[/ QUOTE ]

I was wondering why you kept calling it the nut low. Everyone knows the nut low is A3.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it's not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me clarify: When said poster made his all-in bet, the board was Q92. If he were going for low, the "nut low" draw would be A3, not 34. By the river neither hand would be. It's important that we cleared that up and I thank you for pointing out the possible confusion.

[kagame]

i pay off idiots more than anyone else

all im going to say about image...

however im reminded of the overused quotation...

"never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups"

congrats forum!

[ginko]

This is almost as bad as KangKungFu's post with him calling off 1k with rags assuming his opponent misclicked. He called it "thinking at the highest level". ROFL

Who are you impressing kid? Quit acting like you are some poker genius or something, you're not.

I could sit here and argue that doing any EV- action is good for my meta game. But its all bullshit.

If anyone here assumes anything, its YOU. You assume people will notice this move(half wont), you assume people will apply this knowledge(half wont), you assume people will fall for this(half wont), you assume people will think you are smart and they will praise you(some will).


I already think at a higher level than you(always will).

[evil_twin]

[ QUOTE ]
This is almost as bad as KangKungFu's post with him calling... BLAH

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a joke right? Less funny than the original.

[ginko]

No, the guy had this huge thread with him bragging about his awesome play(much like this one).

Sad story.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
This is almost as bad as KangKungFu's post with him calling off 1k with rags assuming his opponent misclicked. He called it "thinking at the highest level". ROFL

Who are you impressing kid? Quit acting like you are some poker genius or something, you're not.

I could sit here and argue that doing any EV- action is good for my meta game. But its all bullshit.

If anyone here assumes anything, its YOU. You assume people will notice this move(half wont), you assume people will apply this knowledge(half wont), you assume people will fall for this(half wont), you assume people will think you are smart and they will praise you(some will).


I already think at a higher level than you(always will).

[/ QUOTE ]

You've been pwned and you don't even know it. I LOVE it.

[soah]

[ QUOTE ]
This is almost as bad as KangKungFu's post with him calling off 1k with rags assuming his opponent misclicked. He called it "thinking at the highest level". ROFL

[/ QUOTE ]

KKF raised all-in against a bet which was far from pot-committing. Obviously your reading comprehension skills need some work.

[emil3000]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is almost as bad as KangKungFu's post with him calling off 1k with rags assuming his opponent misclicked. He called it "thinking at the highest level". ROFL

[/ QUOTE ]

KKF raised all-in against a bet which was far from pot-committing. Obviously your reading comprehension skills need some work.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, hadn't he switched perspective ont that post? So that he made a 20BB steal or so with KK, hoping his opponent would read it for a misclick?

[fsuplayer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is almost as bad as KangKungFu's post with him calling off 1k with rags assuming his opponent misclicked. He called it "thinking at the highest level". ROFL

[/ QUOTE ]

KKF raised all-in against a bet which was far from pot-committing. Obviously your reading comprehension skills need some work.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, hadn't he switched perspective ont that post? So that he made a 20BB steal or so with KK, hoping his opponent would read it for a misclick?

[/ QUOTE ]\

yes.

[ethan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I already think at a higher level than you(always will).

[/ QUOTE ]

You've been pwned and you don't even know it. I LOVE it.

[/ QUOTE ]
This thread is awesome. It's only made better by the fact that the KKF hand being discussed had the players reversed, too.

[SmackinYaUp]

Wow, I was really dissappointed in ZJ after reading this thread. I kept thinking to myself what a dick he was, and why would he stubbornly refuse to consider other views. I'm glad it isn't so. NH.

[Oluwafemi]

had this been a $.50/$1 NL sardine who made this play and dared excuse it as an image builder with metagame considerations, this thread would have been over the first [5] replies of, "you're kidding, right?"