Is this cold call acceptable, marginal, or terrible

[blackize]

UTG is a rock and raising with AK or better, my pokertracker stats on him have a VPIP of 10% over 50 hands so it is more likely that he is raising a big pair here. The SB is a complete maniac and caps or bets every street post flop. I cold called the raise here with position and what I thought were enormous implied odds.

I missed bets on the flop and turn since if I raise the SB will almost certainly 3 bet, but I wanted UTG to stick around for the ride so I didn't go nuts until the river. So given how it played out was my estimation of the implied odds involved justification for the cold call here?

Party Poker 2/4 Hold'em (10 max, 9 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is Button with 6/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, 6/images/graemlins/club.gif.
<font color="#CC3333">UTG raises</font>, <font color="#666666">5 folds</font>, Hero calls, SB calls, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>.

Flop: (7 SB) T/images/graemlins/spade.gif, T/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 6/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
SB checks, <font color="#CC3333">UTG bets</font>, Hero calls, SB calls.

Turn: (5 BB) 4/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
SB checks, <font color="#CC3333">UTG bets</font>, Hero calls, SB calls.

River: (8 BB) 3/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">SB bets</font>, UTG calls, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, <font color="#CC3333">SB 3-bets</font>, UTG calls, <font color="#CC3333">Hero caps</font>, SB calls, UTG calls.

Final Pot: 20 BB

[axioma]

its terrible.

if youre cold calling with small pairs looking for the set, you need a multi-way pot, as well as somekind of special circamstance.

[Buck_65]

It is especially terrible to be playing 9 handed 6max tables. Looks like we found a couple leaks in your game.

[jba]

it is terrible. you are only going to get 3.5:2 immediately and 6:2 at best on that call. This means you need to make up about 5-6 bbs ON AVERAGE which is not going to happen against two opponents.

[meep_42]

[ QUOTE ]
its terrible.

if youre cold calling with small pairs looking for the set, you need a multi-way pot, as well as somekind of special circamstance.

[/ QUOTE ]

And when you get there, you need to get the most band for your buck. I'm guessing by the action that UTG had a big pair with a heart and SB probably had another big heart. Given your reads, I think you missed approximately 7 beelion bets here, especially if the turn and river don't come runner-runner /images/graemlins/heart.gifs.

-d

[GrunchCan]

The inclusion of the maniac does help your implied odds, but I doubt he helps enough to make up for the short table. This is still a fold PF for me.

Furthermore, raise the flop. The maniac is unlikely to fold and might give you action, and the same is true for UTG. With the drawy board, your opponents and your position, this hand is a cash register. All you gotta do is keep hitting the 'open drawer' button.

[Quad_Damage]

That was AWFUL. If the guy is a rock, why would you even think of calling with a small pair? On top of that, there were no callers, so that makes it even worse. If 3 or more of the folders had cold-called then it might have been on the low end of marginal, but you're basically cold-calling to two outs. You simply got lucky. I hope you don't make posts berating people for doing similar things to you.

Also, I dunno what implied odds you're talking about. You were against 2 opponents... one was a maniac, so he's the only one you can count on for action... not nearly enough to justify the call.

[private joker]

I don't like the cold-call, but I like the post-flop play, actually. You waited for SB to get a good second best hand (I'm assuming he had the A/images/graemlins/heart.gif), and you let UTG+1 bet your hand for you with KK or whatever.

As for preflop, I'm folding or 3-betting. If the blinds will fold to a 3-bet, then you might be able to take the pot down on a flop like J93 when he whiffs his AK, or on a flop like A85 when he has QQ. If he caps PF and leads the flop, set it or forget it.

But that's an expensive way to steal the pot, so I think all told I'd muck.

[PokerBob]

This call sucks.

[blackize]

Fixed the HH. Its a 10 max table.

Im 1-7.5 to flop a set. Im getting 1.75-1 on my call right now and it will be 2.75 to 1 once the SB calls. Now if I only continue when I hit a set then I can expect to lose 6.5BBs on the call. To make this call breakeven I have to be able to pick up 6.5BBs on the times I do flop a set.

Now UTG is a rock, but he overplays his hands when he gets involved. The maniac really likes to bet. In this case, I pick up 2BBs on the turn and 8BBs on the river which more than offset the expected value of the call. Had I played this perfectly I could have expected to pick up 16.5BB's, and I think this more than offsets the call.

[blackize]

Actually UTG had AA with the Ace of hearts and the maniac had either 45 or 56 with 1 heart.

[W. Deranged]

Your thinking is much too results-oriented here. Notice the confluence of events that occurred on your hand to encourage action:

1. One of your opponents had aces.
2. The board put four hearts up.
3. Three players got to the river.

In a three-handed pot, you will very rarely have circumstances nearly so good. 6.5 BB is really a huge number. To reach that kind of implied payoff, you need to have confidence that two opponents will put in a big bet on each street, or betting will have to get crazy at some point. You cannot count on this!!! 4 BB might be a reasonable expectation, but 6.5 is extremely optimistic.

[blackize]

At least 3 players have been getting to the river every hand because of the maniac. The average pot size at this table was 9BBs and would have been higher if everyone weren't so afraid of the maniac. Most people were letting him bet. I bet and let him raise. Every pot I involved myself in during my session at this table I had the nuts or near nuts for and easily drove the pot size up to 20+BBs.

[slavic]

Preflop, I know you want to play with the maniac. We all do, but you don't have to take small advantages versus a maniac, he will give you plaenty of opportunities to outplay him when you have a very large edge. In this case you have what you think is an uber tight player raising in first position, your hand needs to be very strong to cold call and maybe a notch weaker to 3 bet, but we aren't talking about many hands here(Big pairs and AK). Just because a bad player may come in doesn't mean you can loosen up against other players. In 3 way pots small pairs really lose quite a bit of value, you don't get odds for a set, and the reverse implide odds strip their pair value.

[slavic]

BTW Dynasty will likely disagree with me here.

[blackize]

[ QUOTE ]
In 3 way pots small pairs really lose quite a bit of value, you don't get odds for a set, and the reverse implide odds strip their pair value.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read my analysis of the implied odds above. Then tell me why I'm wrong.

[slavic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In 3 way pots small pairs really lose quite a bit of value, you don't get odds for a set, and the reverse implide odds strip their pair value.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read my analysis of the implied odds above. Then tell me why I'm wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

see below

but you don't have to take small advantages versus a maniac, he will give you plaenty of opportunities to outplay him when you have a very large edge.

[blackize]

Why not push both the small edges and the big ones? Besides the only good hands I got for the 75 hands that table was good were small pocket pairs.

I learned that the pot was getting jammed every hand so the implied odds went through to roof.

[blackize]

[ QUOTE ]
To reach that kind of implied payoff, you need to have confidence that two opponents will put in a big bet on each street, or betting will have to get crazy at some point. You cannot count on this!!! 4 BB might be a reasonable expectation, but 6.5 is extremely optimistic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can count on this since it has been true every hand for the last 30 minutes. This maniac was raising every hand preflop, but he never 3 bet. He was raising every street post flop, so I could reasonably expect the betting to get crazy at some point.

[slavic]

If you are saying you had several sets in 75 hands that is more analogous to having the deck hit you in the face than to pushing small edges.

As I stated in my post several people disagree with my statements, and in a tougher game I do often play small pairs when it seems that I'm not getting proper preflop odds, but there are a few things that I'm looking for.
1) I can get in cheap
2) The players will pay me off.

What you present is that it may cost me 2, 3, or 4 bets to play preflop, and the player that I expect to pay me off sufficient to compensate for these extra bets has not acted yet and may very well fold.

[axioma]

so he was raising every street each hand... except the one time you happen to be in. sure.

youve posted a very basic hand, with a clear correct solution, and now you are getting all defensive when you dont like what you hear. if you were a bit more reasonable people might be more inclined to explain it to you.

the call was terrible, end of discussion.

[Hamlet]

I agree with W. Deranged here. I think you're over-estimating your implied odds. By my calculations, there is about a 16% chance by the river that the overpair will have made its set (4 cards to hit 45/47*44/46*43/45*42/44). You will lose alot on those hands. Sometimes the board will come 4 hearts when you don't fill. Once in a while the maniac will beat your set. Even on the board you flopped, the Aces still have 4 outs (a ten screws you)

I'd be interested in seeing a showdonw win% assuming you flop a six and are against AA and a random hand. If I get a chance I'll run it on TTH.

[Weebl]

FWIW,
What if any point is the cut off for pairs that are acceptable cold calls in this situation.

I figure rebump with everything TT and up.

So is 99, 88 acceptable and nothing else? Or should we rebump 99, 88 as well and muck everything else.

Cold calling does suck though, I tend to think raise or fold.

Anyone?

[blackize]

I am getting defensive because nobody has provided me with an adequate explanation as to why this call is bad. The maniac had been going nuts in every pot up to this point. In this situation, it worked out in my favor. I could post hand after hand of this maniac going nuts to SHOW you all that the implied odds were there.

Just look at the maniac's play on the river, he has either a 4 or 5 high flush and he went nuts. He was doing this on every street for most hands.

Yes it is odd that the maniac did not go crazy earlier in this hand, but it does not change the fact that I can assume that I will be getting the right implied odds based on the fact that for the last 50 or so hands he HAS gone nuts.

[adamstewart]

<font color="red">[ QUOTE ]
UTG is a rock and raising with AK or better, my pokertracker stats on him have a VPIP of 10% over 50 hands so it is more likely that he is raising a big pair here.

[/ QUOTE ]</font>


I tried to make that part stand out, because you must have missed it while you were playing this hand!!



[ QUOTE ]
The SB is a complete maniac and caps or bets every street post flop. I cold called the raise here with position and what I thought were enormous implied odds.


[/ QUOTE ]

Be honest with yourself.... you're trying to justify a horrible call (both then and now). This read on SB does not negate your read on UTG - not even close.




Adam

[blackize]

If he has AK I am a favorite. If he has a big pair I am a 4-1 dog. I don't particularly care either way since I am playing for a set on the flop knowing that the big pair will pay me off and the maniac will go nuts.

Yes there will be times when my hand gets counterfeited or beat, but those are rare after I flop my set and the 20+BB pots I take down make up for the questionable call preflop.

[meep_42]

Also, when determining the implied odds of small PP (those that are quite unlikely to win without improvement), you should use something better than 7.5:1, as you're not continuing on many flops that don't give you a set AND you have to take into account the times your set loses (and you likely lose many bets postflop). I've seen 10:1 cited as a good rule of thumb, but am willing to bump it down to 9:1 a lot of the time, because I like to play poker.

-d

[jskills]

Fold preflop - given he's a rock and no other callers.

But sweet hand after that ...

[blackize]

In this case I am not continuing on ANY flop that doesnt yield a set based on my read of UTG.

Given that 10-1 number, if I can expect to see a 20+BB pot every hand, is putting in 1BB preflop so bad? If so please explain why.

[adamstewart]

[ QUOTE ]
If he has AK I am a favorite. If he has a big pair I am a 4-1 dog. I don't particularly care either way since I am playing for a set on the flop knowing that the big pair will pay me off and the maniac will go nuts.

Yes there will be times when my hand gets counterfeited or beat, but those are rare after I flop my set and the 20+BB pots I take down make up for the questionable call preflop.

[/ QUOTE ]



What do you want me to say?

Okay, fine. You're right. Keep cold-calling super-tight-TAG-UTG-raisers with 66 in these situations. I'm sure it'll work out well for you.


Adam

[adamstewart]

[ QUOTE ]
In this case I am not continuing on ANY flop that doesnt yield a set based on my read of UTG.

[/ QUOTE ]

So on one hand you're saying that you may even be a slight favourite if UTG has 66. Then you're saying that you'd fold if you don't flop a set..... ARE YOU STARTING TO SEE SOME OF THE FLAWS WITH YOUR REASONING?

[ QUOTE ]

Given that 10-1 number, if I can expect to see a 20+BB pot every hand, is putting in 1BB preflop so bad? If so please explain why.

[/ QUOTE ]


[b]Because you can't expect to win a 20 BB pot every time!!! (or even 10 BB for that matter). All you have is a read that SB is a maniac. There's no telling what he'll do. He may fold behind you! He may fold the flop! Both players may fold at any point..... This is gonna be a 2-3 handed pot... rarely do such pots get up over 10 BB's.

[blackize]

[ QUOTE ]


Because you can't expect to win a 20 BB pot every time!!! (or even 10 BB for that matter). All you have is a read that SB is a maniac.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you misunderstanding what I am saying? The average pot size at this table was 10BB's. From watching the table play almost all of the pots could have been substantially larger if people were willing to get into a raising war with the maniac.

[ QUOTE ]
There's no telling what he'll do. He may fold behind you! He may fold the flop! Both players may fold at any point.....

[/ QUOTE ]

At this point I have probably 30 hands on the maniac. He has never folded. UTG I have about 30 hands on as well, he has 10% VPIP but of the hands I had seen him play he took them too far when he was obviously beat, it is unlikely that he will fold after raising UTG.

[ QUOTE ]
So on one hand you're saying that you may even be a slight favourite if UTG has 66. Then you're saying that you'd fold if you don't flop a set..... ARE YOU STARTING TO SEE SOME OF THE FLAWS WITH YOUR REASONING?

[/ QUOTE ]

Get your facts straight. I might even be a slight favorite over AK, the lowest of his possible holdings.

[jba]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
So on one hand you're saying that you may even be a slight favourite if UTG has 66. Then you're saying that you'd fold if you don't flop a set..... ARE YOU STARTING TO SEE SOME OF THE FLAWS WITH YOUR REASONING?

[/ QUOTE ]

Get your facts straight. I might even be a slight favorite over AK, the lowest of his possible holdings.

[/ QUOTE ]

he said 66, but he pretty clearly means AK.

the point is, you are not even close to being a favorite over AK. If you were both all-in, sure, but you are playing fit or fold on the flop and he is not.

[Hamlet]

I ran my TTH sim with 66 vs AA vs any2, assuming a 6 is on the flop. Even with a 6 on the flop, you will lose this pot 25% of the time. The AA will win 18.6% and the random hand will win 6.4% of the time.

So if you assume that the pots you lose are going to be the same size as the pots you win, you can pretty much cut your expected pot size in half and call that your net win when you flop a set.

If you really could be sure that your average pot was going to net the winner 20BB, it would be ok to call. I think that is very optimistic though. Even a maniac can fold. Sometimes the flop will be bad for the tight player and he will fold (whiffed with AK, JJ on a board of AK6, etc). I think that the absolute most you can average is going to be something like capped flop, 2 bets on the turn, 2 bets on the river. That gives you a net of (2.5+4+4+4) 14.5 Big Bets. Cut that in half for when you lose with a set, and you have about 7 to 1.

Even with this best case it's a loser. A few other possible problems. The maniac could 3-bet preflop-- You said he wasn't doing that, but I'm betting that if he looks down at AA-TT, AK, he'll 3-bet. Also, the BB could wake up with a hand and 3-bet. Either way, you're now trapped for 2 more small bets (asuming UTG caps).

[wyoak]

why did you post this hand if you're just going to be dismissive of the criticism? It appears you're already convinced in your mind that you're right.
anyway, given your reads, missing raises on the flop and the turn is absolutely atrocious. You say that the maniac never folds, and yet you only call the flop and the turn? Frankly you got lucky the fourth flush card came up so you could make up some of what you missed early in the hand. Without that fourth heart I'm pretty sure you wouldn't have hit your 'guaranteed' 20BB.

[ QUOTE ]
UTG I have about 30 hands on as well, he has 10% VPIP but of the hands I had seen him play he took them too far when he was obviously beat, it is unlikely that he will fold after raising UTG.

[/ QUOTE ]
this is bad and I don't think I need to explain why....

[SeaEagle]

[ QUOTE ]
The SB is a complete maniac and caps or bets every street post flop.

[/ QUOTE ]
On one hand you say this. On the other hand, the maniac doesn't raise 2 of the 3 postflop streets on the hand you show us. Which should we believe? As I see it, if a /images/graemlins/heart.gif doesn't river, your flopped FH will rake in a killer 10BB pot, 3.5 that you put in yourself.

Now if, in fact, this hand is not representative of maniac's play and he was raising every street postflop, not just when he made a flush, and every contested pot was 20BB+, then you should be limping with pretty much any two cards and calling a raise with many coordinated cards.

Incidentally, I don't like your turn call. Anybody that's going to pay chips on the river will pay chips on the turn. And there are 10 scare cards in the deck that will prevent you from getting your chips in on the river.

As long as we're being results oriented, based on the hand played, you left at least 2BB on the table by not raising the turn.

[blackize]

Hamlet thank you for your well thought out analysis. That is all I wanted. Perhaps I was being a bit optimistic in how big I could get the pot.

I could be mistaken here but it seems that the below doesn't work out mathematically.


[ QUOTE ]
So if you assume that the pots you lose are going to be the same size as the pots you win, you can pretty much cut your expected pot size in half and call that your net win when you flop a set.

[/ QUOTE ]

The pots I win are the same size as the pots I lose and the only pots we are concerned about here are the ones where I flop a set. Then I assume I win 25% of the time when I flop a set. Why then are we cutting the pot in half for the net win when I flop a set? Wouldnt it make more sense to cut the pot by 25%?

Just for kicks lets try to figure out what the end pot needs to be for the call to work out. -6.5BB for all the times I miss. .75x= 7.5 = 10BBs for the call to be breakeven.

[adamstewart]

[ QUOTE ]
At this point I have probably 30 hands on the maniac

[/ QUOTE ]

Well then! Why didn't you say so earlier.... 30 hands!

Forget everything I said. You are most certainly correct on this matter.


Adam

[adamstewart]

[ QUOTE ]
On one hand you say this. On the other hand, the maniac doesn't raise 2 of the 3 postflop streets on the hand you show us. Which should we believe?

[/ QUOTE ]


LMAO.. nice one!


I'm sure this was just a rarity. After all, OP has 30 hands of reads that say otherwise!!


Adam

[SeaEagle]

[ QUOTE ]
Just for kicks lets try to figure out what the end pot needs to be for the call to work out. -6.5BB for all the times I miss. .75x= 7.5 = 10BBs for the call to be breakeven.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you're just playing for the set, then you'll need a little bit more than 10BBs, since you'll lose bigger pots, on average, than you win.

On the other hand, there are spots where you can continue without flopping a set and this helps compensate somewhat, so clearing 10BBs is a decent rule of thumb.

Do you really think that you will get, on average, 5BBs from each of your opponents? I wasn't at the table, so I don't know. But I don't think I've ever sat at a table where the average 3-way pot was 15BB.

[blackize]

Yes this hand is misrepresentative of the SB's actions in other hands.

The average pot size is 10BB's, but as I stated could pretty easily be forced up to 20 if people weren't afraid of the maniac. I was confident that I could push the pot up to 20BBs anytime I had a hand.

You are right that I left a few bets on the table. I should have definitely raised the turn and maybe even the flop.

[blackize]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
On one hand you say this. On the other hand, the maniac doesn't raise 2 of the 3 postflop streets on the hand you show us. Which should we believe?




LMAO.. nice one!


I'm sure this was just a rarity. After all, OP has 30 hands of reads that say otherwise!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Dont be a dick. When someone doesnt fold and shows down things like bottom pair or mid pair every hand for 30 hands it generally means they are going to continue on that way. I agree with you that 30 hands is not enough for reads against most players, but against someone who does the same thing every hand regardless of what they are holding or how much heat they are facing I think you can gather a lot of information from those 30 hands.

[jjacky]

[ QUOTE ]
Hamlet thank you for your well thought out analysis. That is all I wanted. Perhaps I was being a bit optimistic in how big I could get the pot.

I could be mistaken here but it seems that the below doesn't work out mathematically.


[ QUOTE ]
So if you assume that the pots you lose are going to be the same size as the pots you win, you can pretty much cut your expected pot size in half and call that your net win when you flop a set.

[/ QUOTE ]

The pots I win are the same size as the pots I lose and the only pots we are concerned about here are the ones where I flop a set. Then I assume I win 25% of the time when I flop a set. Why then are we cutting the pot in half for the net win when I flop a set? Wouldnt it make more sense to cut the pot by 25%?

Just for kicks lets try to figure out what the end pot needs to be for the call to work out. -6.5BB for all the times I miss. .75x= 7.5 = 10BBs for the call to be breakeven.

[/ QUOTE ]

you forgot that you will lose plenty of money if you hit your set and lose anyway. in this case the pot will be biger than on average, making you lose about as much as you win on average when you win. that's why cutting it down 50% is (roughly) correct.


and to your "reads":
to think you know almost exactly how your opponents play after observing 30 - 50 hands is ... well, everybody knows how it is...

[shant]

You obviously should've called this a "float" and saved yourself all the criticism.

[blackize]

What's a float?

[jjacky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
On one hand you say this. On the other hand, the maniac doesn't raise 2 of the 3 postflop streets on the hand you show us. Which should we believe?




LMAO.. nice one!


I'm sure this was just a rarity. After all, OP has 30 hands of reads that say otherwise!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Dont be a dick. When someone doesnt fold and shows down things like bottom pair or mid pair every hand for 30 hands it generally means they are going to continue on that way. I agree with you that 30 hands is not enough for reads against most players, but against someone who does the same thing every hand regardless of what they are holding or how much heat they are facing I think you can gather a lot of information from those 30 hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

he raised every pot at every street so far, but not in this pot.
i would lay very high odds that it is simply not true.

and even if everything you wrote would be perfectly accurate, including that you had a guarantee to be able to push the pot up to 20BB your cold call would be marginally profitable at very best. and that is obviously (for everyone but you, i guess) not the case.

[jjacky]

[ QUOTE ]
FWIW,
What if any point is the cut off for pairs that are acceptable cold calls in this situation.

I figure rebump with everything TT and up.

So is 99, 88 acceptable and nothing else? Or should we rebump 99, 88 as well and muck everything else.

Cold calling does suck though, I tend to think raise or fold.

Anyone?

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree that cold calling sucks. but i think a 3-bet is even more out of line than a call. UTG will probably cap it and even in the very best situation you are only even money against UTG and SB might beat you with his near-random hand.

[jjacky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Because you can't expect to win a 20 BB pot every time!!! (or even 10 BB for that matter). All you have is a read that SB is a maniac.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you misunderstanding what I am saying? The average pot size at this table was 10BB's. From watching the table play almost all of the pots could have been substantially larger if people were willing to get into a raising war with the maniac.

[ QUOTE ]
There's no telling what he'll do. He may fold behind you! He may fold the flop! Both players may fold at any point.....

[/ QUOTE ]

At this point I have probably 30 hands on the maniac. He has never folded. UTG I have about 30 hands on as well, he has 10% VPIP but of the hands I had seen him play he took them too far when he was obviously beat, it is unlikely that he will fold after raising UTG.

[ QUOTE ]
So on one hand you're saying that you may even be a slight favourite if UTG has 66. Then you're saying that you'd fold if you don't flop a set..... ARE YOU STARTING TO SEE SOME OF THE FLAWS WITH YOUR REASONING?

[/ QUOTE ]

Get your facts straight. I might even be a slight favorite over AK, the lowest of his possible holdings.

[/ QUOTE ]

everybody tells you that you are wrong. you should focus on understanding why. do you honestly think that there is any chance that you are correct and everyone else is not?

[blackize]

[ QUOTE ]
everybody tells you that you are wrong. you should focus on understanding why. do you honestly think that there is any chance that you are correct and everyone else is not?

[/ QUOTE ]

It has been true all my life. Why would it be different now? And since the first 30 posts or so of this thread offered no explanation or thought to their responses should I just take their word at face value?

If I do take their word at face value, how does that help me or anyone reading this thread to improve as a poker player? Explanations help to change minds and rid people(myself included) of incorrect thought lines.

I also can dismiss anyone who isn't being constructive in my learning process(Adam)

[damaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
And since the first 30 posts or so of this thread offered no explanation or thought to their responses should I just take their word at face value?


[/ QUOTE ]

I should think 30 posts explaining why you were wrong should have been enough. After that, any explanation is a waste of time.

[ QUOTE ]
If I do take their word at face value, how does that help me or anyone reading this thread to improve as a poker player? Explanations help to change minds and rid people(myself included) of incorrect thought lines.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what everyone has been doing. You've just decided you don't want to accept any of it, which you can do all you want at your risk.

[ QUOTE ]

I also can dismiss anyone who isn't being constructive in my learning process(Adam)

[/ QUOTE ]

As well as anyone who disagrees with your play at all.

[baronzeus]

I think coldcalling here is bad. Sure, you will win some pots without hitting your set (straights, etc) but you will also lose with your set some % of the time.

As a general rule, I like to say, if I call this for 1BB now, I need to make sure I extract 7BB from the villain(s) in all the streets combined if I flop my set, or otherwise hit the flop. Did you do that here? Yes, but you got incredibly lucky that the river 4flushed and someone had Ah and that someone was also an idiot. On average, against such players when a normal board comes up which gives you a set, you can only make 5 BB or so total, assuming that both stay till the river. On average, it's a pretty bad call.

Hands like 88 and 99 are borderline, since you'll flop over another low percentage of the time, maybe making this call slightly (if at all) +EV.

[TiltsMcFabulous]

The play on every street of this hand except the river is dreadful.

~ Tilts

[private joker]

I don't think any situation in which we have a hand worth calling 1 bet with but we actualy cold-call 2 bets with is an "awful" or "terrible" mistake.

It can be bad and it can be a leak (I think both of these apply), but the really "awful" mistakes are ones that lead to losing entire pots by folding when we should call, checking when we should bet, or calling when we should raise, etc.

Preflop cold-calls vs. calls are minor mistakes in comparison and I think people are beating up on the OP too much in this hand for an inadvisable cold-call. Sure, his method of debate could be more diplomatic, but in terms of the preflop play itself, it's not off the charts bad.

[baronzeus]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think any situation in which we have a hand worth calling 1 bet with but we actualy cold-call 2 bets with is an "awful" or "terrible" mistake.

It can be bad and it can be a leak (I think both of these apply), but the really "awful" mistakes are ones that lead to losing entire pots by folding when we should call, checking when we should bet, or calling when we should raise, etc.

Preflop cold-calls vs. calls are minor mistakes in comparison and I think people are beating up on the OP too much in this hand for an inadvisable cold-call. Sure, his method of debate could be more diplomatic, but in terms of the preflop play itself, it's not off the charts bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is, when a lot of newer players see this type of hand, they overvalue pocket pairs. For my first 10K hands or so I was losing more than I should have with 22-66 because I simply overvalued the worth of hitting a set.

[slavic]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think any situation in which we have a hand worth calling 1 bet with but we actualy cold-call 2 bets with is an "awful" or "terrible" mistake.

It can be bad and it can be a leak (I think both of these apply), but the really "awful" mistakes are ones that lead to losing entire pots by folding when we should call, checking when we should bet, or calling when we should raise, etc.

Preflop cold-calls vs. calls are minor mistakes in comparison and I think people are beating up on the OP too much in this hand for an inadvisable cold-call. Sure, his method of debate could be more diplomatic, but in terms of the preflop play itself, it's not off the charts bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

In fairness to the respondents to the OP, he did ask about the cold call.

[jjacky]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think any situation in which we have a hand worth calling 1 bet with but we actualy cold-call 2 bets with is an "awful" or "terrible" mistake.

It can be bad and it can be a leak (I think both of these apply), but the really "awful" mistakes are ones that lead to losing entire pots by folding when we should call, checking when we should bet, or calling when we should raise, etc.

Preflop cold-calls vs. calls are minor mistakes in comparison and I think people are beating up on the OP too much in this hand for an inadvisable cold-call. Sure, his method of debate could be more diplomatic, but in terms of the preflop play itself, it's not off the charts bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

one very bad cold call like this one doesn't cost as much as folding a hand that is good. but it costs probably about one sb and situations where incorrect cold calls are possible occur very often. i would guesstimate that the habit to cold call much more frequently than optimal may very well cost 3BB/100 hands or more.

[jjacky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
everybody tells you that you are wrong. you should focus on understanding why. do you honestly think that there is any chance that you are correct and everyone else is not?

[/ QUOTE ]

It has been true all my life. Why would it be different now? And since the first 30 posts or so of this thread offered no explanation or thought to their responses should I just take their word at face value?

If I do take their word at face value, how does that help me or anyone reading this thread to improve as a poker player? Explanations help to change minds and rid people(myself included) of incorrect thought lines.

I also can dismiss anyone who isn't being constructive in my learning process(Adam)

[/ QUOTE ]

1. many posters gave a reasoning (not 3 page essays, but i doubt it is necessary for a problem as simple as this one).
2. if everybody tells you that you are wrong it is pretty obvious that you are.
3. the one who is least constructive with your learning process is you. you try very hard NOT to understand why you made a mistake.

[LinusKS]

Hamlet - nice post, and I agree the biggest problem with this play is the times you flop a set and still lose.

But I'm not sure about cutting net set profits in half when he loses 25%.

According to my rough math it looks like you should cut his net profits by 37%, not half.

I figured he put 6.5BBs into a 20bb pot, leaving him a 13.5BB profit when he wins.

But he loses 6.5BBs when his set is no good. If you average that out, that leaves him with an 8.5BB profit for all the times he makes a set.

13.5*3 = 40.5
-6.5 = 34
/4 = 8.5. (I could be going about this wrong, so please let me know if I am.)

Anyway, if you compare that to the 7.5BBs he loses when he misses the flop, that still leaves him a 1BB profit.



[ QUOTE ]
I ran my TTH sim with 66 vs AA vs any2, assuming a 6 is on the flop. Even with a 6 on the flop, you will lose this pot 25% of the time. The AA will win 18.6% and the random hand will win 6.4% of the time.

So if you assume that the pots you lose are going to be the same size as the pots you win, you can pretty much cut your expected pot size in half and call that your net win when you flop a set.

If you really could be sure that your average pot was going to net the winner 20BB, it would be ok to call. I think that is very optimistic though. Even a maniac can fold. Sometimes the flop will be bad for the tight player and he will fold (whiffed with AK, JJ on a board of AK6, etc). I think that the absolute most you can average is going to be something like capped flop, 2 bets on the turn, 2 bets on the river. That gives you a net of (2.5+4+4+4) 14.5 Big Bets. Cut that in half for when you lose with a set, and you have about 7 to 1.

Even with this best case it's a loser. A few other possible problems. The maniac could 3-bet preflop-- You said he wasn't doing that, but I'm betting that if he looks down at AA-TT, AK, he'll 3-bet. Also, the BB could wake up with a hand and 3-bet. Either way, you're now trapped for 2 more small bets (asuming UTG caps).

[/ QUOTE ]

[jjacky]

[ QUOTE ]
Hamlet - nice post, and I agree the biggest problem with this play is the times you flop a set and still lose.

But I'm not sure about cutting net set profits in half when he loses 25%.

According to my rough math it looks like you should cut his net profits by 37%, not half.

I figured he put 6.5BBs into a 20bb pot, leaving him a 13.5BB profit when he wins.

But he loses 6.5BBs when his set is no good. If you average that out, that leaves him with an 8.5BB profit for all the times he makes a set.

13.5*3 = 40.5
-6.5 = 34
/4 = 8.5. (I could be going about this wrong, so please let me know if I am.)

Anyway, if you compare that to the 7.5BBs he loses when he misses the flop, that still leaves him a 1BB profit.



[ QUOTE ]
I ran my TTH sim with 66 vs AA vs any2, assuming a 6 is on the flop. Even with a 6 on the flop, you will lose this pot 25% of the time. The AA will win 18.6% and the random hand will win 6.4% of the time.

So if you assume that the pots you lose are going to be the same size as the pots you win, you can pretty much cut your expected pot size in half and call that your net win when you flop a set.

If you really could be sure that your average pot was going to net the winner 20BB, it would be ok to call. I think that is very optimistic though. Even a maniac can fold. Sometimes the flop will be bad for the tight player and he will fold (whiffed with AK, JJ on a board of AK6, etc). I think that the absolute most you can average is going to be something like capped flop, 2 bets on the turn, 2 bets on the river. That gives you a net of (2.5+4+4+4) 14.5 Big Bets. Cut that in half for when you lose with a set, and you have about 7 to 1.

Even with this best case it's a loser. A few other possible problems. The maniac could 3-bet preflop-- You said he wasn't doing that, but I'm betting that if he looks down at AA-TT, AK, he'll 3-bet. Also, the BB could wake up with a hand and 3-bet. Either way, you're now trapped for 2 more small bets (asuming UTG caps).

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

take two things in consideration:

-hero will put in more than 33% of the money in the pot on average if he stays to the end since it is not sure that both opponents stay to the end.
-if hero is beat with a set or better, someone else must have an extremely strong hand. that means the average pot when he is beaten should be higher than when his hand is good.

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]

2. if everybody tells you that you are wrong it is pretty obvious that you are.


[/ QUOTE ]

Nonsense.

If nobody can explain why, most likely it's because they can't.

And if they can't, there's no reason to assume they're right, no matter how many of them there are.

[LinusKS]

I agree. Things went very well for the OP in this hand.

He flopped a boat against (apparently) two flushes. It doesn't get much better than that. I think the 20BB pot is closer to the maximum he'd expect to get, not the the average.

I haven't done the math, but if you consider his average set pot value at closer to 15 or 16 BBs, rather than twenty, I suspect any EV will disappear.

[ QUOTE ]

take two things in consideration:

-hero will put in more than 33% of the money in the pot on average if he stays to the end since it is not sure that both opponents stay to the end.
-if hero is beat with a set or better, someone else must have an extremely strong hand. that means the average pot when he is beaten should be higher than when his hand is good.

[/ QUOTE ]

[adamstewart]

[ QUOTE ]
-hero will put in more than 33% of the money in the pot on average if he stays to the end since it is not sure that both opponents stay to the end.


[/ QUOTE ]


Excellent point. I'm just not sure if the original poster will be able to grasp this concept.


Adam

[jjacky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

2. if everybody tells you that you are wrong it is pretty obvious that you are.


[/ QUOTE ]

Nonsense.

If nobody can explain why, most likely it's because they can't.

And if they can't, there's no reason to assume they're right, no matter how many of them there are.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, "If nobody can explain why, most likely it's because they can't."
that's undoubtedly true. but it doesn't fit the situation since many poster gave a reasoning.

[jjacky]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree. Things went very well for the OP in this hand.

He flopped a boat against (apparently) two flushes. It doesn't get much better than that. I think the 20BB pot is closer to the maximum he'd expect to get, not the the average.

I haven't done the math, but if you consider his average set pot value at closer to 15 or 16 BBs, rather than twenty, I suspect any EV will disappear.

[ QUOTE ]

take two things in consideration:

-hero will put in more than 33% of the money in the pot on average if he stays to the end since it is not sure that both opponents stay to the end.
-if hero is beat with a set or better, someone else must have an extremely strong hand. that means the average pot when he is beaten should be higher than when his hand is good.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

according to my calculations, with an average pot of 20 BB (highly unrealistic) the cold call would be marginal. with 15 BB (still too high) it would be a clear fold.

[jjacky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
-hero will put in more than 33% of the money in the pot on average if he stays to the end since it is not sure that both opponents stay to the end.


[/ QUOTE ]


Excellent point. I'm just not sure if the original poster will be able to grasp this concept.


Adam

[/ QUOTE ]

dunno. it's somewhat sophisticated...

[LinusKS]

The first good explanation I saw was Hamlet's.

The OP's play was interesting. Honestly, I probably wouldn't have thought of it, until he explained it. I think it's probably a long run loser, but it's not terrible.

The insults to explanations ratio had to be at least 5:1. Which says more about the forum than the poster.

[jjacky]

[ QUOTE ]
The first good explanation I saw was Hamlet's.

The OP's play was interesting. Honestly, I probably wouldn't have thought of it, until he explained it. I think it's probably a long run loser, but it's not terrible.

The insults to explanations ratio had to be at least 5:1. Which says more about the forum than the poster.

[/ QUOTE ]

i must have missed most of the insults.

do you count writing the play was terrible as an insult after getting asked for it?

[mosch]

[ QUOTE ]


but you don't have to take small advantages versus a maniac, he will give you plaenty of opportunities to outplay him when you have a very large edge.

[/ QUOTE ]

This sounds like a paraphrase of the advice that Mike Caro gives in the 7cs chapter of s/s. The thing is... if you have the financial and emotional ability to deal with the variance, there's no reason not to push small edges, too.

The worst case scenario is that the maniac gets more chips, and is able to stay in business that much longer. This isn't a bad situation, as most players play very poorly with a maniac at the table. (And the maniacs chips are always in play)

That being said, I fold this one pre-flop, as I don't see an edge... this just looks like a "gambool" play to me. Fun to do, but not profitable. Save this move for your drunken home game.