richard
10-15-2003, 02:30 PM
PartyPoker, $25NL, 10-handed, I am in BB w AKo. Early player (EP), first in, goes all-in for $10, all fold to SB who calls. I'm fairly new to the table, but neither player has shown unusual looseness or aggression so far, although table is loose/aggressive. SB has me covered.
I know most players would call (which I would have done had not SB called), or, more likely, raise, but I folded. Here is my thinking...
Assuming EP would only play AA (3 possibilities), KK (3), QQ (6), JJ (6), AK (9), or AQ (12), then 1/13 of the time I am a huge dog (vs AA), 1/13 of the time I am a big dog (vs KK), 4/13 of the time I am a slight dog (vs QQ, JJ), 3/13 of the time I am close to even (vs AK - possibily suited), and 4/13 of the time I am dominating (vs AQ).
SB may well have any of those or more, since he chose not to reraise to isolate.
So for (EP) only, I'm roughly 6/13 behind, 3/13 about even, and 4/13 ahead.
Against 1 opponent, that sounds like a good time to play getting 2 to 1 for my money, but one of my problems is that I have 2 opponents, at least one, if not both, of which are telling me they have big mits. The other problem arises if (when) I miss the flop (which I mostly do with AK, especially considering that some of my outs are almost certainly used up), I am going to have to pay big to try to draw out.
And if I'm not willing to do that then I'm only going to see 3 cards for my money.
This seems like a situation that would be fine for many gamblers, but for those of us who at least "try" to minimize gambling and variance, this does not feel like as desirable a situation as many that I will find if I just pass and remain patient.
However, I'm open to persuasive arguments otherwise.... Thanks!
PS...Both players had QQ and a K flopped.
I know most players would call (which I would have done had not SB called), or, more likely, raise, but I folded. Here is my thinking...
Assuming EP would only play AA (3 possibilities), KK (3), QQ (6), JJ (6), AK (9), or AQ (12), then 1/13 of the time I am a huge dog (vs AA), 1/13 of the time I am a big dog (vs KK), 4/13 of the time I am a slight dog (vs QQ, JJ), 3/13 of the time I am close to even (vs AK - possibily suited), and 4/13 of the time I am dominating (vs AQ).
SB may well have any of those or more, since he chose not to reraise to isolate.
So for (EP) only, I'm roughly 6/13 behind, 3/13 about even, and 4/13 ahead.
Against 1 opponent, that sounds like a good time to play getting 2 to 1 for my money, but one of my problems is that I have 2 opponents, at least one, if not both, of which are telling me they have big mits. The other problem arises if (when) I miss the flop (which I mostly do with AK, especially considering that some of my outs are almost certainly used up), I am going to have to pay big to try to draw out.
And if I'm not willing to do that then I'm only going to see 3 cards for my money.
This seems like a situation that would be fine for many gamblers, but for those of us who at least "try" to minimize gambling and variance, this does not feel like as desirable a situation as many that I will find if I just pass and remain patient.
However, I'm open to persuasive arguments otherwise.... Thanks!
PS...Both players had QQ and a K flopped.