Re: Really good post Josh, now how about the results.....n/m
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But I will...

I folded.

UTG won.

I woulda beat both HJ and button.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF?

This is so lame.

You put all your opponents on very precise hands (basically set vs. AJ vs. AQ/AK), now you won't tells us what they were? You don't even tell us if you would have beat utg.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't thinking set for UTG... I thought T9 or 87 were slightly more likely.

Josh

Re: Really good post Josh, now how about the results.....n/m
 

First, you don't need to worry about me not posting just because you don't give results.

I think you're misunderstanding the purpose behind posting results, however. Perhaps for some, or maybe even many, its to simply satisfy their curiousity, or they think that they can prove their point by reading them. The merit in results lies in how it adds to the analysis. I'm sure there were many people that agreed with your analysis, and your decision. Learning, lets say, that UTG+1 had 88, however would help them learn not to be so specific in assigning hands/ranges. Having complete information helps each of us understand the thought process of each player in the hand, so we can better understand what a 38/12 might play that way, since nothing really makes sense.

It can only add to the insight provided by the original post, thats my point. Whether you were right or not doesn't make it a great laydown if you were completely off how you arrived at your decision. Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons in a game of incomplete information is essentially doing the wrong thing. If you made a mistake that worked out well, we could all learn from how you arrived at the wrong conclusion, or at the right one.


lf

Re: Unusual AKo hand, 30-60
 

But they surely have a reasonable chance of having an ace when they call. That being the case, that raises the chance of the bettor having a hand that beats Josh. Not saying it means Josh should fold, just saying it should be considered in his thinking.

Re: Really good post Josh, now how about the results.....n/m
 

OMG, you folded the winner didn't you?!

Re: Really good post Josh, now how about the results.....n/m
 

[ QUOTE ]
OMG, you folded the winner didn't you?!

[/ QUOTE ]

I've done worse.

Re: Really good post Josh, now how about the results.....n/m
 

[ QUOTE ]
Secondly, we are poker players. Thus, we strive to not be results oriented. Results really don't matter.

[/ QUOTE ]
2+2ers say this all the time, and I've never agreed with it. Seeing results helps us refine our hand reading skills. For instance, say you assign specific, narrow ranges to your opponents' holdings, and they showdown hands outside those ranges. You have to decide if it's a fluke or if you need to adjust your reads for the next time you're in a similar spot.

We mostly work on hand reading while we play, but there's no reason we can't do it here as well. Seeing what opponents had helps.

Re: Really good post Josh, now how about the results.....n/m
 

Allow me to bump up what I thought was a very interesting thread with a quick question.

I agree the decision is extremely close. +EV or -EV I think has to be based on the assumption of # times he'll chop and % that UTG will be bluffing into three opponents. Josh was there to make the assessment, we weren't who are we to judge that.

I guess I have two questions:

1) It sounds like you're leaning more toward it being EV neutral than -EV at this point. Is that a correct assessment, or do you feel it's a -EV call?

2) If you feel it's EV neutral, care to walk us through the decision to fold rather than call? This seems to be a variance issue, but on EV neutral marginal river calls, I tend to make the calls. Probably mostly for the mental factor...makes me feel good to win a huge pot and I get really pissed if I folded the best hand in a massive pot, whereas I'm not bothered at all if I throw away one bet to see if I'm best with a marginal holding. I'd love your insight into this...

- C -

Re: Really good post Josh, now how about the results.....n/m
 

[ QUOTE ]
Allow me to bump up what I thought was a very interesting thread with a quick question.

I agree the decision is extremely close. +EV or -EV I think has to be based on the assumption of # times he'll chop and % that UTG will be bluffing into three opponents. Josh was there to make the assessment, we weren't who are we to judge that.

I guess I have two questions:

1) It sounds like you're leaning more toward it being EV neutral than -EV at this point. Is that a correct assessment, or do you feel it's a -EV call?

2) If you feel it's EV neutral, care to walk us through the decision to fold rather than call? This seems to be a variance issue, but on EV neutral marginal river calls, I tend to make the calls. Probably mostly for the mental factor...makes me feel good to win a huge pot and I get really pissed if I folded the best hand in a massive pot, whereas I'm not bothered at all if I throw away one bet to see if I'm best with a marginal holding. I'd love your insight into this...

- C -

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't write much now, but don't think I need to.

Even though I'm now claiming that it's pretty close, and the time, I thought it was a fairly easy fold.

Contrary to popular belief, I didn't post this to brag. I posted it to learn. While learning, my stance has changed.

My gut reaction at the time was "easy fold", because I didn't take into account the LAGgy nature of UTG. However, people here have pointed out that his play won't always make sense.

So, yeah, I think it's close. But at the time, I didn't. I thought it was easy to fold, which is why I folded.

Hope that makes sense.

Given how close I think it is now, I may have called if in the same spot again....but I don't think so.

Josh

Re: Really good post Josh, now how about the results.....n/m
 

Definitely makes sense, thanks for clarifying.

If anyone wants to weigh in on their thoughts about why they would call/fold EV neutral hands on the river aside from what I noted above, I think it could make for interesting discussion...

Maybe for a new thread?

- C -