Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Tournament Poker > One-table Tournaments
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-20-2005, 04:34 PM
QUADS4444 QUADS4444 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 14
Default Harrington\'s call

Harrington Volume II, page 348,

Three handed STT NL.
Blinds 250/500
No reads.

Button (4140) raises to 1000.
SB (3480) folds.
Hero BB (2380) with Q6o.

Harrington recommends a CALL.

Does anybody else have a problem with this? Sure pot odds are tempting 3.5/1, but OOP with Q6o????? What are your minimum calling requirements here?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-20-2005, 04:45 PM
schwza schwza is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 113
Default Re: Harrington\'s call

lemme tell you, they don't include Q6.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-20-2005, 05:20 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Harrington\'s call

...yea it does. It's not even close, it's an easy call. What are you afraid of to not call a 3.5-to-1? You have better odds than that against JACKS. Sure you won't know if your queen is any good even if you hit it, but what does it matter? He doesn't know if his hand is any good either. You have to assume that any high pair is good when the blinds are that high.

...yea it does. It's not even close, it's an easy call. What are you afraid of to not call a 3.5-to-1? You have better odds than that against JACKS. Sure you won't know if your queen is any good even if you hit it, but what does it matter? He doesn't know if his hand is any good either. You have to assume that any high pair is good when the blinds are that high.

Edit: To answer the question about calling requirements, I would say Jack-crap is borderline. This is not because now you can be an underdog to a slightly larger field. It's because you should stuff your money in with medium pair or better when the blinds are this high, but a pair of jacks has a far bigger chance of losing to a better pair than a pair of queens.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-20-2005, 05:23 PM
raptor517 raptor517 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 7
Default Re: Harrington\'s call

[ QUOTE ]
...yea it does. It's not even close, it's an easy call. What are you afraid of to not call a 3.5-to-1? You have better odds than that against JACKS. Sure you won't know if your queen is any good even if you hit it, but what does it matter? He doesn't know if his hand is any good either. You have to assume that any high pair is good when the blinds are that high.

[/ QUOTE ]

hes not all in preflop. following yer advice you should call with any 2. that is just plain wrong. holla
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-20-2005, 05:23 PM
raptor517 raptor517 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 7
Default Re: Harrington\'s call

[ QUOTE ]
...yea it does. It's not even close, it's an easy call. What are you afraid of to not call a 3.5-to-1? You have better odds than that against JACKS. Sure you won't know if your queen is any good even if you hit it, but what does it matter? He doesn't know if his hand is any good either. You have to assume that any high pair is good when the blinds are that high.

[/ QUOTE ]

hes not all in preflop. following yer advice you should call with any 2. that is just plain wrong. holla
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-20-2005, 05:39 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Harrington\'s call

Read my edit. Medium pair is good enough to stuff it with blinds this high three-way. At this point, you just have to stuff your chips in when a queen flops even if either an ace or a king comes out too (it's debatable if the flop comes AKQ).

If he has a higher pair, oh well, hope you suck out. But given the range of hands, you're better than 50/50 playing this way because he will have either an ace or a king, but not both. So given his most likely holdings (A-x or K-x), it's a 50% chance that it missed him. Add that to the fact that he may just have a small pair. If he had a better queen than you all along then that's just tough luck, but remember that there was a much smaller chance of him having another queen when you already held one. He may even fold a weak queen that beats yours! I'm not advocating calling with something as bad as 10-2 because it just has too high of a chance that the ten will get beaten by a higher pair.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-20-2005, 08:45 PM
raptor517 raptor517 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 7
Default Re: Harrington\'s call

[ QUOTE ]
So given his most likely holdings (A-x or K-x), it's a 50% chance that it missed him.

[/ QUOTE ]

you need to get yer numbers right.

[ QUOTE ]
He may even fold a weak queen that beats yours!

[/ QUOTE ]

lol.

yer game needs work. holla
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-20-2005, 06:15 PM
RikaKazak RikaKazak is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: betting $1,000 a flop on red/black while drunk :D
Posts: 4,129
Default Re: Harrington\'s call

ummm, easy call? you're wrong man, calling isn't horrible, but stop and go or folding is best play.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-20-2005, 06:49 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Harrington\'s call

Can you elaborate on how it's not an easy call? Keep in mind that you're willing to just give him a pot the size of a little more than 1/4th (!) of your stack when you have a very, very low chance of pot odds not playing in your favor. I am very strong when it comes to heads-up and shorthanded play and I can say with utmost confidence that it's an easy call for the reasons I have stated.

Folding this hand is worse than pushing All-In with it. Even if you get called, you're most likely a little better than 2-to-3 underdog since he's probably going to have 1 card higher than a queen and 1 card higher than a six. Added to that is the fact that he may fold. And you're gonna fold 3.5-to-1 odds and let him run over you? I just don't see how anyone can suggest that folding is the best option. It's gotta be the worst option available.

Edit: By the way, now that I think about it, it's also semi-important that the other card is a six. If the other card was a three, I would probably fold. But because it is a six, there's a good possibility of making medium pair with the six as well.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-20-2005, 08:50 PM
raptor517 raptor517 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 7
Default Re: Harrington\'s call

[ QUOTE ]
Can you elaborate on how it's not an easy call? Keep in mind that you're willing to just give him a pot the size of a little more than 1/4th (!) of your stack when you have a very, very low chance of pot odds not playing in your favor. I am very strong when it comes to heads-up and shorthanded play and I can say with utmost confidence that it's an easy call for the reasons I have stated.

Folding this hand is worse than pushing All-In with it. Even if you get called, you're most likely a little better than 2-to-3 underdog since he's probably going to have 1 card higher than a queen and 1 card higher than a six. Added to that is the fact that he may fold. And you're gonna fold 3.5-to-1 odds and let him run over you? I just don't see how anyone can suggest that folding is the best option. It's gotta be the worst option available.

Edit: By the way, now that I think about it, it's also semi-important that the other card is a six. If the other card was a three, I would probably fold. But because it is a six, there's a good possibility of making medium pair with the six as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

i gotta ask.. you are new and all.. what level of sngs do you play? im going to be as honest and kind as possible here. playing like this, and check folding Q6.. and saying things like shoving is better than folding here.. i dont know if you could beat the 22s.

holla
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.