|
|
#11
05-16-2005, 07:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: All-in Call with Baby Set?
Regarding the hand range of the conservative players, I probably should have clarified that these are not good players. They are passive and fearful of risking their stacks without a powerhouse hand.
[ QUOTE ] Again how much money was in the pot from the preflop action? [/ QUOTE ] My question is how much preflop money is needed to justify calling. You are convincing me that the answer may be $0. It appears that the number of combinations of possible flushes and straights greatly outnumber the possible hands against which I am drawing dead or nearly dead. Thank you for your analysis. 
|
|
#12
05-16-2005, 10:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: All-in Call with Baby Set?
Just a thing to point out is that people could have straight flush draws which will lessen your equity because they will win if they hit their one or two outer even if you boat up. I would still probably call here, though, and expect to win if I boat up. It is good that they are tight because it means they are unlikely to be in there with two pair and more likely to have straights and flushes which are good for you because they dont take any of your outs.
|
|
#13
05-16-2005, 11:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: All-in Call with Baby Set?
Of two-pair hands, there are three: 2-3, 2-4, and 3-4. That is, these "conservative" players had to see a flop with these cards. How many conservative players would do that? None in my estimation, or they're damn well not conservative.
I don't really see the problem here with being up against one of these. (a) it's very unlikely, (b) you win if a 2 falls and only lose if a 4 falls (which would be a 2-outer). And if you're truly going to throw away a set for fear that someone flopped a straight flush, you've got bigger problems than your opponents.
|
|
#14
05-17-2005, 06:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: All-in Call with Baby Set?
[ QUOTE ]
Of two-pair hands, there are three: 2-3, 2-4, and 3-4. That is, these "conservative" players had to see a flop with these cards. How many conservative players would do that? None in my estimation, or they're damn well not conservative. [/ QUOTE ] This is a good point. Though these particular players might sometimes limp with suited garbage from late position in hope of catching a big flop, their postflop play was tight/timid. In this particular hand, only the 2nd conservative player was in a position to possibly play 43s. If he had this hand, however, I believe he would have mucked it on the flop rather than call for all his chips.
|
|
#15
05-17-2005, 06:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Results
The pot contained $7 before the flop [the small blind folded, the loose-aggressive had the big blind, and $4 was raked from the pot]. After a bit of thought, I made the all-in call. The loose-aggressive had the A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] in his hand, the first conservative player had A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]5 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] for a straight, and the second conservative player had K [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]J [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]. I won the main pot when the turn and river produced a running pair. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]
Thank you for the helpful replies!
|
|
#16
05-17-2005, 06:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Results
[ QUOTE ]
I would still probably call here, though, and expect to win if I boat up. It is good that they are tight because it means they are unlikely to be in there with two pair and more likely to have straights and flushes which are good for you because they dont take any of your outs. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The loose-aggressive had the A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] in his hand, the first conservative player had A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]5 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] for a straight, and the second conservative player had K [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]J [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] That is all.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
