Very Important NLH Tourney Question(s),

[Greg (FossilMan)]

> No. I stated this clearly in my post. You won't fold
> every time you miss.

Literally, of course, you are correct.

> If you call, and miss on the flop, and have to fold
> (which won't happen every time you miss), ...

However, this doesn't jive with the rest of your post.

> He's weak tight. If he misses, you won't have to make any
> tough calls or tough reads on the flop. Flop comes Q99
> and he pushes, you muck. Flop comes A94, he pushes, you
> call, and beat his AQ.

Others have already disagreed with this scenario. Why would he always have AQ here? Even if he might've made the original raise with AQ, he would also do it with AA and AK. And, of course, what about the K94 flop? He's pushing in there with AK, as well as AA and KK. Your EV on that call can't be too great. And what about the AQx flops? Again, he's betting, you're calling, but it can't be very good news.

> flop comes J83, and he bets small, you push, cuz you know
> he is afraid, cuz he's weak tight.

What? You seem to be assuming that he'd bet big when his hand is still strong postflop, but only bet small when bluffing. But you also seem to have assumed elsewhere in your posts that he wouldn't bluff at all, because he doesn't force you to make any tricky decisions at all. You seem to be assuming that you can play with psychic powers, and have it both ways. Why can't he have AA/KK/QQ on this flop, and now that he sees the flop, figures there's almost no chance you're ahead or have many outs, that he can afford to milk you a little, rather than blow you off the pot?

The issue boils down to the opponent YOU are imagining when you read "weak-tight" in the original post, and the weak-tight opponent being imagined by others. Apparently to you, weak-tight means you have 100% control and never make a wrong decision postflop. Sorry to say I've never run into an opponent quite that predictable.

Sorry if any of my posts came across as insulting to you, but whether it was intended or not, your posts came across as smug to me.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[Myrtle]

Josh,

It seems to me as if your original response is based upon the fact that you are taking for granted that a smooth call of the UTG raise will end up getting you H/U with the W/T UTG raiser? Is this because that you've forgotten that you still have the Button, SB & BB to act behind you?

A flat call in C/O here gives each of the remaining players better pot odds. The permutations of how much better they get depends upon what action in turn each one of them takes.

The cynical part of me (knowing Vince) is that's why he threw in the different player stack sizes. Or on the other hand, it could just be one of those sneaky "only Vince" misdirection moves to make all of us look like horses arses. OK, Vince…..I'll bite.

As Greg said, "1/3 of your stack ……". You then replied that YOU wouldn't fold every time. OK, what % of the time WILL you fold, and how will changing that %age alter the EV of the play?

Quote…"WORST CASE SCENARIO, YOU ARE A TINY BIT BELOW AVERAGE WITH FREE ANDS, AGAINST A WEAK FIELD if you call. If you push and lose, you are almost out. If you fold, you lose a tremendous chance to gain chips, and make a run for the top spot (all that I care about). If you call, you have so much opportunity. You have so little risk. You have only easy decisions from here on out."

Little Risk? Easy Decisions? Again, let's go through the permutations of potential actions by Button, SB, BB & the original UTG raiser. I admire your optimism and aggressive stance, but……..

I think a smooth call here is one of those errors that very easily turns into the classic " opportunity to trap yourself and compound your original error" scenario.

Some might even describe a call in that position with that hand as weak/tight.

I've re-read you original response a number of times to ensure that I understand it…. Perhaps I still don't? If I'm missing something, please let me know.

[Poker21]

You put him all-in with the AK's. Since you hold an ace and a king the odds he has Aces or Kings are small. With anything less you are a huge favorite.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

But if the opponent is *so* weak-tight that all he'd raise with UTG is AA, KK, or AKs, he'll have aces or kings 2/3 of the time.

The crux of this problem is the definition of "weak-tight."

[cferejohn]

Actually, if your AK is unsuited than he will have AA or KK (as opposed to AKs) 1/4 of the time, since there are only 2 AKs possibilities that you don't eliminate by holding an offsuite A and K.

-picky chris

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Except if I read this problem correctly, you *are* holding AKs, leaving 3 AKs combinations left. And I think my scenario is so extreme as to be almost non-existant.

I think what I learned from all this is that different people have a different definition of weak-tight or that there are different degrees of WT-ness (no surprise).