#51
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Quick thoughts, more later
Doesn't follow, Josh. By the logic you presented there, you make a case for folding if UTG bets, regardless of the other two player's action. But you already said that you thought you should call if the other two guys folded. Your logic does not agree.
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Quick thoughts, more later
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] True, when the river came, I would have called utg. But before I had the chance, I had new information presented to me. Namely, the other two both had aces. UTG still thought he could win the hand. UTG could beat an ace. I chose to use this new information, information I didn't have when I planned on calling UTG. [/ QUOTE ] I'm still trying to figure this out. Did you have a conversation with UTG after the two guys called and he told you he still thought he would win the hand? Or did those two guys tell UTG before he bet that they were both going to call? [/ QUOTE ] I think that, when he bet, he thought he'd win over 90% of the time (with up to 10% bluffing probability). He (UTG) may or may not have known that three people behind him had big aces. But if he's checking a very non-scary Ten, he's either passive or trapping. If he's passive, he ain't betting into a scary ace. If he's trapping, I should fold. Josh |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Quick thoughts, more later
[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't follow, Josh. By the logic you presented there, you make a case for folding if UTG bets, regardless of the other two player's action. But you already said that you thought you should call if the other two guys folded. Your logic does not agree. [/ QUOTE ] See my reply to your other reply. I gotta run to dinner, so I can't go into too much detail here. Look, he checked a non-scary ten. He's either passive or trapping. He bets the ace. If he's passive, he has me beat. If he's trapping, he has me beat. I call if one of the others fold because he could then have AXh. When they both call, he can no longer have this hand. Josh |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Quick thoughts, more later
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] True, when the river came, I would have called utg. But before I had the chance, I had new information presented to me. Namely, the other two both had aces. UTG still thought he could win the hand. UTG could beat an ace. I chose to use this new information, information I didn't have when I planned on calling UTG. [/ QUOTE ] I'm still trying to figure this out. Did you have a conversation with UTG after the two guys called and he told you he still thought he would win the hand? Or did those two guys tell UTG before he bet that they were both going to call? [/ QUOTE ] I think that, when he bet, he thought he'd win over 90% of the time (with up to 10% bluffing probability). He (UTG) may or may not have known that three people behind him had big aces. But if he's checking a very non-scary Ten, he's either passive or trapping. If he's passive, he ain't betting into a scary ace. If he's trapping, I should fold. Josh [/ QUOTE ] My point is simple. What the other two guys do shouldn't impact your thoughts regarding UTG's hand strength (for the most part) or bluffing frequency (at all), because he does not know what they are going to do when he bets. If you think he is bluffing enough for you to call, it shouldn't matter whether zero, one, or both call in the middle. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Quick thoughts, more later
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Doesn't follow, Josh. By the logic you presented there, you make a case for folding if UTG bets, regardless of the other two player's action. But you already said that you thought you should call if the other two guys folded. Your logic does not agree. [/ QUOTE ] See my reply to your other reply. I gotta run to dinner, so I can't go into too much detail here. Look, he checked a non-scary ten. He's either passive or trapping. He bets the ace. If he's passive, he has me beat. If he's trapping, he has me beat. I call if one of the others fold because he could then have AXh. When they both call, he can no longer have this hand. Josh [/ QUOTE ] There are a multitude of hands (for example, draw that picked up a pair somewhere along the way and thinks he has a busted flush draw enough of the time - say a hand like 67h, or 88) that can call in the middle that don't have an ace. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Quick thoughts, more later
This whole thread reminds me of a pavement lyrics from "We are underused":
"Let's drink a toast -- it's the most I can stand to cry about The mental energy you wasted on this wedding invitation" |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Really good post Josh, now how about the results.....n/m
n/m
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Quick thoughts, more later
also, these opps should be pretty sure you don't have an ace, based on your play.
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Unusual AKo hand, 30-60
I don't have much to add to this thread other than quoting whoever it was who said something along the lines of 'you don't make money in limit hold'em by making big laydowns on the river in huge pots.'
I really dislike this fold, and think you overthought this hand to death. You're giving way to much credit to a 38/14 player. His stats alone should tell you you're dealing with a donkey who doesn't play in a straightforward manner. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Quick thoughts, more later
[ QUOTE ]
If all of these matters make it close one way or the other, it's close. Pot size has already been factored in. Don't say it's close, then say potsize dictates a call. No, if you want to use that logic, say "it's not close, but pot size makes it close". [/ QUOTE ] I probably didn't phrase it right the first time. It is close, I don't think you can say with good certainty whether calling or folding is the more EV play. Therefore, call. This is limit hold em, and losing one extra bet is less of a mistake than folding a winning hand in a large pot. That being said, I think what everyone here is trying to tell you is that you are over estimating the chance that you are behind. You are the only one who knows the actual outcome of the hand, and the only one advocating a fold. |
|
|