|
|
#51
08-11-2004, 03:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: What I thought was an interesting hand
[ QUOTE ]
Just tell me you didn't muck it face up so everyone could see what a "great laydown" you made. Now *that* is Hellmuthian. [/ QUOTE ] Oh God hell no. I would never showboat like that. I think its stupid. I wasn't happy with laying it down at all, because I saw my chance to get the big stacks chips going away, but I honestly thought I was in trouble here. [ QUOTE ] The danger here is talking yourself into these kinds of folds too often. I'm reminded of the first WPT event that Paul Phillips was in. Twice he mucked winning hands, *good* winning hands, to TJ Cloutier. One time he mucked an overpair QQ to Cloutier, who had AJ for top pair/top kicker. A third spade had hit the turn (*and* one of Phillps' queens was a spade). That's just a word of warning about where this path of "big laydowns" can lead. [/ QUOTE ] No I understand. But I thought was what made this hand interesting was how the unusual betting allowed me to get away from it when normally I would have gone broke. Somehow tho people have taken that to mean because I mucked this hand I am also going to muck KK preflop too, and I don't really think thats fair! I had a lot more information in this case I feel then I normally would with KK versus AA preflop, which allowed me to get away from the hand. 
|
|
#52
08-11-2004, 03:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What I thought was an interesting hand
clearly if his read was wrong, it would have been wrong to fold. to call that "results oriented" is just not right IMO. a mistake is a mistake, whether it results from a poor read or a poor bluff. by the same token, a solid play is a solid play, whether it results from a solid read or a solid bluff, etc...
this was a live tourney, mind you...not online. a lot easier to make more accurate reads. cheers!
|
|
#54
08-11-2004, 04:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What I thought was an interesting hand
[ QUOTE ]
clearly if his read was wrong, it would have been wrong to fold. [/ QUOTE ] I think this is the point. How can we know how good his read was? He can say all day that he read her for a set and her betting actions screamed set and all we can do is take his word for it. If the poster had that strong of a read, and chose to go with it, then fine. But I still think its a mistake to say that these betting actions dictated a fold. That is to say, this fold should almost never be made online. But it is kind of hard to argue with someone who posts a hand about a big laydown becuase of a tell, or a read...without being there, it's pretty subjective.
|
|
#55
08-11-2004, 04:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What I thought was an interesting hand
[ QUOTE ]
No I understand. But I thought was what made this hand interesting was how the unusual betting allowed me to get away from it when normally I would have gone broke. Somehow tho people have taken that to mean because I mucked this hand I am also going to muck KK preflop too, and I don't really think thats fair! I had a lot more information in this case I feel then I normally would with KK versus AA preflop, which allowed me to get away from the hand. [/ QUOTE ] Just to clarify, I don't think you are about to go mucking KK preflop in any but the most incredible of circumstances involving x-ray vision or The Great Karnak. I brought up the comparison to illuminate the fact that while mucking KK preflop when the opponent holds AA is "correct" from an FTOP standpoint, that doesn't mean it was a "good laydown". Here, as you have said, you could put the opponent onto a much more specific range of hands than you typically could in a preflop situation.
|
|
#56
08-11-2004, 04:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What I thought was an interesting hand
[ QUOTE ]
i think you made a TERRIFIC fold. not good...TERRIFIC! you did what we as poker players are supposed to do. make a read, act accordingly. had the all-in player been a LAG, or you had an "isolation read" on him, i am certain you would have made the call. great job! purely from a cards prospetive or a math prospective, calling would have been prudent. what the math whizzes fail to understand is that, while odds calculation and math in general is as important a skill as any in hold'em, it is not the be-all, end-all. this is a people game, not a card game. cheers! [/ QUOTE ] Yes, it's a people game, but this was not a people read. He said it was a decision based strictly on the action.
|
|
#57
08-11-2004, 05:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What I thought was an interesting hand
[ QUOTE ]
First, it's pretty sure you can say that the all in did not have KK or JJ. That being said, you are only behind 88... the rest of the range of hands you could be against (AA, AK, AQ, KQ, QQ, QJ, QT, etc...) make up the vast majority of possible hands against you, and you are ahead of them all. 3 possible 88 combinations, 1 KK, 1 JJ... making 5 hands you are behind. 8 AK, 6 AA, 8 KQ... making up the 'reasonable' hands that the allin could have, are 22. So 22 out of 27 hands, and this isn't counting other 'possible' hands, you are ahead of. [/ QUOTE ] I'll take a little exception to this. If the overcaller was any good at all, I can't possibly put them on QT, QJ, AQ, or really even KQ. If I thought the caller was the typical "decent player, but a little too loose preflop" (my "generic read" for unknown players), I might be more prone to maybe allow for KQ or AQ. But unless my notes are "known fish", no way am I putting him on QT or QJ. Or how about this: I can't think of any other hand *I* would have played that way other than 88. Well, maybe JJ, but as has been pointed out, that's pretty unlikely. Once upon a time I would have played AK like this, but now I'd probably push with it. Ergo, if I was villian, this would have been a great, and correct, read. Great, now I just gave you the ammo to make good laydowns against me. Expect this move with TT, coming to a theatre near you... [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
|
|
#58
08-11-2004, 05:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What I thought was an interesting hand
[ QUOTE ]
this is a people game, not a card game. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, it's a people game, but this was not a people read. He said it was a decision based strictly on the action. [/ QUOTE ] Point of order: part of this was based on a read that the player was a good player (thus removing QT, QJ, and possibly AQ and KQ, from the mix of possible hands). That is a "person read" to an extent, but most decidedly not a "tell read", which are distinct things (the first one being possible online, for example, and the second one not). Since this wasn't online, did you give any thought to trying to talk to her to see if you could tell if she wanted a call? I've been trying to do this more, and I don't really know if i'm all that good at it, but this seemed like a good time for it, since you can pretty much put her on AK/KQ (which are functionally the same) or 88, I think. I might try, "you have AK?" or better yet "you don't reraise AK preflop?" Just a thought. Might not have done you any good. I'm coming around on this fold, quite frankly, for the reasons given. The gobbletygook about "this game isn't about math" is pretty misguided though. The fact that you can use your read to narrow down the range of hands to just a few that you can consider and know the odds of makes this call/fold *exactly* about math.
|
|
#59
08-11-2004, 05:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What I thought was an interesting hand
Honestly, I never thought about that.
I always viewed talking like that during a hand in somehwat a poor light. Maybe because I find that most of the players I see on ESPN who openly talk during a hand with someone somewhat annoying. (I dunno why) But you're right I may have gotten some info by talking to her. Almost all my play in tournaments has been online, and while I enjoy face to face more, I am probably not taking advantage of being there live like I could.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
