#11
|
|||
|
|||
Re: It\'s good for poker, I suppose, but seriously...
yes, but that is assuming he knew he was up against QQ. He might as easily have been up against KK or AA. Dumb call.
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
I dunno about 99% of the time...but...
pokenum -h qh qs - kc 6d
Holdem Hi: 1712304 enumerated boards cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV Qs Qh 1224567 71.52 483043 28.21 4694 0.27 0.717 Kc 6d 483043 28.21 1224567 71.52 4694 0.27 0.283 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Re: It\'s good for poker, I suppose, but seriously...
How do you know this was a dumb call without a chip count?
Grinning Buddha's post is lacking in key details, but the fact that a short stack had the K6s is quite important. -Michael |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Re: It\'s good for poker, I suppose, but seriously...
You're sitting with about $10k and someone before you raises to about 3k. How many of you would push in with K6s? Ugh.
It just sounds like there's a lot of undisciplined players there this year. Someone made the comment that most of these people got here by playing good poker and beating out a lot of other players in satellites and supers. I think he overestimates the skill level of a lot of them. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Re: It\'s good for poker, I suppose, but seriously...
It's not the fact that QQ lost to K6, it's the fact that K6 called an all-in. Of course it may not have been that bad of a call since we don't know the blinds or stacks.
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Re: It\'s good for poker, I suppose, but seriously...
The point here really is that reraising after a raise w/ K6o is incredibly dumb. I believe this player's thought process at the time was not "hmm, K6o is only a 3:1 dog to queens." I don't have the numbers but i'm pretty sure that AK vs. K6, a more likely type of hand is much more of a favorite. This guy obviously has no clue. He pushed in when he knew he was behind and not terribly short stacked. There is no strategy, just tuna.
|
|
|