The Definitive Guide to Stacking 'The Don' - Page 2

The Don · #1 10-05-2005, 02:18 AM

One more note... If you read this (assuming you skipped the last paragraph) and couldn't tell I was being facetious then here is my suggestion: QUIT POKER. Your intuition is so bad that you will be relagated to pushbotting in low-limit SNGs for a meager return for the rest of your career.

#2 10-05-2005, 02:40 AM

Your last paragraph made me feel really dumb. I was going throught this saying "wow, this is good stuff!". Then the "oh, Im really stupid" set in.

Real funny though. When I finially got, that is

mike28 · #3 10-05-2005, 02:43 AM

or just call 12x bbs with a8 and suckout

fckn rigged [censored]

Nicholasp27 · #4 10-05-2005, 10:02 AM

[ QUOTE ]
When I raise 4x, make sure to call getting 2.1 to 1 even though you are playing for set value and the odds of hitting your set are roughly 7.3 to 1.

[/ QUOTE ]

read up on implied odds...sure looks like he made more than 7.3x the bet when he called you...

pooh74 · #5 10-05-2005, 12:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When I raise 4x, make sure to call getting 2.1 to 1 even though you are playing for set value and the odds of hitting your set are roughly 7.3 to 1.

[/ QUOTE ]

read up on implied odds...sure looks like he made more than 7.3x the bet when he called you...

[/ QUOTE ]

really...I wouldve played it just like the donk did! In fact your raise means I'm even MORE likely to get paid off if i hit my set.

If villain=donk then pooh=donk, but we all knew that anyhow.

Nicholasp27 · #6 10-05-2005, 12:22 PM

yeah, i like limping for set value more when they raise than when they don't for that very reason

Big Limpin' · #7 10-05-2005, 10:51 AM

You post reads well, and i enjoyed it.

Something seemingly out of place though, either...uhhh...doubly-reverse satirical[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]??? was:
[ QUOTE ]
When I raise 4x, make sure to call getting 2.1 to 1 even though you are playing for set value and the odds of hitting your set are roughly 7.3 to 1.

[/ QUOTE ]...which gives implications that the small PP was out of line to give play to your "monster". PP dude can rest assured he will get STACKED when he spikes, unless the board totally freaks you out, in which case he gets at least whats already in there (t250?).

THe only difference, if you were playing me, is i would have lead out the flop with my set. But in this case, we STACK no matter what. [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img]

The Don, i am reminded of Chineese proverb (or something), goes [ QUOTE ]
When no tiger in jungle, monkey is king

[/ QUOTE ] Here, of course, AK is the monkey, and having flopped TP, believes "no tiger in jungle".

But sometimes there is, and monkey gets pwned.

Big Limpin' · #8 10-05-2005, 10:53 AM

Oh, and at 1000 chips verus 800, "tigers" have a better time of it indeed.
What sucks for this guy is that you didnt still have a full t1000 to give him if he lands a set.

The Don · #9 10-05-2005, 12:07 PM

Now I know why Maddox gets so much hate mail. I am not trying to state that I am great at poker here... I INTENTIONALLY ignored implied odds (although his play is still -EV even with implied, I didn't want to bore the reader with minute details) because that makes it more humorous.

I don't want to get into a poker discussion but he would have to make an average of roughly 462 chips AFTER the flop whenever he hits his set (assuming he is playing solely for set value) to make this play profitable. There is no way he does this (Assuming my PF range is 99-AA, AQ, AK... which is tighter than mine but quite standard). There are also those rare situation where he will lose to set over set or a turn/rivered flush straight.

Nicholasp27 · #10 10-05-2005, 12:10 PM

the 90 that he called was 5% of his stack and <10% of yours...he also had 1795 chips, so the 90 chips wouldn't really affect him...but stacking your 900 would...that's an important thing to think about in sngs...