How many bets do you go??

[k000k]

River is 8 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], and maniac flips over 7 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 5 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] for a lucky flush....

Me: nh
nut: ty
Me: I wasn't talking to you...

That's why you don't sit with your whole roll, but I see ppl do it all the time.. Luckily TAG didn't, he bought in for another £50, too bad for TAG.. That's about the worst play/suckout I've ever seen online, everyone on the table knew it too.. The maniac ended up spewed TAG's $$ all over the table to all better players before leaving..

I'm suprised you guys would risk your ENTIRE bankroll on a 4:1 shot, that's why you have a roll to soak up variance. You can't blow it all on one hand, which begs another question:

How much odds would you require to put your whole roll on the line? Some here only need 4:1, I'd need more like 100:1 myself...

[btspider]

it varies by person. me, i'd have no problem putting in my current poker bankroll of $2500 into a single hand if I was favored to win 4 out of 5 times. i can replenish that easily.

externally obviously.. if i kept $20 and had to restart at .05/.10, then certainly the time to rebuild your bankroll 1 in 5 times exceeds the gain of the other 4 times.. i'm sure it can be determined mathematically how much you should leave yourself if you can't replenish externally.

[sfer]

[ QUOTE ]
Problem is, eventually unlimited raising could cost you your entire roll if you sat with the whole thing.. If you had your whole roll on the table and were covered, would you bet your entire roll, knowing you're a 3.6:1 or higher winner, but also knowing that getting drawn out would send you back to the nickel tables? +EV or not, I'd have to stop raising long before this... Where would you draw the line?

[/ QUOTE ]

There's also some reasonable probability that the maniac is drawing dead, and some very small probability that the maniac is freerolling with the current nuts. You didn't mention whether the TAG had the A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img].

Dunno about how much of my roll I'd jam into the pot, but I would certainly stack off something like 50 BBs in a heartbeat here. Then again, I like money.

[k000k]

[ QUOTE ]
There's also some reasonable probability that the maniac is drawing dead, and some very small probability that the maniac is freerolling with the current nuts. You didn't mention whether the TAG had the A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img].

Dunno about how much of my roll I'd jam into the pot, but I would certainly stack off something like 50 BBs in a heartbeat here. Then again, I like money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maniac can't have the current nutz (on the turn), unless he also has AT. TAG didn't have the A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], but he can't get a flush anyway.. This would only prevent maniac from knowing his flush was the best flush, he could think maybe TAG had A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]x[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

I'd certainly go 50 bets there, but then again I'm over-rolled for the limit... If I had a small roll for the limit, then I'd be more conservative, because I'm not willing to drop limits to go crazy on any one particular hand without some tougher nutz than 4:1.

IDK, I just finished whoring all the party bonuses so now I'm on the cryptos, I have never encountered unlimited HU betting, it adds new scenarios that were never possible before... Never had to think about this before,

[sfer]

[ QUOTE ]
Maniac can't have the current nutz (on the turn), unless he also has AT.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand that. But in situations like this against a good, thinking player, you have to wonder whether you're stacking off to the same current hand that's freerolling to a better one. In that situation, clearly it makes sense to stop raising. Having the A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] makes being in that spot impossible.