BB Special: call an all-in w/o the nuts?

[BobboFitos]

[ QUOTE ]
Why would he bet 10x the pot? The only logical hand I can see him doing that with is the same hand as you.

With only $12 of your own money in the pot I'd say "nh sir" and wait for a better opportunity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hero's money in the pot is a sunk cost, and therefore, should not be factored into any future decisions.

2003 US Open Poker Championships: "Toto... Why would you bet so much? I call."

Yeah, I call. If he's clever enough to play J8/overbet when I have the 2nd nuts, I rebuy.

[BradleyT]

[ QUOTE ]
Hero's money in the pot is a sunk cost, and therefore, should not be factored into any future decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

If hero had 80% of his chips in - that should not be considered?

[DBowling]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hero's money in the pot is a sunk cost, and therefore, should not be factored into any future decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

If hero had 80% of his chips in - that should not be considered?

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not the fact that 80% of his chips are in, but rather the pot odds he is getting to call off the remaining 20%. So really you should say "theres not much in the pot" rather than "you only have XX of your money in the pot". Because hes right, who's money is in the pot doesnt matter, because its no longer theirs.

[BobboFitos]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hero's money in the pot is a sunk cost, and therefore, should not be factored into any future decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

If hero had 80% of his chips in - that should not be considered?

[/ QUOTE ]

Bradley,

No, the fact that "80% of Hero's chips are committed" shouldn't bare any relevance to whether he should or should not hypothetically commit his chips.

What SHOULD be considered when 80% of your chips are committed is you're often getting like 20:180 (9:1!) and probably even more on any call, so it makes a universal rule of "you're pot committed when 50%+ of your chips are in," only true due to the immense odds you are NOW getting on a call.

Hope this clears it up.

[BigF]

I was gonna say "call" but now I changed my mind. I don't know.

I can see a tricky player with J8 making that move. Board wasn't scary. no action on the flop. Didn't seem like his nuts would get paid off had he followed a normal line. Why not push with hidden nuts and make a thinking player talk himself into calling the "all-in-bluff".

[BigF]

How much you have invested in the pot shouldn't in any way affect your decisions.

I didn't say that. Mike Caro did.

[BobboFitos]

[ QUOTE ]
How much you have invested in the pot shouldn't in any way affect your decisions.

I didn't say that. Mike Caro did.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's also introductory econ

[BradleyT]

[ QUOTE ]
How much you have invested in the pot shouldn't in any way affect your decisions.

I didn't say that. Mike Caro did.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know, I read that last night in SS2.

But how much you have invested directly corelates to the odds you're getting. As the amount you contributed to the pot approaches 100% of your stack - your odds to call start to reach infinity. As the amount you contributed reaches 0, the odds you get approach even money.

[DBowling]

[ QUOTE ]
But how much you have invested directly corelates to the odds you're getting. As the amount you contributed to the pot approaches 100% of your stack - your odds to call start to reach infinity. As the amount you contributed reaches 0, the odds you get approach even money.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only problem is stating it this way never gives you a complete picture, because if the pot is 5 handed or heads up, the odds you are getting are much different. And even heads up on later streets, it ignores money invested by other players on previous streets.

[BigF]

lol I did get that from SS2. I prefer the straightforward thinking i.e. how much I have left behind vs how much is in the pot over the mind boggling "I have invested 10%, there are three players including me. therefore the pot is little over 30% * stack and now I have 90% * stack. therefore....".