My magazine article this month.

[microbet]

But, what about when you just get calls and you flop 883 or some such?

[Huckle]

I just read the article, and it's really messing with my mind.

If folding TC's KK hand is the action bluff, then calling would be the semibluff, right? I just can't see folding KK there being +EV, since you don't really gain anything in dollar value being a satellite that probably just pays 1 price, an entry to the Wsop.

It's just that the kings' chance to win is so high, he simply has to call the all-ins. If I got it right, he's got less money than the CO, so he might get busted. If the kings hold up though, he will have a massive chip lead over a short stack (I think) and someone with ~2000.

I can see this applying to a final table with increasing payouts, where folding might get you another place or two and a lot more money, but in a satellite? Now you get a big stack instead and have to win.

It just doesn't apply to "raising with no intention of seeing the flop". Your hand is a monster, you want to get chips with it and not a position.

Was this really the point or am I just so thick-headed I can't see how this applies?

[lastchance]

I thought that was just TC having FPS (Fancy Play Syndrome). Of course you call Kings there.

[lorinda]

He should call with the KK. This is TC's bad play (which having taken this article as a stand alone one wouldn't be so obvious)

There was another post asking exactly this in the magazine forum, so it was me being unclear I'm afraid.

A semi-bluff would be a hand like 77 or 99 where you might normally just call but you wouldnt mind if they went to war and you folded.

The point being made in the second half of the article is that if you don't understand a new play, don't try to apply it. TC is very good at doing things very wrongly.

Lori

[jgunnip]

hey Lori, just wanted to say I've enjoyed reading TC's adventures. How many more installments do you plan on writing?

[lorinda]

[ QUOTE ]
hey Lori, just wanted to say I've enjoyed reading TC's adventures. How many more installments do you plan on writing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the kind words.

I'm leaving it open ended for now. If 2+2 will have them, and some people still enjoy reading them, then I'll keep writing them.

I have enough mini plot lines and throwaway strategy tips to mix in for a few episodes yet and I hope to settle into a more regular style once it's established what people like the most.

Lori

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
If you get it right 100% of the time, you gain $2.5 or so EV according to the ICM compared to if you fold.

Of course, you don't get it right 100% of the time, but I believe you break even if you get it right about 45% of the time.

Edit: Getting it right = both other players go all in.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]


Ok but to assume this will happen even 45% of the time is inredibly optimistic. Also even though our hand is 83o, it does have some value, so we must take that into the equation as well.

I can give a similar example of this idea but one in which you give up little to no EV. Basically if its 4 handed and I'm in the SB and facing a button/cutoff caller, when the decision between calling and folding is very close, I lean towards folding.

My somewhat convoluted reason for this is that when the pot is headsup, there is a greater chance that both players go to war than there would be if a third player was in the mix. Please note however that I realize that this idea is of very little overall importance and thus only think about it when a decision is very close to begin with.

[skipperbob]

Don't you think that having a "winking" avatar is a really cool idea?....I'm so glad I thought it up [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]