Why you never slow play aces.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, for the record, the vast majority of the statements you've made have been logical fallacies, devoid of argumental evidence and thus information. (I don't know if you know anything about logic or rhetoric,

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd wager that I understand logic far better than you do. I'm a professional mathematician.

At some point, you might realize that when you disagree with me, it's not because I'm being illogical. It might be because you failed to understand something. Then again, you might just insult me and attack a straw man until I ignore you.

[ QUOTE ]

Which of course, makes limping in with AA and giving the threes the correct odds to hit a set even if there were no implied odds correct, naturally.

[/ QUOTE ]
In this thread, I never advocated limping with AA. You are attacking a straw man.

There are reasons to limp with AA preflop. You'll see that on the other NL forum, and you can see it mentioned in this month's 2+2 Internet Magazine. I don't believe those reasons apply here, and I think it is right to raise.

The way to avoid stacking off here is to avoid paying off with one pair or to keep the pot smaller when the SB has shown a lot of strength. Raising a normal amount would not have helped.

[ QUOTE ]
I've thought about it, and here's what I've concluded: you are just like members of the other group of people that discuss things for the sole reason that they are "novel": idiotic post-modern literature professors who bag on poets and writers who are popular (without specifying in an intelligible way why they are bad), and who promote opinions which are Against the Grain for no other reason than to carve out a niche for themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]
My, aren't you filled with misguided hate. I'm going to ignore you henceforth, and let you stew in your ignorance.

[TheCat]

I'll definately slowplay Aces and Cowboys vs one, sometimes two if I'm feeling lucky.
As Brunson famously says about AA, 'You either win a small pot or lose a big pot'. That's certainly my experiance.

[Publos Nemesis]

I posted this hand b/c I thought it absurd that the button limped into 3 players with a big hand at a 6-max table. Moreover, my just calling in the small blind should indicate a monster. However, just minraising the turn, the button has no way of really knowing this, other than I called two bets cold. In the end, he couldn't get away from the hand when I put him all-in on the river with a pot size bet.

He probably would have gotten stacked off no matter what, since I would likely have called up to $2 preflop. However, if he had raised, he would have kept the pot smaller with fewer people in it, and would have given himself the best opportunity to get off his hand. Although he probably wasn't a good enough player to ever fold aces, the lesson is, never limp them preflop into so many people b/c you tend to cost yourself more money in the long-run. As it was, I put in 15 cents as a dog, and $19.50 as a massive favorite.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
The SB would have been correct in calling any raise up to about $2. Especially if he thought the villain had a high pocket pair and would be willing to lose a lot of money on it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree here, and agree with Jason. Calling 5% of your stack with 33 OOP is fine. Calling 8%+ is, IMO, very bad against a button raiser.

Let's say it's a generic guy on button. He's raising AT+, KQ, KJs, 99+, maybe even looser.

Even if you do flop a set, the odd of getting payed off are about zero. And because you have the worst possible position, it's impossible to steal pots here, because everything is going to be an overcard, and button can conceivably have a T, J, Q, K or A here so check/raise when the flop comes with any of those is bad. And check/raising a 6 high flop doesn't help if button has JJ.

If this was an UTG raise, I like a call a lot more.

[wtfsvi]

Well put xorbie. I agree very much. The general agreement of others than me and mr. Olsommer had me a bit frustrated.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

If this was an UTG raise, I like a call a lot more.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that calling a 5% raise (to 4 or 5 BB) is much more favorable, and that getting paid off is a problem if the PFR has nothing or is afraid of the flop. However, in practice that means you can also win more pots by betting out or check-raising after missing. It's harder to do that if multiple people call, but if there are other callers, it may be easier to double up or more when you do hit a set.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd wager that I understand logic far better than you do. I'm a professional mathematician.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ladies and gentlemen, the very definition of irony.

That sentence in which you claimed to understand logic far better than I because you are a professional mathematician is itself a logical error, another appeal to authority (the same exact error I pointed out in my previous post).

Aside from the fact that being a mathematician doesn't imply much about your reasoning skills - I sincerely doubt you encounter many "appeal to force" fallacies in your trade [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

[ QUOTE ]
At some point, you might realize that when you disagree with me, it's not because I'm being illogical.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I'm sure that when you make a logical fallacy, it is actually logically valid for some reason which I as a non-mathematician cannot begin to comprehend.

[ QUOTE ]
Then again, you might just insult me and attack a straw man until I ignore you.

[/ QUOTE ]

You said "Raising with AA preflop wouldn't have changed anything". I said it most certainly would have.

The most amazing thing here is that in the course of what - six posts? you've barely said anything that isn't a basic logical fallacy - everything from several flavors of an appeal to authority (ranging from "you're wrong because you registered only this month" to "I know more about logic than you because I'm a mathematician) to appeals to popularity, to the garden-variety "simply stating something as true without providing one shred of evidence" [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] (fwiw, I think that's a Latin phrase).

[ QUOTE ]
There are reasons to limp with AA preflop. You'll see that on the other NL forum, and you can see it mentioned in this month's 2+2 Internet Magazine. I don't believe those reasons apply here, and I think it is right to raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Raising with AA preflop wouldn't have changed anything

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I can just let you have a dialogue with yourself in this post. It could be fun [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
My, aren't you filled with misguided hate. I'm going to ignore you henceforth, and let you stew in your ignorance.

[/ QUOTE ]


Ah, and then we've got Old Faithful - the ad hominem. Never enter a discussion without it. Kudos for peppering it with "and now I'm going to ignore you", reminding us all of the online player who announces to the entire table that he's muting someone. Don't get me wrong, ad hominems are fun sometimes. Like, "man, I sincerely hope you're either lying about being a mathematician or you work at a community college!" They just can't be used in the construction of a logical argument. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Well, I'm bushed. I sincerely enjoyed this threadjack I've been able to share with you, but if you've nothing in the way of an actual argument as to why raising wouldn't have changed things, then I must yield the floor to someone who does. Sorry all.