$15/$30 Party. CR flop - good move?

[slavic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
when i said it was ok to disagree, i was refering to the lack of personal attacks and the nicely worded way he said he thought i was incorrect. it had nothing to do with incorrect or correct.

as for incorrect or correct, as i said to another posters question in this thread, if a bunch of people have limped and i have Q9s on the button, i of course call. here i think this call has neg ev, but clearly i am the only one. does that me i am incorrect? no, it does not. i intend to run it by a few of the top pros this afternoon at the main event of the LA calassic. it would be interesting to have a few of the pros who post here respond.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does anyone find it entirely possible that it would be -EV for amulet to call here b/c of postflop ability but +EV for others? That seems to be the theme in almost every one of his posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

The preflop odds are good enough that a senile blind chimp should be able to play this hand here.

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
here i think this call has neg ev, but clearly i am the only one. does that me i am incorrect? no, it does not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you are. Here's a little help:

What are the odds against flopping just a flush draw? (hint: it's less than you're getting from the pot when you make the call) So it's obviously correct to call based solely on the odds of flopping a flush draw (let alone the odds of flopping a pair, two pair, straight draw, trips, etc)

Now, when you flop the flush draw, what are the odds you'll make your flush by the river? (hint: it's 2-1)

Now, the part that requires some actual thought/analysis - are there enough opponents in the hand so that you'll make money postflop when you hit your flush to offset the money you'll lose (postflop only) chasing your flush? (hint: yes)

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
when i said it was ok to disagree, i was refering to the lack of personal attacks and the nicely worded way he said he thought i was incorrect. it had nothing to do with incorrect or correct.

as for incorrect or correct, as i said to another posters question in this thread, if a bunch of people have limped and i have Q9s on the button, i of course call. here i think this call has neg ev, but clearly i am the only one. does that me i am incorrect? no, it does not. i intend to run it by a few of the top pros this afternoon at the main event of the LA calassic. it would be interesting to have a few of the pros who post here respond.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does anyone find it entirely possible that it would be -EV for amulet to call here b/c of postflop ability but +EV for others? That seems to be the theme in almost every one of his posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

See my previous post - if he were to play only for the flush (and fold all other hands including trips, two pair, etc,) he'd still make money playing this hand.

[bobbyi]

Calling here may be right, but I don't agree with your reasoning. You are saying that we can call purely for flush equity which means that you would call any two suited here. We are getting the same odds here that we get when we are on the button and (almost) the whole table limps. So you are saying that in a family pot, 72s is an incredibly easy call on the button? I don't agree with that.

[amulet]

this is exactly the type of response that is worthless and only an ass makes. the other responses that say i am incorrect are productive. not only are you an ass, but you are incorrect. jeff what % of the time do you make your flush by the river? hint: less then 6%. therefore, if you are only going on making the flush it is a clear fold, the odds are clearly incorrect. the case that those who understand the game better then you do are making is that the combined chances of winning in addition to the flush makes it a call for one bet out of position. again, calling for your flush chances is 100% wrong. hint; next time you act like an ass, have the correct probabilities.

[MaxPower]

Do you always play your hand till the river?

Your 6% is totally meaningless.

[TimTimSalabim]

The difference is that when you're getting 9 to 1 on the button you have 9 players to beat, but when you're getting 9 to 1 in the BB you only have 4 players to beat. This makes a big difference with something like 72s when you have to worry about bigger flush draws. So I think 72s is perhaps marginally playable out of the BB in this case, but not if it was on the button.

[amulet]

is this a joke? if not see my math below on flush draws only. if so it was cute.

[Nightwish]

[ QUOTE ]
lol, not like you think. however, i have a lot more experience then most. plus i believe that a player could play like a rock on the internet, and the opponents are so bad that he would still get his hands paid off. also be aware that i usually play at higher limits, where you have to be more aggressive.
VPI 15.56
PFR 9.28
WTSD 30.48


[/ QUOTE ]
The first two are reasonable. In fact, your VP$IP is higher than mine! So how is it that you consistently talk about folding hands preflop that I would play? Something here doesn't make sense.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
The difference is that when you're getting 9 to 1 on the button you have 9 players to beat, but when you're getting 9 to 1 in the BB you only have 4 players to beat. This makes a big difference with something like 72s when you have to worry about bigger flush draws.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would agree, but Jeff's analysis of postflop profitability was predicated on whether there are "enough opponents in the hand so that you'll make money postflop when you hit your flush to offset the money you'll lose (postflop only) chasing your flush". His argument is that getting 9-1, you can play for flush value alone and the more people in the more money you make, so if he's right that Q9s in the BB here is a braindead easy call for that reason, then 72s on the button afte the world limps would be an unbelievably clearly massivley profitable hand, which I would say that it is definitely not. Thus, I think it's clear that his analysis here isn't completely accurate.