Nut Straight on Turn

[Richie Rich]

[ QUOTE ]
You clearly state here that calling $33 w/ 87o is +EV with $150 stacks, using your twodimes numbers as justification. There is just no way to dispute how horrible and backwards your reasoning and advice is.


[/ QUOTE ]
I will openly admit that this statement was too simple to be true. However, I believe that my other statements (re: hero calling with a non-dominated hand, stack sizes relative to blinds, etc.) were sound and reasonable enough to justify my position.

[Marnixvdb]

[ QUOTE ]
To settle this once and for all, I have created links to some of my recent advice-sharing posts. I ask for sound reasoning and explanation as to why you think I am so far off the mark. I have yet to hear anything beyond "you suck at poker", "your logic is horrible", or "more respected posters are shooting through your argument".

Sorry, but you've already been given your chance to rip me apart. Please do not litter this thread with any more vague or general statements that lack any reasoning or explanation to back them up. Thanks again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many on this forum have used 'sound reasoning and explanation' in response to your posts: see here for an example where I reacted to your position. The thing is, you never really respond to it. The thing is also that you are probably the only one who feels there is something to 'settle for once and for all'.

[Richie Rich]

I agree with a majority of what you just said in that post, but think you misquoted me to some extent. (Sorry for not getting back to you the first time around)

First off, I never stated that 87o was the same as a pocket pair or a suited connector. I just stated how their chances of winning against an overpair are similar if/when all the cards are laid out. Second, I have never advocated calling a pf raise with 87o, particularly when you're HU. In fact, I further stated in a related thread that I, most likely, would not have made that call. But do I think hero made a horrible call btf? Not at all, and I explained why.

[tpir90036]

[ QUOTE ]
I will openly admit that this statement was too simple to be true.

[/ QUOTE ]
Feel free to admit it was just flat-out wrong.

[anduril]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
just a math problem

[/ QUOTE ]

Off the top of my head, I'd guess he only needs to be freerolling about 25% of the time for this to be a fold. I'll let someone else work out the real number.

[/ QUOTE ]

elaborate please. I know you didn't do the math but how did you estimate?

[chio]

so everyone is assuming that this type of push in this type of situation on this board is a bluff 0% of the time, correct?

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
so everyone is assuming that this type of push in this type of situation on this board is a bluff 0% of the time, correct?

[/ QUOTE ]
Some people are assuming that. I don't think it is a good assumption.

If everyone will call with a queen, and fold without a queen, it is not insane to push with a set or the nut flush draw. About 9/10 of the time (this may depend on the previous action), you pick up $250, and about 1/10 of the time, you average a loss of $800-$1200, depending on the strength of your draw. It looks like it might be a good semi-bluff, though there may be better ways to play it. If the stacks were a bit more shallow and no one would call without a queen, it would not be unreasonable to push with 32o.

Also, don't overlook the entertainment value of pushing with 5[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 4[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], getting called by two people with queens, and rivering a club.

[Gamblor]

diablo is very good at cards and contributes more to the forum than 99.9% of posters, but he epitomizes the word condescending.

in fact, he's a real [censored] and not really my cup of tea.

[barongreenback]

[ QUOTE ]


The breakeven amount of times he has to have Qx [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] is given by solving for 1-x in the equation

1800 = 1531.25(1-x) + 1925(x)

1800 = 1531.25 -1531.25x + 1925x

268.75 = 368.75 x

x = .729

so 1-x = .271


[/ QUOTE ]
Pretty sure there's an error here.
1925-1531.25=393.75
I get 31.7% as the answer.

Also assuming some previous action, QTc and KQc are the only trouble hands likely held but there are 2 QQ,3 AQ and 2 KQ which hold the bare Qc making a call with no extra info. However, player reading can change everything.

[KaneKungFu123]

[ QUOTE ]
diablo is very good at cards and contributes more to the forum than 99.9% of posters, but he epitomizes the word condescending.

in fact, he's a real [censored] and not really my cup of tea.

[/ QUOTE ]

is your preferred cup jewish?