Question for Fossilman re. Pot Odds

DonkeyKong · #1 10-21-2004, 01:44 PM

My general question is in what stack-size situation do you forget about pot odds and fold because you don't feel the need to play a crapshoot for a big chunk of your stack?

This is a broad question but the point is to figure out when laying down a decent overlay is ok simply because you have a good stack. ie, Scott Fischman in Main Event laid down AK when Doyle re-raised him big because 'he didn't want to gamble.' Doyle had a middle pair (88 or so) and was very willing to gamble.

Later on, with a lot more money in the pot, Fischman called with his AK. (he ran into Doyles KK).

Thanks for any help but curious on whatever comments you have on this subject re AK AQ 88-JJ etc...

another example is Glenn Hughes vs Marcel at the Main Event.
Hughes raised 3x the BB with 99 and laid it down to Marcels all-in. Glenn said after he should have called but with 99, Glenn lived on while only losing 3 BB's -- while Marcel's gambling kicked him out 10th soon thereafter...

Then there is the Murphy vs Matt Dean confrontation. Both had very deep stacks relative to the blinds and pushed all-in... AK v JJ... If you strongly suspect you are in a coin-flip and your stack is deep, when is laying down a 'race' correct??

citanul · #2 10-21-2004, 01:54 PM

I and others have thoughts on this subject, but since I'm not Greg...

There have been a lot of posts about this, I think even a few by Greg. Recently, I believe that Paul Philips had a post about exactly this subject.

Happy hunting,

citanul

Cleveland Guy · #3 10-21-2004, 02:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I and others have thoughts on this subject, but since I'm not Greg...

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not Greg either, I guess we just don't know anything about poker unless we win $5 Million dollars.

You know - the more we see of DonkeyKing, the less we see of Erostotras...... but the types of posts are the same... hmmmmm

DonkeyKong · #4 10-21-2004, 02:17 PM

sorry dude, am I bothering you?? of course all are welcome to contribute. I did read all of Paul's posts and found them educational. I have read all of Fossilmans and didn't recall seeing any of this. I have seen a lot of comments from Greg on how not taking pot odds when offered is a mistake, which is consistent with Phillips comments but I haven't seen much on the exception to this rule -- when it is time to laydown despite decent/good pot odds...

I am not Erostotras but I apologize if I sound like someone who is earlier on in his poker education than you are...

Cleveland Guy · #5 10-21-2004, 02:21 PM

I just think it rubs a lot of people the wrong way when you post to a "FORUM" asking 1 "PERSON" for advice.

If you just want Greg's advice, send him a private message. If you want to ask a general question, don't adress it to 1 person.

Bernas · #6 10-21-2004, 02:24 PM

It's just that this question has been asked many times. And it has been answered many times. You seem to know the answer already. Greg is not going to change his mind all of a sudden.

IMO, Fischman laid the hand down because he thought he was beat. He had no idea what Brunson had. He wasn't a favorite.

DonkeyKong · #7 10-21-2004, 03:20 PM

<<I just think it rubs a lot of people the wrong way when you post to a "FORUM" asking 1 "PERSON" for advice>>

ok, I will correct this... my bad.

KKsuited · #8 10-21-2004, 03:42 PM

Another good example is when Fischman laid down JJ against Washington's AK. Fischman knew he had AK, but didn't want to gamble with JJ because he thought he could bust him with a better hand later. Of course Gank and all the other goofballs in The Crew told him he was crazy for laying down JJ if he put Washington on AK.

I'm not sure if I like that move or not, but I like the thought process. Why give a weaker player a coin flip to beat you?

P.S. - Guys, I'm new to the forum as well and think some people need to take it easy on the new guys. If something has been posted and discussed 1,000 times, sorry I wasn't here then.

DonkeyKong · #9 10-21-2004, 04:06 PM

<<IMO, Fischman laid the hand down because he thought he was beat. He had no idea what Brunson had. He wasn't a favorite.>>

I was talking about pot odds, not if you were ahead or behind in the hand.

So there is the 'lay down when you are behind and look for a better spot school' vs +EV school...

<------------------------------------>
Hellmuth Fischman Fossilman Phillips

My original question was discussing the '+EV but ok to laydown' plays...

I didn't like Murphy's play vs Matt Dean with the stack Murphy had and I understand Hughes laydown vs Marcel although that would have been more understandable because Marcel had the small stack and Dean had Murphy covered...

Sklansky's tourney 'system' was/is based on the principle of stack size to blind size as the driver of hand selection. My original question revolves around that concept, at what 'stack size to blind' ratio do you laydown AK or TT?

And when in early position, do you even bother opening the pot with 88 if you are going to lay it down.

Cleveland Guy · #10 10-21-2004, 04:20 PM

I don't think there are any clear cut answers here. Which is why you aren't getting many responses.

it's hard to analyize a play on a TV event because we don't see the 50 hands between the 2 they decide to show. why did fischman call his all in? why did Murphy? Probably because of a lot of stuff we didn't see.

As for when is it right/wrong to call AK, or TT, and what pot odds are needed. There are a lot of other questions too, and poker isn't played in a vacuum.

What kind of player raised you? who has the bigger stack? do you both have big stacks? How far from the bubble are you? how far from the final talbe? Are others likely to bust out soon? Is there a chance I can pick a better spot vs. this player?

Etc, etc, etc