for those who think sklansky's theory examples are far fetched

[mike l.]

in a good live 15-30 hold em game today me and two other players were chatting about bad beat jackpots. one guy said that the only time he got one was in a stud game. he had JJJJ face up on his board and the other guy had a possible straight flush, that did in fact get there on the end. JJJJ told me that he was raising and raising and was trying to figure out why the guy kept raising back, after all he was showing 4 of a kind, surely he had the winner. so they hit the jackpot.

i thought about this story for a couple minutes and then decided i couldnt resist, i had to have more details. so i asked him :

"how many raises did you and the other guy go on the river?"

"oh i kept raising until all my chips were in, boy was i surprised when he showed me the straight flush!"

Was he drunk? Nevermind, it was a live game. [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img]

Bet/Call the river.

And I can understand why SF draw keeps calling. He sees your quads and knows if he makes it you two both make even more money. The guy with Quad Jacks should be thrilled he didn't bet him out of the pot.

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
Bet/Call the river.

And I can understand why SF draw keeps calling. He sees your quads and knows if he makes it you two both make even more money. The guy with Quad Jacks should be thrilled he didn't bet him out of the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand this post. The OP wasn't in the hand, he was relating the story. The title of this thread relates to a section in Sklansky's ToP, where it's not right to bet out with Quads. Since everyone in the world can see you have quads, he'll only raise if the opponent has the straight flush and fold otherwise.

Yes that's correct. My mistake.