Unusual AKo hand, 30-60

I think you need to call this river, and not bet the flop....the way you played it, it would have been cool to donk the turn.....

[yoshi_yoshi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
True, when the river came, I would have called utg. But before I had the chance, I had new information presented to me. Namely, the other two both had aces. UTG still thought he could win the hand. UTG could beat an ace. I chose to use this new information, information I didn't have when I planned on calling UTG.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still trying to figure this out. Did you have a conversation with UTG after the two guys called and he told you he still thought he would win the hand? Or did those two guys tell UTG before he bet that they were both going to call?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that, when he bet, he thought he'd win over 90% of the time (with up to 10% bluffing probability).

He (UTG) may or may not have known that three people behind him had big aces. But if he's checking a very non-scary Ten, he's either passive or trapping. If he's passive, he ain't betting into a scary ace. If he's trapping, I should fold.

Josh

[/ QUOTE ]

My point is simple. What the other two guys do shouldn't impact your thoughts regarding UTG's hand strength (for the most part) or bluffing frequency (at all), because he does not know what they are going to do when he bets. If you think he is bluffing enough for you to call, it shouldn't matter whether zero, one, or both call in the middle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Having two callers does change the probability of this guy bluffing or not. Say the guy could be bluffing, betting an ace, or betting something better. OP has a read that the guy could be bluffing or betting an ace enough times that a call w/ AK is good.

If OP also has a read that the two callers are likely calling with aces, that could swing the call into a fold, because it removes the aces from the better's hand range. I think that's what Josh is trying to say.

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]

My point is simple. What the other two guys do shouldn't impact your thoughts regarding UTG's hand strength (for the most part) or bluffing frequency (at all), because he does not know what they are going to do when he bets.

[/ QUOTE ]

UTG is blessed with something I am not...knowledge of UTG's hand.

All I can do is use all the information to figure out what his hand is. And when both other people call, that information tells me UTG doesn't have an ace. That, coupled with his non-fear of an ace tells me my hand is no good.

UTGs bet doesn't tell me all of this. And if both don't call, I certainly have to. But when both call, my kicker is irrelevant, and my holding of one solitary pair is overwhelmingly unsatisfactory.

I'm drunk, but I still like my play. If you guys think I'm wrong, please, give me some reason to believe so.

Josh

[Ulysses]

Josh, I am drunk too. Come up to SF Monday and party w/ mike l. It will be good times. Boris will be there. I will teach you how to play Texas Hold'em. And pinball.

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have much to add to this thread other than quoting whoever it was who said something along the lines of 'you don't make money in limit hold'em by making big laydowns on the river in huge pots.'

[/ QUOTE ]

I am positive that Josh knows and considered this advice. As he has been repeatedly pointing out, simply restating "big pot ==> call" is not helpful.

Of course if Josh thinks he wins 10% of the time, he should call. However, if he's 5% to win, he should fold. So precision matters here.

Also, if you think it is a close decision, then folding is okay. There is a huge flaw in the idea that "You need to win 1 in 14 times, and I think you will win about that much, but call-and-it's-not-close because losing a big pot is catastrophic and losing a bet isn't." That's not how EV works.

If Josh is exactly 5% to win, he should not call. And that's true even if this is one of those times when he actually would have been good.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

My point is simple. What the other two guys do shouldn't impact your thoughts regarding UTG's hand strength (for the most part) or bluffing frequency (at all), because he does not know what they are going to do when he bets.

[/ QUOTE ]

UTG is blessed with something I am not...knowledge of UTG's hand.

All I can do is use all the information to figure out what his hand is. And when both other people call, that information tells me UTG doesn't have an ace. That, coupled with his non-fear of an ace tells me my hand is no good.

UTGs bet doesn't tell me all of this. And if both don't call, I certainly have to. But when both call, my kicker is irrelevant, and my holding of one solitary pair is overwhelmingly unsatisfactory.

I'm drunk, but I still like my play. If you guys think I'm wrong, please, give me some reason to believe so.

Josh

[/ QUOTE ]

Alright I'll try to explain what people have been trying to tell you ...

When UTG bets, he is saying that either he has an ace, he can beat one, or he's full of crap. You say he "doesn't fear the ace", when it may be simply that he hopes you all fear it enough to fold. Then when the two people call, one and perhaps both of them are thinking that they can beat the top pair off the flop, which is what UTG checkraised on, or they have an ace and are calling because the pot is large (and why the hell would you fold top pair for one bet in a pot this large, they think, as should you).

So you have one bettor who may have you beat, may be full of crap completely, and may have a hand you can beat. Then you have two people only calling because they probably cannot beat the ace. And you are sitting there with the best ace. No matter what they have, UTG's bet means the same thing--he's got a great hand, a good hand you can beat, or a busted hand. So the question is--can you beat UTG?

Well you sure as hell beat him often enough to call in this size pot. Look at your hand one more time--you have top pair, top kicker in a very large pot facing a single bet that comes originally from a player you might have beat. The other two players have shown no strength at all. If you don't call in this spot, it's a dreadful error. In fact, I'd raise.

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't call in this spot, it's a dreadful error.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Josh thinks UTG will bluff 5% of the times he bets, it is clearly not "dreadful."

I think he should call too, but I don't think a fold is so obviously wrong like everyone else seems to. I don't think it's an obvious river play either way because if it were the thread wouldn't go on for so long. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ALL1N]

[ QUOTE ]
My point is simple. What the other two guys do shouldn't impact your thoughts regarding UTG's hand strength (for the most part) or bluffing frequency (at all), because he does not know what they are going to do when he bets. If you think he is bluffing enough for you to call, it shouldn't matter whether zero, one, or both call in the middle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Eh?? When the other guy's call, it attacks the range of UTG in a non-uniform manner. Why do you say it can't impact his bluffing frequency?

If, just after UTG bets, we put him on:
-3% bluff
-37% hand with an ace
-60% better hand no holding an ace

then it's a call.

However, after 2 callers, the likelihood of UTG having an ace has diminished to almost zero, and so of course our likelihood of being ahead are much closer to 3/63 ~5%, which is a fold.

[cracker9521]

This looks like one of those hands where the EV either way is measured in pennies and i'm curious as to what happened.

[ QUOTE ]
This looks like one of those hands where the EV either way is measured in pennies and i'm curious as to what happened.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just can't imagine intelligent poker players believing that this is such a close decision ... this thread boggles my mind.