Unusual AKo hand, 30-60

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]


I just did the math. It indicates a clear call given their hand ranges. It shows how dreadful your fold really is. Do it yourself if you want to see the results, because you've been such a total dick on this thread I'm not writing it out for you.

Don't believe me? Don't care. Play it however you like.

Way to make a big fold in a spot you shouldn't have and then have your "genius" confirmed by the results though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me clarify. I did the math AND SHOWED it, and it said "fold" unless you think UTG will bluff more than 10% of the time.

Why do the math and not show it?

Why resort to name calling?

Why get so indignant?

And, again, I very often post hands like this where I am wrong, and not sure why/where I am wrong. This forum usually clears it up for me. So far, all this forum has done has shown that it's incredibly close.

Show your work.

Josh

[jjacky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

Believe it or not, this has become my main point here. It's really very close. I've never once (and, this isn't directed at you, but to the thread in general) said it's a clear fold. But many people have said it's a clear call.

THE ONLY WAY IT CAN BE A CLEAR CALL IS IF YOU DON'T EVEN TRY TO READ HANDS. Period.

If you try to read hands, you'll see that it's very close. If you think UTG bluffs under about 10% of the time, it's a fold. If you think he bluffs 10 or more %, it's a call.

In any case, it's close.

Not often on a forum like this can somebody be de facto wrong. However, those who say it's a disasterous fold or a horrible fold or a clear call are just plain wrong.

Likewise, if anybody said it's an obvious muck, they too would be wrong.

Josh

[/ QUOTE ]

ok, you are reading hands...

and your read tells you, that the two caller have aces each and the bettor has a non ace containing hand that he had slowplayed on the turn in a monster pot with a 2 flush on the board in a gigantic multiway pot with a probability well over 90%? thats hilarious.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I just did the math. It indicates a clear call given their hand ranges. It shows how dreadful your fold really is. Do it yourself if you want to see the results, because you've been such a total dick on this thread I'm not writing it out for you.

Don't believe me? Don't care. Play it however you like.

Way to make a big fold in a spot you shouldn't have and then have your "genius" confirmed by the results though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me clarify. I did the math AND SHOWED it, and it said "fold" unless you think UTG will bluff more than 10% of the time.

Why do the math and not show it?

Why resort to name calling?

Why get so indignant?

And, again, I very often post hands like this where I am wrong, and not sure why/where I am wrong. This forum usually clears it up for me. So far, all this forum has done has shown that it's incredibly close.

Show your work.

Josh

[/ QUOTE ]

You didn't do any math. You made some vague comments and put some vague percentages on their hand possibilities, said you "ran out of aces" and folded.

Do the math for real and find out why if you ran this hand 1000 times against the actual hand ranges you can determine with reasonable accuracy on the river, folding would be highly -EV. I'm not here to educate dicks.

And I'm certainly not the lazy one here, or the showoff who's decided to post a hand he screwed up and then rely on the results to vindicate his decision, then argue with all of the people who rightly point out what a crappy fold it really was.

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I just did the math. It indicates a clear call given their hand ranges. It shows how dreadful your fold really is. Do it yourself if you want to see the results, because you've been such a total dick on this thread I'm not writing it out for you.

Don't believe me? Don't care. Play it however you like.

Way to make a big fold in a spot you shouldn't have and then have your "genius" confirmed by the results though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me clarify. I did the math AND SHOWED it, and it said "fold" unless you think UTG will bluff more than 10% of the time.

Why do the math and not show it?

Why resort to name calling?

Why get so indignant?

And, again, I very often post hands like this where I am wrong, and not sure why/where I am wrong. This forum usually clears it up for me. So far, all this forum has done has shown that it's incredibly close.

Show your work.

Josh

[/ QUOTE ]

You didn't do any math. You made some vague comments and put some vague percentages on their hand possibilities, said you "ran out of aces" and folded.

Do the math for real and find out why if you ran this hand 1000 times against the actual hand ranges you can determine with reasonable accuracy on the river, folding would be highly -EV. I'm not here to educate dicks.

And I'm certainly not the lazy one here, or the showoff who's decided to post a hand he screwed up and then rely on the results to vindicate his decision, then argue with all of the people who rightly point out what a crappy fold it really was.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're funny. I mean that in a good way.

Josh

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]

ok, you are reading hands...

and your read tells you, that the two caller have aces each


[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. I think most will agree with this. By "agree" I mean if person X is to read hands, they'll guess HJ and Button have aces as their first guess.

[ QUOTE ]

and the bettor has a non ace containing hand


[/ QUOTE ]

This follows from above, and the fact that there are only 4 in the deck.

[ QUOTE ]

that he had slowplayed on the turn in a monster pot with a 2 flush on the board in a gigantic multiway pot


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, or he's bluffing.

[ QUOTE ]

with a probability well over 90%? thats hilarious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty much. Oh, sure, you are missing lots of points, like, even if HJ doesn't have an ace, I'm still a big dog to win this because UTG still very possibly (in fact, LIKELY, has me beat...)

Look, if I said "the sun rose at 7:31 a.m., and the temperature at this time of day was 61 degrees in a specific city", well, that would be a pretty ridiculous parlay (of course).

However, if all indications are that it's the time of year when the sun rises at 7:31, and the normal temp at 7:31 is 61 degrees for this same time of year, well...suddenly it's not so ridiculous. That's what's happening here. Everything is strongly correlated. Once one thing happens (both opponents raise preflop, call the flop, check the turn, and call the river), everything else becomes VERY likely.

Josh

[jjacky]

i don't consider it to be very likely that someone has slowplayed on the turn (it would have been a terrible mistake).
sure, you are probably beat, but your read doesn't have a reliability of more than 90% (not even close).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

ok, you are reading hands...

and your read tells you, that the two caller have aces each


[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. I think most will agree with this. By "agree" I mean if person X is to read hands, they'll guess HJ and Button have aces as their first guess.


[/ QUOTE ]

sure, its very possible that both caller have aces, but it isn't like almost 100% sure.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

and the bettor has a non ace containing hand


[/ QUOTE ]

This follows from above, and the fact that there are only 4 in the deck.


[/ QUOTE ]

yes, i am aware of the fact that usualy only 4 aces are in the deck.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

that he had slowplayed on the turn in a monster pot with a 2 flush on the board in a gigantic multiway pot


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, or he's bluffing.

[ QUOTE ]

with a probability well over 90%? thats hilarious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty much. Oh, sure, you are missing lots of points, like, even if HJ doesn't have an ace, I'm still a big dog to win this because UTG still very possibly (in fact, LIKELY, has me beat...)

Josh

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, he likely has you beat if hijack has an ace and he very possibly has you if hijack doesn't have one. the problem is that you have to be right much more than 90% of the time. i realy don't see why you think you are.

even if you are beat with a probability of 95% if hijack and button have an ace each and they have aces with a chance of 80% and you are beat with 75% if they both have aces it is a call!

Sorry but you're stupid, wrong and stubborn. Good luck at the tables, Minnie.

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry but you're stupid, wrong and stubborn. Good luck at the tables, Minnie.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think I'm stupid.

Nobody has shown why I'm wrong.

I am undoubtedly stubborn.

Good luck Minnie,

Josh

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]

even if you are beat with a probability of 95% if hijack and button have an ace each and they have aces with a chance of 80% and you are beat with 75% if they both have aces it is a call!

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for using math, really.

However, I don't quite understand what you are saying.

I think you are saying (and I fully realize these are somewhat hypothetical numbers, but I'm just trying to understand your example)....

I'm beat 95% of the time both have aces.
Both have aces 80% of the time.

What's the 75% number representative of?

Thanks,

Josh

[lil feller]

Hi Josh,

I think your analysis is very insightful, and while I agree that being able to accurately analyze these sorts of situations is important as you move up in limits, I think in this particular situation you're making some assumptions that might not be warrented.

First, the HJ is unknown, and you can't know anything about his raising standards, his flop cold calling standards, his turn checking standards, or his river calling standards. You also can't assume that he's paying attention to what anybody else in the hand might have, or what the action means. He's not you, he's just some random guy at a 30/60 table. It's entirely possible, and not that unlikely, that he has something like 77 or 88, and saw 2 over cards and didn't want to bet the turn, but wanted to call the river, just because the pots so big. I think ruling out that possibility, and limiting his range to only a big Ace is assuming too much.

Second, without knowing more about UTG's post flop play I think its impossible to accurate assess how often he bluffs here. In some of yours responses to this thread you argued repeatedly that UTG can't be bluffing more than 10% of the time here, since that river card looks like it hit everybody and there's a 4 person field to bluff through. This player sees 38% of his flops, indicating his situational analysis skills preflop obviously need some work. Why would you assume that his postflop analysis skills are any better. I think its possible, certainly more than 10% possible that UTG is either betting a smaller ace (doesn't have to be Axh, a 38 VPIP is capable of limping with any ace), or a whiff with a "der, only way I can win is to bet" mentality without really thinking about the situation of chance of success.

I believe the only assumption you can safely make is that the button has a big ace. IMO all the uncertainty involved in all of your assumptions pushes this close decision towards a call.

Ultimately its that 10% number that this decision revolves around, and it sounds like, in reading a lot of your responses, that your applying your analyatical standards to UTG, this is likely a mistake. I also think its important to remeber that people don't always do stuff for any particular reason while in a poker game, I know i've been called by KQ on an Axxx board more then once in the Party 15/30 game...

These are just some thoughts, hopefully you'll respond with some of your own.

lf