I have to be ahead.....don't I?

[TheWorstPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
The results have nothing to do with the thought process.

[/ QUOTE ]
Really? They don't give you one more data point with which to validate or invalidate the thought process?

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]


That said, loved your results posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks Andy. I guess I'm so frustrated with the quality of this forum recently. Maybe I'm day dreaming, but it seems like about 3 years ago, the quality of play here was much higher.

I'm probably day dreaming. I guess back then, I was so much worse that everybody seemed so much better than me. I've learned a lot from this forum. And, well, I feel like this is an important lesson I can (maybe) teach others, too. There isn't much I can teach on these forums. But this is something that I think needs to be taught.

I've made a lot of threads in the last 12-18 months where I held off for a long time on giving the results, but I think I always caved in. I kinda did this time, too (I **DID** give the actual results in this thread), but feel better about it [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Josh

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The results have nothing to do with the thought process.

[/ QUOTE ]
Really? They don't give you one more data point with which to validate or invalidate the thought process?

[/ QUOTE ]

They absolutely give you one more data point to use on FUTURE HANDS, but not this hand. This thread has absolutely no mention of future hands (other than what I've said here).

Josh

[bugstud]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


That said, loved your results posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks Andy. I guess I'm so frustrated with the quality of this forum recently. Maybe I'm day dreaming, but it seems like about 3 years ago, the quality of play here was much higher.

I'm probably day dreaming. I guess back then, I was so much worse that everybody seemed so much better than me. I've learned a lot from this forum. And, well, I feel like this is an important lesson I can (maybe) teach others, too. There isn't much I can teach on these forums. But this is something that I think needs to be taught.

I've made a lot of threads in the last 12-18 months where I held off for a long time on giving the results, but I think I always caved in. I kinda did this time, too (I **DID** give the actual results in this thread), but feel better about it [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Josh

[/ QUOTE ].

I just don't think there's much of a decision here. I think you're ahead often enough to call, so you should do so.

[sthief09]

I have been making this kind of mistake a lot. I assume my opponents are thinking logically and can only have certain hands. but you also have to think about how they look at you. they're thinking that you're a LAG, you checked the turn so you don't have a full house, probably just the 8c or something stupid like that, and the game is 5-handed where people tend to carry the idea that everyone else is full of [censored]. so you've thrown them a message that you don't have much of anything. now you can't trust them to know that since you raised the river you must have jacks full.

now if the river was the 2h, and the same action, I don't know what you beat. but as is, the CO's check-through followd by a 3-bet is probably the Ac, and BB didn't have to play his hand how you'd expect him to on the flop. if the CO checked through and then 3-bet a red deuce river, and the BB capped, the CO almost has to have a straight flush, and if not, the BB does.

nice message with the results posts

[sthief09]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The results have nothing to do with the thought process.

[/ QUOTE ]
Really? They don't give you one more data point with which to validate or invalidate the thought process?

[/ QUOTE ]


results will cause 2 things to happen:
1. cause people to think (1) see! I knew I was right! or (2) ugh he only posted this hand to show how good he is
2. effectively end all discussion

[DonT77]

I expect that CO has at a minimum the A or K (less likely) of clubs in his hand, so his range is Acx, Kcx, + the full house possibilities of QJ (split), JT, and TT + the 4 hands that beat you (AcKc, Kc9c, 9c8c, and QQ).

I expect that BB puts CO on at least the A-high flush, so his ROH are the full house possibilities of QJ (2 ways), JT (3 ways), and TT (3 ways), plus the 4 hands that beat you.

I think you have to call here given that you are ahead of CO's ROHs and you are ahead of 8 of the 12 hands that BB could have. Given the pot odds, I definitely call here.

[elindauer]

Hi Josh,

I think you're missing the point. In your post, you are claiming that once you know that you are good more than 13% of the time, you know the call is good and results don't matter. What you fail to understand is that results provide us with the feedback we use to make the analysis of how often we are good in the first place.

The whole point of your post is that YOU DON'T KNOW how often you are good. So how would find out? By playing a lot of poker, seeing similar situations many times, and checking the results.

If you took a new player, and let them play 50,000 hands of poker, but never let them see the results of ANY of the hands, how do you think they would do? I bet they would be just about as clueless after as they were in hand 1.

Results are the feedback we use to estimate hand ranges and make predictions for future hands. These predictions are critical to playing winning poker. Therefore, knowing results is critical for winning poker.

-Eric