pbdrunks on pstars is a clown

[Exitonly]

Ok, you can play what-if games all you want, BB has a random hand, and he's going to fold 90%+ of the time. Then you're heads up with a random hand, and you're in a coinflip for a decent amount of chips.

[ QUOTE ]
If he wins yes. The biggest(I have several) problem with this move as I see it is the raise. I know he had a read on the bb blah blah blah. The problem is he had no reasonable knowledge of the bb's hand. IMO not only does the isolation move negate any odds he had to make the call but provides him with some pretty darn oppressive reverse implied odds IMO. I think that had he not posted the results of this hand, people would be thinking a lot differently about this move.

What happens when you make this move, the bb cold calls you w/AA and the flop comes down AQ5? BB has you covered and when you raise him with a horrible hands the reverse implied odds are exactly the size of your stack every single time IMO. In this case it worked so everyone says it's a great move, but I've seen people make similar moves that have blown up in their faces and when they posted them on this very forum with the opposite results we see here they get railroaded (for good reason IMO)

[/ QUOTE ]

If all goes well for you, in two or three months you’ll look back on this post and say “I can’t believe I wrote that.”

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If he wins yes. The biggest(I have several) problem with this move as I see it is the raise. I know he had a read on the bb blah blah blah. The problem is he had no reasonable knowledge of the bb's hand. IMO not only does the isolation move negate any odds he had to make the call but provides him with some pretty darn oppressive reverse implied odds IMO. I think that had he not posted the results of this hand, people would be thinking a lot differently about this move.

What happens when you make this move, the bb cold calls you w/AA and the flop comes down AQ5? BB has you covered and when you raise him with a horrible hands the reverse implied odds are exactly the size of your stack every single time IMO. In this case it worked so everyone says it's a great move, but I've seen people make similar moves that have blown up in their faces and when they posted them on this very forum with the opposite results we see here they get railroaded (for good reason IMO)

[/ QUOTE ]

If all goes well for you, in two or three months you’ll look back on this post and say “I can’t believe I wrote that.”

[/ QUOTE ]

I sincerely hope so. I truly would like to understand this play as it's one I see often but I don't get it. It seems a little too craps or roulette to me. And yes, I used an extreme example and not exactly one that I'm afraid of. I guess my point is just because he can push ATC shouldn't lead one to believe that you should call ATC with someone to act behind you and even more so shouldn't lead one to reraise ATC. Believe me if I'm the shorty in this spot I'm certainly pushing far worse hands I guess I'm just not at a level of play yet where I can comfortably come over the top of someone whose already all in with Q5o. Someday I sure hope to be.

[lotus776]

Harrington's "rule of ten" it's the play that he advocated calling ANY AI if your stack is 10 times the pusher's
something to think about

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
Hell, if Q5o ain't any 2, I don't know what is But seriously, what's the cutoff then for taking this line?

[/ QUOTE ]

Q5 is actually pretty low on my list. Q2 i might have, but would'nt have liked it as much. J7o, J5s or so i think would be good enough, and T8o, 98o, maybe 87s. i don't know really, but somewhere around there is i think where i'd draw the line.

when your getting 2:1 on your call against any two cards Q5 is probably a coin flip, your only screwed against 5K,5A,pockets 55+,Q6+. Everything else and your getting more then enough odds for. Most hands your either a favorite or 55:45 (A2 vs Q5) or something like 60:40, or since he is raising w/ any two here because he's a good player and he knows he can't wait around Q5 is better then an average hand so you may even be best. However, your hand is not good 3 way, therefore, to make this a +EV its mandatory to raise the bb (who he even said would need a good hand to call, so he's tight, even better). Now your getting 2:1 on your money where your likely a favorite or a 60:40 situation at worst (only need 3:2, your still getting better then that) unless he picked up some monster, which is highly unlikely (20% of the time roughly) and still unexpensive because his stack is so low.

[Yuv]

I played with him last night in the PLO deepstack. He was pretty amusing with his constant whinning.

[0evg0]

[ QUOTE ]
IMO not only does the isolation move negate any odds he had to make the call

[/ QUOTE ]
Less posting, more reading on how to not be a complete donk, please.

When you reraise an all-in bet and are not called, those chips are returned to you. Raise or call he is getting the exact same odds. This is basic math.

This play is so ridiculously obvious it's not even funny. But I will concede that reading people call it an awful play is definitely +EV in terms of laughs.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IMO not only does the isolation move negate any odds he had to make the call

[/ QUOTE ]
Less posting, more reading on how to not be a complete donk, please.

When you reraise an all-in bet and are not called, those chips are returned to you. Raise or call he is getting the exact same odds. This is basic math.

This play is so ridiculously obvious it's not even funny. But I will concede that reading people call it an awful play is definitely +EV in terms of laughs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the helpful comments and the willingness to share your knowledge with a newbie. I now know why I have found this such a helpful forum. Back to exclusively reading the posts of others and never posting I guess.

[Kaeser]

[ QUOTE ]
Harrington's "rule of ten" it's the play that he advocated calling ANY AI if your stack is 10 times the pusher's
something to think about

[/ QUOTE ]

Harrington's rule of 10 applies only if your closing the action.