Stupid fish (bad beat post)

[savman]

this is a retarded post eclipsed only by the manner in which hero played the hand.

[sammy_g]

*yawn*

This is really not that bad a beat.

I think you overplayed your hand despite what everyone had.

Posts like this aren't very useful unless you're looking for criticism of your play, in which case don't post results.

[btetreau]

yup, they are dumb fish.

but i think that it was a bad play to raise pre-flop any one of the three times. AQo is not that good of a hand, and is easily stackable from AK. just call the first time a raise comes to you, and let it go on the flop. also, considering that there were multiple other people involved.... you will lose this a vast majority of the time, even against bad players.

[ QUOTE ]
Note: this table was full of fish. Not a single decent player.

[/ QUOTE ]

[BZ_Zorro]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Note: this table was full of fish. Not a single decent player.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
lmao

Um, pretty sure that I would not try a squeeze against a reraise.

[Larimani]

Isn't the aim of poker to take the actions you would take if you were able to see your opponent's cards and to force your opponents to not take similar actions and therefore make "mistakes"? (cf. Theory of Poker, Sklansky)

Therefore, how can you say that I played badly?? I may have had information that you are not exposed to that made me believe I was in front of all villains, and I was right. I played my hand as I would have done if I had seen everyone's cards. My play/read, far from being bad, was perfect. And I got lucked out on by fish.

Regardless, the original aim of this post was not to show how BAD a beat it was... or how bad/great my play was... it was just to show that 25NL party idiots are willing to go to the felt with junk.

[sammy_g]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't the aim of poker to take the actions you would take if you were able to see your opponent's cards and to force your opponents to not take similar actions and therefore make "mistakes"? (cf. Theory of Poker, Sklansky)

[/ QUOTE ]
No, it's to make the best play against the RANGE of hands your opponents could hold. This is the difference between correct play and "perfect" play. (cf. Ace on the River, Greenstein)

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore, how can you say that I played badly??

[/ QUOTE ]
You're being results oriented.

[ QUOTE ]
I may have had information that you are not exposed to that made me believe I was in front of all villains, and I was right.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a copout. It's an explaination that cannot be proven/disproven. I see people use this excuse for bad play all the time. Did they show you their cards?

You're being results oriented.

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless, the original aim of this post was not to show how BAD a beat it was... or how bad/great my play was...

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't believe you. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
it was just to show that 25NL party idiots are willing to go to the felt with junk.

[/ QUOTE ]
We already knew this.

Did I mention you're being results oriented?

[savman]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't the aim of poker to take the actions you would take if you were able to see your opponent's cards and to force your opponents to not take similar actions and therefore make "mistakes"? (cf. Theory of Poker, Sklansky)

Therefore, how can you say that I played badly?? I may have had information that you are not exposed to that made me believe I was in front of all villains, and I was right. I played my hand as I would have done if I had seen everyone's cards. My play/read, far from being bad, was perfect. And I got lucked out on by fish.

Regardless, the original aim of this post was not to show how BAD a beat it was... or how bad/great my play was... it was just to show that 25NL party idiots are willing to go to the felt with junk.

[/ QUOTE ]

your play was perfect? earth to FTOP guy. imo your pf three bet was bad. real bad. u said something along the lines of you knew sb would go all in and u could perform another squeeze play. what in the world do u mean by this. are u suggestting that players, who have already called two bets pf, are calling sb all in and folding to your push after they have invested 50bb pf. dont think so. also, i find it amusing that BB cold call didnt even factor into your decision. i mean this cat cold called a reraise pf when he wasnt even close to closing the action. yea, he might be a fish, but fish "trap" with monsters just like that. then, when it gets back to you if u are playing PUSH! AQ off does not fare as well multiway.....god man, push and give urself a shot at getting it heads up. if u can get hu with an inferior hand and 40 or whatever bb of dead money in the middle that is a COUP for AQ off.

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't the aim of poker to take the actions you would take if you were able to see your opponent's cards and to force your opponents to not take similar actions and therefore make "mistakes"? (cf. Theory of Poker, Sklansky)

Therefore, how can you say that I played badly?? I may have had information that you are not exposed to that made me believe I was in front of all villains, and I was right. I played my hand as I would have done if I had seen everyone's cards. My play/read, far from being bad, was perfect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Translation: "It turns out that I was right that I had the best hand; therefore, I was right to move all in."

To the extent this is results-oriented thinking, it can be dismissed out of hand as such. To the extent that it represents a philosophy: "get your $ in with the best hand," it is a misapplication of the philosophy. As it turns out, you had a better hand than either fish, but you were an underdog to the combination of their hands. Recognizing this fact, that you were basically an underdog to any two slightly non-random holdings, should have told you that the correct move was to fold, at the latest to the reraise.

I think the fact that hasn't sunk in for you yet is that your AQ was an underdog to the combination of these two hands; therefore, correct application of the fundamental theorem requires a fold.

But you could not see your opponent's cards, all you could see were their bets; and their bets were representing solid hands. Even granting that they are fish, these bets should have told you that they were holding decent cards, such that your AQ was an underdog to the combination of the two hands, and again, the correct action was to fold.