($55) Aces full - a hand you don't see everyday

[handsome]

Wow, thanks for explaining yourself. Very productive.

[Simplistic]

[ QUOTE ]
1. We know where 3 aces are.
2. Fastplaying aces doesn't require a smart opponent here, it requires a psychic one. Fastplaying will get the most money out of TT, but there was no PFR. How can the ace put anyone on a hand as good as TT?

So of the tiny percentage of time villian has the case ace he won't slowplay a tiny percentage of the time. Thus, safely discredited.

[/ QUOTE ]in cash games it's pounded into our heads that with a monster hand you build the pot. if somebody has nothing and folds than so be it, but when a donk decides he can't laydown a mid pp then you stack him off. the same concept applies to tournaments too.

[FlyWf]

I know 'fastplaying is the new slowplaying', but no way. You want to give KJ a chance to spike something you can stack him with. If you were going to get a PP's money you'd still get it on the turn or river, but you don't want to chase out unpaired high cards.

NL SNGs are not MTTs and they aren't limit cash games. And uh, when people say to jam with monsters they don't mean this monster. You've throttled the deck. TT-88 are the only hands you can think about stacking here.

[Simplistic]

[ QUOTE ]
I know 'fastplaying is the new slowplaying', but no way. You want to give KJ a chance to spike something you can stack him with. If you were going to get a PP's money you'd still get it on the turn or river, but you don't want to chase out unpaired high cards.

NL SNGs are not MTTs and they aren't limit cash games. And uh, when people say to jam with monsters they don't mean this monster. You've throttled the deck. TT-88 are the only hands you can think about stacking here.

[/ QUOTE ]if hero is betting and villain is smooth calling, which is more suspicious? all i'm trying to say is that there's more than one way to skin a sheep. to outright dismiss the ace is still in my mind bad

[SammyKid11]

[ QUOTE ]
to outright dismiss the ace is still in my mind bad

[/ QUOTE ]

Look, we're not outright dismissing the ace because it's not possible for villain to have an ace and raise, we're dismissing the ace because the combination of him a) having the ace, and b) raising the flop with quad aces...is SO LOW as to not be worth it.

You know how when you get dealt KK ITM, all you're thinking about is how to get all your money in? Sure, it's POSSIBLE your opponent has AA (a lot MORE possible than villain here having quad aces and raising the flop with them)...but it's not likely enough for you to play the hand any differently preflop than if it were impossible. I think this is what people are saying. The likelihood of villain having quad aces AND raising them on the flop are less than 1%...thus, you don't spend a lot of time worrying about the fourth ace. Sure, one out of every hundred times you encounter a situation that meets all of these criteria (which might take 3 years even if you play 70 SnG's a day) you'll be toast...the other 99 percent you'll make more money by playing your hand as though your opponent does not have 4 aces. It's a HUGE gain to go with VERY likely assumptions. In fact, that's all we have...we can never know FOR SURE what our opponents hold -- we can only make deductions on the best available information to determine what is most likely for them to hold.

[fisherman112]

i find it's +EV to have more chips. explain to me what hand limps preflop and then raises an AAA that has TT beat? if you really want to plat that tight, you could just call him down or call the turn and block bet the river. folding is ridiculous. why would someone with an ace raise the flop?
i agree that pushing is unnecessary since nothing is calling you unless the guy was raising with an ace (very, very unlikely), but folding is the worst of all your options.

[Kristian]

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone has a different playing style and I have to emphasize that this does not fall in line with the one I foster (please respect that).


[/ QUOTE ]

I think what people are trying to say is that this is not a matter of playing style (or respect for that matter). I agree with a bunch of others that you are giving really bad advice on this hand.


[ QUOTE ]

... we have to consider the following factors:
1. the likelihood of us cashing when we check-fold the flop.
2. the likelihood of us cashing when we double up on the first hand.
3. the likelihood of us busting to the case A, JJ+, or suckout (greater than you think).

IMO, #2 is great but not SO MUCH greater than #1 that we should get all our money in and risk a 10th place finish (when #3 happens). Feel free to disagree, but I'm just presenting an alternate way of playing that also yields long-term success with less volatility.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do disagree. All three of the numbers you are considering are fairly easy to estimate (at least if you replace "likelihood of us cashing" with "EV of $ won from tournament"), and the result you come up with is very clear: You just can't throw this very profitable situation away and present it as a path towards long term success. You are ahead or way ahead nearly every time this hands comes along (about once every 2000 years), throwing it away is just horrible.

I am wondering if you would agree that taking a 65% chance to double, 35% to lose it all, on the very first hand of an SnG of any level is a good move, provided you are playing only for maximizing hourly income?

[Hendricks433]

I think that was a good way to play it. Next time just post a little at the time to not let people be results oriented [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]