Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > PL/NL Texas Hold'em > Small Stakes Pot-, No-Limit Hold'em

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 06-18-2005, 12:15 AM
Skjonne Skjonne is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Denmark
Posts: 122
Default Re: Holy cow! (lc)

Wow. This is fun.

1) Yeah I have KK

2) Oh yeah a reraise. I'll take his stack...maybe

3) WTF!?! A Rereraise. I'm a dog. Are all four aces in? Let me get my ass outahere

4) Wow people allways complain about KK and AA in the same hand. Here's KK+KK+AA. Let me tell my 2+2 imaginary buddies that. Remember to write "lc" cause there's nothing to discuss, just fun

5) WFTWFT?!?!? They think I'm weak-tight??? (I am btw)

6) And more people ridiculing me???!?

7) Oh I see. The sane people were just sleeping. They are here now

Serioulsy, I only posted the hand because it was KK vs KK vs AA - I don't think I've seen that before. I didn't post to discuss or to brag. I guess that's why poker is fun. What I think is obvious others think is a brain fart

6:15AM - I'm off to bed
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 06-18-2005, 12:26 AM
Skjonne Skjonne is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Denmark
Posts: 122
Default Re: Holy cow! (lc)

Just noticed: The converter is weird but nobody noticed.

1+2 (blinds)
7 (my raise)
2*85 (rereraise and call)

=180

According to the HH they checked it down postflop (very hard to believe) and the final pot was $180, i.e. no rake was taken. Huh?
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 06-18-2005, 02:08 AM
gulebjorn gulebjorn is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 0
Default Re: Holy cow! (lc)

[ QUOTE ]
Please don't do that.

You think this is settled. You agree with Harrington, so why not let people in on the Truth you have discovered?

[/ QUOTE ]

No need to be sarcastic. Yes, I think it is settled, and yes, I agree with Harrington. I don't know about the Truth I have discovered. I read a book. Other people do that too, you know.

I think that especially the part about outguessing yourself is very accurate. Without a huge read, you're laying down a big favorite preflop here.

Are you telling me that out of all the times people go all-in preflop when you are holding kings (I'm not even talking about 6-max) in small stakes games, you are a good enough poker player to point out the exact 1 in 24 occasions when they have aces?

If so, good for you. If not (like me), you should just call and be happy to see them turn over QQ or even 88 every once in a while.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 06-18-2005, 07:16 AM
pzhon pzhon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 66
Default Re: Holy cow! (lc)

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I think it is settled, and yes, I agree with Harrington.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you are wrong, and I think Harrington knows it can be right by a lot to fold KK preflop when the stacks are deeper.

At NL 25, it may be wrong to fold KK preflop with 100 BB stacks, since people can turn up JJ or AT. However, in my experience, people rarely push over a reraise with less than KK at NL 100. Unless you are up against a known maniac, it's not worth calling to see AA again.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you telling me that out of all the times people go all-in preflop when you are holding kings (I'm not even talking about 6-max) in small stakes games, you are a good enough poker player to point out the exact 1 in 24 occasions when they have aces?

[/ QUOTE ]
If people were to move in every time I have KK, then that 1 in 24 figure is relevant. I would call every time, and on average, I would be a huge favorite. Since they don't move in randomly, the 1 out of 24 figure is not relevant. When someone moves in over a reraise, you get information. Sometimes this is enough information to fold KK.

I didn't determine this abstractly. I determined this by failing to fold KK, and seeing AA over and over again.

[ QUOTE ]

If not (like me), you should just call and be happy to see them turn over QQ or even 88 every once in a while.

[/ QUOTE ]
They don't turn over 88 or 94o 23 out of 24 times for you? Then you see those pushes are not random.

"Every once in a while" is not often enough. How often do you have to be up against something other than AA to call with KK? If you assume your opponent has either AA or an unbiased distribution of KK, QQ, and AK hands, you are a 73:27 favorite when you are not up against AA. When you are up against AA, you are an 82:18 underdog.

If you are getting 2:1, you need to see something other than AA 28% of the time to call. At 3:2, you need 40%. At 10:9, you need to see something other than AA 53% of the time to call. How often does "every once in a while" mean to you?

I'd say it isn't often enough to say to call with KK in some FAQ without restricting the context.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 06-18-2005, 08:50 AM
gulebjorn gulebjorn is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 0
Default Re: Holy cow! (lc)

[ QUOTE ]
At 3:2, you need 40%.

[/ QUOTE ]
Without a very good read, I would assume that my chances of seeing kings, queens, jacks, tens, AK or whatever are better than 40% here.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 06-18-2005, 01:36 PM
pzhon pzhon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 66
Default Re: Holy cow! (lc)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At 3:2, you need 40%.

[/ QUOTE ]
Without a very good read, I would assume that my chances of seeing kings, queens, jacks, tens, AK or whatever are better than 40% here.

[/ QUOTE ]
You assume that is true at all levels? Is this based on actual data?

That quote you vowed to copy every time this comes up talked about Harrington ignoring his read. Do you agree with it enough to post on this recent thread where the consensus was to fold KK based on stats after 150 hands? "When's the last time you've seen a 17VPIP 6-max player three bet preflop with less than KK." "Fold with very little hesitation." "I doubt he would do this with QQ, especially since he was so passive." Now, I'm not sure I agree with what was said on that thread, particularly since the initial raise was from the button, which shows a lot less strength than a raise from middle position. However, don't you think it is worth debating, rather than trying to eliminate discussion by repeating a Harrington quote out of context?
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 06-18-2005, 03:38 PM
gulebjorn gulebjorn is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 0
Default Re: Holy cow! (lc)

First of all, let me say that re-reading my original two posts in this thread, I don't like the tone of it. What can I say, I had a few beers and was posting because playing would have been a bad idea.

While I didn't mean to sound as if there is some universal truth in this, and only I know about it and am kind enough to share this with all of you, I still think that I am not wrong here.

This said, let's continue the discussion, because as you said, this is of course worth debating.

[ QUOTE ]
You assume that is true at all levels? Is this based on actual data?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, and no. But I do assume this is true in small stakes NL. That is why the example of that other thread does not apply here.

I assume this because as I said, I see AK or a lower pair pull this kind of move on a pretty regular basis. Of course, if you have a very good read on your opponent, you should always stick with the read.

However, no read was included in the original post, and I think that the amount of a bet is not enough to narrow your opponents holding down to one specific hand.

Anyway, my intention was not at all to eliminate debate by quoting this. I've always thought of this as true, and harrington just worded it better than I ever could. If I did not want debate, I would not be posting here.

I do not mind being corrected at all, because that is the only way I will learn. But somehow, I have a feeling that you were in some way offended by my post. This might be because I came off as arrogant in those two posts. If so, sorry about that.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.