Unusual AKo hand, 30-60

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi El Diablo,

I agree with your point that UTG doesn't know he's going to be called when he bets, and it's an important one. However, the callers do impact the range of hands UTG has. As the aces become more scare, it makes it more likely that he is either bluffing or has a monster. On this point, Josh's at-the-table analysis was excellent.

I just don't think it impacts the odds as much as he seems to think it does.

-eric

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, rather than "for the most part" I should have said something like "not as much as you think, because it is very easy for at least one to not have an Ace."

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
THE ONLY WAY IT CAN BE A CLEAR CALL IS IF YOU DON'T EVEN TRY TO READ HANDS. Period.

[/ QUOTE ]

I always enjoy when someone complains about people making bold statements and then writes something in all caps with no room for discussion. So you are absolutely sure you cannot prove this is a call, huh? There's no way you made a math mistake? It's impossible that anyone who thinks about hand ranges could conclude that calling is definitely correct?

[ QUOTE ]
If you try to read hands, you'll see that it's very close. If you think UTG bluffs under about 10% of the time, it's a fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is only true if you believe that the two callers will never call with less than top pair. You state this over and over, but do you really believe it? Are you prepared to assume that the first caller, who is unknown to you, will never call with a pocket pair? He can't have TT or 88 or 77? If the caller can have these hands, then you can still beat plenty of things that UTG may bet for value. He doesn't have to be bluffing for you to win.

-eric

[Josh W]

Regarding your first point, to me there is a large difference between a "clear call" and a "call". That was the point of my all-caps statement. My "no room for discussion" (as you put it) statement is simply that there is room for discussion, that it is close.

Regarding your other point, it's been rehashed too many times already.

Josh

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
Three people (besides me) thought that they could win with that ace out there. This means that three people (including me) thought that they could win with that ace out there.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't quite what happened. A better description goes like this:

- 1 guy thought he could bet and drag the pot
- a 2nd guy thought he might sometimes win a showdown against a guy who thought he could bet and drag the pot
- a 3rd guy thought he might sometimes win a showdown against the 1st 2

Now, it's on you. They didn't all look at each other, have a discussion, all come to the conclussion that they had the best hand, and all value bet together, which seems to be what you'd have to assume to put them all on top pair or better.

-eric

[elindauer]

Outstanding. Pat yourself on the back for this summation.

-eric

[Victor]

hi josh,

i think el diablo has eluded to this but i am not sure. i have not seen anyone else explicity say it yet. but, just bc the callers call does not mean they have an ace. remember the reason we play poker: bc other players do not play correctly.

[bernie]

hmm.

Checkraise the flop if you want players out. You're not protecting anything by betting here. Even a c/r given the pot size may not do it, but I think that's better than betting out. You're betting into the least aggressor preflop with the likely raise coming after 2 callers.

[ QUOTE ]
River is an offsuit ace.

I check and start licking my chops, thinking the button 3-bettor will bet his AQ and I can checkraise and do a little dance.

[/ QUOTE ]

You might want to go for the overcalls behind you on the river instead of shutting them out if the button bets. Who's folding a better hand here? AK surely isn't folding here after going through that wave of chips to get there.

I'd call this river. You think UTG has A9? He could have AJ and not raised preflop. He isn't checking the turn with a set or an overpair.(neither is anyone else) The calls behind UTG you could very well have them outkicked. As you mentioned, the button could have AQ or AJs.

b

[AceHigh]

[ QUOTE ]
But I will...

I folded.

UTG won.

I woulda beat both HJ and button.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF?

This is so lame.

You put all your opponents on very precise hands (basically set vs. AJ vs. AQ/AK), now you won't tells us what they were? You don't even tell us if you would have beat utg.

[lil feller]

[ QUOTE ]
Aw, c'mon, you know I don't like giving results...

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I hope you'll stop liking getting thoughtful responses. If you aren't willing to satisfy the curiousity of the forum, why on earth would they be willing to satisfy your curiousity when wanting insight into your decisions. This is a give and take place, right?

lf

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Aw, c'mon, you know I don't like giving results...

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I hope you'll stop liking getting thoughtful responses. If you aren't willing to satisfy the curiousity of the forum, why on earth would they be willing to satisfy your curiousity when wanting insight into your decisions. This is a give and take place, right?

lf

[/ QUOTE ]

First and foremost, you had a great reply that I just haven't gotten around to responding to. Please don't think I'm ignoring you.

Secondly, we are poker players. Thus, we strive to not be results oriented. Results really don't matter.

Thirdly, and most importantly...I've been given a lot of crap in this thread for posting just to brag about a great laydown. To prove that this is NOT the case, I'm not going to mention the results, regardless of how I would have done. I waited a long time to give the abbreviated version of the results (to help dissuade people from thinking I was just bragging), but that didn't work. So, I'm just not going to give them at all.

If you are so results driven that you need results to think that giving your opinion here is worthwhile, well, that's your perogative. Your input will be missed, but I'll get through it.

Josh