Fold AAxxss preflop fold vs. other "big" hands??

[Big Dave D]

Rolf, we had already kinda "agreed" that the other guy had AA too. Of course you are right about the hypothetical you are describing. But we were actually all talking about something completely different - either the hand as described or a similar AA vs AA vs rundown hand scenario. And in that context your original comments were very wrong.

Of course, feel free to keep on talking about a scenario the rest of us aren't. Or still believing that the other guy doesn't have AA which I have already talked about in a post in this thread.

gl

dd

[Rolf Slotboom]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, feel free to keep on talking about a scenario the rest of us aren't. Or still believing that the other guy doesn't have AA which I have already talked about in a post in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm... I would say that if you and "the rest of us" (nice choice of words, by the way) keep discussing an issue from a narrow focus while leaving the probably most important piece of information out of it, well then, as you say, "feel free" to do that. It is certainly not MY way of looking at an issue. I would say, Dave: If you make your decisions at the table in the exact same manner as you have analyzed this problem here, it does not surprise me at all that your results have been so mediocre for such a long time now.

Best of luck nonetheless,

Rolf.

[Big Dave D]

lol

At last you have said something that was correct.

I heard from your Dutch friends that you always thought you were right, but I didn't believe them until now.

I used to think that some of the stuff I believed you said wrongly was a genuine "lost in translation" of having to write about sometimes complex issues in a second tongue.

Now I see that you are just "turf guarding" your "rep" as a face, pundit and god-save us, prospective author.

I am often wrong, and as you kindly put it, my results have shown it. But I am not afraid to admit it. You have been wrong in many places in this thread, and for reasons that can only be related to the above paragraph, you just don't want to admit it.

You and Barron Vangor Toth should get together and start your own forum "I'm right, now what's the question?"

Gl

dd

[Rolf Slotboom]

[ QUOTE ]
I heard from your Dutch friends that you always thought you were right, but I didn't believe them until now.

[/ QUOTE ]

But then you also heard that over the past four or five years or so, I have been the biggest winner by far in the PLO games - so that I may actually have been correct in being correct. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

One thing that I respect in you a lot actually, Dave, is that you are not afraid to show that you are going through a bad run, both in the short as well as in the long run. Very few players have the courage to do that. I respect that a lot.

But at the same time, when you approach a problem in an incorrect manner, like "we have already established the other guy has aces too", well then obviously it is not hard to see that there lies the crux of this problem of yours! The same reason why I have had so many conflicts over the years with my Dutch friends: they always thought I was wrong - yet my results consistently showed that I had to be either very right, or very lucky. When tackling a problem like the one here, I always tend to look at the BIG PICTURE. This means that if I estimate the chance of someone having aces too at 85 or 90%, I estimate that as 85 or 90% - not 100%. If you do that, you will almost certainly reach the wrong conclusion - as you did when you said it "was no great shakes either way". Things were exactly the same way with my friends in Holland, who could not understand me when I reraised all-in against someone who I *knew* had aces, while holding a mere T986ds or something similar, or folded crummy aces preflop from the big blind, when the small blind raised into the field, and the money was too deep to shut everyone out. And when I explained them, they still wouldn't believe it, and they would fail to leave out the important details that led to these decisions being correct. For years, people have told me that my analysis was wrong and that I was just lucky. Yet I am still standing there, while they are struggling - same as you, basically. Yet the only thing I hear is that *their* (and your) analysis is correct, and that *mine* is wrong. Well, then I would say: Yeah definitely there is something wrong - but I am fairly certain it is not my analysis.

Anyway, I hope we can leave it at this. I actually think you are a good guy, and hope that you won't be the next one in my (already very long!) list of enemies. I genuinely mean it when I wish you all the best - and I have no problem if in this case we will simply agree to disagree.

Rolf Slotboom
www.rolfslotboom.com

[Big Dave D]

[ QUOTE ]
I have been the biggest winner by far in the PLO games

[/ QUOTE ]

None of them said this, funnily enough. They all said, that you were an ultra-tight, successful short stack player. And as I understood it, most of the Amsterdam action died out a quite some time ago.

[ QUOTE ]
Yet the only thing I hear is that *their* (and your) analysis is correct, and that *mine* is wrong. Well, then I would say: Yeah definitely there is something wrong - but I am fairly certain it is not my analysis.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not struggling - I dont do this for a living. Any money I make is pure gravy. FWIW winning doesnt mean that your analysis is right. Lot's of players win without having a damn clue how they are doing it. I'm not saying you are of that ilk, just that the idea that winning = rightness and more winning = more rightness is absurd.

I also think you may have misunderstood me. When I said that it didnt make much difference either way, I was referring to the situation when you are *sure* your foe has another AA. I also said that it would nearly always be alright to call, just your edge wouldnt be huge. Of course I WASNT referring to whether your foe had the other AA or KK as being not much difference; this is a huge difference.

And despite what you seem to think, the situation described by the original poster was almost 95%+ AA, online, unless the foe was a maniac or tilter.

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, I hope we can leave it at this. I actually think you are a good guy, and hope that you won't be the next one in my (already very long!) list of enemies. I genuinely mean it when I wish you all the best

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get that upset about anything. I will put your incidental rudeness down to being Dutch [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

gl

dd

[45Player]

Lovely !
A clash between two of the ‘name’ players – Dave D and Rolf S.
Now I know neither of these two gentlemen personally but I have read quite a bit on both their sites, and the exchange above is very much in keeping with the general way in which they conduct themselves.
On one side you have Dave D, an intelligent and successful PLO player who provides great discussions on his blog, and who is very honest about his results. Not afraid to admit when he is incorrect about something. Quite courteous in his comments.
Needless to say, I’m a big fan.

Then we have Rolf Slotboom. All I really know about his results is what he tells us i.e. 2004 was a record year, even better than 2003 which was even better than 2002, etc. September was a great month, even better than August which was also great, etc. etc. - you get the picture. Slotboom has been carefully planting an image as a consistent winner over the past few years. I’m amazed he even has time to play given that he has so many other projects going on. If I was a cynical person, I’d think that all this image building is just to give him some credibility when he decides to write a book (just checked his website – he is writing a book, you could knock me down with a feather !). Anyway, where I come from it’s always better to let somebody else blow your trumpet. I’ve no doubt that Slotboom is a good Omaha player, and his Omaha advice is generally very good. But his constant self-promotion is a bit irritating, AND his snide, insulting remarks in some of the above posts were way over the top.

As others have already noted, all started from an ambiguous statement of Rolf, for which he got instantly slammed. No matter the sentence could be read two ways, the potential EV blasphemous could not go unpunised. Then, how people react to attacks and up to what point it could degenerate, I personally don't care, as I don't look up to these players for their ability to fight it out on a forum but for the quality of their advice and writings.

FRC

[BluffTHIS!]

I didn't comment on this thread earlier but since it got bumped will now. I believe that Big Dave's read of what the other players is correct, but that Rolf's point regarding the stack sizes in this situation is what is important. I have folded AA online 2 or 3 times with a deep stack facing other deep stacks especially when a maniac with one is in actin and I had something like AA73r in bad position. But with these small stacks even if 1 other player showed me his AA I am reraising allin in this particular situation since the OP did have a flush draw albeit lessesned by the 3rd heart, and because of the possibilities of making an idiot straight that will often be good or a low board set. Sure it would be nice if a short stack has the other AA and you can win a decent sidepot against a 3rd player, but with only 100bb I'm just shoving this in. In a max buyin structure like online, a lot of your earn comes from building a stack and doubling off another big stack. This looks like a good situation even with a read that you have virtually no chance of making a set of As and that you will often split. And FWIW, 3 way against stronlgy suspected aces, I am occasionally shoving something like the hand Rolf mentioned, JT9x as well with only my original buyin at stake.

To 45player: even if Rolf is tooting his own horn, there is no reason not to believe his stated results when other european players could easily point it out if not true, despite your snide insinuations to the contrary. It is your own comments which are unecessary. It should be obvious that any author has to promote himself to keep in business, and such self-promotion is only innapropriate if it is constant, which it is not here in these forums (his website is HIS website after all), or if it is based on untrue statements, of which you have given zero proof.

[45Player]

[ QUOTE ]
when other european players could easily point it out if not true, despite your snide insinuations to the contrary.

[/ QUOTE ]
You’re exaggerating a little bit here buddy – I don’t actually see how other players could easily point this out. I don’t know if he is or isn’t a big money winner, nor do I care. I just don’t like hearing the ‘I know everything about PLO, I win loads of money, aren’t I the greatest’ theme trotted out regularly. Maybe you’re different but it’s my nature to be a little more humble about such matters. I don’t have any objection to him promoting his writings, I’m just not into all this self-praise thing.

AND, I really did not know he was writing a book until I looked at his site earlier today.


[ QUOTE ]
It should be obvious that any author has to promote himself to keep in business.

[/ QUOTE ]
I won’t repeat myself.


[ QUOTE ]
such self-promotion is only inappropriate if it is constant

[/ QUOTE ]
I had to reread this one. It sounds very weighty but I think it’s an inaccurate statement.



[ QUOTE ]
or if it is based on untrue statements, of which you have given zero proof

[/ QUOTE ]
I didn’t make any untrue statements. Stop trying to take the high moral ground.

I said already that Slotboom knows his Omaha. It would be nice however if he could acknowledge his mistakes like the rest of us.

[BluffTHIS!]

I did not say you made any untrue statements but was saying your criticism of his perceived self-promotion was wrong if HE had not made untrue statements. And as far as Rolf acknowledging playing mistakes, you would find such admissions if you read all his articles. Try to find an article or post where he maintained that he always plays perfect and you won't succeed. Besides his own website, his articles are readily available in the Cardplayer and Poker Pages archives.

I haven't always agreed with all Rolf's advice in those articles or in these forums, but he is one of the few authors who write at all regarding plo let alone regularly. Why don't you confine your criticism to his strategy advice rather than side issues?