PokerStars homepage
  • If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Holy Wow Surprise Hand

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Holy Wow Surprise Hand

    I felt like the guy's hand was like a whack-a-mole, except when it popped up, it had the hammer and smashed me in the face. Crazy.

  • #2
    why call his shove with 8outs? pretty loosey goosey...

    Comment


    • #3
      Final pot would be $50.75, I need to call $19.25. That works out to pot odds of 2.64-to-1, which means I need about 27.5% equity to call. I calculated this before I decided whether or not I should call.

      Assuming all of my straight outs are good (a safe assumption, imo), then by the rule of four, I have my number of outs multiplied by 4% as an estimate of my equity in the pot. 8 x 4% is 32%, and since 32% is greater than 27.5%, the call should be good.

      However, the range of hands that people will 4bet shove on a checkraiser with is pretty slim. Here, top/top might be in this player's range if he's bad, but I think that a strong straight draw, set, or overpair makes the most sense. Against overpairs, I will usually have 11 outs, and against sets, I have fewer. Since overpairs make up the vast majority of this player's range, given that he seemed semi-tight in his PFR's from my observations, and given that he opened UTG, I assumed that I would usually have more than 8 outs.

      If I put all flopped straights, sets, two pair+, pair + OESD hands, and overpairs as this player's range, my equity turns out to be 26.3%. That's not above 27.5%, so this was potentially a losing play, but a 1.2% leak in a situation like this is hardly 'loosey-goosey'.
      Last edited by PanickyPoker; Mon Jun 20, 2011, 04:07 AM.

      Comment


      • #4
        lol well thought out mathematical explanation.. how did you do that all in15 seconds? for me the thought of losing a buyin would make me tighten up and not shoot for the 2% +EV situation.... if I had unlimited bankroll no prob Its not a call I would make, but I see your argument and dont disagree with youumbup:

        Comment


        • #5
          If I assume that he never shows up with 85 for the bottom-end flopped straight, my equity actually increases to 27.76%. I think that's a fair assumption. If I assume that he will also never show up with the unsuited one-gappers, my equity goes up further to 29.9%. After rake, my play may still be -EV, but I based this play on the assumption that this guy wasn't opening hands like T8 from UTG. That was a bad read, obviously. My mistake. If my mistakes continue to give me breakeven results, though, I think I'll end up doing pretty well.

          Comment


          • #6
            I didn't do all of that in 15 seconds, I just popped open my computer's calculator, figured out my pot odds, and figured out whether or not 11 x 4% is bigger than my required equity. My estimation of my actual pot equity was actually way off, though. So really, this hand was a massive leak for me, since roughly 30% equity is nowhere near 44% equity. But I'll remember this situation in future and remember to consider that the guy might have two pair+ hands in his range, which is the main reason my calculations were off (the read).

            Comment


            • #7
              lol if this gets moved to the HA forum.

              Comment


              • #8
                i think it would be a good topic in the HA forum, not the usual pat my back posts lol... this one has some interesting features in itumbup:

                Comment


                • #9
                  I wonder if it'd be the first time a post would've been moved from this forum to that one. inking:

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Panicky I'm not trying to bust your chops here but really can't believe that you posted this in the "Bad Beats" thread bro.

                    This isn't anywhere near a bad beat IMO,it's bad plays straight through the hand on your part to me.
                    Now you can use any mathematical equation spinning to try and defend the play here but to me you quite simply called 2 3x bet raises ahead of you with A8o. What hand ranges can you have these guys on pre-flop that A-rag plays well against post-flop? Should have folded right then and there to me.

                    Then after the flop when he raises $1.71 I don't like your re-pop here at all. A call I could see but to re-pop on just a draw,especially with a potential bigger drawing hand in play (flush,which you have NO piece of incidentally)is just way over aggressive IMO. If he had just called your re-pop here there are more scare cards that can come on the turn than cards that make your hand. I don't see you as having 8 outs myself because 10 and 5 of hearts are big time scare cards for you in this spot. When he came back at you all-in I really,really don't agree with the idea of putting my buy-in in here with only a straight draw when there is also a potential flush draw on the board as well.

                    To me I just don't see how you can completely discount the possibility of the villain having a flush draw as AKs or AQs would easily be in the range of a semi-tight player pre-flop and making a stand with the nut flush draw is a perfectly reasonable play to assume one would make.And if you give him credit for the flush draw then 2 of your outs for a straight go by the boards.And if he does have top-top or a set here then I don't know,you're calling his shove knowing you need to improve,just a loose play for my buy-in if it's me.

                    To me this is a pure gamble play on your part,which I don't have a problem with per se...but it's a long way from a bad beat if it doesn't work out.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      ??

                      am guessing you wont have to defend yourself against being called too passive anymore-- lolos--
                      sure does succ when you are semi bluffing the nuts- into the nuts-- tuff one PP--

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        took this from another site, sorta resembles my thoughts

                        WSOP observations

                        *There are a LOT of very good, very young players. These kids have studied the game at a mathematical level that I vaguely understand. As they discuss these concepts I know enough to follow the conversation, but I haven’t done near the work they have in this type of analysis. I learned a great deal just by listening to them talk to each other during breaks. Sometimes, however, they seemed to lose sight of the person they were playing against. You could see their minds at work doing complex mathematical calculations when making their decisions. It was amazing how they “figured” out the best solution. And most the time they were correct. But when they were wrong, it seemed to be because they failed to look across the table. They failed to consider, that the player in the hand with them was not making decisions based on the same mathematical realities. They were not observing the human side of the game.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          ??

                          i hear ya roomik- yet my take on it is- and i may be wrong here- when mass multitabling online- if you play by the numbers-- you will profit over time--

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            true dat Monk, mass tabling aint for me lol 3-4 max and I am happy... I play more by feel than straight number crunchingumbup:

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by roomik17 View Post
                              took this from another site, sorta resembles my thoughts WSOP observations *There are a LOT of very good, very young players. These kids have studied the game at a mathematical level that I vaguely understand. As they discuss these concepts I know enough to follow the conversation, but I haven’t done near the work they have in this type of analysis. I learned a great deal just by listening to them talk to each other during breaks. Sometimes, however, they seemed to lose sight of the person they were playing against. You could see their minds at work doing complex mathematical calculations when making their decisions. It was amazing how they “figured” out the best solution. And most the time they were correct. But when they were wrong, it seemed to be because they failed to look across the table. They failed to consider, that the player in the hand with them was not making decisions based on the same mathematical realities. They were not observing the human side of the game.
                              Again don't want this to come out like I'm busting Panicky's chops because I think he could very well be on his way to being quite a player but playing A8o from the BB with 2 3x bets in front of him is NOT a sound mathematical play IMO so I'm not sure the "he was making the rote bean-counter type play " applies here. Think it's more an example of A-rag sucks,fold the thing,lol.
                              Originally posted by monkeyskunk4 View Post
                              i hear ya roomik- yet my take on it is- and i may be wrong here- when mass multitabling online- if you play by the numbers-- you will profit over time--
                              Especially considering that we play (or in mine and Roomik's case we PLAYED...) at micro-levels where metagame thinking and deep conceptual plays can many times get you in more trouble than just sticking to solid ABC poker to begin with. If surrounded by bad players let them try to beat you I always say. A mental image I had started to always try to take to the table when I played before we got the boot was of the Ali-Foreman Championship fight in Zaire in '74 (I think) where Ali broke out the "rope-a-dope" and let Foreman punch himself out with repeated shots to Ali's forearms as Ali just leaned on the ropes,biding his time. This went on for 3-4 rounds and when Foreman was finally spent Ali turned it on and put Foreman away in short time. It's like a bad player---keep nipping at my stack a little here and there,but when my turn comes,more often than not you can get them to stack off to you in one fell swoop. The old saying is don't hunt what you can't kill. Well in poker mine is, why chase the deer all over Hell's Creation when more often than not their dumbazz will walk right up to the salt lick? Freeze Gopher!!! Blam!!! umbup:

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X

                              X Cookies Information

                              We have placed cookies on your computer to improve your experience on our website. You can change your cookie settings at any time. Otherwise, we'll assume you're OK to continue.