Folding AK Preflop opioions?

So i was in this situation and i think i did the right thing but i got hassled by the rest of the table which made me question myself. Still i know i did the right thing. Do you think im playing to tight?

So im playin 1/2 nl at riverrock in richmond and i get dealt AK os in the large blind. It goes around the table and 6 callers. It comes to me and i raise 17 dollars. Everyone folds but the one guy who raises all in which is a total of 95 dollars. I have a read on this guy and he raises all in with a pocket pair. Not a very good player but been getting lucking. I have a stack of 200 and i fold my AK. He flips over his cards and hes got a pair of nines.

I figure there is no piont in riskin my stack and getting involved in marginal, besides hes pushing with pocket pairs. Any which way it will be a coin flip and i fugire i dont'want to get involved in that. What to you guys think?

With all the dead money (6 limps and your $17) you were getting more than the pot odds you needed to call. Plus if there's a chance he has AQ here, it's even better.

Id call more than 100% of the time if I could

What's to stop this being a standard PokerStove hand?

this made me cringe. you shouldn't play with scared money

dead money= call

easy call here. i will take the coin flip to the flop every time. however, i need to hit the flop, with your read, to continue. if i hit, i turn on the heat.

Bad fold.

why is it a bad fold.?

I knew he had a pocket pair, and i was getting invovled in a marginal situation. Isn't it better to walk away and get invovled in a hand you know your goin to win rather than a coin flip/?

You had to risk $78 (his $95 minus the $17 you already put in) to win $124 (his $95 plus your $17 plus $12 from all the limpers). So you were getting 1.6:1 odds on your call and you were only a 1.25:1 underdog.

Originally Posted by zook

You had to risk $78 (his $95 minus the $17 you already put in) to win $124 (his $95 plus your $17 plus $12 from all the limpers). So you were getting 1.6:1 odds on your call and you were only a 1.25:1 underdog.

ty, zook. the proof is in the math...long term.

exsentrik, as i'm sure you already know, the pros will push ANY and all small edges they can...this is one of them. its a big difference as to why you, me and most of us in here still are playing like amatuers.

Thanks for you input. I will take it into consideration in the future.

I understand the OP's reason for choosing to fold. I also agree with the responders' suggestions that he should have called.

With AK and money int he pot already, it would have been correct to cal against any random hand. But poker decisions should not be made simply on the math.

The OP stated he felt he had a solid read on the player. He included his read in his decision making. And, as it turned out, his read was correct.

I don't think the OP was playing with "scared money," as one responder concluded. The OP decided to lay down a coin flip hand in a cash game.

Nothing wrong with that decision, IMO.

Originally Posted by ZowieZ

I understand the OP's reason for choosing to fold. I also agree with the responders' suggestions that he should have called.

With AK and money int he pot already, it would have been correct to cal against any random hand. But poker decisions should not be made simply on the math.

The OP stated he felt he had a solid read on the player. He included his read in his decision making. And, as it turned out, his read was correct.

I don't think the OP was playing with "scared money," as one responder concluded. The OP decided to lay down a coin flip hand in a cash game.

Nothing wrong with that decision, IMO.

We make money by making the correct decisions based on math. Doing so otherwise would be giving up an edge. We shouldnt be giving up edges theoretically.

I would call here even though I wouldn't calculate anything. I would just do it because the guy is a shortstack and with these guys I like to gamble on a coin flip. It doesn't cost much.

But this mathematical kind of thinking is great. I'd like to learn that!

You cannot fold here if you believe your read, and you will not go busto if you lose (which should never be true). Real busto, not tourney busto. Tourney this is almost always a call because even increasing blinds force you to take the EV every time.

I'd like to add another 'you should have called' vote.

If your read was that he had Pocket Pair, then you should DEFINITELY call. The fact is that you will with something like 48% of hte time here, but by calling, you will be contributing less than 48% of the pot (you cannot include money you already put in i.e. the $17 raise and your blind). Ergo, calling is +EV and because calling is +EV, folding is definitely -EV.

And if you didn't have that read, let's reviewt hands that truly own you: AA, KK. Do you think he would have just called preflop in his position with that many callers in front of him? No, he wouldn't have, so there's a good chance that you have someone dominated who's trying to play in position with AQs or TT or something.

This should definitely have been a call.

The only way I fold this is if new him to be real tight and he limped in first maybe second position than I would put him on AA or KK . Other wise
I am calling.

Originally Posted by ZowieZ

With AK and money int he pot already, it would have been correct to cal against any random hand. But poker decisions should not be made simply on the math.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I just want to stress that the decision to call here is not one based only on math, but that doesn't mean that math should be ignored. And this particular decision happens to be a more math-oriented one, because the EV calculations are easier than a normal decision. You can either call or fold, and either decision will be the last one that either player makes. This makes the calculations pretty easy. If you fold, the final EV of the decision is zero. So you just calculate the EV of calling and call if it's greater than zero.

Originally Posted by ZowieZ

The OP stated he felt he had a solid read on the player. He included his read in his decision making. And, as it turned out, his read was correct.

Right, and the read can be expressed in mathematical terms. When the OP says he's pretty sure that the opponent has a pocket pair, he is stating his expected range of the opponent. This range can be plugged into pokerstove (or any other poker odds calculator) and it will return the chance the a given range will win (after all cards are out) vs. another range. We know our range (AKo), and villians range (any pocket pair, which is expressed as 22+), so the results are:

Code:

           equity     win       tie
Hand 0:    42.743%    42.49%    00.25%    { AKo }
Hand 1:    57.257%    57.01%    00.25%    { 22+ }

So if OP calls, AKo will win 42.7% of the time, and it will lose 57.3% of the time. These numbers can be used in calculating the EV of calling . It's just the chance of winning times the amount you win when you call minus the chance of losing times the amount you lose when you call. And remember, the amount in the pot belongs to nobody anymore, so that amount is not included as part of the amount lost when you call, but it is included in the amount you win (aka dead money). In this case there is already $46 in the pot when your decision happens ($12+$17+$17).

You have to put in $78 to call. So when you lose, you lose $78 (the $78 you just put in). When you win, you win $124 (you get the $78 you just put in back, plus the $78 the opponent put in, plus the $46 already in the pot). So the calcualtion becomes:

EVcall = .427 * $124 + .573 * -$78 = $8.25

So calling is worth $8.25 on average and folding is worth $0.

So taking everything into account (both the reads and the math), a call is the right decision. The math can't be wrong, so as long is the read is solid, a call is definitely right.

In practice, the method that zook used above of comparing winning odds to pot odds makes it a little easier to calculate and much more succinct to show, but I wanted to go through the actual EV method for demonstration purposes.

Originally Posted by ZowieZ

I don't think the OP was playing with "scared money," as one responder concluded. The OP decided to lay down a coin flip hand in a cash game.

In a cash game, your goal is to make the most cash, and $8.25 > $0. The statement you made fails to take into account that there is already a significant amount of money in the pot (and also the hand isn't as close to a coinflip as overcards vs. underpair, because AA and KK are both included in the range).

Originally Posted by ZowieZ

Nothing wrong with that decision, IMO.

A decision to fold here is either a result of a misunderstanding of the EV calculations, or a result of scared money (i.e. you understand a call is +EV but fold anyway because calling is a high-variance play). Either way, there is something wrong with a decision to fold.

The only hand to fear is AA. If his read was a PP then you are in a coinflip situation with overs, marginal loser against KK and a big dog against only AA. With Dead money in the pot, as stated before, call is the only response.

Here's something worth noting that I posted in this thread about AK.
http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...=457080#457080

According to Sklansky,

AK is the favorite against any non-pair hand, a slight dog against all pairs through QQ, a moderate dog against KK and a huge dog against only AA. The fact that you hold one Ace cuts the odds that your opponent has AA in half.
Also, AK doesn't play well after the flop OOP with deep stacks, especially in multiway pots. Blah, balh, blah.... because AK is unlikely to be in trouble preflop, but often has limited value after the flop, it's often best by far to make a big preflop reraise with it.

Originally Posted by ZowieZ

The OP stated he felt he had a solid read on the player. He included his read in his decision making. And, as it turned out, his read was correct.

I dont understand what you are saying. Yes the read was correct. But the fold was incorrect. If the guy showed you 99 and you had AK then with the pot odds you are getting you have to call. Now if you think he has AA, KK alot more often than 99 you could argue for a fold but with the read we have a call is correct. But the most important thing to realise is that if a call is correct, then a fold is incorrect.

The OP decided to lay down a coin flip hand in a cash game.

Nothing wrong with that decision, IMO.

No. The OP decided to lay down a coin flip hand when he was getting alot more than the odds he needed to call. Absolutley theres something wrong with that. We're giving away all of the equity we had in the pot for free because we are scared to gambool.

Thread is a bit old but I believe all the posters stating that this is largely a "math" call have missed one important part. The fact that there were six callers lead to the not unreasonable conclusion that one or more of the outs are missing. People tend to play aces and kings so I don't think it unreasonable to expect two outs to be gone. Not sure what this does to the calculations. Obviously, you can't know this but they're not all holding pocket pairs.

Originally Posted by Sci Fi

Thread is a bit old but I believe all the posters stating that this is largely a "math" call have missed one important part. The fact that there were six callers lead to the not unreasonable conclusion that one or more of the outs are missing. People tend to play aces and kings so I don't think it unreasonable to expect two outs to be gone. Not sure what this does to the calculations. Obviously, you can't know this but they're not all holding pocket pairs.

Actually you missed the important part. This is a live game. The second most important part is that this is 1/2 live game. These morons can and do play anything. Most of these people's ability to play poker doesn't extend past their ability to sit in a chair.

Don't disguise a weak play by "trying to find a better spot"

Dont play with scared money...make this call 8 days a week.

Originally Posted by Sci Fi

Thread is a bit old but I believe all the posters stating that this is largely a "math" call have missed one important part. The fact that there were six callers lead to the not unreasonable conclusion that one or more of the outs are missing. People tend to play aces and kings so I don't think it unreasonable to expect two outs to be gone. Not sure what this does to the calculations. Obviously, you can't know this but they're not all holding pocket pairs.

this is dumb

Miffed,

What's wrong with this idea? It's in NLHETP. I'm sure Sklansky would believe one or two of the six is holding an ace or king. The fact that they're weak, live players only increases the odds of holding an ace. They always limp with Ax. Sure, they can limp with most anything, but aces and kings are good possibilities.

I'm not trying to defend the play, just saying it may not be as bad as suggested. Anyone care to calculate the numbers assuming one and two outs gone.

Hey, 1st off I m a new player, so I don't play these blinds at all. However, everyone here is saying it is mathematically incorrect to fold. I won't argue that because i m not good with that. I must say though, everyone who agree with the decision to fold is missing a point. The person who started this thread said: "Villain has been getting lucky".

Even though the math may say it is correct to play the hand, the decision maker might have felt his opponents was really lucky, so he folded. Since this is a coin flip, luck will determine who wins the hand. His pot odds were good enough to allow him to make the call, but luck is also a big part of the game. We shouldn't blame him or critique him (like playing with scared money), because he folded. Personally, if I know the villain has been catchin hands all game long, and you know it's a toss up. I probably would fold too. All because of the "luck" factor.

Here's my 2 cents. Give the guy a break, everyone has thrashed him.

Originally Posted by RebornSky

Hey, 1st off I m a new player, so I don't play these blinds at all. However, everyone here is saying it is mathematically incorrect to fold. I won't argue that because i m not good with that. I must say though, everyone who agree with the decision to fold is missing a point. The person who started this thread said: "Villain has been getting lucky".

Even though the math may say it is correct to play the hand, the decision maker might have felt his opponents was really lucky, so he folded. Since this is a coin flip, luck will determine who wins the hand. His pot odds were good enough to allow him to make the call, but luck is also a big part of the game. We shouldn't blame him or critique him (like playing with scared money), because he folded. Personally, if I know the villain has been catchin hands all game long, and you know it's a toss up. I probably would fold too. All because of the "luck" factor.

Here's my 2 cents. Give the guy a break, everyone has thrashed him.

This is like saying I'm not going to play AA this time because I've been sucked out on the last 5 times I've played them and I'm feeling "unlucky". Nobody would ever do that because they'd be giving up an edge(granted a much larger edge). The thing is even if the edge is 51% in favor of us compared to 49% to the villain, over the long haul it adds up. I think that's all people are trying to get across to the OP.
My 2 cents.

It seems to me that your playing with scared money as well. And this leads to bad decision making, like folding there.

You just went into an extreme situation though. What I was talking about was the 50/50 hands like the one we were talking about. I have never folded on AA or KK or QQ ever because I will gamble on that they wont flop the winning hand.

If by playing with "Scared money" means you fold on the toss up hands against someone lucky at the table who has gotten what he needs most often, then I fall into that category. It's like you cant play poker straight with math. The edge of math is great, but in situations like these, there are other factors in deciding to fold or call. Again, I will revert back to the lucky villain. We all know luck isn't forever, but if that person at your table is having those days where he's really lucky (Every1 has those days), then would you test your luck against him/her? That's up to you to decide on this situation. Please don't state if you have AA you'll fold, because I m only talking about this situation. The person has already said he has a good read on the guy (Pocket pair) and he has AK.

I m only saying the math part of the game is indeed true and will give you an edge. I didn't state it wasn't. Luck is just another part of the game, like the math. I don't know if you guys believe in this, but some people really have bad gambling luck or really good gambling luck. Not stating this as a fact, but I do know some people like that.

Sorry if I anger some of you, but the OP has taken so much heat for not calling from some of you. Chill...

math(pot odds) > all (except reads)

Exsentrik said that he put him on a pair and he said it was a coin flip AND the guy has been getting lucky. You are actually a small underdog here and if the guy has been getting lucky and not you too, you don't want to risk money on a coin flip. I don't like taking coin flips against someone who is on a rush even though pot odds and all the math in the world justify it.

Originally Posted by The Odds God

Exsentrik said that he put him on a pair and he said it was a coin flip AND the guy has been getting lucky. You are actually a small underdog here and if the guy has been getting lucky and not you too, you don't want to risk money on a coin flip. I don't like taking coin flips against someone who is on a rush even though pot odds and all the math in the world justify it.

Because why exactly?

What do you mean by asking why?

why are you making an incorrect decision. The game isnt bout luck it is about math.
Hence, not calling with pot odds when you hand can improve to win is a losing lay or Bad poker.

I was just talking about extreme example if the guy has been getting lucky and I mean REALLY REALLY lucky. Otherwise, I said before (as Dave Davis - I had to change account cause I forgot pasword and my e mail account was down) that it is a clear call because the guy is shortstacked so you can gamble on a coin flip.

It's not like the cards remember that he has been REALLY REALLY lucky. You and he have the same chance to be lucky in any hand, regardless of what happened in the previous hands.

There is no such thing as luck. Probability by definition takes into account that things won't always happen as they *should*. Over the long term though, probability = reality. If you have the proper pot odds to continue a hand in any scenario in a cash game, you should always call. This takes assumes that the actual immediate results of winning / losing don't matter to you, which they shouldn't. Otherwise, you're just playing scared.

I agree with whoever said they'd call 8 days a week.

I guess I'll be the one to say that I don't think that the fold is a bad move in this situation. Of course, I am a firm believer that big slick is a highly overrated hand. You can question your lay down all you want, and even listen to everyone say that you're playing with scared money, but the fact of the matter is that you were beat and you layed it down. It's easy to question your decision after you know what he held but how would you have felt making the call and the gentleman turning over aces or kings?The pot odds weren't so outstanding that you have to make that call with a hand like that.
And by the way, it's not so uncommon for a strong player to limp in with a huge hand waiting for someone else to raise. Especially if that player has the ability to let go of such a hand without losing all of his chips. Just something to think about!!!

What's wrong with this idea? It's in NLHETP. I'm sure Sklansky would believe one or two of the six is holding an ace or king. The fact that they're weak, live players only increases the odds of holding an ace. They always limp with Ax. Sure, they can limp with most anything, but aces and kings are good possibilities.

Stop discussing "luck" and discuss this!

Can one assign a % to the chance that someone folded one or more of our cards?

At any rate, this % is probably negated by the % that he has a worse A himself or some random junk hand.

Ok. too all the dumb people in this thread:

when you have the pot odds to make a call, and you will profit from that call if the situation were repeated a thousand times THEN YOU MAKE THAT CALL.

Please stop posting about this shyte called luck. If you are certain you are flipping for cash with correct pot odds then you fucking call. And if you cant because you are scared of losing then dont buy into a game you cant afford.

Luck has nothing and i will repeat *NOTHING* to do with poker, and if you think it does then close your account on FTR because we cant help you.

No, seriously. No arguing, your arguement against this is flawed and wrong.

It is personal thing if you believe in luck. I would call here all day long, but if this guy sucked out on you a couple of times with a runner runner flush, I am folding. Luck has to do a lot with poker. Of course, over the long term, it break evens. But I believe in rushes and luck because I experienced it and I prefer to stand away from someone who gets lucky all the time and I play more cards when the flop cooperates. It is a thing that all the pros do. Why do you think Sammy Farha calls all in with a flush draw without the odds? Cause he is on a rush!

However, I am not saying you should take this RUSH thing into account when playing or discussing poker too much. He was asking about the correct play and this is a call. But sometimes, math can't help you and if you feel bad about making the call, it doesn't always means you are playing with scared money. But mathematically, it is correct.

Originally Posted by The Odds God

It is personal thing if you believe in luck. I would call here all day long, but if this guy sucked out on you a couple of times with a runner runner flush, I am folding. Luck has to do a lot with poker. Of course, over the long term, it break evens. But I believe in rushes and luck because I experienced it and I prefer to stand away from someone who gets lucky all the time and I play more cards when the flop cooperates. It is a thing that all the pros do. Why do you think Sammy Farha calls all in with a flush draw without the odds? Cause he is on a rush!

However, I am not saying you should take this RUSH thing into account when playing or discussing poker too much. He was asking about the correct play and this is a call. But sometimes, math can't help you and if you feel bad about making the call, it doesn't always means you are playing with scared money. But mathematically, it is correct.

This is so wrong.

This is your personal opinion. However, I didn't want to start discussion about rushes, who has them and who doesn't. I have them. This thread is about big slick and mathematical expectation, about odds. I just mentioned luck factor. Didn't intend to start a discussion that doesn't belong here. Just stick to math.

I knew I shouldn't have gotten involved in this thread, but here goes:

Originally Posted by The Odds God

It is personal thing if you believe in luck. [...]Luck has to do a lot with poker. Of course, over the long term, it break evens.

If you believe in luck you will never become a shark. "Luck" does have a lot to do with poker, because believing it exists is what makes the fish come to the tables. "Good luck" is the variance upswing that makes fish think that they are good players. Ironically, "bad luck" is the variance downswing that will make some fish think they are good players but just unlucky, leading to someone moving up in stakes to chase their losses and "staying away from the stupid fish who called all in with one out and hit". Or it leads to the periodic "RIGGED"-posts that we see on any poker forum. The shark knows that luck as a phantom force does not exist, but he is mentally prepared for the variance rollercoaster that is poker.

Originally Posted by The Odds God

I would call here all day long, but if this guy sucked out on you a couple of times with a runner runner flush, I am folding.

If anything, I would be more inclined to play with suck a player, because he might be thinking "Wow I'm so lucky right now, I'm gonna play these cards even though they aren't as strong as they should be".

Originally Posted by The Odds God

But I believe in rushes and luck because I experienced it and I prefer to stand away from someone who gets lucky all the time and I play more cards when the flop cooperates.

If you believe in rushes as in "because someone was lucky the last ten coinflips he's probably gonna be lucky in this one too", then there is really nothing anyone can say that will make you change your mind. You need to do some serious mental adjustments if you want to make it in this game.

Originally Posted by The Odds God

It is a thing that all the pros do. Why do you think Sammy Farha calls all in with a flush draw without the odds? Cause he is on a rush!

This has to be wrong. Without knowing Sammy Farhas poker playing particularly well, I'm 100% certain that there is another reason for him to make that call than him "being on a rush". Examples are that his opponent will be bluffing a certain % of the time, that he can bust his opponent and have a bigger fish fill that seat, that his opponent will tilt if he hits the hand without having the odds to do so, that he is on tilt himself, or any other thing that a pro considers before making a play. I'll tell you this: the one thing he DOESN'T consider is that he's been "getting lucky lately". This is great for those of us who try to play well in this game, because the fish see Sammy calling without odds on TV and then sit down at the poker table and do the same. Their problem is that they don't know WHY he made the call.

Originally Posted by The Odds God

However, I am not saying you should take this RUSH thing into account when playing or discussing poker too much. He was asking about the correct play and this is a call. But sometimes, math can't help you and if you feel bad about making the call, it doesn't always means you are playing with scared money. But mathematically, it is correct.

Can't you see the contradiction in this? One play is correct, the other is incorrect. If you feel bad about making a correct play then you are playing with scared money/on tilt/whatever and should just get up and walk away.

How ironic that someone with the nick "The Odds God" is siting luck/rushes as an influence on his decisions.

(I rearranged some of the quotes to make it easier to see what I'm referring too).

For all reasons stated above, I agree in calling, but I can see where someone could be happy with folding and wanted to play devil's advocate a bit. This may be elaborating a bit on 'scared money.'

This is in a casino, and OP didn't mention the actual buy-in, only that he had $200 behind. Online the buy ins are pretty standard, but my nearest casino's NL game is 2 $5 blinds w/ a max buyin of $200. So it could be fair to assume OP is up in his session.

Online players are spoiled in the number of hands we see and the unlimited hours we can play. In a casino, where a tighter player may only be playing 4 or 5 hands an hour, one hand like this will make or break your whole session. It could be a long time before you get another chance to make that money up.

On the other hand, the majority of live players at this level are horrid, so the chances of getting payed off/doubling up when you do hit a monster are very high.

If OP chooses to toss a flip even when getting odds because he wants to finish up on his session or wants to keep more money behind to exploit bigger edges later on, then I can see where he's coming from. However, he needs to be honest with himself and admit he made a mathematically incorrect decision because of these reasons.

after the above post i'm pretty sure there is no need for further discussion on this particular topic. well said.

Luck has to do a lot with poker

There isnt a lot to say to this....

other than

Don't attack me so much, HalvSame! I didn't say I believe in luck so much.But sometimes it is just not your day and Doyle Brunson believes in rushes, if you said it about shark that they don't believe in them. I didn't intend to discuss this, I just mentioned it because exsentrik said that he was getting lucky so he was probably scared to toss a coin with it. I am not some kind of a sick gambler who doesn't respect the odds and plays like a maniac when he is on a rush. I see you are very upset because of my messages. I didn't mean it THAT seriously.

I'm not upset at all, I just very firmly believe that your belief is wrong. I'm not trying to point my finger or attack you in any way. Unfortunately there's no way for me or anyone else to make someone change their mind on this issue, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

All right, let's stop this. This thread is about AK and I really didn't want to go into some philosophical discussion about luck in poker.

Peace man.

i'm sorry, but i have to reply guys.

I don't believe in luck/rushes/rabbits feet/whatever.

But i do believe that there might be some mathematical reasoning to make this fold +EV. I know, it's crazy, but hear me out.

Ok, lets say, i have some more knowledge on villian. I know he will be here for the next 5 to 6 hours. I know he has very deep pockets. I know i'm better than him.

But i also know i've played badly/got sucked out on today. I only brought 5 buyins to the casino, and i'm down to my last one.

If i take this coinflip, which, as discussed is +EV, and lose, my day is over. That villian will sit at that table for the next 5 hours and just leak chips to everyone at that table. Unfortunately, i won't be one of them.

If i pass up a + EV decision now, for the sole purpose of enabling myself to make a +++EV decision later, i think i'm putting myself in a better position.

It can also work in reverse. end of a sit and go, and I'm clearly outclassed. Let's say Phil Ivey is sitting opposite me. I've got 2 choices. Slowly but surely bleed all of my chips to a better player than me. Or (and this is the move i would make) All In on every single hand, without looking at my cards. Phil's gotta call sooner or later, and unless i get really unlucky and he gets dealt pockets aces, he's probably got to call with anything decent (low pockets, Ax broadways etc) Against a random hand like that, i'm probably 30% to win.

Sure this is -EV, but in my opinion, if i was to try to beat phil any other way, it would ---EV.

just my two cents.

It is bad for ones poker money to play guessing games. It is even worse to give up an edge because the other guy has been geting lucky. I believe that some people are not wired to play poker. They have the i got burnt the last 3 times i touched the stove so i ain't touching the stove anymore mentality. The op seems to imply that the fact that his opponent had been geting lucky factored in to his decesion. That is bad thinking as frankly you never know when it is the others guys turn to be lucky.

Djbruxism, good thinking. You give up a little equity in order to get even more equity later. But you have to know your opponent. Will he leave if you win or will he stay and tilt and try to break even? In the next case, I would call. If you lose and he stays and plays like a maniac, because he believes he is unvernable and doesn't know how to play rushes, he will have even more money and if you have position on him, you might get a chance to get it all back plus even more.

But about Phil Ivey - even he can be outplayed so I wouldn't just push every hand.

Although,

luck exists,
bad luck exists,
rushes exist,

do not base any decisions on them.

Originally Posted by djbruxism

i'm sorry, but i have to reply guys.

I don't believe in luck/rushes/rabbits feet/whatever.

But i do believe that there might be some mathematical reasoning to make this fold +EV. I know, it's crazy, but hear me out.

Ok, lets say, i have some more knowledge on villian. I know he will be here for the next 5 to 6 hours. I know he has very deep pockets. I know i'm better than him.

But i also know i've played badly/got sucked out on today. I only brought 5 buyins to the casino, and i'm down to my last one.

If i take this coinflip, which, as discussed is +EV, and lose, my day is over. That villian will sit at that table for the next 5 hours and just leak chips to everyone at that table. Unfortunately, i won't be one of them.

If i pass up a + EV decision now, for the sole purpose of enabling myself to make a +++EV decision later, i think i'm putting myself in a better position.

It can also work in reverse. end of a sit and go, and I'm clearly outclassed. Let's say Phil Ivey is sitting opposite me. I've got 2 choices. Slowly but surely bleed all of my chips to a better player than me. Or (and this is the move i would make) All In on every single hand, without looking at my cards. Phil's gotta call sooner or later, and unless i get really unlucky and he gets dealt pockets aces, he's probably got to call with anything decent (low pockets, Ax broadways etc) Against a random hand like that, i'm probably 30% to win.

Sure this is -EV, but in my opinion, if i was to try to beat phil any other way, it would ---EV.

just my two cents.

None of this was in the OP's post. He posted a hand, nothing more. he asked for advice on a hand, nothing more.

Every person here who mentioned luck as a factor to fold, raise, or drink another redbull that plays above $25NL raise your hand. That's what I thought. If you look at this thread, there are players here with $5K, $10K and $25K bankrolls, and there are players talking about luck. neither are the same people and never will be.

Originally Posted by Trainer_jyms

None of this was in the OP's post. He posted a hand, nothing more. he asked for advice on a hand, nothing more.

Sorry, you're absolutely right, none of that was in the OP's post. I was working towards mayb finding something useful in this thread, out of the nonsense involving luck and other crud.

I was also perhaps seeking some advice/criticism/feedback on how people feel on my mathematical reasoning.

Sacrificing +EV now for more later seems ok to me. i guess in a tournament more than a cash game, but can also apply in a cash game.

My -EV heads up example is a case of me paraphrasing Phil gordon's little green book. If you've got it, read the chapter "Aggression is the great Equalizer." He explains it better than i do.

I don't know if i actually makes less sense to sacrifice any +EV in a tournament, since your blinds are increasing and waiting is much less an option than in a cash game.

Within a hand, a smart player will sometimes sacrifice the +EV of collecting a pot with a big raise when he has a big hand, but he may risk being outdrawn on the next card to let his opponent make another bet into the pot.

I can think of two problems with waiting in djbruxism's hypothetical scenario;

1). You have 1 buy-in left. Your available bankroll does not allow for a conservative approach. You are sort of playing a short stack, since if you go all in and lose you are done. You don't have forever and a day to wait for a marginally better spot to push all in. Mike Caro wrote a good article about how bankroll can help to dictate your playing style (surprisingly, it would be the players with bigger bankrolls who should be considering passing up this opportunity).

2). You aren't playing this hypothetical villan heads up. If this game were heads up, waiting would make more sense since you are the only player villan can potentially lose to. No one else is going to have an opportunity to stack villan other than yourself. And since there are other players who will be in other hands with villan, you can't afford to pass up on an opportunity to play a big pot when you are the favorite. This situation is similar to being in a big family at dinner - if you don't get it while it's hot it's probably going to be gone before long.

Originally Posted by djbruxism

I only brought 5 buyins to the casino, and i'm down to my last one.

So you are playing scared poker!!!

Originally Posted by djbruxism

It can also work in reverse. end of a sit and go, and I'm clearly outclassed. Let's say Phil Ivey is sitting opposite me. I've got 2 choices. Slowly but surely bleed all of my chips to a better player than me. Or (and this is the move i would make) All In on every single hand, without looking at my cards. Phil's gotta call sooner or later, and unless i get really unlucky and he gets dealt pockets aces, he's probably got to call with anything decent (low pockets, Ax broadways etc) Against a random hand like that, i'm probably 30% to win.

At the end of a sit&go you use ICM to convert you chip EV into $EV and work out whether to shove/call/fold based on opps likely calling/shoving range and the $EV. Do that and you don't bleed anything away.

OMG how did this thread go by me.

Trainer_jym has stated what i thought as i read.

also if anyone read this thread (which i want to be thread of the year) just look who has 1000+ posts, im sure the thought of any luck has been beaten out of them.

I think everyone is missing the most important thing:
Whether or not you believe in luck, it's obvious which belief will make you better at poker.
People who don't believe in luck will become much better poker players than those who do, because people who don't believe in luck will learn the math of the game better and correct decision making better.
While the players who believe in luck will make excuses for all their mistakes.

I DO believe in luck. I am a firm believer in it that some days ur on a roll and somedays ur not. I even believe that whether u win or lose in poker in a given day may have something to do with astrology. BUT all you can do is try to make the best poker decision and know that it will work itself out in the long run.

That being said, always call here and it's not even close.

I included mathemtical arguments for the inclusion of the belief in luck whilst making poker decisions in this thread.

http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...oker-51162.htm

I also tackle the issues of passing up +EV decisions, including when it is right, from a mathematical perspective.

For those who just want the conclusions instead of the reasoning to accompany them, then ill quickly add them here.

It may be mathematically optimal for you personally (and based wholly on your own beliefs about luck and attitude to money) to take -$EV decisions (such as the fold in this thread), but you will make less money than those that do make +$EV decisions and you will only receive meaningful advice on this forum regarding BR management as we can say nothing meaningful about the quality of your decisions. (even though they may be correct for you

I believe in luck. It's when something happens more frequently than it expects to, and someone benefits as a result. I don't see why people treat it as some sort of a metaphysical or supernatural thing.

Originally Posted by dsaxton

I believe in luck. It's when something happens more frequently than it expects to, and someone benefits as a result. I don't see why people treat it as some sort of metaphysical or supernatural thing.

That's not luck. When refering to luck and time, a long run equalling out 'luck' is variance. luck is walking down the street and finding $1K in a paper bag. that will never be impacted by long runs. You may think that getting AA 20 times in one night is luck, but I bet after 1000000 hands you don't have 30000 more AA hands than me. If you do, then I believe in luck as far as poker is concerned.

edit: I could have sworn when I read your post, you said something about long term. hmmm.

Originally Posted by Trainer_jyms

That's not luck. When refering to luck and time, a long run equalling out 'luck' is variance. luck is walking down the street and finding $1K in a paper bag.

If you found $1K bags on the ground everyday, then eventually you would no longer regard this event as lucky. It's precisely because it happens so rarely that you consider it lucky.

that will never be impacted by long runs. You may think that getting AA 20 times in one night is luck, but I bet after 1000000 hands you don't have 30000 more AA hands than me. If you do, then I believe in luck as far as poker is concerned.

I don't see how you can analyze the relative frequency with which you get dealt pocket aces, but can't analyze the relative frequency with which you find money on the ground.

Anyways, luck refers to the short term. It is absurd to say that "luck doesn't exist in poker because we all get the same distribution of cards over the long run." When we talk about luck, we are necessarily referring to small sample sizes.

I'm not sure why this thread is so long, it's an incredibly simple situation.

The only remotely potential concern that comes in this situation is AA and to a lesser degree KK: If he was the open limper and he was a seemingly solid player, and the table has been extremely aggressive (which it doesnt seem like it could be with that many limpers), then you maybe give it some consideration. Otherwise it's one of the easiest preflop AI calls you can make. Only the biggest donks limp behind multiple limpers with AA or KK in NL. If one of the players did this, pay him off and call so that he gets rewarded and keeps playing like this in the future.

Simply, you gladly take the coinflip for a chance to win the dead money, and even more gladly call for all of the times he pushes with hands that you dominate or are 2:1 favorite.

I stopped reading after the first 3 posts. What is so complicated about this?

lolzers, i went back and read it

Originally Posted by dsaxton

Originally Posted by Trainer_jyms

That's not luck. When refering to luck and time, a long run equalling out 'luck' is variance. luck is walking down the street and finding $1K in a paper bag.

If you found $1K bags on the ground everyday, then eventually you would no longer regard this event as lucky. It's precisely because it happens so rarely that you consider it lucky.

that will never be impacted by long runs. You may think that getting AA 20 times in one night is luck, but I bet after 1000000 hands you don't have 30000 more AA hands than me. If you do, then I believe in luck as far as poker is concerned.

I don't see how you can analyze the relative frequency with which you get dealt pocket aces, but can't analyze the relative frequency with which you find money on the ground.

Anyways, luck refers to the short term. It is absurd to say that "luck doesn't exist in poker because we all get the same distribution of cards over the long run." When we talk about luck, we are necessarily referring to small sample sizes.

Luck as you're referring to it here is the same as I'm referring to when I say variance. That is just semantics. The point, however, is that some people think of "luck" like "because I've been dealt AA the last three hands, I'm more likely to be dealt AA the next time". Or "because I found a bag of cash yesterday I am more likely to find one today", although finding cash on the ground is not neccessarily random. The point is that if certain events (ie card distribution) are truly random then it is absurd to try to say something about a future event based on earlier events.

Bill "The Sports Guy" Simmons wrote an article about Vegas and the all-star game on Monday. He mentioned pushing with AA and loosing to 22 "That's why I don't play poker anymore". But he loves, LOVES blackjack.

Originally Posted by HalvSame

Luck as you're referring to it here is the same as I'm referring to when I say variance. That is just semantics. The point, however, is that some people think of "luck" like "because I've been dealt AA the last three hands, I'm more likely to be dealt AA the next time". Or "because I found a bag of cash yesterday I am more likely to find one today", although finding cash on the ground is not neccessarily random. The point is that if certain events (ie card distribution) are truly random then it is absurd to try to say something about a future event based on earlier events.

All arguments are at some level semantic. We were discussing whether or not something called "luck" exists, I offered a description of what is meant by "luck" which is consistent with how the word is used in everyday language, and showed that the question is trivial. Luck obviously exists, and there is nothing supernatural about it. Although it's possible that there is some equivocation with respect to the word "luck" in everyday language, I was just referring to the most common usage.

Also, "variance" doesn't have the same connotative meaning as "luck," which implies some sort of benefit.

Anyways, if we're talking about the favorableness of future events somehow being dependent on the favorableness of past events, then this is obviously totally unfounded.

(If you haven't noticed I'm playing devil's advocate to an extent.)

FP!!!!

you can define luck how you want. However if you believe that what comes down on the board is in some way determined by luck, then you cannot use the same probabilities as we do. That is to say that I believe there is no mystical force known as luck that drives our fortunes.

If you do believe that, then I won't argue with you. I'll just say, perfectly justifyably, that you cannot use the same probabilities for hands that I do.

"Luck" as a synonym for probability is fine. Confusing to some, as this thread proves, but fine.

"Luck" implying a supernatural force that makes some people win more than others is 100% unequivocal nonsense, and this is what The Odds God is referring to. If someone is lucky (1st meaning) enough to win 10 coinflips in a row THEY STILL ONLY HAVE A 50/50 CHANCE the eleventh time. There simply isn't any such thing as luck that favours one player over another. Full stop, ad infinitum.

I also don't think OP's fold is an unforgiveable poker sin. Every chip you lose is worth more than the chip before it; the guy is surrounded by players who he feels will provide many more +EV opportunities over the next few hours which he's more likely to miss out on should he call this bet. It's a Mistake in the Sklansky sense, and it's a mistake in the practical sense, but it's only a smallish one and one for which OP doesn't deserve to be crucified.

Originally Posted by biondino

I also don't think OP's fold is an unforgiveable poker sin. Every chip you lose is worth more than the chip before it; the guy is surrounded by players who he feels will provide many more +EV opportunities over the next few hours which he's more likely to miss out on should he call this bet. It's a Mistake in the Sklansky sense, and it's a mistake in the practical sense, but it's only a smallish one and one for which OP doesn't deserve to be crucified.

Why is this? In a cash game doesn't chip EV = $ EV?

Yeah biondino plz explain this more. ^^^^

dsaxton: I don't think the point was whether or not luck existed (even though it was talked about a lot), it was whether you should base ONE decision should be based on how lucky/unlucky you/opp is, or what is the best move disregarding luck.

clearly the original is retarded.