Folding AK Preflop opioions?

Originally Posted by taipan168

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?

I think this refers to if you're on a limited bankroll. If my last 1$ in the world was in front of me and I was facing a very marginally +EV situation then I could pass on it given that a more +EV (or an equal EV but less marginal) situation would occur later on.

back to the original topic, there is a simple argument to make to tear apart any "anti- pot odds" logic. If villain had raised all in for a total of 18$, making it $1 for you to call, do you call then? All the same reads are present, he's still been "getting lucky", etc. If you call in this situation but not in the original for $78 more, please construct a logical argument supporting this decision. Keep in mind that you were definitely not playing scared money and had no idea how the opponent would respond to the outcome of this hand.

Originally Posted by biondino

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.

This is not true if your utility for money is linear, i.e. that you are properly rolled for the game you are playing and can treat your money at the table as if you have infinite rebuys.

If you really believe that every chip you lose is worth more than the one before it you don't have a linear utility function and you are playing scared. In doing this you are implicitly rejecting the notion that poker is a long term game.

I didn't say you should base your decision on luck factor. The poster just mentioned it so I thought he might have based his decision on that. I just said it wasn't such a bad thinking, folding because of insticts. Sometimes this is good. The thread was meant to be mathematical so I am quite surprised it turned into a war between luck believers and luck non believers.

It was a bad fold like most people have stated, but THEY HAVE THE REASONS ALL WRONG!

AK has 3 aces and 3 kings to improve, SIX outs!
99 only has 2 nines to improve, TWO outs!

So therefore, AK wins 3-1!

Originally Posted by SmackinYaUp

It was a bad fold like most people have stated, but THEY HAVE THE REASONS ALL WRONG!

AK has 3 aces and 3 kings to improve, SIX outs!
99 only has 2 nines to improve, TWO outs!

So therefore, AK wins 3-1!

been reading too much 2+2?

Originally Posted by jackvance

Originally Posted by SmackinYaUp

It was a bad fold like most people have stated, but THEY HAVE THE REASONS ALL WRONG!

AK has 3 aces and 3 kings to improve, SIX outs!
99 only has 2 nines to improve, TWO outs!

So therefore, AK wins 3-1!

been reading too much 2+2?

LOL that was one of the funniest threads I've ever read

LOL. Good joke.

Here is the link at 2+2 in case anybody missed it. Hilarious.

Originally Posted by exsentrik

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.

You folded AK in a LIVE 1/2 game for less then 50bb total. To make it sound even funnier, you already had about 20% of your effective stack in the pot and there was appreciable dead money as well.

It sounds about as bad as it is.

However, if I was at the table, I would commend you on an excellent fold because I prefer people to play bad poker.

Man, this link is hillarious. This guy is really serious about it. Hillarious.