Such a ridiculous "word".Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Printable View
Such a ridiculous "word".Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Hand #7749725-481 at Bhipak (No Limit Hold'em)
Powered by UltimateBet
Started at 17/Aug/05 03:59:50
Mahatma is at seat 3 with $10649.
HASSAN SLASK is at seat 6 with $14996.
The button is at seat 6.
HASSAN SLASK posts the small blind of $50.
Mahatma posts the big blind of $100.
Mahatma: -- --
HASSAN SLASK: -- --
Pre-flop:
HASSAN SLASK raises to $300. Mahatma calls.
Flop (board: 4s Js 7d):
Mahatma bets $600. HASSAN SLASK raises to $1900.
Mahatma calls.
Turn (board: 4s Js 7d 8h):
Mahatma checks. HASSAN SLASK bets $1900. Mahatma
calls.
River (board: 4s Js 7d 8h 4d):
Mahatma checks. HASSAN SLASK goes all-in for $10896.
Mahatma goes all-in for $6549. HASSAN SLASK is
returned $4347 (uncalled).
Showdown:
HASSAN SLASK shows Td 9s.
HASSAN SLASK has Td 9s Js 7d 8h: straight, jack high.
Mahatma shows 9d Jc.
Mahatma has 9d Jc 4s Js 4d: two pair, jacks and fours.
Hand #7749725-481 Summary:
$.50 is raked from a pot of $21298.
HASSAN SLASK wins $21297.50 with straight, jack high.
my favorite part.
consider the rake beat.Quote:
$.50 is raked from a pot of $21298.
wow he re raised with a gutshot..just..wow
-anto
it was a -ev play. he'll hit 16% of the time (over 2 cards even) and wont make enough to justify the times he loses. plus its fairly obvious he doesnt have any fold equity.Quote:
Originally Posted by elanto
i wonder how math like this factors into his decisions...i mean he has to be aware of it.
I'm sure he has more than a 16% chance of taking the pot on average with the semi-bluff like that though...
"it was a -ev play. he'll hit 16% of the time (over 2 cards even) and wont make enough to justify the times he loses. plus its fairly obvious he doesnt have any fold equity.
i wonder how math like this factors into his decisions...i mean he has to be aware of it."
This is his math.
Hmm. Today I am feeling 98% like a stud, so I will raise my gutshot, and if I hit it I will get him to call me all in, but if I don't I will get him to fold. This will make me into a 99% stud, at which point his cards and buttons will appear on my screen and I will just play for him.
potdQuote:
Hmm. Today I am feeling 98% like a stud, so I will raise my gutshot, and if I hit it I will get him to call me all in, but if I don't I will get him to fold. This will make me into a 99% stud, at which point his cards and buttons will appear on my screen and I will just play for him.
He was up to $43,000 on UB but lost it all and ended up calling his last 10K allin with pocket queens against an opponent with A7 on a A7xx board. Still a badass though. He doubled up his next buyin pretty quick anyways.Quote:
Originally Posted by SmackinYaUp
I'm just not sure that pot odds mean much of shit or fuck when you're the one pushing people around. Any chance at all to improve is just extra gravy on top of your ice cream. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by journey075
yes but he had to realize that he didnt have fold equity by the turn. i wonder how he wouldve played it had he missed or hit a smaller pair.
Differently maybe. Or maybe not.
What kind of a question is that? These kinds of plays aren't from a text-book.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamaros
i understand that. thanks for your tremendous help.
lol...ok this is the thing if i were to make this play and post it i would be criticised a lot..there is a chance he was just on tilt and decided to bluff ithe then just got LUCKY..it wasnt a terrific play IMO justa lucky one
-anto
I am just blindly defending him because I think he's a badass but here's how it goes: Honestly, I don't know what was going through his head. Maybe he just read his opponent for being weak. I make raises with weak draws on the flop all the time if I think the opponent is capable of folding. Maybe he didn't even need the draw at all - he thought mahatma was weak and the 2 cards in his hand just happened to be T9 this time. If he had missed on the turn he might have given up, given it one more shot, or pushed all in and lost his stack. Now that I think about it, are you sure you read the HH right? His turn bet was not a bluff.Quote:
Originally Posted by journey075
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmackinYaUp
no i understand that he hit a miracle turn. im sure he didnt want a call on the flop though.
Oh, ok well I dunno then. This is just me, but my most foolhardy bluffs come on the flop - I just bluff if theres a couple checks and a shitty board so it could mean anything. what looks like a lot of cash to us is still a shitload of money but it doesnt mean jack to them in terms of BB's...
You know what would make this so much easier? If hallingol, green plastic, dill pickle, and mahatma were FTR members..
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmackinYaUp
thatd be a dream come true to be able to see hand histories of 50/100nl w/ analysis on a consistent basis.
Dream on. Do you really think those guys want to give their thought processes away?
I really doubt pot odds and fold equity were going through H@L's mind, i bet it was more like.
1. hmm i'm gonna bluff this guy with my gutshot
2. oh what do you know, my gin card. i'm all-in bitch
http://www.pocketfives.com/B4DAD1B5-...98496CC76.aspx
This talks about what his average stacks are and everything... but he says he pushes all in basically because its either a bluff or because he has the nuts and wants a call.
H@ pushes all-in with the nuts and a bluff at a perfect mixture.... so his opponents don't know whether to call or not. H@ was going all in on the river no matter what. He hit his hidden straight and Mahatma thought this was one of the times H@ was bluffing and called off his entire stack with just a pair of jack's, 8 kicker.
H@ knew he didn't have the full house... maybe the trips. When I was watching this hand live, Mahatma spent about one minute thinking about it before he called.
Yes his pot odds are bad for raising his gutshot, but his implied odds on this hand are huge. There's no way mahatma can put him on 109 here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by andr3w321
sigh, thats exactly what i was saying. if his 1900 reraise on the flop got called, he did not have the implied odds to make it a profitable, longterm move (assuming 0 fold equity).
just puts our math-oriented logic to shame.
You're arguing that implied odds put math-oriented logic to shame?Quote:
Originally Posted by journey075
Can I... have some of your crack?
No, he is saying that implied odds had (almost)nothing to do with that raise. (in fact, implied odds SCREAM fold)Quote:
You're arguing that implied odds put math-oriented logic to shame?
That raise was a bluff.
Not even a semi-bluff, with 4 outs that was a pure bluff.
Then it hit, and now he has the nuts, but he didnt make that thinking that the implied odds were good, he made it to bluff the other player into a fold...
And then hit a lucky turn.
it's still a semi-bluff because he knew he had the straight draw
Quote:
Originally Posted by iopq
did you seriously read that in my post?
Hmm I guess your right, I jsut think of semi-bluffing as a move where you are trying to take the pot, but also have a reasonable chance of hitting if you miss... not when you have a < 10% chance of hitting...Quote:
Originally Posted by iopq
I think yout right though.
I really don't see how you can argue that there is 0 fold equity. If the turn or river is an overcard there is a good chance mahatma is going to fold unless he hits 2 pair like he did.
Green Plastic posts on www.pocketfives.com frequently. You see him give an analysis of a certain hand once in a while.Quote:
Originally Posted by journey075
he didnt hit two pair the board simply paired..so if on the turn the board would have paired and then an overcard hit on the river i think he would have folded....mahatma had no clue what was going on on the hand b/c it was simply a bluff gone right...the hand dint make sense thats why he called with his TP lousy kickerQuote:
Originally Posted by andr3w321
-anto
He is 22 i think. Can ask him next live tourney. And the stuff about the cars and so.. lol :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by shawnE