Hilarious...

    • Prabhatallin
      Prabhatallin
      Gold
      Joined: 09.12.2007 Posts: 532
      So I decide to give my maniacal play another test to see how valid it can be...

      I buy into a NL10 room with 2 dollars. First hand dealt J4, raised to 30c. 4 players call, flop 4 q 10. I am first to act, allin. Everyone folds, I display my proud pocket cards- j4 which gives me a bottom pair on the flop. Villian: Fish. Me: The bluff worked.

      Next hand: Me 89 of spades. 4 people call at 10 cents. flop 8d 9h Ks. Me all-in, two players call including villian with K6. My two pair wins. Villian: nice hand fish.

      I leave the room with 7.89 dollars after two hands... Is the villian missing something...
  • 26 replies
    • SonicXT
      SonicXT
      Bronze
      Joined: 15.06.2007 Posts: 4,736
      Can you come play at NL25/50 please ?
    • Prabhatallin
      Prabhatallin
      Gold
      Joined: 09.12.2007 Posts: 532
      Valid point but you don't know I play like this until I have already made my money. And if I meet you again I play normally, and therefore get action on hands which are actually good. If you are a good tight player you will make a profit in general but I will be out of the room before I ever go heads up with your monster hands.
    • SonicXT
      SonicXT
      Bronze
      Joined: 15.06.2007 Posts: 4,736
      Probably someone else will have bankrupted you before I had the chance yea, got a point there.
    • Prabhatallin
      Prabhatallin
      Gold
      Joined: 09.12.2007 Posts: 532
      w/e man, I have no desire to get into a shouting match claiming I am a better player than you...and anyway i certainly wouldnt play like this against somebody who knows I would this. By the way what was your specific objection to my play? I should never bluff all-in? Because the second hand was a made hand on the flop against no raises at all, i was sure I would get action thanks to my random all-in the previous hand so the all-in shove was fine.
    • SonicXT
      SonicXT
      Bronze
      Joined: 15.06.2007 Posts: 4,736
      You play with 2 $ at an NL10 table, that requires you to play short stack strategy.
      In short strategy, you don't bluff preflop ...
      And you don't call 89s either as you don't get implied odds to call that with ...

      So hand 1 objections :
      1) Fold preflop
      2) Fold flop, especially on a 5-way flop and a high board ...
      Hand 2 objections :
      1) Fold preflop (unless you were in the blinds)
      2) Bet out 40 cents on flop, don't instapush...
    • helemaalnicks
      helemaalnicks
      Silver
      Joined: 21.09.2007 Posts: 7,195
      sssh SonicXT, prabhatallin is right, this thread IS hilarious.

      @ prabhatallin: plz learn to play first, then go around bragging about how lucky you are on the bingotables. Your play is -ev, since the odds of hitting a hand/bluffing people out are relatively too low, compared to the amount you call/raise for preflop. Reread the articles, stick to them, otherwise you'll go broke soon.
    • chenny8888
      chenny8888
      Bronze
      Joined: 03.10.2007 Posts: 19,324
      this thread delivers
    • Prabhatallin
      Prabhatallin
      Gold
      Joined: 09.12.2007 Posts: 532
      <Helemaalnicks> Yes obviously in any given statistical hand the chances of bluffing out people are low. But my judgment was that in this particular hand it was not. There was 1.20 in the pot, 1.60 in my hand and in my opinion a 30% chance someone would call, and an 80% chance that his hand would beat mine if he did. Now my math might just be wrong but on an average that comes out to a profit.

      So are you suggesting one should not ever trust a read? (in hand 1 I was 100% sure nobody had anything at all (let alone anything enough to call an all-in bet with) (not anything you are supposed to call in all-in with on the charts here for sure). If that is your suggestion, I will adopt it, if you give me enough reason to believe that reads should not be trusted.

      Secondly, I understand perfectly that calling is not a particularly good and I also know why. But in a room where no one is raising, from a late position why not risk 10 cents calling for a chance to see the flop. As far as my play in that hand goes I knew I had established an image is an idiot so my instant all-in raise would be called. I was also pretty sure two pair was the best hand in the room given that no one had even raised. So why is that bad?
    • Puschkin81
      Puschkin81
      Bronze
      Joined: 14.04.2006 Posts: 4,786
      Originally posted by Prabhatallin
      So are you suggesting one should not ever trust a read? (in hand 1 I was 100% sure nobody had anything at all
      Originally posted by Prabhatallin
      First hand dealt J4, raised to 30c. 4 players call, flop 4 q 10. I am first to act, allin.
      What kind of read do you have when you are first to act? How can you be 100% sure that noone has hit anything if you are first to act???

      Reread our strategy articles, post hands and watch coachings and videos. Otherwise you will be broke soon.

      Good luck at the tables!
      Puschkin81
    • helemaalnicks
      helemaalnicks
      Silver
      Joined: 21.09.2007 Posts: 7,195
      There was 1.20 in the pot, 1.60 in my hand and in my opinion a 30% chance someone would call, and an 80% chance that his hand would beat mine if he did. Now my math might just be wrong but on an average that comes out to a profit.

      First, you invested 30 cts. There, it was impossible to have a read, unless you could actually see opponents' hole cards.

      Then for you "calculation"

      Putting the odds on someone to call on 30% is just plain bs. Don't talk like that, you base that on nothing at all. Then the 80% to win is ALSO highly overestimated. You figure if a J or 4 comes, you win. That's it not true. Someone might have two pair already, or the board can pair, or he can hit his second pair. Or he can have you dominated. Anyway, I'm very generous if I would put the odds of winning against a calling hand on 15%, and the 10 and q are likely holdings, so I would put your folding equity on 30% at most, then we get:

      30%, you win 120, -> 36
      70%, you get called, 85%, you loose 160, -> 95.2
      70%, you get called, 15%, you win 120, -> 12.6

      So it's highly -ev. And I didn't even contemplate your preflop raise in this one. Which would make it even worse, since a lot of the money you can win, is your own money, that shouldn't have been in the pot in the first place.

      On this limit, in a 5 way pot, your FE is NEVER 70%, that's based on absolutely nothing.


      Then bad move 2:

      You call for 10, 89s, your fe is 0 here, which is weird... goes from 70 to 0, another total bs-calculation. Your odds on hitting two pair or better are about 5%. So you need to win EVERY time you hit two pair or better to make this a good play, in general. So this play is also highly -ev.


      Don't get me wrong, I don't thing playing maniac style is -ev... I think Sammy Farha is a great player! However, with a ss, it's the dumbest way to play actually. Since all you can hope for as a short stack is reverse implied odds, since you don't have implied odds for any hand, you can't play maniac style, since you don't hit enough flops to make it +ev., and for a bluff, your folding equity is simply too low.
    • Prabhatallin
      Prabhatallin
      Gold
      Joined: 09.12.2007 Posts: 532
      <Helemaalnick> I would thank you to read my post more carefully I said there is a 80% chance my hand would LOSE not win. And your figure 70% chance that someone who checked/called 30c would cover an all-in bet seems equally arbitrary to me. What do you base that figure on...because I have already told you what I based my figures on.

      Ok so there are two categories of reasoning here 1) That I shouldnt have raised initially. Mathematically this is true, but does this mean you should never bluff. Puschkin81- there was no read intially, this was 30c spent on seeing the kind of room and the fact there were 4 calls and no raises does indicate something.

      2) My "read" which I used on the flop was that there were 4 hesitant calls, and that these 4 hesitant callers, two of whom checked before my all-in, would not be likely to have hands on which they would call an all-in. Now that is A basis for a read, is your contention that I should never trust such a read (nvm the earlier raise for now, I know thats mathematically bad but that was to scope out the room). Because I am not sure anyone has told me why, during a hand, not to trust a read.
    • helemaalnicks
      helemaalnicks
      Silver
      Joined: 21.09.2007 Posts: 7,195
      I would thank you to read my post more carefully I said there is a 80% chance my hand would LOSE not win.


      i knew that, when did i state otherwise??

      And your figure 70% chance that someone who checked/called 30c would cover an all-in bet seems equally arbitrary to me.


      not to me. Say that again in 1 year of playing poker, and Ill listen to it, now it's just another fish talking.

      What do you base that figure on...


      experience

      Ok so there are two categories of reasoning here 1) That I shouldnt have raised initially. Mathematically this is true, but does this mean you should never bluff.


      no, means you bluff when you know how to bluff. Pick spots, 2 way pots, late position blind steals, all advanced stuff, not for you, clearly, since your bluff makes no sense at all. A bluff should be mathematically correct. Poker = business, not some psychological "booyah, im smarter then you"-game.

      Puschkin81- there was no read intially


      exactly my point.

      My "read" which I used on the flop was that there were 4 hesitant calls, and that these 4 hesitant callers, two of whom checked before my all-in, would not be likely to have hands on which they would call an all-in.


      Someone who checks online on .05/,10 doesnt indicate weakness. Indicates one of these three things:

      1. weakness
      2. great strength
      3. passiveness

      and the fact there were 4 calls and no raises does indicate something.


      yes, it indicates that this hand cannot be profitable to you.

      I should never trust such a read


      well, in general, pple should trust reads, but to answer your question: No, YOU shouldn't, you're not good enough. I would say that to anyone who hasn't been playing many hands.

      Because I am not sure anyone has told me why, during a hand, not to trust a read.


      Ok, i will: because you are not good at playing poker. Reading opponents is an advanced skill for experienced players.




      One more thing: if you dont wanna go broke, plz trust me, i dont make 20$ an hour because i dont have a clue what im talking about here.
    • Prabhatallin
      Prabhatallin
      Gold
      Joined: 09.12.2007 Posts: 532
      All right thats fair enough..I can believe that experience is really important..and I will take your advice and not try stuff like this..but is it always true that everyone grasps things at the same speed and beginners shouldn't try advanced stuff..
    • Nogatsira
      Nogatsira
      Bronze
      Joined: 26.02.2007 Posts: 201
      Originally posted by Prabhatallin
      All right thats fair enough..I can believe that experience is really important..and I will take your advice and not try stuff like this..but is it always true that everyone grasps things at the same speed and beginners shouldn't try advanced stuff..
      there's a difference between advanced stuff and spewing
    • helemaalnicks
      helemaalnicks
      Silver
      Joined: 21.09.2007 Posts: 7,195
      of course some people are faster. Has something to do with talent for Risk, Real time strategy on the pc, etc. If you already grasped some concepts that are important in poker, but in other games too, then youll normally learn faster.

      For example, civilization is a game, like poker, which is pretty much about making +ev moves, adapting a playing style, and make as little mistakes as possible.
    • Faye6891
      Faye6891
      Bronze
      Joined: 09.11.2007 Posts: 1,234
      Originally posted by helemaalnicks
      For example, civilization is a game, like poker, which is pretty much about making +ev moves, adapting a playing style, and make as little mistakes as possible.
      Never saw civilization this way... maybe that's why I always lose. :P

      Hmm... this is an interesting thread.

      I have reached one conclusion: If you're not Phil Ivey, don't ever raise J4 PF. :D
    • KillaKHAN
      KillaKHAN
      Bronze
      Joined: 02.04.2007 Posts: 660
      Originally posted by Prabhatallin
      2) My "read" which I used on the flop was that there were 4 hesitant calls, and that these 4 hesitant callers, two of whom checked before my all-in, would not be likely to have hands on which they would call an all-in. Now that is A basis for a read, is your contention that I should never trust such a read (nvm the earlier raise for now, I know thats mathematically bad but that was to scope out the room). Because I am not sure anyone has told me why, during a hand, not to trust a read.
      how do you know it's a hesitant call on online poker?

      it could be lag, multitabling, or the famous weak is strong and strong is weak...
    • Faye6891
      Faye6891
      Bronze
      Joined: 09.11.2007 Posts: 1,234
      Originally posted by KillaKHAN
      how do you know it's a hesitant call on online poker?
      He zoomed in and could see their avatars were trembling and sweating, indicating a lot of hesitation.
    • KillaKHAN
      KillaKHAN
      Bronze
      Joined: 02.04.2007 Posts: 660
      Originally posted by Faye6891
      Originally posted by KillaKHAN
      how do you know it's a hesitant call on online poker?
      He zoomed in and could see their avatars were trembling and sweating, indicating a lot of hesitation.
      I guess that's a bonus feature if you're ranked bronze and still have the pokerhud key from pokerstrategy?
    • 1
    • 2