Big Blind Play
Badger
blind. Everyone folds to you. You hold 98o. What do you believe is *your*
most profitable action here?
Let's assume no one says reraise, so that leaves call or fold. You are
getting 3.5-to-1 on your call. Depending on how the suits are lined up, if
both hands always went to the showdown, you would be about a 64/36 underdog,
or less than 2-to-1.
But of course there is betting. The AKo has position throughout the hand.
But the AK is likely to payoff certain sorts of hands that the 98 won't (98
loses nothing on a KK2 flop but AK pays off on a 992 flop).
For me personally, calling is an easy and clearly profitable situation.
Apparently others do not believe this is the case. I'm curious, since the
3.5-1 and 64/36 numbers are clear, among those people who think a fold is
appropriate, why do you think that action after the flop will cost your 98o
more than the AKo to a degree that offsets the pre-flop odds?
--
Steve Badger
http://www.playwinningpoker.com
Tony H.
situation,
and I think I still would to an *early* position raiser. But that's me.
Mike Caro gave a response that you should call more often in the blinds,
which
I agree with after reading his reasoning. Here's my take on why it *might*
be
profitable to call.
If you fold, you lose nothing.
If you call, you pay 0.5 into a 3.5 big bets pot.
You can easily throw your hand away on the flop, but if you hit the flop,
you can check-call and make money from the AKo. This gives you
implied odds that combined with the 3.5-1 on your preflop call, makes
calling profitable. Am I correct in thinking this way?
One disadvantage of this is that the preflop raiser has too much bluff power
over you. If the flop comes Q74, the you check, and he bets and I would
usually fold...
- Tony H.
"Badger" <PlayWinning[RemoveThis]Po...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Llz_6.52$ck5....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Mason Malmuth
should play. If you knew he had two overcards that were a pair, then that makes
things much different. For those of you interested in some discussion that
should help in this area see pages 175 and 176 of the 21st Century Edition of
our book HOLD 'EM POKER FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS.
Best wishes,
Mason
Terrence Chan
<PlayWinning[RemoveThis]Po...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>For me personally, calling is an easy and clearly profitable situation.
>Apparently others do not believe this is the case. I'm curious, since the
>3.5-1 and 64/36 numbers are clear, among those people who think a fold is
>appropriate, why do you think that action after the flop will cost your 98o
>more than the AKo to a degree that offsets the pre-flop odds?
I think it's the conditional probability that your opponent holds an
overpair.
--
Terrence Chan
http://www.sfu.ca/~tchand/
"It profiteth the wise, to be deemed a fool."
-Oceanus, Aeschylus' _Prometheus Bound_
Ryan
oft-quoted HE "wisdom" (i.e that medium connectors don't play well heads-up),
but I think the play would be to fold for reasons that illustrate some other HE
myths to which you alluded.
98 really isn't as easy a hand to get off as everyone seems to think, especially
heads-up. How about flops of K-9-3 (do you lay down there?), 4-5-6 (do you take
one off?), A-A-8, and others? Obviously, if you flop open-ended you're going to
the river, right?
Plus, with an early position-raiser, AKo is one of the hands you hope that he
holds. If he's got a pocket pair nines or higher, you could be in big trouble.
Assuming you put him on AKo, and he does pay off when the flop hits you, you
also likely won't play when the flop misses both of you, even though you
probably should.
Maybe it comes down to whether you think you can get him off his AKo or not with
a check-raise semi-bluff or some such. Overall, though, I just see too many
negatives. You're never going to get him to pay you off huge (unless there's
some kind of freakish K-T-7-K-6 board), and I think there are a lot of scenarios
where you end up paying at least 4 small bets, when you could just get out for
free. Again, all depends on the player. If you think he'll hang onto AKo like
a life raft, play it. If you think you can get him off it fairly easy if he
misses, play it. Otherwise, if it's somewhere in between (like it usually is),
it's into the great wide muck.
Ryan
In article <Llz_6.52$ck5....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Badger"
says...
Dan Kimberg
> For me personally, calling is an easy and clearly profitable situation.
> Apparently others do not believe this is the case. I'm curious, since the
> 3.5-1 and 64/36 numbers are clear, among those people who think a fold is
> appropriate, why do you think that action after the flop will cost your 98o
> more than the AKo to a degree that offsets the pre-flop odds?
I don't literally think a fold is appropriate here, unless you know your
opponent is a substantially better player after the flop. But I do
think it's a bit misleading to describe this hand in terms of showdown
poker odds. Although it's much harder if not impossible to assess well,
the more relevant probability is that of reaching showdown while playing
correctly, and winning. The word "correctly" makes this a tougher
problem, but I think if you had that number, it would be a much better
estimate of your preflop equity in the pot. And my intuition is that
98o is less likely than AK to reach showdown in this hand when playing
correctly, so 36% is probably an overestimate of its preflop equity.
Not enough to bloat it out to 3.5:1 though.
You might describe this as action after the flop offsetting the pre-flop
odds, but that seems kind of unnatural to me.
dan
Steve BIA
blind. Why? Maybe he has AKo or AQo and I have the odds to see a flop
against those hands, but I don't know that. I have to consider the range of
hands he could have, including the overpairs. Suppose I get a 9 high flop,
check-raise him and he re-raises. Now what do I do? What do I do if the
flop comes Q8x? Even if I know this player will go to the river with AK
(like too many players do) without improving, on balance I don't believe
this is a profitable call. In NL or PL, it may be a different situation,
depending, of course, on my opponent.
Steve N
"Badger" <PlayWinning[RemoveThis]Po...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Llz_6.52$ck5....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Rib
hand I get
But I dont and neither do you which is why you cant be so safe calling with
89o
You may have correct odds for calling if you knew his hand but if you put
him on overcards OR an overpair then you dont have the odds for calling. I
work out if someone raises from early position 80 to 85% of the time it is
overcards of 89o and 15 to 20% it is an overpair
Is it right to call now?
Rib
Badger wrote in message ...
Bing
<PlayWinning[RemoveThis]Po...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Suppose in Holdem an early position raiser holding AKo raises your big
> blind. Everyone folds to you. You hold 98o. What do you believe is *your*
> most profitable action here?
Fold.
I look at the number of flops that I would be happy with.
They would be 9-9-x, 8-8-x, 9-8-x, s-s-s (flopped straight),
s-s-x (open ended), and maybe 8- or 9-high mixed (if I knew
for sure he didn't have a high pair). With any other flop,
I'd hate my hand.
Are the odds of a solid payoff, when one of these hands comes
up, good enough to overcome a 3.5-to-1 call now? I don't
have the numbers, but I really doubt it.
-- Bing Monopoly Expansion Set
Visit us at http://www.paxentertainment.com
Barbara Yoon
> Suppose in Holdem an early position raiser holding AKo raises your
> 3.5-to-1... ...if both hands always went to the showdown, you would
> be about a 64/36 underdog, or less than 2-to-1. The AKo has position
> throughout the hand. For me personally, calling is an easy and clearly
> profitable situation. ...others do not believe this is the case. ...why do
> you think that action after the flop will cost your 98o more than the AKo
> to a degree that offsets the pre-flop odds?
Not necessarily disagreeing with Badger's conclusion to CALL here,
but in addition to consideration of "action after the flop," also offsetting
the immediate favorable pot-odds, as Badger himself points out, are
the positional disadvantage, and as others point out, the chances that
the opponent might have an overpair -- and the 9-8-offsuit would be
a little worse than 5-to-1 underdog to a random overpair...OK?!
A. Prock
>Suppose in Holdem an early position raiser holding AKo raises your big
>blind. Everyone folds to you. You hold 98o. What do you believe is *your*
>most profitable action here?
Raise.
You know what his cards are and he doesn't know what yours are.
Pretty easy. You should be able to push him off a lot of times
when neither of you hit your hands, as well as the times that
he'll pay you off when you hit the board better than he.
Of course, if his is raising with AKo OR BETTER, then it's
a clear fold.
- Andrew
Badger
> I'm virtually never going to call an early position raiser with 98 in the
> blind. Why? Maybe he has AKo or AQo and I have the odds to see a flop
> against those hands, but I don't know that. I have to consider the range
of
> hands he could have, including the overpairs. Suppose I get a 9 high
flop,
> check-raise him and he re-raises. Now what do I do? What do I do if the
> flop comes Q8x? Even if I know this player will go to the river with AK
> (like too many players do) without improving, on balance I don't believe
> this is a profitable call.
I'll ask again... If your opponent has AK, and you hold 98, *why* do you
think you can't play this hand for a profit? You just said there are
difficult decisions. That just implies you will make the wrong decision
most of the time. Why?
Badger
> If I knew what my opponents were holding preflop I would call with every
>
> But I dont and neither do you which is why you cant be so safe calling
with
> 89o
If you want safe, stay in bed. You don't know what he has, but that's not
what I said. I just asked *if* your opponent had this hand (and obviously
you didn't know it), could you play the 98o profitably, and if not why not?
> You may have correct odds for calling if you knew his hand but if you put
> him on overcards OR an overpair then you dont have the odds for calling. I
> work out if someone raises from early position 80 to 85% of the time it is
> overcards of 89o and 15 to 20% it is an overpair
> Is it right to call now?
For me, playing 98o in the big blind headup against AKo is better than
folding it. Whether a person should fold 98o to an early raiser is
completely different question, worthy of another thread. An early raiser
can have a whole range of hands. The AKo hands are a subset of those hands.
Steve BIA
play 98 profitably against AK after the flop against all but the toughest
opponents.
Steve N
"Badger" <PlayWinning[RemoveThis]Po...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:y%N_6.2327$eL5.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Badger
> I look at the number of flops that I would be happy with.
> They would be 9-9-x, 8-8-x, 9-8-x, s-s-s (flopped straight),
> s-s-x (open ended), and maybe 8- or 9-high mixed (if I knew
> for sure he didn't have a high pair). With any other flop,
> I'd hate my hand.
>
> Are the odds of a solid payoff, when one of these hands comes
> up, good enough to overcome a 3.5-to-1 call now? I don't
> have the numbers, but I really doubt it.
Winning at Holdem isn't about "solid payoffs" or even liking a hand. No
pair wins plenty of hands. Just because a hand isn't an easy no-brainer to
play doesn't mean you shouldn't play it. (Of course, it doesn't mean you
should play it either.)
Dan Kimberg
> ...and as others point out, the chances that
> the opponent might have an overpair -- and the 9-8-offsuit would be
> a little worse than 5-to-1 underdog to a random overpair...OK?!
Several respondents have mentioned this, but I'm going to go out on a limb
and state that an opponent "holding AKo" in a hold'em game does not have a
pocket pair. However, I do agree that if Badger had not been able to narrow
down the hand so precisely, the odds would have been even less favorable.
It's probably worth noting that if the probability distribution of your
opponent's hands favors an unpaired hand by just a hair, and there is to be
no post-flop betting, then a call is still a good idea.
dan
Steve BIA
"Badger" <PlayWinning[RemoveThis]Po...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> I'll ask again... If your opponent has AK, and you hold 98, *why* do you
> think you can't play this hand for a profit? You just said there are
> difficult decisions. That just implies you will make the wrong decision
> most of the time. Why?
I guess I misunderstood your original query. If I KNOW my opponent has AK,
as opposed to any other raising hand (e.g. he flashed his cards) I'll
certainly play 98 and probably any other non-dominated hand.
Steve N
Barbara Yoon
>>> Suppose in Holdem an early position raiser holding AKo raises
>>> your big blind. Everyone folds to you. You hold 98o.
>> ...the chances that the opponent might have an overpair...
Dan Kimberg:
> Several respondents have mentioned this, but I'm going to go out
> on a limb and state that an opponent "holding AKo"...does not
> have a pocket pair.
Somewhat confusing here... If we KNOW for sure that our opponent
has A-K (and thus, as Dan "goes out on his limb" on, does NOT have
a "pocket pair"/"overpair"), then a call is quite obviously good, just
because of our advantage of knowing our opponent's hand -- that is,
unless of course, our opponent knows our hand too... So perhaps
we ought to call on Badger here to re-phrase the question...
Dsklansky
him sometimes. If you knew that he had AK you should at least call with even
72.
This is what Badger is trying to say: Suppose you always called in this spot
with 98 offsuit and played well from that point on. Would your call show a
profit those times your opponent had AK?
Terrence Chan
>This is what Badger is trying to say: Suppose you always called in this spot
>with 98 offsuit and played well from that point on. Would your call show a
>profit those times your opponent had AK?
Undoubtedly, yes.
Badger
> Badger does not mean what he is saying. No wonder I have trouble
understanding
> him sometimes. If you knew that he had AK you should at least call with
even
> 72.
Um, I meant exactly what I said. Mason managed to get it right away, so
maybe he could translate for you next time. I can't help it if some people
like disregarding the written word and instead launch off on imagined
meaning.
> This is what Badger is trying to say: Suppose you always called in this
spot
> with 98 offsuit and played well from that point on. Would your call show a
> profit those times your opponent had AK?
The questions were: "Suppose in Holdem an early position raiser holding AKo
raises your big blind. Everyone folds to you. You hold 98o. What do you
believe is *your* most profitable action here?" and "among those people who
think a fold is appropriate, why do you think that action after the flop
will cost your 98o more than the AKo to a degree that offsets the pre-flop
odds?"
It doesn't deal with magical mindreading skills. Some people are of the
opinion that they would lose money if they played this hand. I was asking
why people who thought so why they believed this.
One person posted that because they couldn't be sure of what the opponent
had, but could put him on some sort of solid overpair hand that they didn't
believe they could play for a profit, despite the dead money. That's part
of an answer but still doesn't really answer why they don't think they
could.
Dsklansky
Terrence Chan
>You are incorrect. You meant what I wrote, not what you wrote.
Ha! Now that's .sig fodder.
--
"You are incorrect. You meant what I wrote, not what you wrote."
-David Sklansky on rec.gambling.poker, 29-June-01
RazzO
razzo
PegSmithNow
>You are incorrect. You meant what I wrote, not what you wrote.
Now THAT's chutzpah!
Peg
AL
>From: pegsm...@aol.com (PegSmithNow)
>
>Now THAT's chutzpah!
egotism. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth
Edition. 2000.
...The tendency to speak or write of oneself excessively and boastfully. 2. An
inflated sense of one's own importance; conceit.
DaVoice
Rick
"Terrence Chan" <terren...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:q5cojtsapullooila...@4ax.com...
PegSmithNow
>egotism. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth
>Edition. 2000...
Al, we all have our crutches -- some of them mighty peculiar. But...a
dictionary? Try the 12-step program, it's usually very effective.
Peg :-)
John M. Davis
I'm not sure we're getting much closer: Suppose you always called in
this spot with 52 offsuit and played well from that point on. Would
your call show a profit those times your opponent had AK?
I suspect part of the reason that 98 does reasonably well against AK
(in simulations when both are held to the river) is because of runner
runner straight/flush draws -- and gut-shot draws -- which it would be
a mistake to chase except when you knew your pair outs were good.
I guess you could always assume your pair outs were good, though there
might be skeptics when the flop is AK5...
AL
>From: pegsm...@aol.com (PegSmithNow)
at least I used the 4th edition instead of the 3rd
Rib
preflop if I knew what my opponent was holding. After the flop I would know
if I could get him/her off the hand and how to play it.
RIb
Badger wrote in message ...
Badger
> I answered your question in my first statement. I would play every hand
> preflop if I knew what my opponent was holding. After the flop I would
know
> if I could get him/her off the hand and how to play it.
Maybe David will explain this to you, but you don't know what your opponent
is holding. How would you manage that? Start another thread about
mindreading if you want.
Sean Duffy
wrote:
If you knew his cards you could maybe even play a dominated hand too.
AK is only about a 3:1 favorite over KJ, and you're getting 3.5:1 on
the call. The 3:1 figure only applies when you see all 5 cards and
sometimes you won't be able to see the turn and river cards, but
you'll probably make up for that the times the flop comes KJx or Jx
because you'll be able to play these hands in a much trickier manner
than you would if you couldn't see his cards. (I.e. on the KJ flop,
you can often check-raise the turn or river after playing hard on
earlier streets, whereas if you didn't know his cards you might not be
able to, fearing that he'd take a free card with QQ or AQ.)
-Sean
Dan Kimberg
> You are incorrect. You meant what I wrote, not what you wrote.
David, with all due respect, Badger clearly meant what he wrote, which if
you consider everything we know about questions like, "what does Badger mean
when he says X," actually means the same thing as what you wrote. You'll
find the full explanation in my forthcoming book, "Theory of Badger."
The key insight into understanding the question, not the answer, is that if
your answer involves considering the possibility that your opponent holds
any other hand than AKo, you're working on a somewhat different, though
possibly also very interesting, question.
dan
ps sticking with my original answer
RMITCHCOLL
>You are incorrect. You meant what I wrote, not what you wrote
Boy are you gonna be in trouble when Badger wakes up and reads this.
:-)
Randy
Bing
<PlayWinning[RemoveThis]Po...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Winning at Holdem isn't about "solid payoffs" or even liking a hand.
Of course it is.
The whole reason you may make this or that play in
poker is to get money into the pots you will win and
keep from putting money in those that you will lose.
That's a "solid payooff." If you make moves and never
get decent payoffs as a result, you won't be a
winning player.
And the whole concept of "liking a hand" is the core
of the "dominated" idea. If you have K-Q against A-K,
you're not gonna like your hand very often after the
flop. If someone told you, before the flop, that "you're
not gonna like your hand 95% of the time against that
other guy's hand", would you play it?
> No pair wins plenty of hands.
Maybe, in $300-$600 games, where the action is usually
heads up, it does. But, in typical LL games, "no pair"
wins, maybe, 1 out of 50 showdowns.
> Just because a hand isn't an easy no-brainer to
> play doesn't mean you shouldn't play it.
True. But you do need to be looking ahead. If you
purposely play a problem hand, don't be surprised
if you do get into trouble with it.
If you play 8-9o for a raise against a player who
raises on any two cards Jack and up, and the flop
comes K-9-4, are you in good shape or in big
trouble?
Perhaps a REALLY good player could gleen the answer
from outside clues given off by the player. Most
players, however, just won't know.
-- Bing Monopoly Expansion Set
Visit us at http://www.paxentertainment.com
Badger
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 22:31:26 GMT, "Badger"
>
> Of course it is.
Maybe to you. To me it means regularly taking more money out of games than
I started with. Some payoffs are marginal. Sometimes you have to call when
you are a dog but getting pot odds. Sometimes you have to bluff. You may
have a different definition of "like" than me me, but I don't "like" my hand
when I bluff. I still do it tho because it is profitable.
> The whole reason you may make this or that play in
> poker is to get money into the pots you will win and
> keep from putting money in those that you will lose.
> That's a "solid payooff." If you make moves and never
> get decent payoffs as a result, you won't be a
> winning player.
Again you can have your definitions, but in Holdem you have a lot of
situations where you have say a 54% to 46% edge. Is that "solid" to you?
The word "marginal" comes to my mind, but you absolutely must take advantage
of these small edges when they appear. Nothing solid about that.
> And the whole concept of "liking a hand" is the core
> of the "dominated" idea. If you have K-Q against A-K,
> you're not gonna like your hand very often after the
> flop. If someone told you, before the flop, that "you're
> not gonna like your hand 95% of the time against that
> other guy's hand", would you play it?
I couldn't give two craps about my "like" for a hand. It means nothing.
What matters is if the hand is profitable. If it is unprofitable, get rid
of it, whatever it is. If it is profitable you play it. I'm not looking to
make friends with poker hands.
> > No pair wins plenty of hands.
>
> Maybe, in $300-$600 games, where the action is usually
> heads up, it does. But, in typical LL games, "no pair"
> wins, maybe, 1 out of 50 showdowns.
Whi said anything about showdowns??? If you aren't winning some low limit
pots with no pair, there is a big hole in your game. And, I've been fooling
around about a half hour a day at the Paradise microlimit Holdem games, and
no pair wins a showdown pretty darn often, maybe 10% of the time.
> > Just because a hand isn't an easy no-brainer to
> > play doesn't mean you shouldn't play it.
>
> True. But you do need to be looking ahead. If you
> purposely play a problem hand, don't be surprised
> if you do get into trouble with it.
Again, why do you care about "trouble"? That's nothing to be thinking
about -- except in terms of improving as a player. Some hands are harder to
play, but if they are profitable, they should be played. The difficulty
level should mean nothing, what matters is are you getting the right price.
> If you play 8-9o for a raise against a player who
> raises on any two cards Jack and up, and the flop
> comes K-9-4, are you in good shape or in big
> trouble?
I'm making a tiny amount of money, and I like that. Of course this isn't
the best flop for the hand. You get the value out of this hand with better
flops than that.
It seems like some people have a hard time understanding that losing pots is
not a bad thing if you win your share too. In the case of AKo raising
versus 98o calling in the big blind, both hands should be profitable,
chopping up the dead bet and half already in the pot.
> Perhaps a REALLY good player could gleen the answer
> from outside clues given off by the player. Most
> players, however, just won't know.
Most players shouldn't imagine that their common opposition gleans
information better than they do.
Barbara Yoon
>>>> Suppose in Holdem an early position raiser holding AKo raises
>>>> your big blind. Everyone folds to you. You hold 98o. What do
>>>> you believe is *your* most profitable action here?
Dsklansky:
>>> Badger does not mean what he is saying. No wonder I have trouble
>>> understanding him sometimes. If you knew that he had AK you
>>> should at least call with even 72. This is what Badger is trying to say:
>>> Suppose you always called in this spot with 98 offsuit and played
>>> well from that point on. Would your call show a profit those times
>>> your opponent had AK?
Badger:
>> Um, I meant exactly what I said. Mason managed to get it right away,
>> so maybe he could translate for you next time. I can't help it if some
>> people like disregarding the written word and instead launch off on
>> imagined meaning.
Dsklansky:
> You are incorrect. You meant what I wrote, not what you wrote.
Wow...this sure is confusing (and where's Gary Carson when we
NEED him?!)... Could another way of reading this, which would
seem to fit both with Badger's words, and Dsklansky's suggestion,
be something like, "IF your opponent has A-K?!"
The Baron
> You are incorrect. You meant what I wrote, not what you wrote.
>
A .sig line!!! I see a .sig line!!!
--
J.A. James
"The Baron"
-----------------------------------------------
There are three kinds of men:
The living,
the dead,
and the
AIRBORNE !
_____________
Gen. Carl W Stiner,
USSOCOM CINC
PegSmithNow
>> You are incorrect. You meant what I wrote, not what you wrote.
>From: The Baron
>A .sig line!!! I see a .sig line!!!
Too late. Terrance always grabs the good ones first.
Peg
The Baron
server... ah well, I'm sure David is good for another bit of internet wisdom
before too long... Wow... POKER CONTENT ALERT!!!
Capturing a good .sig line from a newsgroup is like poker, sometimes you
just don't win the hand...
God that was a sad attempt... it must be time for beer and cold pizza...
--
J.A. James
"The Baron"
-----------------------------------------------
The enemy invariably attacks on one of two occasions:
When you're not ready for them
When you're ready for them.
Either time is inconvenient and generally a bummer
Gary Carson
>You are incorrect. You meant what I wrote, not what you wrote.
You're incorrect, David.
You're assuming that Badger's question wasnt' nonsense, and
interpreting it as if it actually meant something. That's a mistake.
If you know what your opponent has, you should cal with any two cards
-- always, if he has AA and you have 72 you'll show a profite if you
know what he has.
So, realizing that Badger's question taken literally is void of
meaning, you assume he must have meant what you wrote. Wrong. He
took language lessons from Razzo and always means what he says, no
matter how silly it might be.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
Badger
> You're assuming that Badger's question wasnt' nonsense, and
> interpreting it as if it actually meant something. That's a mistake.
>
> If you know what your opponent has, you should cal with any two cards
> -- always, if he has AA and you have 72 you'll show a profite if you
> know what he has.
Apparently you took reading classes with Sklansky at LSU. I never said you
knew what the other player had! LOL.
It's a simple question, but apparently too complicated for some. If Gary
has 72o and Mason has AA, will Mason show a profit? There is no gibberish
about mindreading.
I see Northwestern claims you too in addition to LSU. Poor them.
Tom Robertson
It's not necessarily conceit if he's right. In Steve's original
message, he pretty much said the same thing David said. When people
understanding that Steve meant that the player with 98 knew what the
raiser had, Steve said that he hadn't said that, about which he was
right. But he also wrote in that message: "For me personally, calling
is an easy and clearly profitable situation." Now, "profitable"
doesn't imply that he knows what the raiser has, but "easy" does,
since it relates to the state of mind of the person in the situation.
If calling with 98 is wrong if the player with 98 doesn't know what
the raiser has, and if calling is "easy" if s/he knows what the raiser
has, then Steve was at least implying that the player with 98 knew
what the raiser had. Due to this ambiguity (if not contradiction) and
assuming that Steve doesn't have an explanation for why I have
misunderstood what he meant by "easy," it was at least partly Steve's
fault that he was understood as saying that the player with 98 knew
what the raiser had.
North Shore Mike
>In the following post, pegsm...@aol.com says...
>> >dskl...@aol.com says...
>> >> You are incorrect. You meant what I wrote, not what you wrote.
>>
>> >From: The Baron
>>
>> >A .sig line!!! I see a .sig line!!!
>>
>> Too late. Terrance always grabs the good ones first.
>>
>> Peg
>>
> Oh man... now I'm really pissed off at my ISP... slow rolled by my news
>server...
Call Dan Mullen at 1-800-MAC-HETE
He'll take care of that ISP for you.
North Shore Mike
****************************************************************************
Remove 'x' in e-mail address to reply
Spambot bait: abuse@localhost postmaster@localhost
****************************************************************************
A. Prock
>Apparently you took reading classes with Sklansky at LSU. I never said you
>knew what the other player had! LOL.
Aparently, you've clarified it to be exactly what
Sklansky wrote. If I understand you correctly
the situation is:
- UTG raised
- you hold 98o
- unbeknownst to you, UTG has AKo
So the real question is, how *often* does UTG raise?
Without that information, you question is too vague.
If you don't know how often the player raises, you should
fold. You might vary your play according to limit, or table
conditions, but we don't have that info either.
As it is often said...
"It depends."
- Andrew
A. Prock
>situations where you have say a 54% to 46% edge. Is that "solid" to you?
>The word "marginal" comes to my mind, but you absolutely must take advantage
>of these small edges when they appear. Nothing solid about that.
54/46 is a HUGE edge. You win 8% of your investement back with
this kind of edge. That edge is better than your average
edge over the field. Your return on investment is bigger here
than the average stock market return.
Maybe that's the problem. You seem to
think that HUGE edges are marginal.
- Andrew
A. Prock
>> On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 22:31:26 GMT, "Badger"
>> > Winning at Holdem isn't about "solid payoffs" or even liking a hand.
>>
>> Of course it is.
>
>Maybe to you. To me it means regularly taking more money out of games than
>I started with. Some payoffs are marginal. Sometimes you have to call when
>you are a dog but getting pot odds. Sometimes you have to bluff. You may
>have a different definition of "like" than me me, but I don't "like" my hand
>when I bluff. I still do it tho because it is profitable.
This paragraph seems so full of contradictions,
I don't know where to start. But let's try the
two obvious ones:
Are you saying that when you have pot odds to
call that this is "marginal"?
Are you saying that when you don't "like" your
bluffing hand, that you don't "like" the profit
which that hand is making you?
Maybe I need to take that course in reading
comprehension, because I'm having trouble
comprehending what you are writing.
Just to clarify, what were the examples of
"marginal" payoffs you were talking about?
And by "marginal" do you mean ~0 ev.
- Andrew
Badger
> If calling with 98 is wrong if the player with 98 doesn't know what
> the raiser has, and if calling is "easy" if s/he knows what the raiser
> has, then Steve was at least implying that the player with 98 knew
> what the raiser had.
Huh??? If my opponent has 72o, winning with AA will be easy for me. I
don't need ESP.
Another hijacked thread. Mindreading in poker. Fascinating.
> Due to this ambiguity (if not contradiction) and
> assuming that Steve doesn't have an explanation for why I have
> misunderstood what he meant by "easy," it was at least partly Steve's
> fault that he was understood as saying that the player with 98 knew
> what the raiser had.
???? Don't filter straightforward sentences through bizarre assumptions and
you won't have any problems. Perhaps winning with the 98 wouldn't be easy
for you, but it would be for me, so I said so, and it has nothing to do with
ESP!
Badger
> - UTG raised
> - you hold 98o
> - unbeknownst to you, UTG has AKo
Three days ago, yeah.
> So the real question is, how *often* does UTG raise?
> Without that information, you question is too vague.
?... again. It's anything but vague. I didn't ask if a player *should*
play this hand, only if they thought if they did play if they could show a
profit. If you guys wanna talk about other topics, start other threads.
There is a cool one on ESP going, I hear.
> If you don't know how often the player raises, you should
> fold. You might vary your play according to limit, or table
> conditions, but we don't have that info either.
Totally different issue, and an interesting enough one, but "should fold" is
not part of the question.
> As it is often said...
> "It depends."
Of course it depends, but the only way that applies here is that you might
not be able to play profitably against the very best AKo player in the
world, and you surely could play profitably against the very worst AKo
player in the world.
Badger
news:9hl8bd$m...@spool.cs.wisc.edu...
> This paragraph seems so full of contradictions,
> I don't know where to start. But let's try the
> two obvious ones:
>
> Are you saying that when you have pot odds to
> call that this is "marginal"?
Ummm, obviously sometimes. If you are 11.5-to-1 on your money with an
11-to-1 draw, that is "marginally" profitable. Maybe you define marginal
different. You and Bing certainly aren't going to agree on definitions.
> Are you saying that when you don't "like" your
> bluffing hand, that you don't "like" the profit
> which that hand is making you?
Ummm, yeah. I don't "like" to bluff, even tho it is is profitable.
You see a quarter in the bottom of a toilet bowl, you "like" fishing it out?
You "like" *not* fishing it out?
> Maybe I need to take that course in reading
> comprehension, because I'm having trouble
> comprehending what you are writing.
I hear LSU has a good one.
> Just to clarify, what were the examples of
> "marginal" payoffs you were talking about?
I posted a perfectly clear example before.
> And by "marginal" do you mean ~0 ev.
LOL.
Badger
> 54/46 is a HUGE edge. You win 8% of your investement back with
> this kind of edge. That edge is better than your average
> edge over the field. Your return on investment is bigger here
> than the average stock market return.
>
> Maybe that's the problem. You seem to
> think that HUGE edges are marginal.
Spoken like a Holdem player. 90/10 edges are huge.
I was answering Bing tho. For me, 54/46 is just fine, but I doubt it was
"solid" in the way he was talking. It could have been 52/48, but when you
start getting too close to 50/50 I would expect somebody to troll in with an
"avoid the variance and fold" statement so I made it 54/46.
If 54/46 is HUGE to you, you better work on your game selection -- but I
guess you are just defining "HUGE" like a lot of guys do.
AL
>There is a cool one on ESP going, I hear.
"Egomaniacs Speaking Poker"?
Tom Robertson
>"Tom Robertson" <mdm...@att.net> wrote...
>> If calling with 98 is wrong if the player with 98 doesn't know what
>> the raiser has, and if calling is "easy" if s/he knows what the raiser
>> has, then Steve was at least implying that the player with 98 knew
>> what the raiser had.
>
>Huh??? If my opponent has 72o, winning with AA will be easy for me. I
>don't need ESP.
>
>Another hijacked thread. Mindreading in poker. Fascinating.
Considering other people entirely responsible for misunderstanding you
after making a vague, if not contradictory, implication is what is
"fascinating."
>> Due to this ambiguity (if not contradiction) and
>> assuming that Steve doesn't have an explanation for why I have
>> misunderstood what he meant by "easy," it was at least partly Steve's
>> fault that he was understood as saying that the player with 98 knew
>> what the raiser had.
>
>???? Don't filter straightforward sentences through bizarre assumptions and
>you won't have any problems.
Your use of the word "easy" was hardly "straightforward" in the
context of your message. What do you mean by it? The purpose of your
message is also relevant to this context. I don't believe anyone
knows what it is. Who cares what the right play is when a raiser has
AK if you don't know when he has AK?
>Perhaps winning with the 98 wouldn't be easy
>for you, but it would be for me, so I said so, and it has nothing to do with
>ESP!
When you are in the big blind with 98 and someone has raised with AK,
assuming you would fold if you didn't know what he had, if you didn't
know what he had, how would calling be "an easy ... situation."
PegSmithNow
>...The purpose of your
>message is also relevant to this context. I don't believe anyone
>knows what it is. Who cares what the right play is when a raiser has
>AK if you don't know when he has AK?...
>When you are in the big blind with 98 and someone has raised with AK,
>assuming you would fold if you didn't know what he had, if you didn't
>know what he had, how would calling be "an easy ... situation."
I've been struggling through this whole thread trying to figure out what you're
getting at, Steve, and as Tom pointed out it's as clear as mud.
Peg
Ryan
>
>54/46 is a HUGE edge. You win 8% of your investement back with
>this kind of edge. That edge is better than your average
>edge over the field. Your return on investment is bigger here
>than the average stock market return.
>
>Maybe that's the problem. You seem to
>think that HUGE edges are marginal.
>
>- Andrew
>
>
Um, I think either you misunderstood the context in which Badger was speaking,
or you're a little shaky on the definition of the word "huge".
Are you saying if you hold something like 5d5h vs. an opponent with JsTs, and a
board of 8s-9s-2h-Kd, that you have a HUGE (caps are yours) edge because you
have 23 outs to his 21 (a little better than 54%/46%). I'm not saying you
shouldn't bet the river in that situation, but I wouldn't call you a HUGE
favorite.
So if 54/46 is a "HUGE edge", what term would you use to describe your edge when
you're a 60/40 favorite? ASTRONOMICAL? How about when your opponent is drawing
to 2 outs? Is there a word in the dictionary to describe that kind of edge?
I'm not usually one to quibble about semantics, and I have a basic problem with
Badger's primary concept in this thread, but I think defining a 54/46 edge as
"marginal" in a poker context is pretty accurate. And besides, the numbers he
used are irrelevant (picture 50.08% to 49.92% if you like) to the point he was
making.
Ryan
Tom Robertson
>"Tom Robertson" <mdm...@att.net> wrote...
>> If calling with 98 is wrong if the player with 98 doesn't know what
>> the raiser has, and if calling is "easy" if s/he knows what the raiser
>> has, then Steve was at least implying that the player with 98 knew
>> what the raiser had.
>
>Huh??? If my opponent has 72o, winning with AA will be easy for me. I
>don't need ESP.
>
>Another hijacked thread. Mindreading in poker. Fascinating.
Considering other people entirely responsible for misunderstanding you
after making vague, if not contradictory, implications is what is
"fascinating."
>> Due to this ambiguity (if not contradiction) and
>> assuming that Steve doesn't have an explanation for why I have
>> misunderstood what he meant by "easy," it was at least partly Steve's
>> fault that he was understood as saying that the player with 98 knew
>> what the raiser had.
>
>???? Don't filter straightforward sentences through bizarre assumptions and
>you won't have any problems.
Your use of the word "easy" was hardly "straightforward" in the
context of your message. What do you mean by it? The purpose of your
message is also relevant to this context. I don't believe anyone
knows what it is. Who cares what the right play is when a raiser has
AK if you don't know when he has AK?
>Perhaps winning with the 98 wouldn't be easy
>for you, but it would be for me, so I said so, and it has nothing to do with
>ESP!
When you are in the big blind with 98 and someone has raised with AK,
assuming you would fold if you didn't know what he had, if you didn't
know what he had, how would calling be "an easy ... situation."
Referring to whether or not "a fold is appropriate" also implies that
the player with 98 knows what the raiser has. In what context of
knowledge of a player with 98 would whether or not "a fold is
appropriate" be relevant when calling would be "an easy ...
situation?"
AL
> it's as clear as mud.
Peg,
I usually agree with you, but I'm sorry...
I have to disagree...
I've rerad it all and it doesn't come close to being clear as mud!
Tom Robertson
>"A. Prock" <jeffy...@yahoo.com> wrote...
>> - UTG raised
>> - you hold 98o
>> - unbeknownst to you, UTG has AKo
>
>Three days ago, yeah.
>
>> So the real question is, how *often* does UTG raise?
>> Without that information, you question is too vague.
>
>?... again. It's anything but vague. I didn't ask if a player *should*
>play this hand, only if they thought if they did play if they could show a
>profit.
In the context of a poker player whose goal is to maximize his/her
profits, how does whether or not s/he "should play this hand" differ
from whether or not s/he "could show a profit" with it? If that's not
the context in which you asked the original question, what is?
>If you guys wanna talk about other topics, start other threads.
>There is a cool one on ESP going, I hear.
You mean, the one you started by asking what to do with 98 against AK
and implying at least twice that the player with 98 knew what the
raiser had?
>> If you don't know how often the player raises, you should
>> fold. You might vary your play according to limit, or table
>> conditions, but we don't have that info either.
>
>Totally different issue, and an interesting enough one, but "should fold" is
>not part of the question.
How does "should fold" differ from whether or not "a fold is
appropriate?"
Ryan
says...
>
>I've been struggling through this whole thread trying to figure out what you're
>getting at, Steve, and as Tom pointed out it's as clear as mud.
>
>Peg
I've struggled through it as well.
Broken down, I think the question might be something like: In the history of
HE, out of all the many thousands of times when an early position player has
open-raised with AKo, and the big blind has been the only caller with 98o, has
the big blind been able to play well enough post-flop to show the profit that
the hand "deserves" to make (based on the dead money and the heads-up showdown
odds)?
It is a rather interesting question taken by itself. But it's the kind of
abstract conjecture that, when introduced by others, Badger usually rails
against for having no practical purpose at the poker table. If it's
unprofitable to call an early position raise heads-up from the big blind with
98o (as most everyone agrees), then who cares whether or not you could have made
a profit against AKo?
Usually I'm able to noodle through Badger's somewhat puzzling rationalizations,
but this one has me stumped.
Ryan
Badger
> Your use of the word "easy" was hardly "straightforward" in the
> context of your message. What do you mean by it?
You want me to define "easy"?
I pass...
>The purpose of your
> message is also relevant to this context. I don't believe anyone
> knows what it is.
Posting poker content to a poker newsgroup.
> Who cares what the right play is when a raiser has
> AK if you don't know when he has AK?
LOL, don't post in the thread then. Jesus.
Badger
> I've been struggling through this whole thread trying to figure out what
you're
> getting at, Steve, and as Tom pointed out it's as clear as mud.
Before Sklansky hijacked the thread with ESP, Mason posted the obvious
response, which I thought would have ended things, but if you think asking
if a person thinks he or she can play one specific hand for a profit against
another specific hand is unclear, there is nothing I left to say.
Can you play AA for a profit against 72? If not, why not?
How unclear.
Badger
> You mean, the one you started by asking what to do with 98 against AK
> and implying at least twice that the player with 98 knew what the
> raiser had?
?
How many times do I have to say the exact opposite to get you to stop making
a bizarre assumptions?
Badger
> It is a rather interesting question taken by itself. But it's the kind of
> abstract conjecture that, when introduced by others, Badger usually rails
> against for having no practical purpose at the poker table. If it's
> unprofitable to call an early position raise heads-up from the big blind
with
> 98o (as most everyone agrees), then who cares whether or not you could
have made
> a profit against AKo?
Well, most poor players agree, and some weak/mediocre ones too.
As Mason posted, good players should be able to play 98o profitably against
two non-paired overcards (and paired undercards), and unprofitably against
two paired over cards.
This is about as un-abstract as poker gets.
I asked those players who think they can't make a profit against AK *why*
they thought they couldn't. Pretty simple. No one has really replied,
except the poster who thought he would be outplayed.
> Usually I'm able to noodle through Badger's somewhat puzzling
rationalizations,
> but this one has me stumped.
What am I rationalizing? Answer the question, post on the topic, or don't.
Times like these I fear RGP is as much of a waste as a lot of people say it
is.
A. Prock
>> If you don't know how often the player raises, you should
>> fold. You might vary your play according to limit, or table
>> conditions, but we don't have that info either.
>Totally different issue, and an interesting enough one, but "should fold" is
>not part of the question.
So when wrote:
>>>Suppose in Holdem an early position raiser holding AKo raises your big
>>>blind. Everyone folds to you. You hold 98o. What do you believe is *your*
>>>most profitable action here?
>>>
>>>Let's assume no one says reraise, so that leaves call or fold.
^^^^^^^
You really meant:
>>>.. so that leaves call.
Correct? Or am I just not understanding what you wrote
yet again?
- Andrew
Dsklansky
>>knew what the other player had! LOL.
>
>Aparently, you've clarified it to be exactly what
>Sklansky wrote.
Well at least Andrew noticed.
Dsklansky
But Mason anwered MY question. I don't care about English debates but the fact
remains that my second response was both joking and true. You are asking how 98
big blind does when it calls a raise from someone that, unknowingly to the
blind, has AK. Gary Carson says you didn't mean this. But you did. Ask Mike
Caro.
AL
>You are asking how 98
>big blind does when it calls a raise from someone that, unknowingly to the
>blind, has AK.
Does this mean that the entire thread will be posted again?
I tried to follow it the first time.
Badger
> You really meant:
>
> >>>.. so that leaves call.
>
> Correct? Or am I just not understanding what you wrote
> yet again?
No... I meant what I wrote. What was more profitable for the reader,
calling or folding. What is so hard about this? If a person says fold,
that means that by calling they would lose more money by playing, and then I
asked why they thought this would be true.
Badger
news:20010701004409...@ng-mg1.aol.com...
No, you said I wrote something different than what I wrote. That was an
"error" on your part. The fact that you then rather bizarrely said what I
wrote, well...
Badger
> >Before Sklansky hijacked the thread with ESP, Mason posted the obvious
> >response, which I thought would have ended things.
> But Mason anwered MY question.
Bzzzzt. He answered almost immediately after I posted.
> I don't care about English debates but the fact
> remains that my second response was both joking and true. You are asking
how 98
> big blind does when it calls a raise from someone that, unknowingly to the
> blind, has AK. Gary Carson says you didn't mean this. But you did. Ask
Mike
> Caro.
First, most people simply do not understand your sense of humor. This is
peculiar because many of the things you write are very funny.
Your second response was both joking, true about what I meant, but
hopelessly untrue about what I wrote. The fact that you agree with Gary
Carson's reading of this should be the proof of that.
You misread it. You made an error. Your error sent some folks spinning off
their axis.
Too bad.
But now I'm gonna get a column out of it, so all is not lost.
A. Prock
I hope you have a good editor.
- Andrew
Badger
> According to Badger <PlayWinning[RemoveThis]Po...@earthlink.net>:
> >But now I'm gonna get a column out of it, so all is not lost.
>
> I hope you have a good editor.
Hire a translator. Don't make it Sklansky or Carson.
A. Prock
Badger's original question:
>>>Suppose in Holdem an early position raiser holding AKo raises your big
>>>blind. Everyone folds to you. You hold 98o. What do you believe is *your*
>>>most profitable action here?
>>>
>>>Let's assume no one says reraise, so that leaves call or fold.
^^^^^^^
Badger then contradicted himself:
>>Totally different issue, and an interesting enough one, but "should fold" is
>>not part of the question.
Badger's reply, when I questioned the contradiction:
>No... I meant what I wrote.
That's now very clear. The question then becomes,
does your left brain know what your right brain
is doing?
- Andrew
Tom Robertson
No finite number would accurately answer your question. You're going
to have to acknowledge how many times you implied just what I'm so
"bizarre"ly assuming. I came up with a third, by the way, in the
subject title you gave this so very enlightening thread. Saying that
your post will be about "big blind play" implies that it will be
relevant to decisions that players will actually face. You tried to
smuggle in relevance by saying something about how a call would be
easy in such a situation but you left yourself with no way to say how
such a call would be easy under the assumptions that you made. When
asked what the relevance of your scenario was, you wrote: "Posting
poker content to a poker newsgroup." You wrote that you believe that,
contrary to what most people think, calling is better than folding in
the situation you depicted. Could you be a little more specific about
why you believe that belief is relevant to a poker newsgroup? The
only guess I have is that knowing the value of calling with 98 against
AK is part of knowing the overall value of calling with 98, and that,
as soon as how 98 will do against all other hands that an opponent
might raise with, the decision of whether to call or fold can be
better evaluated. Is that close to what you had in mind?
Badger
> That's now very clear. The question then becomes,
> does your left brain know what your right brain
> is doing?
I'll take that as an apology.
Either you play because you can turn a profit, or you fold because you
can't. If you do in fact fold, "should" isn't involved. The question then
is the "why" you can't play it for a profit.
Why do you post if you have nothing to say about a topic?
Badger
> No finite number would accurately answer your question. You're going
> to have to acknowledge how many times you implied just what I'm so
> "bizarre"ly assuming.
You worry about the grassy knoll a lot I bet. I don't imply. I say what I
want to get across. When I say "nice car", I am not implying "I want to eat
your dog." If you want implications, read another thread. Maybe next time
I'll write "the raiser has AKo ------ but you don't know that because you
aren't a mindreader or a cheater." That would help you I guess.
> I came up with a third, by the way, in the
> subject title you gave this so very enlightening thread. Saying that
> your post will be about "big blind play" implies that it will be
> relevant to decisions that players will actually face.
Apparently you don't think about what hands you can play profitably against,
but I do, and when I do, I think about how many such hands are within the
range of hands my opponent holds. I'm sorry that this is something you
don't get, but it goes to the heart of correct poker decisionmaking.
>You tried to
> smuggle in relevance by saying something about how a call would be
> easy in such a situation but you left yourself with no way to say how
> such a call would be easy under the assumptions that you made.
See, when I ask somebody else a question, I'm looking for *their* answer. I
only mentioned my own answer so people would know where I was coming from in
asking. Apparently you care more about what I didn't ask than what I did,
in which case I suggest trying another thread.
Tom Robertson
Make it someone who can explain how a call can be "easy" because of a
certain condition that applies but that the player making the "easy"
call can't know that the condition applies.
greatbrit
good question, he obviously (to me at least) didn't mean that you 'know' he has
AK, just that that was one of the more likely holdings. If I was playing
against a super rock who could only have AA KK QQ or AK then I'd probably
fold. If I was against a tricky player who was more likely to limp with those
hands but has now raised then I'd be more likely to call. If I was against an
aggressive player who I think is after my big blind then I'd call frequently.
If I call and I get an unfavorable flop without an A then I might check raise,
or against a solid player I met bet out. Or if I get a good draw or a good
flop I might just check and call, lots of ifs and ors.
Paul
Tom Robertson
>I can't believe this thread got so out of hand, I thought Badger asked a very
>good question, he obviously (to me at least) didn't mean that you 'know' he has
>AK, just that that was one of the more likely holdings.
Oh no, he couldn't have meant that. He said what he meant and he
meant what he said. He implied nothing.
>If I was playing
>against a super rock who could only have AA KK QQ or AK then I'd probably
>fold.
This has nothing to do with this thread. I asked Steve if knowing how
98 would do against AK is part of knowing how it would do against any
possible hand that the raiser might raise with, for purposes of
evaluating how 98 might do overall, but he just responded that I
"don't get" it. This thread is only about how 98 does against AK when
the player who has 98 doesn't know what the raiser has, and has
nothing to do with any other situation. Steve says what he means and
he means what he says.
>If I was against a tricky player who was more likely to limp with those
>hands but has now raised then I'd be more likely to call. If I was against an
>aggressive player who I think is after my big blind then I'd call frequently.
>If I call and I get an unfavorable flop without an A then I might check raise,
>or against a solid player I met bet out. Or if I get a good draw or a good
>flop I might just check and call, lots of ifs and ors.
You're discussing considerations that are relevant to big blind play,
and therefore what you write has nothing to do with this thread.
The title to this thread got my hopes up. I believe my big blind play
sucks, and was hoping to see more discussion about it. Maybe what you
wrote will head the discussion in that direction.
Tom Weideman
wrote on 7/1/01 12:09 AM:
> Badger's original question:
>>>> Suppose in Holdem an early position raiser holding AKo raises your big
>>>> blind. Everyone folds to you. You hold 98o. What do you believe is
>>>> *your*
>>>> most profitable action here?
>>>>
>>>> Let's assume no one says reraise, so that leaves call or fold.
> ^^^^^^^
> Badger then contradicted himself:
>>> Totally different issue, and an interesting enough one, but "should fold" is
>>> not part of the question.
>
> Badger's reply, when I questioned the contradiction:
>> No... I meant what I wrote.
This is a very effective method for dealing with these runaway threads where
everyone seems to always mysteriously misread what Badger wrote.
I find it very amusing that Badger seems to be the only poster who has to
spend so much energy - typically 50% or more of a thread - telling people
that they misread, misunderstood, or lied about what he wrote. The most
enjoyable irony is when he works his cut-and-paste magic to obfuscate the
fact that he has yet again painted himself into a logical corner regarding
his unique brand of poker theory, and caps it off with something along the
lines of, "I just write what I mean, and I'm providing real content, while
you're just a lying troll who's too lazy to do any work." He's the master.
I think people frustrated by this practice may be having problems because
they believe Badger understands poker and is simply weak in the area of
written communication. Maybe when everyone who carries on these discussions
with Badger (as I used to) realizes that the former assumption simply isn't
true, the futility of trying to "clear things up" will become clear, and the
communication frustration will vanish. Then he can go on "helping" the
poker play of his adoring public with his website in peace, as no one
intelligent will bother to argue with him. The poor guy is just trying to
make a living, after all.
Tom Weideman
A. Prock
Ego.
And you?
- Andrew
Badger
more interests when you move to the bay Area.
"A. Prock" <jeffy...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9hmnd3$k...@spool.cs.wisc.edu...
greatbrit
> Oh no, he couldn't have meant that. He said what he meant and he
> meant what he said. He implied nothing.
I said how I interpreted his post, you can think whatever you wish.
> This has nothing to do with this thread.
How I play 98o in the BB has nothing to do with this thread?
> You're discussing considerations that are relevant to big blind play,
> and therefore what you write has nothing to do with this thread.
you mean this thread, "Big Blind Play"?
> The title to this thread got my hopes up. I believe my big blind play
> sucks, and was hoping to see more discussion about it. Maybe what you
> wrote will head the discussion in that direction.
I chose not to get involved in a dumb debate over the semantics of what he meant,
I'd rather talk about "Big Blind Play".
OK?! (c) BY 2001
Paul
Dsklansky
>
>Bzzzzt. He answered almost immediately after I posted.
>Steve Badger
>http://www.playwinningpoker.com
He answered the question you meant to not the one you actually wrote. Mason
knew what you meant. I knew. Andrew Prock knew. Why don't you know what you
meant?
Lee Munzer
"Badger"
> You see a quarter in the bottom of a toilet bowl, you "like" fishing it
out?
> You "like" *not* fishing it out?
Have you learned nothing from this forum, man ... it depends. What is the
condition of the toilet currently (ah, see your imagination is helpful
here)? Is there a functional sink and a towel located nearby?
Quarter fishing can be profitable and virtually risk-free (discounting
disease), but there are pros and cons. These problems should be offered
with appropriate, accompanying detail in the future.
Lee Munzer
"Dsklansky" wrote ...
> >> But Mason anwered MY question.
Badger wrote ...
>Bzzzzt. He answered almost immediately after I posted.
> He answered the question you meant to not the one you actually wrote.
Mason
> knew what you meant. I knew. Andrew Prock knew. Why don't you know what
you
> meant?
Tough one. I'll say he knew at the time he posted, then became distracted
by the responses, thus forgot what he originally knew. Post cognitive
distractive syndrome ... very rare.
Lee
Fujiyama33204
The range of hands I'd put the UTG raiser on is quite small. That being the
case, I'd call him because I'd kinda sorta 'know' what he has. But I also might
re-raise to see if he really does have what I think he has. Then I can fold or
continue based on that confirmation. Lastly, I would play hyper-aggressive
after the flop, regardless of what it was. My object here would be to convince
him that I hit my hand and i'm defying him to call me. If he does call, then I
back off on the turn and let him run with it. I'll check call so that he has a
hard time figuring out where I am right now. Hopefully my raise at this point
will not give away too much information. On the river I just re-raise. I don't
want him to call me and I want him to play back at me even less. The only
exception here would be if the river made the board 3-suited. Now I'd probably
fold to his raise. Either that, or re-raise, again, hoping he wouldn't know
what I had.
There's no crying in poker
Tom Robertson
>Tom Robertson wrote:
>
>> Oh no, he couldn't have meant that. He said what he meant and he
>> meant what he said. He implied nothing.
>
>I said how I interpreted his post, you can think whatever you wish.
>
>> This has nothing to do with this thread.
>
>How I play 98o in the BB has nothing to do with this thread?
In my response to you, I was only saying what would be consistent for
Steve to say, not what I would say. I was mimicking the curt answers
I got from him, and did not mean the same arrogance to you. I did my
best to interpret what Steve meant, and he assured me that he meant
only what he wrote, nothing more, and nothing less. He literally
never wrote anything about how to play 98 in the big blind. He only
was challenging the idea that he believed some, if not most, people
held that calling with 98 is unprofitable those times that the raiser
had AK. I don't see how this relates to big blind play, except
extremely indirectly. I, as you are, am more interested in discussing
big blind play.
>> You're discussing considerations that are relevant to big blind play,
>> and therefore what you write has nothing to do with this thread.
>
>you mean this thread, "Big Blind Play"?
Yes. I don't understand why Steve titled it so inappropriately. To
discuss big blind play, we have to call the thread "What To Do With 98
Against AK When You Don't Know He Has AK."
Claude
thought might be an interesting thread and found something I'd written
and completely forgotten about (note how long ago). So, did I start
this? I guess.
I frankly may have gone to an opposite extreme from where I was a year
ago. No calling with hands like Q3o. However, I've been having great
success calling a raise in the big blind when I'm getting in the
vicinity of 9 to 1 with hands like 57o or 68o. Much easier to get
away from (for me) and in a decent midlimit game I'm often the only
one without big cards. I admit my success may well be short term luck
- but if I'm going to call in these situations I've decided given my
perception of my own strengths and weaknesses that these are the
better hands for me to defend with (assuming of course that I don't
have a premium hand).
As an aside, playing 30-60 with Mason Malmuth to my right. We're in
middle positon. He opens for a raise and I three bet with QQ. We end
up heads up and at the river the high card is a T with four hearts on
board and no pair on board. Check-check on the river. We both have
QQ, but Mason has the Q of hearts. Mason comments that in many years
of playing poker he cannot recall seeing this before - that is, same
pair against each other and one player wins with four flush on board.
I've never seen it (and next time I want to be holding the correct Q).
Just curious if others have seen such a hand.
Claude
"Badger" <PlayWinning[RemoveThis]Po...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<3Tz%6.9441$eL5.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
Russell R.
the card rooms there. I had Aces, and so did Jimmy (for those of you
who know him, I dont think is in on RGP, he played a bit of PL with us
at ATLARGE though.) The way the hand went (multiple raises past what
would have been a cap pre-flop). On the turn I was free rolling for
the flush so I got 1 more raise in . I hit my 4 flush on the river. He
was mighty pissed, and we both noted how we had not seen that before.
2 years ago (maybe 3) at ATLARGE. I was short stacked. UTG raised with
A-Ko I moved all in (NL event) with A-Ko. He flopped 2 of his suit,
and cought runner runner to beat me (and knock me out) with a flush.
More importantly, what does this have to do with 8-9 in the BB? (Just
Kidding).
Oh, and for clarification:
I think Badger agrees that what Sklansky said is what Badger meant,
only Badger feels that is the same thing that he (Badger) said the
first time. Although I woulod like to point out that I understood what
Badger meant (as did MAson), I do think thats Davids description was
easier to understand, and a great number of people "misunderstood"
Badger's question. If perception is reality and people percieve you as
vague, then you are regardless of how clear you may be to yourself.
CSM...@aol.com (Claude) wrote in message news:<bf4d229.01070...@posting.google.com>...
Chris Stafford
I live for these kinds of posts:
>The most enjoyable irony is when he works his cut-and-paste magic to obfuscate
the fact that he has yet again painted himself into a logical corner regarding
>his unique brand of poker theory, and caps it off with something along the
>lines of, "I just write what I mean, and I'm providing real content, while
>you're just a lying troll who's too lazy to do any work." He's the master.
Chris Stafford