BAHH The joys of slowplaying
A Man Beaten by Jacks
Full Tilt Poker Game #19123303167: $22 + $2 Sit & Go (Turbo)
(145583914), Table 1 - 60/120 - No Limit Hold'em - 2:42:41 ET -
2010/03/10
Seat 2: tatay-RIF (2,470)
Seat 3: bass man172 (3,255)
Seat 4: Abbatss (1,170)
Seat 5: hytt (1,645)
Seat 6: GoethIce (1,320)
Seat 7: Aaron78 (1,340)
Seat 8: mtwisda (2,300)
hytt posts the small blind of 60
GoethIce posts the big blind of 120
The button is in seat #4
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to GoethIce [8c 7s]
Aaron78 calls 120
mtwisda folds
tatay-RIF folds
bass man172 folds
Abbatss folds
hytt folds
GoethIce checks
*** FLOP *** [6h 7c 5d]
GoethIce checks
Aaron78 bets 240
GoethIce raises to 1,200, and is all in
Aaron78 calls 960
GoethIce shows [8c 7s]
Aaron78 shows [Ah As]
*** TURN *** [6h 7c 5d] [4d]
*** RIVER *** [6h 7c 5d 4d] [Js]
GoethIce shows a straight, Eight high
Aaron78 shows a pair of Aces
GoethIce wins the pot (2,700) with a straight, Eight high
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 2,700 | Rake 0
Board: [6h 7c 5d 4d Js]
Seat 2: tatay-RIF didn't bet (folded)
Seat 3: bass man172 didn't bet (folded)
Seat 4: Abbatss (button) didn't bet (folded)
Seat 5: hytt (small blind) folded before the Flop
Seat 6: GoethIce (big blind) showed [8c 7s] and won (2,700) with a
straight, Eight high
Seat 7: Aaron78 showed [Ah As] and lost with a pair of Aces
Seat 8: mtwisda didn't bet (folded)
Fred V
news:4fmep590ur273oe9k...@4ax.com:
> The guy with AA had been repeatedly limping then showing crap.
>...
I don't understand your point. He got you call off your stack as a
2-1 dog, and you seem to be saying it demonstrates bad play?
snex
> A Man Beaten by Jacks <nob...@fool.foo> wrote innews:4fmep590ur273oe9k...@4ax.com:
>
> > The guy with AA had been repeatedly limping then showing crap.
> >...
>
> I don't understand your point. He got you call off your stack as a
> 2-1 dog, and you seem to be saying it demonstrates bad play?
he didnt "call off" anything.
Fred V
news:18fb5a70-b7dd-418f...@15g2000yqi.googlegroups.c
om:
> On Mar 10, 11:02�am, Fred V <nore...@postonly.invalid> wrote:
>> A Man Beaten by Jacks <nob...@fool.foo> wrote
>> innews:4fmep590ur273oe9ki1u
> k2hifqk...@4ax.com:
>>
>> > The guy with AA had been repeatedly limping then showing
>> > crap.
>> >...
>>
>> I don't understand your point. �He got you call off your stack
>> as a 2-1 dog, and you seem to be saying it demonstrates bad
>> play?
>
> he didnt "call off" anything.
Right, I misspoke, he got him to *shove* as a 2-1 dog. Same effect,
no? I still don't see how it demonstrates the danger of slowplaying
AA.
David Monaghan
*** FLOP *** [6h 7c 5d]
GoethIce checks
Aaron78 bets 240
GoethIce raises to 1,200, and is all in
Aaron78 calls 960
GoethIce shows [8c 7s]
Aaron78 shows [Ah As]
I make that 13 outs on the flop. Closer to even money than 2:1 against I'd
have thought, but he is getting odds of 1.8-1 on the call.
DaveM
chandler
How do you figure 2 to 1? Closer than that.
Chandler
----�
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
XaQ Morphy
> I don't understand your point. He got you call off your stack as a
> 2-1 dog, and you seem to be saying it demonstrates bad play?
The point that you're missing is if he would have raised AA, the hands
that are going to play are going to the call the raise anyway, and he
doesn't give the blinds a free shot to run him down.
---
Morphy
xaqm...@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
..and no, this doesn't mean I'm back.
_______________________________________________________________________�
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
Fred V
news:dcnfp59sss15l5rlg...@4ax.com:
>...
> *** FLOP *** [6h 7c 5d]
> GoethIce checks
> Aaron78 bets 240
> GoethIce raises to 1,200, and is all in
> Aaron78 calls 960
> GoethIce shows [8c 7s]
> Aaron78 shows [Ah As]
>
> I make that 13 outs on the flop. Closer to even money than 2:1
> against I'd have thought, but he is getting odds of 1.8-1 on the
> call.
Yah, I must have made a typo when I ran this the first time:
Text results appended to pokerstove.txt
990 games 0.005 secs 198,000 games/sec
Board: 6h 7c 5d
Dead:
equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 54.141% 52.93% 01.21% 524 12.00 { AhAs }
Hand 1: 45.859% 44.65% 01.21% 442 12.00 { 8c7s }
I'm not covering myself with glory here, but the point remains: AA
got his money in as a favorite, so how does this HH demonstrate
the danger of slowplaying?
I'm not saying I think one *should* slowplay AA, I'm just saying
that in this HH it seems to have worked. If he'd raised preflop,
hero folds, right?
Fred V
news:2r5l67x...@recgroups.com:
> On Mar 10 2010 11:02 AM, Fred V wrote:
>
>> I don't understand your point. He got you call off your stack
>> as a 2-1 dog, and you seem to be saying it demonstrates bad
>> play?
>
> The point that you're missing is if he would have raised AA, the
> hands that are going to play are going to the call the raise
> anyway, and he doesn't give the blinds a free shot to run him
> down.
I don't think I'm missing that point. In this example, no hands
were going to play. Giving the BB a free shot was the only reason
he got any action.
I'm not saying AA played correctly, nor that hero played
incorrectly. I'm just saying that this particular HH seems to be
a counter-example of the the danger of slowplaying AA, not an
example of it. This time it resulted in AA getting the stacks in
on the flop as a favorite. ISTM that's a better result than
getting everyone to fold preflop. What happened on the turn/river
is irrelevant, no?
XaQ Morphy
> I don't think I'm missing that point. In this example, no hands
> were going to play. Giving the BB a free shot was the only reason
> he got any action.
>
> I'm not saying AA played correctly, nor that hero played
> incorrectly. I'm just saying that this particular HH seems to be
> a counter-example of the the danger of slowplaying AA, not an
> example of it. This time it resulted in AA getting the stacks in
> on the flop as a favorite. ISTM that's a better result than
> getting everyone to fold preflop. What happened on the turn/river
> is irrelevant, no?
In a vacuum of pure EV discussions with nothing else taken into
consideration, you are correct. However, in a turbo SNG situation where a
player has 1340 chips with blinds 60/120 and AA, there simply is no reason
to get cute and introduce fancy play.
Basically there's 2 ways to look at this hand:
1) AA got his stack in as nearly a 2:1 favorite and lost, bad luck, luck
of the draw, whatever.
2) AA failed to raise and it cost him his tournament.
---
Morphy
xaqm...@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
..and no, this doesn't mean I'm back.
_______________________________________________________________________�
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
ppdls
> On Mar 10 2010 12:57 PM, Fred V wrote:
>
> > I don't think I'm missing that point. In this example, no hands
> > were going to play. Giving the BB a free shot was the only reason
> > he got any action.
> >
> > I'm not saying AA played correctly, nor that hero played
> > incorrectly. I'm just saying that this particular HH seems to be
> > a counter-example of the the danger of slowplaying AA, not an
> > example of it. This time it resulted in AA getting the stacks in
> > on the flop as a favorite. ISTM that's a better result than
> > getting everyone to fold preflop. What happened on the turn/river
> > is irrelevant, no?
>
> In a vacuum of pure EV discussions with nothing else taken into
> consideration, you are correct. However, in a turbo SNG situation where a
> player has 1340 chips with blinds 60/120 and AA, there simply is no reason
> to get cute and introduce fancy play.
>
> Basically there's 2 ways to look at this hand:
>
> 1) AA got his stack in as nearly a 2:1 favorite and lost, bad luck, luck
> of the draw, whatever.
>
> 2) AA failed to raise and it cost him his tournament.
>
> ---
> Morphy
> xaqm...@donkeymanifesto.com
> http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
> ...and no, this doesn't mean I'm back.
I agree with Morphy re the tourney situation.
However - this was nowhere near 2:1 against for the 78o hand on the flop.
I counted 13 outs (8 str8, 2 trips and 3 two pair) to beat aces with two
cards to come, so 2:1 seemed intuitively wrong here so I ran it on Two
Dimes.
pokenum -h ah as - 8c 7s -- 6h 7c 5d
Holdem Hi: 990 enumerated boards containing 7c 5d 6h
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
As Ah 524 52.93 442 44.65 24 2.42 0.541
7s 8c 442 44.65 524 52.93 24 2.42 0.459
ppdls
--
Why procrastinate today, when you could leave it until tomorrow?
Fred V
news:nm9l67x...@recgroups.com:
>...
> I agree with Morphy re the tourney situation.
So, just to be clear, you guys think that this particular HH *is* an
example of a bad result from slowplaying AA, because the chips went
in when, as it turned out, he was only a 55% favorite? Too small of
an edge?
OK, I guess I can see that.
CincinnatiKid
With 11 BB's and it being a turbo you only have 1 move preflop...all in.
Period.
---�
XaQ Morphy
> So, just to be clear, you guys think that this particular HH *is* an
> example of a bad result from slowplaying AA, because the chips went
> in when, as it turned out, he was only a 55% favorite? Too small of
> an edge?
>
> OK, I guess I can see that.
No, that's not at all what I'm saying. Now you're the one being results
oriented.
What if Jacks had 76 instead of 87. AA plays it the exact same way and is
a big dog.
---
Morphy
xaqm...@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
..and no, this doesn't mean I'm back.
_______________________________________________________________________�
Fred V
news:p6dl67x...@recgroups.com:
>...
> With 11 BB's and it being a turbo you only have 1 move
> preflop...all in. Period.
Irrelevant to my original point. I have not been talking about
whether AA's play was good or bad.
Fred V
> On Mar 10 2010 2:15 PM, Fred V wrote:
>
>> So, just to be clear, you guys think that this particular HH
>> *is* an example of a bad result from slowplaying AA, because
>> the chips went in when, as it turned out, he was only a 55%
>> favorite? Too small of an edge?
>>
>> OK, I guess I can see that.
>
> No, that's not at all what I'm saying.
OK, so do you think it's a good example for some other reason? Or
do we actually agree that's it's not a good example (my only
point)?
> Now you're the one being results oriented.
I think we are talking past each other. I was just questioning
whether the specific HH posted is a good example of what I
inferred the OP was saying it was an example of. ISTM a good
example would be one where AA waits until he's a dog to get his
money in.
> What if Jacks had 76 instead of 87. AA plays it the exact same
> way and is a big dog.
Or 77/66/55. Those would obviously be *good* examples, and I
wouldn't have made my OP.
What if Jacks had A7o instead of 87o (and was the type of player
who thinks TPTK is the nuts), so AA is a 90% favorite when the
money went in. If a 7 hits, would the HH still be a good example?
A Man Beaten by Jacks
wrote:
>What if Jacks had A7o instead of 87o (and was the type of player
>who thinks TPTK is the nuts), so AA is a 90% favorite when the
>money went in. If a 7 hits, would the HH still be a good example?
Then I'm not doing anything with it. I'm folding on the flop. The
fact is I'm only doing what I did there when I flop something that is
worth semi-bluffing with, and I have lots of outs against the only
hands that call, which are overpairs. Okay, sometimes he flops a set.
Usually I get a fold and chip up without risking anything, and the
rest of the time, I'm flipping a coin. Meanwhile he, while getting it
in 55/45 or so, is actually losing tournament equity when he calls in
the best of situations, and a big dog in the situations where I
actually outflopped him.
He has no idea what I have, and I have a pretty good idea what he has
when he calls, and that I'm in okay shape against it. The fold equity
makes it a shove. In this case, I got semi-unlucky, in that he had
the main hand I was worried about (other than the unlikely set), but I
didn't have to get very lucky at all to win the coin flip. Plus some
donks will call every time with AK there.
IMO you should never fear to take down a small pot with a premium
hand, because the hands that you're going to see playing back at you,
you beat. The hands that will fold if you raise, will only play back
at you postflop if they flop big. And a pair + 13 outs if the pair
isn't good is big. I even have a reasonable draw to beat the unlikely
set.
Meanwhile, the old limp-reraise strategy basically screams aces, and
people are more suspicious of UTG limpers than they used to be.
XaQ Morphy
> The guy with AA had been repeatedly limping then showing crap.
Since there's been some controversy in this thread, maybe this is a better
example:
Full Tilt Poker Game #19145897417: Table Adrenaline - $0.50/$1 - No Limit
Hold'em - 21:45:45 ET - 2010/03/10
Seat 1: subi3973 ($339.35)
Seat 2: XaQ Morphy ($87.10)
Seat 3: Tropicana Jay ($41.25)
Seat 4: EpicFail ($147.85)
Seat 5: putmein7 ($67.60)
Seat 6: ChangKing ($219.25)
Seat 7: tiken-bleu ($36.30)
Seat 8: Babbittman ($94)
Seat 9: Mcleoud13 ($163.50)
putmein7 posts the small blind of $0.50
ChangKing posts the big blind of $1
The button is in seat #4
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to XaQ Morphy [2c 2d]
tiken-bleu folds
Babbittman has 8 seconds left to act
Babbittman has timed out
Babbittman folds
Mcleoud13 folds
subi3973 folds
XaQ Morphy raises to $3.50
Tropicana Jay folds
EpicFail folds
putmein7 has 15 seconds left to act
putmein7 folds
ChangKing calls $2.50
*** FLOP *** [3d Js 4d]
ChangKing checks
XaQ Morphy bets $5
ChangKing calls $5
*** TURN *** [3d Js 4d] [5c]
ChangKing checks
XaQ Morphy checks
*** RIVER *** [3d Js 4d 5c] [Ah]
ChangKing checks
XaQ Morphy bets $17.50
ChangKing raises to $210.75, and is all in
XaQ Morphy calls $61.10, and is all in
Uncalled bet of $132.15 returned to ChangKing
*** SHOW DOWN ***
ChangKing shows [Jh Jc] three of a kind, Jacks
XaQ Morphy shows [2c 2d] a straight, Five high
XaQ Morphy wins the pot ($171.70) with a straight, Five high
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $174.70 | Rake $3
Board: [3d Js 4d 5c Ah]
Seat 1: subi3973 didn't bet (folded)
Seat 2: XaQ Morphy showed [2c 2d] and won ($171.70) with a straight, Five
high
Seat 3: Tropicana Jay didn't bet (folded)
Seat 4: EpicFail (button) didn't bet (folded)
Seat 5: putmein7 (small blind) folded before the Flop
Seat 6: ChangKing (big blind) showed [Jh Jc] and lost with three of a
kind, Jacks
Seat 7: tiken-bleu didn't bet (folded)
Seat 8: Babbittman didn't bet (folded)
Seat 9: Mcleoud13 didn't bet (folded)
---
Morphy
xaqm...@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
..and no, this doesn't mean I'm back.
---
chandler
> On Mar 10 2010 2:37 AM, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
>
> > The guy with AA had been repeatedly limping then showing crap.
>
> Since there's been some controversy in this thread, maybe this is a better
> example:
No controversy here. Limping AA sucked there except in the circumstance
where you were almost certain you were going to be raised in to.
In Bizzarro world you should have checked there...
Chandler
-------
A Man Beaten by Jacks
<a5a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>On Mar 10 2010 10:05 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:
>
>> On Mar 10 2010 2:37 AM, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
>>
>> > The guy with AA had been repeatedly limping then showing crap.
>>
>> Since there's been some controversy in this thread, maybe this is a better
>> example:
>No controversy here. Limping AA sucked there except in the circumstance
>where you were almost certain you were going to be raised in to.
On these Rush Poker tables, people are astoundingly nitty preflop. If
you limp-reraised, you wouldn't get called unless maybe it was a
limp-regobble. Postflop they're remarkably donkish. Lately I just
raise all kinds of weird shit from late position, suited connectors
and so on, and premium hands from up front, and call in late position
with funky shit. They always have some kind of big pair and go
apeshit after the flop.
chandler
>
> >No controversy here. Limping AA sucked there except in the circumstance
> >where you were almost certain you were going to be raised in to.
>
> On these Rush Poker tables, people are astoundingly nitty preflop. If
> you limp-reraised, you wouldn't get called unless maybe it was a
> limp-regobble. Postflop they're remarkably donkish. Lately I just
> raise all kinds of weird shit from late position, suited connectors
> and so on, and premium hands from up front, and call in late position
> with funky shit. They always have some kind of big pair and go
> apeshit after the flop.
I was just commenting on the original hand up for discussion. I guess in
Rush Poker you change opponents every hand? Some sort of game to appeal
to those who don't want to be tracked or take notes?
Chandler
________________________________________________________________________
A Man Beaten by Jacks
<a5a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>On Mar 11 2010 12:45 AM, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
>> On these Rush Poker tables, people are astoundingly nitty preflop. If
>> you limp-reraised, you wouldn't get called unless maybe it was a
>> limp-regobble. Postflop they're remarkably donkish. Lately I just
>> raise all kinds of weird shit from late position, suited connectors
>> and so on, and premium hands from up front, and call in late position
>> with funky shit. They always have some kind of big pair and go
>> apeshit after the flop.
>I was just commenting on the original hand up for discussion. I guess in
>Rush Poker you change opponents every hand? Some sort of game to appeal
>to those who don't want to be tracked or take notes?
Yes, but I still occasionally take notes on some particularly retarded
player, or at least color code them. You do tend to see the same
players over and over, even with a pool of 600 or so players. It's
sort of like that birthday game, where you make a bet on the odds of
two people in the room having the same birthday. It's a sucker bet
because it's a lot more likely than most people think.
People think 365 days in the year, not terribly likely.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Birthday_paradox.png
The actual likelihood is pretty high. It shouldn't be called the
birthday "paradox" though, because there's nothing paradoxical about
it. It's simple math.