Long read - comments wanted

[MinerBoy]

Below is an edited transcript of an email convo between a friend who enjoys poker, plays rarely, goes to Uni and thinks he knows everything - and myself. It relates to a hand I told him about. Thoughts on my analysis of how the other guy played the hand and my friends opinions on poker sought. Cheers.

Don't read it if you can't be shagged. I understand - it is quite long winded. It just frustrates the hell out of me arguing with such logic. Any agreements or disagreements with either of us? Anyone have similar experiences with trying to explain to friends (donkeys) why certain plays are bad?

ME

OK - Playing a cash game the other night. 5 person table - known as short handed.. Blinds are 0.25/0.50. All fold to me in the SB. I have AKs (s = suited) and raise from $0.50 to $2.00 The guy in the BB must think I am on a steal and reraises to $3.50 (a donkey) so I reraise again to $11.00 .
At this stage he should fold - he doesn't. He calls - the pot is $22.00. Flop AJ7 rainbow (rainbow = 3 different suits). Pot is $22.00 and I bet $12.00. He calls. Pot is now $46.00 - the turn card comes a 7. Board is now AJ77. We both have far less left than the pot. I have $14.00 and go all in. The pot is $46.00 + $14.00 = $60.00 He calls $14.00 making total pot $74.00 US.
He shows Q 10 unsuited. What a spud. I don't call a $2.00 bet pre flop with this and he has put $37.00 in the pot and still has nothing. What comes on the river? A ****ing K. He makes a straight with AJK Q10 - 77. He had a total of four cards that could improve him to a winning hand and still called the final $14.00 bet. In fact, he didn't know, but as I had a K, he only had 3 cards to help him, making him a 6% or 16 to 1 chance to win the hand.

FRIEND
he had a straight draw from the flop, so cant blame him for hanging around for at least the turn. As for your maths, incorrect. Those maths would vary considerably depending on how many people were in originally, as there are two cards per person out of the deck, plus the burn cards and yours. You factored your king in, even though you haven’t factored the possibly 20 times that amount of cards that were burned before that. Therefore, he had a considerably better chance than 6 percent.

ME
The fact that other cards have been dealt are irrelevant to his calculations. He has to work out how many cards can help him and how many are left that he doesn't know about. There are 4 kings left as far as he knows (I know I have one, he doesn't). He knows that dealt so far is a AJ77 Q 10. So of 46 cards he doesn't know, and of which could reasonably come on the next card, 4 are kings. 4/46 = 8.70%. (In fact it was 3/46 = 6.53%). He doesn't know if I have one but if he suspects I do he should round his probable outs down even further.

Friend

Firstly, my maths are not flawed, poker players maths is flawed, that’s why you cant win games just working out simple maths. And even if I play your game, by involving assumptions in the maths, he still has a much better chance than you say. If everyone else folded just at the prospect of a 50 cent bb, then its fair to assume that none of them have a king, but something much worse, like 3 7. If that is the case, then his odds are up right there.
You.. lose to straights that are hit on the turn or river, and always say the same thing, unlucky, I shouldve won, etc. not the case, chasing a straight is a legitimate practice. Also, you cant just straight up compare your so called odds of winning the hand with the bet he puts in. 12 into 34, needs 13 to 1…? Crap! He only needs to buy in to have a look, if he doesn’t hit it then he folds. If he does, then there is another round of betting, where he can take someone for heaps, as they are then pot committed. (like you were). Unluckily for him, you went all in, so couldn’t rape you for more. He needs no where near 13 to 1 to make that bet once you have factored in the raping he will give you when he hits it. And he will hit it more often than your gay incorrect maths tells you.
I tell you this sir, if I had the cash, (which I wont, cos ill be betting very little when I get online) I would have chased that straight like

ME

1.I don't often lose to straights. I only tell you about 1 hand every 4 weeks that is unlucky. I can play 500 hands a night.
2.Any of the 3 players who folded could have had a K. Good players fold K2, K9, even KJ if they think someone left to act might still raise. He could have been on 0% because there were no Ks left. The facts are, his odds when making the call on the river were 4/46 = 8.70%. FACT.
3.Even if all 4 Ks are still out there - and this is the point - his chances of winning are 8.70%. FACT. Ok, so 6 cards have been folded and a few burnt. Irrelevant. Why? Because he doesn't know what cards have been folded or burnt. So even though the dealer only has 35 or 36 cards in his hand to deal from, the card that comes out could be any one of the 46 that the donkey doesn't know about. So, of the 46 cards he doesn't know of, any of which could come on the river, only 4 (3 actually) will make him his hand. This is 100% correct.
4.Your point about he only needs to buy in (to see the turn) or he folds is also xxxxxx. Of course he can look. But he would be stupid. He is 11-1 to win (on the turn) and only getting 3-1 return on his money. Assuming he knew I was all in on the river (which he should have) means after the flop there was $22.00 plus $12 I bet plus $14 I am likely to bet on the next card. Therefore, in actual fact he is really committing to calling $26 to win $48.00 - ******ed. Less than 2-1 on his money and that's all he can win because it's all I have got. Even seeing both turn and river, he is still only winning this 17% of the time, or nearly 5-1. Nowhere near enough to justify calling. It was stupid - pure and simple. Successful (this time) but stupid.

Friend

I think its hilarious that you think you know how every pro poker player in the world plays for starters. And my ego is huge? You comparing yourself to every pro in the world is far more ridiculous than anything I have said. Also, your unwillingness to listen, and this 100% thing, arrogance like I have never seen before.
8.7% Fact- Incorrect! Its simple maths where simple maths doesn’t work. Its like saying Pi is about 3. That’s fine if you are showing a primary school kid how to multiply, but not fine if you are designing a million dollar pipeline. Those percentages are a simple guide to give idiots an idea about the game. Not a failsafe guide of how to play like you and Clint seem to believe.
Even if your percentage of 17% was correct, that’s not his winning ratio. That’s his odds, (according to your incorrect math’s), of hitting the card he needs to win it. When he doesn’t hit it (83% according to you) he can simply fold or call your bluff if he feels inclined and hits a pair or something. He will lose money when he doesn’t hit it, but not nearly as much as he will win when he does hit it. Assuming that the person he is playing against is pot committed, like you were, and isn’t out of money (which you were but doesn’t happen often) then he should be able to drag 2, 3 4, 5 etc times as much money out of you. Someone like you, or Clint, will work out these stupid percentages and keep pouring money in once he has hit it because you believe he shouldn’t have hit it, and then you will complain when you lose heaps of money.
Also, keep in mind that generally the big betting will happen after the river, when both players believe they have the better hand. That wasn’t so much the case in your example, but is generally. Therefore, his winning percentage/return has just jumped up again. If he can scrape into the river spending, for example, 5 bucks, then hits it, he can then push in say 10 bucks, you might reraise, etc till its up to say 20 bucks. He then stands to win 50 bucks for his 5 buck look, and that’s if only 2 players are in. all the sudden his 4 to 1 is looking good.
Successful but stupid? Do you think before you type?

ME

xxxxxxxx. He can't simply fold or call my bluff because I am all in and the only card to come is the river. If he misses, he loses. Simple as that. This is his final decision. FFS how ******ed are you? And the one time he does win does not nearly make enough money to cover all the times he loses making the same play - that is why odds are important. Because if he makes the same play every time, he loses money. And he doesn't make extra money even if he hits and I have an extra $1,000 because good players know when to fold and won't call a massive bet with without a monster hand. You fail to distinguish between betting and calling a bet. Massive difference. I can't be xxxxxxx here explaining because you are too stubborn to listen.
Get it through your xxxxxx head. It isn't engineering. It is common sense - something know it all Uni students lack.
Every pro poker player in the world doesn't play the same. But they all know how to calculate odds when making a decision about whether to call a bet on the turn/river. These stats are 100% fact mate. Many different styles of play in aggression and range of starting hands etc but the calculation of odds is always exactly the same. EVERY SINGLE XXXXXX POKER PRO IN THE WORLD WILL TELL YOU THE STATS THAT I GAVE YOU FOR THAT XXXXXXXX TO HIT THE KING ON THE RIVER WERE 100% CORRECT. It doesn't mean I know how they all play. It means we all know the odds.
If I posted this whole transcript on a Poker forum where pros discuss the game, they would be laughing for weeks at the shit coming from your mouth and would be lining up to find out where they can play you.

Friend

He can’t simply fold or call your bluff? Because you’re already all in? If you bothered to read what I wrote properly, instead of just saying the same thing over and over, you would realize that I said normally, not in your example. Here is a percentage for you, how often do you go all in? In a cash game, ill bet not very often. Meaning when he hits the card, he can up the betting significantly.
I don’t dispute the fact that almost every pro in the world would know the percentages, simply because they are extremely easy to work out. Every primary school student could know them. Whether they use them or not is a completely different story

ME
All other hypotheticals don't matter. This is how it is. There is no debate. No one says he can't make the call, it is just that making that call is unprofitable. It isn't arrogance mate, sorry if you think it is. It is fact though. You are unwilling to listen to someone who has far more experience and knowldge of the game than you. You keep talking hypotheticals. You don't get them in Poker, you get situations. You must base your decision on the situation. In this situation we are talking about, I am absolutely correct.

Player 1: AKPlayer 2: QTBoard: AJ77To win player 2 must hit a K on river to make a straight.Pot $60 and is $14 to call all in bet of player 1. Pot odds = 4.17 - 1Player 2------> 4 Kings in the deck he knows of and total of 46 cards that COULD be dealt on the river.Possibility that a K is the card dealt = 4/46 = 8.70% = 10.50 - 1 odds exactly of making a straight.Scenario:To call this bet player 2 must be getting pot odds of greater than 10.50 - 1 to make this call profitable in the long run.He will win this situation 1 time in every 11.50 times it unfolds. So for the 10.50 times he loses, the win must be big enough to cover the 10.50 losses.Therefore, for the call on the river to be correct the pot must be greater than $147.00A call of $14 to win $147 would be a break even call. Is it a profitable call - the maths?1 timeWin$6010.5 timesHe loses$147($14 x 10.50)Net loss$87Therefore, if he makes this exact same call on the turn every single time it unfolds over his poker career he is losing money.This is known as a situation of -EV.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Your analysis is 100% correct and your friend is patently incorrect.

All analysis has to be done on EVERY unseen card, whether it be a burn card, still in the deck or any card held by an opponent.

If fact, your opponent could really put you on only one a few hands and even though your flop bet ($12) was a little bit weak, he still had to be looking at AA or AK. (perhaps KK, QQ on the flop even if he did read your $12 bet as a feeler bet to see where you were at in the hand, and if he did read you that way he would have raised to get you off your hand).

The fact is that he should have folded preflop, or merely called your $2 initial raise (in position I might add) to see the flop cheap. With QT in the BB, I would have probably called the $2 and released to any significant action on the flop with only 4 outs (to my knowledge, notwithstanding the fact that you had the K). When you went over the top of his reraise though, at that point he must fold as he is clearly behind and cannot even be sure that he is in front if he gets a Q high or 10 high flop. In saying that his reraise was not a terrible play if he had done it to find out where he was at. Clearly, in this case he did not have this in mind as he called you when you popped him again. All other things being equal and not being privy to previous action between the two of you then I would draw the conclusion that your opponent was a walking ATM.

So, in overview, the only mistake that you made IMO is the $12 flop bet. You really could have made it $20-25 given the size of the pot preflop. But other than that you ran into a donk and then had an argument with somebody that clearly does not know what they are talking about.

Hope this helps.

 

[kolchak]

I might have called with Q10 in a 3 handed game.

 

[MinerBoy]

I might have called with Q10 in a 3 handed game.

Fair enough, but how far would you take it?

$2 call pre flop is OK. Would you still call the reraise to $11.00 though after I re-popped the reraise to $3.50? After that you are obviuosly letting it go once the cards are dealt?


Cryptkeeper: Thanks. I knew I was right in my analysis but it is like arguing with a 4 year old when explaining it to my mate. Uni student who is never wrong in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The actual flop bet I made was $12.00 into a $22.00 pre flop pot. I guess it could be considered weak but I had this guy pinned as a fish and had myself in front. I wanted him to lose his money and come for the ride. Also, with a stack of only $26.00 left after pre flop betting, I would have thought that betting $12.00 of this pretty much lets him know that I am all in. After his call the pot becomes $46.00 so I am pretty likely to be putting the final $14.00 in on the river. As such, should he not consider that he is likely to actually be facing a $26.00 bet, rather than $12.00?

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

In fact, could you send me your friend's online user account name? I would love to strip this fool of every cent he has.

I too, used to be a university attending smartarse. I got my degree in Economics (which contains a fair degree of math) and lived a few years in the real world before I grew up. I now have several hundred thousand hands of poker experience both in ring games and tournaments to draw on as well as my background in figures. This does not make me an expert but I guess those things coupled with my results over a decent period of time means that I know the math to be true. My suggestion is to trust your poker experience and street smarts and completely disregard what this inexperienced and ignorant goose has to say about the game.

Either that or smile and nod politely and then fleece him of every penny.

 

[PalaceGun]

Hehehe, I only read the first two replies, your "friend" is an idiot.
Not sure why you would bother discussing hands with this bloke.

As it goes I'd bet more on the flop.

 

[MinerBoy]

In fact, could you send me your friend's online user account name? I would love to strip this fool of every cent he has..

He hasn't got one yet but is working on it. I sent him the Party Poker invite a friend deal so I know from other posts of yours that this will suit you.

I'm also a Uni graduate (35 now) majoring in accounting so have a good feel for the maths, which is why it bemuses me when he argues with me. But, he is a science/eng student doing a 'real' course, not a play course like finance, and is therefore on a higher level of intelligence than I.

He is 22. We play cricket together and both support the Hawks so we spend a bit of time together. However, if you say black, he says white. Overwhelming factual evidence has never been a deterrent to any argument he puts forth.

I just wanted some "Poker People" to read the line of our convo and pass comments that I can pass on to him as verification of the accuracy of my comments. He thinks I speak from my arse when I tell him that all 'decent' players know what a bad play that was....pot odds.....winning hand odds...etc etc.

 

[redda18]

Fair enough, but how far would you take it?

$2 call pre flop is OK. Would you still call the reraise to $11.00 though after I re-popped the reraise to $3.50? After that you are obviuosly letting it go once the cards are dealt?


Cryptkeeper: Thanks. I knew I was right in my analysis but it is like arguing with a 4 year old when explaining it to my mate. Uni student who is never wrong in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The actual flop bet I made was $12.00 into a $22.00 pre flop pot. I guess it could be considered weak but I had this guy pinned as a fish and had myself in front. I wanted him to lose his money and come for the ride. Also, with a stack of only $26.00 left after pre flop betting, I would have thought that betting $12.00 of this pretty much lets him know that I am all in. After his call the pot becomes $46.00 so I am pretty likely to be putting the final $14.00 in on the river. As such, should he not consider that he is likely to actually be facing a $26.00 bet, rather than $12.00?

Not sure why you would push the issue so far if you knew you were dealing with a fish. Seems to me your whole argument holds up against a good poker player but with a fish it isnt really relevant.

 

[MinerBoy]

Not sure why you would push the issue so far if you knew you were dealing with a fish. Seems to me your whole argument holds up against a good poker player but with a fish it isnt really relevant.

Quite the opposite IMO. A fish will come along with garbage (proven) and is likely to give me all his money. A good player was one to be wary of in that situation. The point is to get money in when you think you have the best of it, I did this and lost. Such is life.

This thread wasn't really for bagging out the donk, or even discussing the hand, I simply wanted 'Poker Players' to comment on My Perception of the hand V My friend's perception.

 

[LemmingMaster]

I guess it could be considered weak but I had this guy pinned as a fish and had myself in front.

Sometimes when you go fishing you miss the fish, this was the case in your example. If your opponent played those kind of hands constantly, he will end up bleeding money.

 

[ashley12]

Agree with most of the sentiments in the thread. The guy is a spanner and so is your friend. Your maths is right and apart from making the raise to maybe 18-20, you played it right.

Sometimes it is just best to organise a homegame with this bloke rather then argue. Case in point, an arguement I once had with a mate, about the concept of position. His arguement was that if he is first to act, he can take a stab at the pot and put the pressure on, which is far better then being last to be able to take a stab at it. I argue the opposite, that having position and making a play based on what your opponent does is good. We settled the arguement heads up, and I won 6 from 9...

Another one was someone saying he wanted to be heads-up when playing the straight draw on a rainbow board, which is quite obviously wrong, as you want as many players as possible to maximise pay if you connect with your straight, which will be most likely the nuts against someone's two pair. Before I could correct this guy, I felt a kick under the table from one of the others, who reminded me not to annoy the fish...

In summary, your right, he is a spoon, let me play him for rollz.!1!1

 

[MinerBoy]

Sometimes when you go fishing you miss the fish, this was the case in your example. If your opponent played those kind of hands constantly, he will end up bleeding money.

Sure. Agreed.

However, I wasn't exactly keeping him in with $2 bets either. He called bets of $11 pre flop, $12 on the flop and $14 all in on the turn. Any and all should have had him folding with his hand.

 

[The Passenger]

Sometimes it is just best to organise a homegame with this bloke rather then argue. Case in point, an arguement I once had with a mate, about the concept of position. His arguement was that if he is first to act, he can take a stab at the pot and put the pressure on, which is far better then being last to be able to take a stab at it. I argue the opposite, that having position and making a play based on what your opponent does is good. We settled the arguement heads up, and I won 6 from 9...

what you should've done is played heads up where you were always on the dealer button and hence always had position, whilst he always had first stab at the pot. you probably would've won 8 or 9 out of 9...

i can see where he is coming from though as a lot of people would think that because i did at first, but i quickly realised it's wrongful thinking...

in saying that occasionally, although pretty rarely have i found being out of position useful... and if i am out of position i'd rather be completely out of position in the small blind (or more preferably big blind with the small blind folding) in a limped pot with only 3 to the flop, maybe 4... i'd rather than that than someonewhere in the middle of 6 or 7 way multi pot, your completely lost then and you don't know if guys before you are checking a monster...

good opportunity for it is this: 2 limpers, SB folds your in big blind and check with basically completely unknown holdings to your opponents except you know they can rule out 99+, AT+, KJ+... more often than not you can put your opponents on high card (usually ace) with shit kicker, or small pockets...

my favourite flop here would be something like Q62... you can be pretty confident no one has a queen. if someone wants to play QT+ you have to raise with it to get out marginal cards and find out what your opponents are holding, and not many people will play Q9 or below... so you can throw out a small stab (say half pot) at that and usually take it... and if you get raised back fold, or if you get called, check fold the turn.... (of course if you actually do hold the queen then you have to weigh up how strong your opponent actaully is)

but those instances are pretty rare and if you went searching for opportunities to take the pot out of position you will not be a winning player...

 

[paxmaniac]

Hehehe, I only read the first two replies, your "friend" is an idiot.

This.

Why don't you casually propose setting up a little home game? Say $500 buyin?

 

[Cartman121]

Yup your friend certainly doesn't know as much as he thinks he does. I hope you show him this thread just to prove you were 100% completely correct.

FYI I think you played it perfectly. Most people are saying you didn't bet enough on the flop, but in this situation it was a perfect sized bet - mainly considering you had so little back it was either bet small and push the turn or 'over bet' all in on the flop.

To the other poster who was arguing about position with a mate - "UTG is the new button" or something along those lines, can't remember where I heard it. But if you're playing with a solid group of experienced players who recognise that an UTG raise indicates a very strong holding (AQ/AK - 10 10+)than it can be alot of fun raising with 910s or small pairs for the respect that you will gain. Can make a killing if you connect with the right flop.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

FYI I think you played it perfectly. Most people are saying you didn't bet enough on the flop, but in this situation it was a perfect sized bet - mainly considering you had so little back it was either bet small and push the turn or 'over bet' all in on the flop.

Slightly disagree with you on the flop bet. The OP bet $12 into a $22 pot with top pair/top kicker.

The OP did not have a big enough stack behind him to make a massage bet at this time. He knew when he hit the flop that he was getting all his remaining chips in there anyway. Now if the pot was not considerable (for the game size) before the flop then you can make the argument that he should bet to build the pot. In this case, for the size of the game a $22 pre flop pot is well worth taking down on the flop if you connect with a hand like top pair/kicker. Remember, he only had top pair. His bet should have allowed him to excerise some fold equity in this instance. Top pair/kicker is nowhere near strong enough to be making delicate plays like this. Make a pot size (or near enough to) bet to put the pressure back on your opponent.

That is just my opinion.

 

[MinerBoy]

^^

I agree with a lot of your sentiments Crypt, but think the fact that my whole stack was obviously going in on the next street anyway was reason enough for the caller to consider that an all in bet. I wanted to bet enough to make it a bad call for him to continue. Even had I had another $100 behind me, I still think the 3-1 offered to call that bet on the flop should have seen him folding his gutshot.

Just my opinion though.

 

[paxmaniac]

It's a fair enough play to bet small if you think both players will be committed for the rest of their chips on a call, and you believe you are ahead (and they don't have the correct odds to call a shove). It can be dangerous, however if your opponent is not committed.

For example, a small bet on the turn can be suicidal on a flushing board since your opponent can fold easily no matter how big the pot if he misses. In this case you are giving your opponent implied odds to hit his draw, since you are probably committed to the pot with a strong hand.

It's a more plausible play to bet small on the flop planning to get the rest in on the turn, since a drawing opponent will probably still be pot committed on the turn with a card to come.

 

[ashley12]

Slightly off topic but today I had someone mention my odds of hitting my flush on the river changed by playing 10 handed compared to 5 or 6 handed. Now, I know I am right, but again, it is one of those situations where every instinct says try and argue your point, but the poker instinct (the important one) says stay quiet and keep the fish happy. Agree with him it was a bad call etc.. unlucky... good bet etc...

Anyway, carry on...

 

[The Passenger]

Slightly off topic but today I had someone mention my odds of hitting my flush on the river changed by playing 10 handed compared to 5 or 6 handed. Now, I know I am right, but again, it is one of those situations where every instinct says try and argue your point, but the poker instinct (the important one) says stay quiet and keep the fish happy. Agree with him it was a bad call etc.. unlucky... good bet etc...

Anyway, carry on...

haha too funny.

the other day someone was at the table arguing that a straight should be rated higher than a flush...

i was like you. i did mention that the odds of each happening are mathematically based but he just spoke over the top of me so i thought whatever i'll make you look like a ********.

 

[Borgsta]

Why didn't you just tell him to start playing manila? That'll truely confuse them.

As for the flush odds. If less people are playing then the odds of hitting are better than the normal odds that are worked out for poker (In THEIR minds) so why was he mentioning if it was a bad call? Everyone works out the odds based on 10 handed poker.

 

[red+black]

Don't waste too much time arguing about this kind of stuff.

Next time include stack sizes when discussing hands.

The half-pot flop bet was the first thing that came to my mind. Looks like you started with $37, and he had you covered, maybe about $50. You flop top-top, the pot is $22, you have $26 behind: you're pretty much committed. A 1/2-pot bet is too small. If your opponent will call a 3/4-pot bet, you have no fold equity on the turn and he will call your all-in as he too will be pot-committed by then.

So I'd jam the flop.