Pokerstars.net Ept Vienna

[FARGOpokerND 22]

I can't question the intention element, but I have to disagree that there is ever a good occassion to fold the nuts on the turn in hold'em and certainly not with the action that was in this hand. Even with a flush draw out there it is terribly -EV to fold the nuts on the chance that your opponent also has the nuts and a draw (especially when there are two other players in the pot). As for your hand, it is not at all analogous. First, KK is not the absolute nuts and the hand was preflop. Secondly, if you quickly checked your hand to confirm your holding that is far different than taking a fair amount of time and doing so on a turn after you called the flop hoping to hit the exact card that came out. What happened to DN was shady and while I don't think there was necessarily any ill will, that doesn't change the shadiness in my mind.

Theoretically...if you have As6d on a board of KhQhJdTc and a guy shoves 800bb into a 2bb pot...do you call?

[DCJ001 0]

Pretty sure this. Danny's right to have been peeved. My guess though is that this guy knew it was a obvious call, but was just struck by the moment knowing there's a zillion outs to this river with two all-ins. My guess is that he tanked for 5 seconds, and that was just long enough for him to start thinking about all the flush draw and set that he's up against, and then he got lost in his thoughts.In the end, snap call.....and he was lucky with the relative soft holdings he needed to fade (situationally speaking). I'd chalk it up to a brain hiccup after the fact...but I'd have been pissed in the moment as well.

One problem that a lot of people have is that they allow themselves to become peeved.

[jsmith66 0]

By definition, a legitimate, unethical slow roll is done intentionally in order to needle someone in the worst way possible.It seems to me like intent is all that matters here, and he sure didn't look like a guy with malicious intent. He was probably just confused, nervous, or worried that he'd misread the board. Not everybody functions at full capacity with a million dollars on the line and TV cameras everywhere. Especially with two all-ins in front of him. He probably thought that he missed something.

[nutzbuster 7]

By definition, a legitimate, unethical slow roll is done intentionally in order to needle someone in the worst way possible.It seems to me like intent is all that matters here, and he sure didn't look like a guy with malicious intent. He was probably just confused, nervous, or worried that he'd misread the board. Not everybody functions at full capacity with a million dollars on the line and TV cameras everywhere. Especially with two all-ins in front of him. He probably thought that he missed something.

That said, I agree it did not seem like he did this on purpose. And that is a key point...intention. Who knows if he meant to do it...

[Pivvy2001 0]

Theoretically...if you have As6d on a board of KhQhJdTc and a guy shoves 800bb into a 2bb pot...do you call?

The answer is yes, I call. But I might think about it for a second in that situation. That said, your example if pretty much a complete bastardization of what actually happened (and yes, I understand that you are challenging the assertion that it is always a call with the nuts). 1) in DN's situation, Hruby had the nuts with both hole cards, which is far less likely to be a split with another player with 6-7 than it is that another player has just an A as in your example; 2) the betting and proportions in your example are obviously far beyond extreme and unrealistic, whereas the betting in the pot at issue was pretty standard; 3) the board in the actual hand was much less draw laden than the board at issue in your scenario. In other words, I still call with the nuts and try to fade the draw (though I admit I might be scared of doing so with the money on the line in your scenario because of the risk of AXhh).

[Mr. Sparco 2]

The answer is yes, I call. But I might think about it for a second in that situation.

Maybe you should think about it a bit longer than a second... you should really fold.Let us assume this is a thinking player who will never bluff here, so that he has an ace 100% of the time. Even if he does this with any ace, 1/3 of the time he will have the ace of hearts. (Actually, this would be a bad decision on his part, and he should not do this if he doesn't have the Ah, but let's say he's not clever enough to realize this.)There are then 10 hearts left in the deck, out of 45 unknown cards. So 2/9 of the time that his ace is the Ah, his second card will be a heart as well. Together, that means that 2/27 of the time he will have the flush draw.If this is the case, there are 9 hearts left out of 44 possible river cards. His flush will get there 9/44 of the time.In other words, you will lose the pot 2/27 * 9/44 = 1/66 of the time. When you do not lose, you will win 1 BB and split the rest of the pot. When you do lose, you lose 800BB. That's an expected value of65/66 - 800/66 = -735/66That is, by calling, you lose more than 11BB.This is assuming that our opponent is equally likely to have all ace high hands. In fact, this move is only profitable for him if he has a suited ace, so if he's smart enough to realize that, you are going to be behind a lot larger percentage of the time, and lose a lot more. If he only makes this move with Ahxh, you will lose almost 20% of the time, for a net negative EV of more than 150BB.Of course, this is a very unrealistic situation, but there are actually realistic situations where this kind of reasoning becomes relevant. It is intuitively very clear that the EPT hand is not one of those situations - it is indeed a snap call. However, I don't think we can blame Hruby for taking a few seconds to convince himself that this is the case. (If, of course, that was what he was thinking about.)

[Pivvy2001 0]

Maybe you should think about it a bit longer than a second... you should really fold.Let us assume this is a thinking player who will never bluff here, so that he has an ace 100% of the time. Even if he does this with any ace, 1/3 of the time he will have the ace of hearts. (Actually, this would be a bad decision on his part, and he should not do this if he doesn't have the Ah, but let's say he's not clever enough to realize this.)There are then 10 hearts left in the deck, out of 45 unknown cards. So 2/9 of the time that his ace is the Ah, his second card will be a heart as well. Together, that means that 2/27 of the time he will have the flush draw.If this is the case, there are 9 hearts left out of 44 possible river cards. His flush will get there 9/44 of the time.In other words, you will lose the pot 2/27 * 9/44 = 1/66 of the time. When you do not lose, you will win 1 BB and split the rest of the pot. When you do lose, you lose 800BB. That's an expected value of65/66 - 800/66 = -735/66That is, by calling, you lose more than 11BB.This is assuming that our opponent is equally likely to have all ace high hands. In fact, this move is only profitable for him if he has a suited ace, so if he's smart enough to realize that, you are going to be behind a lot larger percentage of the time, and lose a lot more. If he only makes this move with Ahxh, you will lose almost 20% of the time, for a net negative EV of more than 150BB.Of course, this is a very unrealistic situation, but there are actually realistic situations where this kind of reasoning becomes relevant. It is intuitively very clear that the EPT hand is not one of those situations - it is indeed a snap call. However, I don't think we can blame Hruby for taking a few seconds to convince himself that this is the case. (If, of course, that was what he was thinking about.)

I don't think that any of the numbers in your thread hold water. As you acknowledged, the AXhh hand is almost certainly not going to be played that way and is the only hand that I am scared of in this situation. Thus, with the scenario as presented I am calling. I think that a bluff is more likely than the AXhh being played that way.

[Mr. Sparco 2]

I don't think that any of the numbers in your thread hold water. As you acknowledged, the AXhh hand is almost certainly not going to be played that way and is the only hand that I am scared of in this situation. Thus, with the scenario as presented I am calling. I think that a bluff is more likely than the AXhh being played that way.

I don't think many thinking players will bluff 800BB to win a 2BB pot. I do think some people will make a value overshove with AXhh to get a non-flushdraw ace to call, and actually that's not such a crazy move - I know of at least one player who would call. :)Anyway, yes, if you are in a situation where there is a large enough percentage of bluffs in villains range (a few percent is enough), you might justify a call. At the 1c/2c level, you would probably be right. At the $5/$10 level, you would probably be wrong. The important point is that you would have to take the percentage of bluffs into the equation, and as my previous post hopefully showed, it is not a trivial matter to decide whether a call is correct or not. In Hruby's hand, it may have been a lot more trivial, but I'm sure he is aware of situations like this one, and I can imagine that the reason he thought for a while is that he wanted to be 100% sure (even though intuitively he was probably 99% sure already) that even with the flush draws in the ranges of his opponents, he was making a correct call.

[wolfman50 0]

The answer is yes, I call. But I might think about it for a second in that situation. That said, your example if pretty much a complete bastardization of what actually happened (and yes, I understand that you are challenging the assertion that it is always a call with the nuts). 1) in DN's situation, Hruby had the nuts with both hole cards, which is far less likely to be a split with another player with 6-7 than it is that another player has just an A as in your example; 2) the betting and proportions in your example are obviously far beyond extreme and unrealistic, whereas the betting in the pot at issue was pretty standard; 3) the board in the actual hand was much less draw laden than the board at issue in your scenario. In other words, I still call with the nuts and try to fade the draw (though I admit I might be scared of doing so with the money on the line in your scenario because of the risk of AXhh).

What you cant be serious?? Calling in that spot would be so so awful. Unless you had a very legitimate reason to think he inexplicably would shove 800bbs in a 2 bb pot without the straight, which i doubt you ever would, you have to fold. Why risk that much money to chop the pot when he could easily have a redraw to the flush. I remember playing a cash game in vegas a few years ago and this exact situation actually came up. It was a 2-5 game, don't remember the exact details but on the turn the board was 10 j q k in some order, with the turn putting 2 spades on the board as well. There were a few guys in the hand, one guy bet turn and a guy in the blind just called, river was a blank and they both ended up having the ace and chopping. However the guy in the sb had ax of spades, i was completely flabbergasted that he just flat called the turn bet rather than shoving, i believe the pot was around 200 dollars and both men were definitely 2k+ deep. I remember asking the other guy with the bare ace if he would've called a shove and he said probably not, which may or may not have been true. However if the guy with the ax spades had shoved the turn he couldve easily had a 2k freeroll. In situations like this it is conceivably right to fold the nuts simply because u are pretty much always calling to just chop the pot and there isnt enough in there to justify fading a redraw simply to chop.Now obviously in Daniel's hand it's an entirely different situation and a fist pump snap call, however like others said i don't believe it was an intentional slowroll, but a slowroll nonetheless.

[Merby 3]

Two remarks:...

Slowrollers always defend fellow slowrollers. (j/k) <3

[Merby 3]

What you cant be serious?? Calling in that spot would be so so awful. Unless you had a very legitimate reason to think he inexplicably would shove 800bbs in a 2 bb pot without the straight, which i doubt you ever would, you have to fold. Why risk that much money to chop the pot when he could easily have a redraw to the flush. I remember playing a cash game in vegas a few years ago and this exact situation actually came up. It was a 2-5 game, don't remember the exact details but on the turn the board was 10 j q k in some order, with the turn putting 2 spades on the board as well. There were a few guys in the hand, one guy bet turn and a guy in the blind just called, river was a blank and they both ended up having the ace and chopping. However the guy in the sb had ax of spades, i was completely flabbergasted that he just flat called the turn bet rather than shoving, i believe the pot was around 200 dollars and both men were definitely 2k+ deep. I remember asking the other guy with the bare ace if he would've called a shove and he said probably not, which may or may not have been true. However if the guy with the ax spades had shoved the turn he couldve easily had a 2k freeroll. In situations like this it is conceivably right to fold the nuts simply because u are pretty much always calling to just chop the pot and there isnt enough in there to justify fading a redraw simply to chop.Now obviously in Daniel's hand it's an entirely different situation and a fist pump snap call, however like others said i don't believe it was an intentional slowroll, but a slowroll nonetheless.

If the opponent is Tenking then this is a snap call.

[DinkDonk 1]

The answer is yes, I call. But I might think about it for a second in that situation. That said, your example if pretty much a complete bastardization of what actually happened (and yes, I understand that you are challenging the assertion that it is always a call with the nuts). 1) in DN's situation, Hruby had the nuts with both hole cards, which is far less likely to be a split with another player with 6-7 than it is that another player has just an A as in your example; 2) the betting and proportions in your example are obviously far beyond extreme and unrealistic, whereas the betting in the pot at issue was pretty standard; 3) the board in the actual hand was much less draw laden than the board at issue in your scenario. In other words, I still call with the nuts and try to fade the draw (though I admit I might be scared of doing so with the money on the line in your scenario because of the risk of AXhh).

You couldn't really have misunderstood Sparco's points any more than you did, I don't think. And this last line kind of negates the whole rest of your argument on the theoretical hand, doesn't it?

[Pivvy2001 0]

You couldn't really have misunderstood Sparco's points any more than you did, I don't think. And this last line kind of negates the whole rest of your argument on the theoretical hand, doesn't it?

Thank you for contributing no content. It is appreciated.You quoted a post that was before Sparco's comments to me, so it would be fairly hard for me to misinterpret his statements. As for the last line, my point is that I make the call. I don't think that having some fear based on the size of the pot indicates that my point is undercut. When I have four of a kind on a board that is paired twice, I will always have some fear calling 800 BBs that the huge bet indicates my opponent has a better 4 of a kind. Here, where I have the nuts, I am always calling. It doesn't mean that I won't be scared (likely my fear will be that my opponent will turn over a set or a flush draw and I will have to fade a lot of outs). There is always some concern about losing a hand unless you have the nuts on the river. I just don't (or try not to) let that fear dictate my play. I would appreciate any actual insight that you have on this discussion. If the argument is just on the call, I still am of the opinion that a bluff is far more likely than an 800 bb bet with the AXhh.

[DinkDonk 1]

Thank you for contributing no content. It is appreciated.You quoted a post that was before Sparco's comments to me, so it would be fairly hard for me to misinterpret his statements. As for the last line, my point is that I make the call. I don't think that having some fear based on the size of the pot indicates that my point is undercut. When I have four of a kind on a board that is paired twice, I will always have some fear calling 800 BBs that the huge bet indicates my opponent has a better 4 of a kind. Here, where I have the nuts, I am always calling. It doesn't mean that I won't be scared (likely my fear will be that my opponent will turn over a set or a flush draw and I will have to fade a lot of outs). There is always some concern about losing a hand unless you have the nuts on the river. I just don't (or try not to) let that fear dictate my play. I would appreciate any actual insight that you have on this discussion. If the argument is just on the call, I still am of the opinion that a bluff is far more likely than an 800 bb bet with the AXhh.

Well I suppose I can just quote this post, then. It illustrates just as clearly how lost you are on how to think about this situation as the last few posts. If you don't yet understand that there are theoretical spots you should fold on the turn with the nuts in hold em, you're not going to get it from any input I can give. Plus, your first usage of the word appreciate makes me think that your second one is a bit insincere anyway.Oh, and I love that you have a read on a theoretical, non-existent player's bluff frequencies.

[Pivvy2001 0]

Well I suppose I can just quote this post, then. It illustrates just as clearly how lost you are on how to think about this situation as the last few posts. If you don't yet understand that there are theoretical spots you should fold on the turn with the nuts in hold em, you're not going to get it from any input I can give. Plus, your first usage of the word appreciate makes me think that your second one is a bit insincere anyway.Oh, and I love that you have a read on a theoretical, non-existent player's bluff frequencies.

The difference between the two uses of appreciate was pretty clear for anyone to see. Your first post offered nothing of substance, hence a sarcastic appreciate. However, I would actually appreciate legitimate feedback. That seems to be beneath you and that is fine too. As for the "witty" remark regarding reads on a non-existent player, why is that any different than assuming the non-existent player is betting the nuts with the top draw there (literally the only hand that is worrisome). I stand by the argument that it is more likely a bluff gets bet like that than a player with the nuts and the redraw to the flush. But again, if you have actual insight to share, I would be interested in reading it.If you want to just fire off another criticism, so be it.

[MaxStPolish 4]

AhXh shoves 800BBs into this 2BB pot far more often than any other hand, like infinitely.....and I think Pivvy is the reason why. He, or a player like him, will think for a second and call with their ace (as we are told). What better situation to get 800BB's into a 2BB pot. If we are able to get 800BBs in here on the turn even 2% of the time on a freeroll, it's better than the 10BBs we'll try and widdle out at best those times the flush completes on the river and we're playing a "value" turn and river.

[DinkDonk 1]

The difference between the two uses of appreciate was pretty clear for anyone to see. Your first post offered nothing of substance, hence a sarcastic appreciate. However, I would actually appreciate legitimate feedback. That seems to be beneath you and that is fine too. As for the "witty" remark regarding reads on a non-existent player, why is that any different than assuming the non-existent player is betting the nuts with the top draw there (literally the only hand that is worrisome). I stand by the argument that it is more likely a bluff gets bet like that than a player with the nuts and the redraw to the flush. But again, if you have actual insight to share, I would be interested in reading it.If you want to just fire off another criticism, so be it.

You can just read Sparco's criticisms, really. He explained it beautifully, but you seemed to dismiss him.