boredom hypothetical of the day

[keith crime 8]

knowing dan he will raise pre flop with AKget called by 22the board will miss him but he'll figure no way can this guy call with 5 overcards and go all in on the river only to be called by the donk

[mobius481 0]

I disagree. If I were in this situation, I would NEVER go all in pre flop. I don't care what the situation was. This can be avoided. I may push if I have someone covered but would not call aces against 2 7 off. What's the point? You know you can outplay the guy after the flop. You would have to play a crazy brand of poker but it woudl work.

I just don't think this is possible.So how about this...you have AA...other guy has 22. You call a standard raise (because you refuse to go all in) preflop. The flop is 9tJ rainbow. He goes all in...do you call?

I think you get away from it IF he has you covered which, if you have this edge, would be highly unlikely. Situtations like this happen very rarely and by the time you got to the end, you should have such a chip lead that you would have to get very unlucky a few times to lose. Maybe even money is an exaggeration but I know for sure you would win more than one time in 100. Wouldn't you agree?(Damn, I'm bored at work today)

[speedz99 145]

I disagree. If I were in this situation, I would NEVER go all in pre flop. I don't care what the situation was. This can be avoided. I may push if I have someone covered but would not call aces against 2 7 off. What's the point? You know you can outplay the guy after the flop. You would have to play a crazy brand of poker but it woudl work.

I just don't think this is possible.So how about this...you have AA...other guy has 22. You call a standard raise (because you refuse to go all in) preflop. The flop is 9tJ rainbow. He goes all in...do you call?

I think you get away from it IF he has you covered which, if you have this edge, would be highly unlikely. Situtations like this happen very rarely and by the time you got to the end, you should have such a chip lead that you would have to get very unlucky a few times to lose. Maybe even money is an exaggeration but I know for sure you would win more than one time in 100. Wouldn't you agree?(Damn, I'm bored at work today)

Probably...but still not 50/50 by any stretch of the imagination. And I'm just as bored as you...but I'm about to step into a 6 hour meeting...

[dms26 3]

Probably...but still not 50/50 by any stretch of the imagination.  And I'm just as bored as you...but I'm about to step into a 6 hour meeting...

you still have time to quit, 6 hours is horrible

[BilliardsBoy 0]

Believe it or not, I'd actually say he'd probably win 80% of the time, maybe more.The amount of small pots, pre-flop steals, and push offs he could pull would be infinite. Think about it. Every had he could not only see if he's ahead, but can see what they would probably be willing to call based on hand strength, and act accordingly.If you could see people's hole cards, would you ever put yourself in a situation where you're all in against someone who can cover you???Aside from the fact that he would be an infinite high stack with all his small and medium pot size take downs, even if he was covered it would make no sense to put your tournament on the line, even if you KNOW that you are 75% to win the hand.If I got ESP, then that is my greatest strenght. I doubt I would put my tourney in the hand of the deck just to double up when I could easily run over the table for the next hour by picking up pots and accomplish the same thing.

[keith crime 8]

i think the problem would come at the final table when it became all in pokeryou could get some fluke beats

[Petoria 0]

i think the problem would come at the final table when it became all in pokeryou could get some fluke beats

You bring up a good point, the structure of the tournament will greatly influence how often he wins.

Believe it or not, I'd actually say he'd probably win 80% of the time, maybe more.The amount of small pots, pre-flop steals, and push offs he could pull would be infinite. Think about it. Every had he could not only see if he's ahead, but can see what they would probably be willing to call based on hand strength, and act accordingly.If you could see people's hole cards, would you ever put yourself in a situation where you're all in against someone who can cover you???Aside from the fact that he would be an infinite high stack with all his small and medium pot size take downs, even if he was covered it would make no sense to put your tournament on the line, even if you KNOW that you are 75% to win the hand.If I got ESP, then that is my greatest strenght. I doubt I would put my tourney in the hand of the deck just to double up when I could easily run over the table for the next hour by picking up pots and accomplish the same thing.

80% is really crazy. You can only get your money in so often as a 95% favorite b4 you lose. I'd say he's got a 2% chance. You might be giving up too much value by folding an overpair against a flush draw on the tun. You've gotta avoid big pots, unless you get to the river and you've got the best hand. Do you EVER get all your chips in before the river when you know your opponent is not drawing dead?

[BilliardsBoy 0]

80% is really crazy. You can only get your money in so often as a 95% favorite b4 you lose. I'd say he's got a 2% chance. You might be giving up too much value by folding an overpair against a flush draw on the tun. You've gotta avoid big pots, unless you get to the river and you've got the best hand. Do you EVER get all your chips in before the river when you know your opponent is not drawing dead?

I know it sounds odd, but we are still thinking about it from a standard poker standpoint.You know everyone's cards in every hand, but they can't see yours. This is an unbelievable advantage, unheard of and incomparable to any in the history of sports.In that scenario, I truely feel that there is no need to ever get all or most of your money in the pot in any given hand. It sounds ridiculous, but it's like the strange concept of folding AA preflop at the beginning of a tourney with 6+ players all in as well. If you examine it from the true aspect of the situation, I feel you would easily build a Raymer stack for the final table simply be stealing and pushing out players of pots on, say, 25% of the pots. A player like DN would be bet the proper amounts to push players out, and basically avoid putting in a giant portion of his stack throughout the tourny.Like I said before, if you're 75-80% to win a hand on an all in, I think that it might be the better strat to fold and pick up other pots where your tourney is completely not in danger.

[Petoria 0]

80% is really crazy. You can only get your money in so often as a 95% favorite b4 you lose. I'd say he's got a 2% chance. You might be giving up too much value by folding an overpair against a flush draw on the tun. You've gotta avoid big pots, unless you get to the river and you've got the best hand. Do you EVER get all your chips in before the river when you know your opponent is not drawing dead?

I know it sounds odd, but we are still thinking about it from a standard poker standpoint.You know everyone's cards in every hand, but they can't see yours. This is an unbelievable advantage, unheard of and incomparable to any in the history of sports.In that scenario, I truely feel that there is no need to ever get all or most of your money in the pot in any given hand. It sounds ridiculous, but it's like the strange concept of folding AA preflop at the beginning of a tourney with 6+ players all in as well. If you examine it from the true aspect of the situation, I feel you would easily build a Raymer stack for the final table simply be stealing and pushing out players of pots on, say, 25% of the pots. A player like DN would be bet the proper amounts to push players out, and basically avoid putting in a giant portion of his stack throughout the tourny.Like I said before, if you're 75-80% to win a hand on an all in, I think that it might be the better strat to fold and pick up other pots where your tourney is completely not in danger.

So where do you draw the line? 85%? 90%? 95%? When do you call an all in?

[BilliardsBoy 0]

So where do you draw the line? 85%? 90%? 95%? When do you call an all in?

I honestly don't think I should. I'd like others POV on this, but remember to look at it from the hypo stance, not a standard poker view.I know it sounds crazy, but I don't think I could possibly put all or most of my chips at risk at any point. If I'm 90%, and I could push the other guy off, then maybe I would go all-in on a hand, but they would need to have at the most 2 outs to win for me to possibly call most of my stack.I really feel that, since you can essentially pick your spot every hand at will, why feel the need to put you fate in the deck when you don't need to.If I cover them by alot, like in a Raymer final table scenario, I'm calling every time I'm ahead, cuz it would take a string of uber tough beats to lose.IDK, maybe I'm being really stupid on this. I'd like to get a real game master like DN to give his opinion on this.