playing pocket 8s from the bb - right or wrong?

[Guest]

Scenario: $100 buy in NL live tourney on Sat. night - 7 players remaining of 20 My buddy is dealt pocket 8:club: 8:spade: in the BB, I limp in for $25 with 9:club: 10 and it's folded around to the button who calls, SB folds, BB checks.Flop comes 8:diamond: 2 6 BB (the 88 who now has a set) bets $50, I fold (yes, I'm tight as a nun), button calls.Turn is a 5:diamond: for:[8:diamond: 2 6 ][5:diamond:]BB with set of 8s goes all in for another $350, button calls the all in.River is a 9:heart: for:[8:diamond: 2 6 5:diamond:][9:heart:]The button made the straight showing A:diamond:7:diamond: and that was all she wrote.I have my thoughts and analysis of this hand..... what are yours?Preflop - Flop -Turn -I'll post what I think later.... enjoy!

[dominiksdad 0]

Scenario: $100 buy in NL live tourney on Sat. night - 7 players remaining of 20 My buddy is dealt pocket 8:club: 8:spade: in the BB, I limp in for $25 with 9:club: 10 and it's folded around to the button who calls, SB folds, BB checks.Flop comes 8:diamond: 2 6 BB (the 88 who now has a set) bets $50, I fold (yes, I'm tight as a nun), button calls.

Flop bet is a little on the small side - you don't mention the relative stack sizes but $50 is unlikely to chase many people out of the pot and its not really big enough to be a decent value bet when you have flopped top set, although much bigger and he is pot committed anyway

Turn is a 5:diamond: for:[8:diamond: 2 6 ][5:diamond:]BB with set of 8s goes all in for another $350, button calls the all in

The turn is a danger card as it opens up both the str8 and flush draws but I think your friend's all-in here is pretty good. It actually reduces the buttons pot odds to 1.5:1 - $350 call to win $525 so he shouldn't be able to chase any draw - he has the best possible draw with a flush and OEStr8 but still only has 15 outs so his actual odds are more like 2:1.All depends on what his total stack is - is $350 a significant enough part of his stack to make him lay this down? Looks to me like your friend is the short stack with only $425 at the start of the hand so his all-in here may look like a steal attempt and if the button was the big-stack he probably would call with any decent draw for the chance of eliminating someone.

River is a 9:heart: for:[8:diamond: 2 6 5:diamond:][9:heart:]The button made the straight showing A:diamond:7:diamond: and that was all she wrote.

Nothing you can do about this - that's why its called gambling I guess.

[holman3rd 0]

Scenario: $100 buy in NL live tourney on Sat. night - 7 players remaining of 20 My buddy is dealt pocket 8:club: 8:spade: in the BB, I limp in for $25 with 9:club: 10 and it's folded around to the button who calls, SB folds, BB checks.Flop comes 8:diamond: 2 6 BB (the 88 who now has a set) bets $50, I fold (yes, I'm tight as a nun), button calls.Turn is a 5:diamond: for:[8:diamond: 2 6 ][5:diamond:]BB with set of 8s goes all in for another $350, button calls the all in.River is a 9:heart: for:[8:diamond: 2 6 5:diamond:][9:heart:]The button made the straight showing A:diamond:7:diamond: and that was all she wrote.I have my thoughts and analysis of this hand..... what are yours?Preflop - Flop -Turn -

I'm not sure what the question is b/c the title question is different from the question posed in the text of the post.Anyway, right or wrong? Obviously it's right to play eights from the BB here.However, here's how I would have bet this one...Preflop: Raise to $75. Probably would get 2 callers for a $225 pot. But, hero checks here so pot is just $75. Flop: Either check or bet about $175. I'd probably check b/c I have top set, and this low rainbow board isn't likely to have hit anyone very hard. I'm not looking to chase people out of this pot. But, let's say I do bet $50 and get one caller. Pot now $175.Turn-Hmmm, now there is a flush draw possible and a gutshot straight. Time to take down the pot. I bet the pot, but not all-in. Worst case, I'm up against a made straight, so I'm not betting all-in. In this case, the other guy had the open-ended straight draw plus a flush draw, or 15 outs. One could argue that all-in is the right play here, but that's probably because we know that the other guy has Ad7d. Not knowing that, i don't push, but bet the pot. Obviously that gives him 2 to 1 to call, which he would in this case. But, (again, not knowing what he had), I'd be worried that an all-in bet would only get called by a made straight. So, he'd call my pot-sized bet and win it on the river. I'd probably check call the river, depending on the size of his bet.Now for an editorial comment. This post is a classic example of why it's so important to not reveal the results in your original post. It's almost impossible for people to not be biased by the fact that they know what the other guy had. I'll probably catch heat for how I would have played this hand, but I really tried to ignore the fact that I knew what he had.

[dominiksdad 0]

One could argue that all-in is the right play here, but that's probably because we know that the other guy has Ad7d. Not knowing that, i don't push, but bet the pot.

A pot sized bet is not an option here given his stack size - he's already the short stack (I assume) with only $425 at the start of the hand and would have put almost 2/3 into the pot already. Pushing is the only possible play here.

[holman3rd 0]

One could argue that all-in is the right play here, but that's probably because we know that the other guy has Ad7d. Not knowing that, i don't push, but bet the pot.

A pot sized bet is not an option here given his stack size - he's already the short stack (I assume) with only $425 at the start of the hand and would have put almost 2/3 into the pot already. Pushing is the only possible play here.

True. Sorry, I didn't deduce stack size from the original post. My bad.

[UglyJimStudly 0]

The pocket eights got beat largely because they slow-played, IMHO. Showing no strength pre-flop followed by a fairly weak bet on what looks like a rags flop (so most players think "that guy's trying a steal with nothing" rather than "don't chase that guy") allows suited ace guy to say "hmm, if I hit a pair I'm probably good, and ace-high just might be best at the moment." So he calls. Suited ace's call of the all-in isn't good in terms of pot odds, but considering that pocket eights hasn't given anyone reason to believe he's on anything other than a naked steal it's not hard to see why suited ace did it. Your fold was good; with only two other players you weren't going to get odds to chase the inside straight. Thanks to pocket eights you got to see a cheap flop with suited connectors, and when it mostly missed you folded - that's just disciplined poker.Moral of the story: if you don't want people to call your all-in, make it when you look strong.

[holman3rd 0]

The pocket eights got beat largely because they slow-played, IMHO. Showing no strength pre-flop followed by a fairly weak bet on what looks like a rags flop (so most players think "that guy's trying a steal with nothing" rather than "don't chase that guy") allows suited ace guy to say "hmm, if I hit a pair I'm probably good, and ace-high just might be best at the moment." So he calls. Suited ace's call of the all-in isn't good in terms of pot odds, but considering that pocket eights hasn't given anyone reason to believe he's on anything other than a naked steal it's not hard to see why suited ace did it. Your fold was good; with only two other players you weren't going to get odds to chase the inside straight. Thanks to pocket eights you got to see a cheap flop with suited connectors, and when it mostly missed you folded - that's just disciplined poker.Moral of the story: if you don't want people to call your all-in, make it when you look strong.

With 20/20 hindsite, yes, slowplaying cost the player the hand. But, this is almost an ideal flop for slowplaying, imo. However, "ideal" doesn't mean the eights are a lock to win. Still, they were a heavy favorite with that flop.

[dominiksdad 0]

Moral of the story: if you don't want people to call your all-in, make it when you look strong.

I think in this case you do want someone to call your all-in.As the short-stack you want to be able to double up when you hit a good hand not just pick up the blinds so I can see why you would slow play this hand on the flop.When the money went in he was a 2:1 favourite and just got unlucky

[holman3rd 0]

Moral of the story: if you don't want people to call your all-in, make it when you look strong.

I think in this case you do want someone to call your all-in.As the short-stack you want to be able to double up when you hit a good hand not just pick up the blinds so I can see why you would slow play this hand on the flop.When the money went in he was a 2:1 favourite and just got unlucky

wrto4556 has a thread called "Common Misconceptions" or something. I think this highlights another. It seems that many players want players to fold to their big bets. I say this is not always true. You want calls from players that are not getting the right pot-odds to chase their draws, and you want folds from players that either are getting the right odds or are currently beating you.I understand that this isn't always true. For example, if the pot is large and you are all-in, you may just want folds so you can scoop the pot. But, in general, I think it's true when you believe you have the best hand. In this particular hand, I'd want the call.

[MrConceit 0]

The pocket eights got beat largely because they slow-played, IMHO. Showing no strength pre-flop followed by a fairly weak bet on what looks like a rags flop (so most players think "that guy's trying a steal with nothing" rather than "don't chase that guy") allows suited ace guy to say "hmm, if I hit a pair I'm probably good, and ace-high just might be best at the moment." So he calls. Suited ace's call of the all-in isn't good in terms of pot odds, but considering that pocket eights hasn't given anyone reason to believe he's on anything other than a naked steal it's not hard to see why suited ace did it. Your fold was good; with only two other players you weren't going to get odds to chase the inside straight. Thanks to pocket eights you got to see a cheap flop with suited connectors, and when it mostly missed you folded - that's just disciplined poker.Moral of the story: if you don't want people to call your all-in, make it when you look strong.

I think you're being foolish in your assessment. Saying he got beat because he slowplayed. Somebody limped in early, button limped, and you think it's a bad play to see a free flop with 88? It's not like it's an obligatory raise, though that is an option. He bet 50 into a 125 pot, that isn't slowplaying. That's an ok bet. And yeah, he does want to be called, or even better raised. Do you like flopping top set and having everybody fold to your pot bet immediately? A7d with his 1 overcard and BDF has no odds to call this bet, even if our hero had 83 offsuit. His bet was 2/5ths of the pot.88 played this fine, A7s made a questionable flop call, picked up a strong draw, called an allin with by far the worst hand, and got one of the cards he needed. That's really all there is to it imo.Oh, and finally, if A7ds thought our hero was on a steal why didn't he reraise? Why call 2/5ths of the pot on a weak as hell "draw" if he thought his ace high might be best? Oh, ok, second finally -- your moral isn't good either because he did want his allin to be called. It's just bad luck the caller hit his draw.

[budwayne 0]

holeman - i completely agree it seems like everyone complains about getting called by crap and losing, but I would prefer to be called by crap all day long, the odds of me winning all those hands that im heavilty favored in are great. i realize that pushing with the best hand and getting out drawn sucks, but i bet you were really happy when u push on the turn and see all they called with is a draw, i know i am.

[holman3rd 0]

holeman - i completely agree it seems like everyone complains about getting called by crap and losing, but I would prefer to be called by crap all day long, the odds of me winning all those hands that im heavilty favored in are great. i realize that pushing with the best hand and getting out drawn sucks, but i bet you were really happy when u push on the turn and see all they called with is a draw, i know i am.

EXCELLENT POINT!! Here's the typical situation. A player goes all with a strong hand and gets called by another player who never should have called b/c he's a 4 to 1 dog (for example) and the pot odds are, say, 1.5 to 1. Most players jump for joy when they see the fish's cards and are happy about the call.However, when the suckout occurs, and it will, our hero screams "Bad beat! Bad Beat! How could you call with that crap!?!?!"I say, "Call me with your crap, all day and all night....PLEAAAASE!"

[UglyJimStudly 0]

I think in this case you do want someone to call your all-in.

The classic betting pattern when you want somebody to call an all-in is to raise them when they have some kind of pot commitment, to entice them to make a bad call. Ideally you do it when you have the stone-cold nuts. Neither was true in this case - even the short-stack wasn't committed, and he didn't go all-in until any reasonable drawing hand either beat him or had a lot of outs to beat him. His bet looked exactly like somebody who was scared of getting called.

When the money went in he was a 2:1 favourite and just got unlucky

He had no idea he was a favourite - for all he knew somebody was holding 7-9 or 3-4 and hit the straight, which would mean only a full house saved him. In hindsight, seeing all the cards, yeah he (finally) made a decent move on the turn and suited ace shouldn't have called. But weak play up until that point allowed suited ace to believe he was making a correct call.If he'd gotten everybody to put more money in pre-flop and then gone all-in on the flop, I'd agree with you - at that point he has the nuts and he really wants a call. But on the turn? From his betting he's running scared, he just wants everybody to leave him alone and give him enough of a pot to pay off the blinds for a while.

[holman3rd 0]

From his betting he's running scared, he just wants everybody to leave him alone and give him enough of a pot to pay off the blinds for a while.

[Abbaddabba 0]

It wouldnt matter how you played it. If he was willing to call an all in with an ace high and inside straight draw, he'd probably be enough of a dimwit to go all in preflop on account of him having an ace. (oops, i thought i read something differently, read at hte bottom)The results mean nothing. There were no big mistakes on your end, only his - and unfortunately his stupidity paid off that day.There's about 185 in the pot before your all in, if im not mistaken.350 bet for an 885 pot (2.52 to 1). That requires that the weighted average of outs he gets from the average hand he puts you on be greater than that the pay ratio. In other words, he must be favored by no greater than (2.52 to 1 ). He had 11 outs of 44 cards (given that your two are known cards to the calculation of probabilities) remaining that he is unaware of, looking at things with perfect information. That's equivalent to him being disfavoured 4 to 1. The bet is not justified if he knew your cards.But imagine what he could have put you on, and the probability he would have to attach to each hand.With two pair or a set (which would work out to approximately the same as what you had in terms of his outs), it would be 4 to 1. With a even one pair (and assuming your kicker isnt an ace, and your cards arent diamonds), he would have 5-7 additional outs. (16/44) That's between 1.91 to 1 and 2.75 to 1 (probably the only thing he could hope for).With a made straight (supposing it's the low straight), he would have 9 diamonds plus 3 for the inside straight draw divided by two 2 (divided by two, because it's half the value when it will become a chop), for an average equivalent of 10/44, or 4.2 to 1.Or a higher straight, where he only had the 9 diamonds. 4.9 to 1.Only with a lower flush draw or absolutely nothing could he be favored to win (and even then, you would have outs). He would have to FEEL as if he had a very strong read to justify calling an all in for that much, on the gut instinct of those few VERY specific hands.edit: that's off by quite a bit, i just realized - i was working under the assumption that it was an inside straight draw. He had 4 more outs for each calculation that i made. I wont bother going through to fix it, but as you can imagine, it would be quite different.

[UglyJimStudly 0]

I think you're being foolish in your assessment. Saying he got beat because he slowplayed.

Look at the hand. He made little bets when he had the nuts, and went all-in only after his two opponents had a chance to improve and the board held several straight possibilities and a flush draw. He slowplayed, and then went all-in when the most likely callers were the ones that beat his trips. He got lucky that somebody who didn't already have a straight called him, but he had no way to know that at the time. I think you're being foolish in believing that anything other than slowplay was responsible for him getting beat.

[holman3rd 0]

I think you're being foolish in your assessment. Saying he got beat because he slowplayed.

Look at the hand. He made little bets when he had the nuts, and went all-in only after his two opponents had a chance to improve and the board held several straight possibilities and a flush draw. He slowplayed, and then went all-in when the most likely callers were the ones that beat his trips. He got lucky that somebody who didn't already have a straight called him, but he had no way to know that at the time. I think you're being foolish in believing that anything other than slowplay was responsible for him getting beat.

I'm not sure what argument you are trying to make, but my argument is that slowplaying is correct here. If you don't slow play top set to a rag rainbow board, when will you? (If this isn't relevant to your argument, then disregard).Sure, he got beat. But you do take SOME risk when you slowplay. However, the risk/reward ratio for slowplaying is very favorable here, imo.

[JFarrell20 1]

First of all why would you limp with 9 10 then fold a gut-shot on the flop for small pot-ratio bet? Kinda strange.But anyway, this is a tough one. Clearly the chance of a straight and flush on the turn scared your buddy, so he pushed all in, which is just OK. Had he known just how many outs his opponent had, he would not have pushed all in. He had to assume they would not call for $350 more though. He was right in that assumption. It was tough luck.The only other option would be to weak lead on the turn, and hope for a call. Then see what happens on the river, and play accordingly. I mean it's kind of 50/50 as to whether he should play the hand out cautiously, or just push all in now and steal the relatively small pot. I'm aggressive with NL, so I probably would have moved all in as well. Especially if my opponent only has 150 left or so.This was a tough loss for your buddy. I don't blame the other guy for calling though with OESD and NUT FLUSH draw, not to mention an over-card to pair up ('course he didn't know your buddy had a set).

[JFarrell20 1]

Flop bet is a little on the small side - you don't mention the relative stack sizes but $50 is unlikely to chase many people out of the pot

Obviously 50 was enough to get him to fold a gut-shot straight draw! lol. I agree though, 50 isn't a large bet in this pot. However, I think it's OK, b/c he's slowplaying his set, as he probably should with just 2 opponents.

[Abbaddabba 0]

Knowing the hands, 15 of the 44 cards remaining in the deck completed a flush or straight draw for his opponent (minus two, for the diamonds that would have the board pairing up, giving him a boat).15/44 is 34%1-.34 = 66%, which is his probability of winning.He had roughly a 66% chance of winning an $855 pot with his opponent calling on the turn, or an EV of $564 minus his contribution, which was 475. An expected net gain of $89. You don't judge the incidence of how the cards came out after the players are all in, you just measure the weighted average of probabilities. Despite the miscalculations in my previous post, this is still true.Had he played it hard off the flop, everyone would have folded. That would have placed him with the 80 or so from the blinds (including the small blind), minus the 25 contribution he made for a net gain of $55.

[UglyJimStudly 0]

I'm not sure what argument you are trying to make, but my argument is that slowplaying is correct here. If you don't slow play top set to a rag rainbow board, when will you?

When you have the nuts, you suspect other players have decent but not great hands, and any improvement they make is unlikely to give them the nuts. Slowplay is a trap, you do it so people can improve enough to bet with you but not catch you. Other than a straight draw - which beats him if it hits - who is he allowing to catch up with the slowplay who wouldn't normally call his bets, given the 826 rainbow flop? Maybe a lower pocket pair, but the chances of them catching trips are pretty long, better to get money from them early before they decide they're beat. Higher pockets most likely don't need to be trapped, nor does a lower pocket that hit trips on the flop.

Sure, he got beat. But you do take SOME risk when you slowplay. However, the risk/reward ratio for slowplaying is very favorable here, imo.

I can't see how you'd come to that conclusion - he maximized risk by allowing anybody with a junky straight (the only kind of non-trip hand that fit the flop) to improve, and minimized reward by moving all-in at precisely the point where only a hand that had him beat could reasonably call. Sure, he actually got called by a hand that didn't have him beat, but we only know that in hindsight.

[holman3rd 0]

I'm not sure what argument you are trying to make, but my argument is that slowplaying is correct here. If you don't slow play top set to a rag rainbow board, when will you?

When you have the nuts, you suspect other players have decent but not great hands, and any improvement they make is unlikely to give them the nuts. Slowplay is a trap, you do it so people can improve enough to bet with you but not catch you. Other than a straight draw - which beats him if it hits - who is he allowing to catch up with the slowplay who wouldn't normally call his bets, given the 826 rainbow flop? Maybe a lower pocket pair, but the chances of them catching trips are pretty long, better to get money from them early before they decide they're beat. Higher pockets most likely don't need to be trapped, nor does a lower pocket that hit trips on the flop.

Sure, he got beat. But you do take SOME risk when you slowplay. However, the risk/reward ratio for slowplaying is very favorable here, imo.

I can't see how you'd come to that conclusion - he maximized risk by allowing anybody with a junky straight (the only kind of non-trip hand that fit the flop) to improve, and minimized reward by moving all-in at precisely the point where only a hand that had him beat could reasonably call. Sure, he actually got called by a hand that didn't have him beat, but we only know that in hindsight.

I stand by my argument that this is a perfect flop to slowplay. If you disagree, please provide an example of what you would consider a good slowplay situation.Not trying to be argumentative, just a friendly debate. If I hold top set on a raggedy rainbow board, I'm slowplaying. Why wouldn't you?Sure, we know his opponent picked up a card on the turn that helped him, but anything's possible. Your comments imply that the only thing you'd slowplay on the flop is the stone-cold nuts. (Sorry if I'm wrong about that).If you only slowplay with the nuts, you're missing a lot of bets for two reasons. 1) You're not slowplaying in other situations where it is profitable, and 2) When you have the stone-cold nuts, it's usually so obvious to other players that they don't give you much action.As for the all-in on the turn, I already stated that I think that was risky. But, another poster pointed out that the stack was already so short that any bet should be all-in. I agree with that.I think the fact that the results are know might be biasing responses here.

[UglyJimStudly 0]

I stand by my argument that this is a perfect flop to slowplay. If you disagree, please provide an example of what you would consider a good slowplay situation.

Any situation in which the people you're allowing to catch up don't stand an excellent chance to trap you. Slow play is a trap - what (reasonable) hands are you trapping here that wouldn't otherwise bet? Big pockets, little pockets that hit a smaller set, or overcards that believe pairing up is good enough don't need to be trapped. Overcards that don't believe pairing up is good enough are going to drop out as soon as you make the big bet, and most likely little pockets that don't hit trips will also. The most likely hands that you'd need to trap are all straight draws, which will beat you if they hit and presumably fold if they miss. So you can't expect to get money out of the people you're allegedly trapping unless you let them draw a good enough hand to beat you; a trap is pretty silly under such situations.

If you only slowplay with the nuts, you're missing a lot of bets for two reasons. 1) You're not slowplaying in other situations where it is profitable, and 2) When you have the stone-cold nuts, it's usually so obvious to other players that they don't give you much action.

As I said, the time to slowplay is when you have the nuts, when your opponent has a decent hand or prospects to improve to a decent hand, and when their improvement is non-threatening. If you believe that the perfect slowplay opportunity is to slowplay trips when the only draws that can improve enough to fall into your trap are straights, then it's hard to see how slowplays are ever profitable for you.

I think the fact that the results are know might be biasing responses here.

Indeed. It's only the fact that he got called by a hand that had only slim prospects on the flop that makes the slowplay in any way defensible. The only reason anybody can argue that slowplay was a good move is because our hero was beat by a gutshot; if the bad guy had had 97s instead of A7s, then rather than the "too bad he hit" posts there would've been a bunch of "that's what you get for slowplaying" posts. And they would've been right.

[holman3rd 0]

I stand by my argument that this is a perfect flop to slowplay. If you disagree, please provide an example of what you would consider a good slowplay situation.

Any situation in which the people you're allowing to catch up don't stand an excellent chance to trap you. Slow play is a trap - what (reasonable) hands are you trapping here that wouldn't otherwise bet? Big pockets, little pockets that hit a smaller set, or overcards that believe pairing up is good enough don't need to be trapped. Overcards that don't believe pairing up is good enough are going to drop out as soon as you make the big bet, and most likely little pockets that don't hit trips will also. The most likely hands that you'd need to trap are all straight draws, which will beat you if they hit and presumably fold if they miss. So you can't expect to get money out of the people you're allegedly trapping unless you let them draw a good enough hand to beat you; a trap is pretty silly under such situations.

If you only slowplay with the nuts, you're missing a lot of bets for two reasons. 1) You're not slowplaying in other situations where it is profitable, and 2) When you have the stone-cold nuts, it's usually so obvious to other players that they don't give you much action.

As I said, the time to slowplay is when you have the nuts, when your opponent has a decent hand or prospects to improve to a decent hand, and when their improvement is non-threatening. If you believe that the perfect slowplay opportunity is to slowplay trips when the only draws that can improve enough to fall into your trap are straights, then it's hard to see how slowplays are ever profitable for you.

I think the fact that the results are know might be biasing responses here.

Indeed. It's only the fact that he got called by a hand that had only slim prospects on the flop that makes the slowplay in any way defensible. The only reason anybody can argue that slowplay was a good move is because our hero was beat by a gutshot; if the bad guy had had 97s instead of A7s, then rather than the "too bad he hit" posts there would've been a bunch of "that's what you get for slowplaying" posts. And they would've been right.

If you only slowplay with the nuts, you'll hardly ever slow play. While this may be ok in lower limits, you'll get crushed in mid limits b/c players will have a dead read on you.Edit--you didn't say that you only slowplay with the nuts...sorry. But, looking at your other two situations: 1)when your opponent has a decent hand or prospects to improve to a decent hand--check the flop and induce a bet. this will indicate one of these situations or a bluff.2)and when their improvement is non-threatening--unless they are drawing dead, any improvement is threatening. you slowplay when you think that their odds of improving are very low...you don't wait until you think they're drawing dead, which is the only time their improvement won't be threatening (unless their improvement further improves you).I'm losing my train of thought now :shock: As with most things in poker, this is probably just a difference of opinion. I don't think either one of us is stating our case as black and white. I'm not, I just feel strongly about it (obviously, right?).

[dominiksdad 0]

When the money went in he was a 2:1 favourite and just got unlucky

He had no idea he was a favourite - for all he knew somebody was holding 7-9 or 3-4 and hit the straight, which would mean only a full house saved him.

There are only two possible hands he is behind and against any other hand he is at least a 2:1 favourite so I think that almost anyone one here would think that he was a favourite when he got his money in.If you seriously think like that do you ever see a flop other than when you have A-A? After all any other hand could be behind!!!