$50 to $1000 on pstars day 17

[MrConceit 0]

From there I went on to quote JH because this situation is shorthanded.With everybody folding to the blinds this is Shorthanded play If you can't see that I will explain it to you.

PS. Why are you insulting to insult? How childish can you be? No, you don't have explain to me why in this example it is shorthanded, but thanks for the offer of a lesson.You weren't the only one discussing this earlier. Other examples were talked about such as with 1-2 limpers which makes it not the same as shorthanded, especially depending on where they limped from.If UTG+1 limps, you complete, and BB raises is this the same as a typical shorthanded example?But again, thanks for the free lesson offer.

[KramitDaToad 0]

From there I went on to quote JH because this situation is shorthanded.With everybody folding to the blinds this is Shorthanded play If you can't see that I will explain it to you.

PS. Why are you insulting to insult? How childish can you be? No, you don't have explain to me why in this example it is shorthanded, but thanks for the offer of a lesson.You weren't the only one discussing this earlier. Other examples were talked about such as with 1-2 limpers which makes it not the same as shorthanded, especially depending on where they limped from.If UTG+1 limps, you complete, and BB raises is this the same as a typical shorthanded example?But again, thanks for the free lesson offer.

Ahhh at last someone I can talk to!Your last 2 posts just earnt you a lot of respect in my books Mr C - well the first one at least. The second (above) I need to clear the air.The text you have quoted above was not meant to be insulting. If it came across as such, I'm sorry. At the time of posting I was literally walking out the door and is was an effort to get all facts in prior to what I assumed would be some standard retorts.I was worried that by stating the scenario was the same as shorthanded play would produce a response of effectively 'no its not...' and I was attemting to cut those arguments off before they started.Yes - I should have given you more credit, and normally I look at a posters previous posts to get some information on their character, however the luxury of time was not with me.Compounding this, there was a statement earlier on this thread stating that if everybody folds to the blinds that it increases the probability of the big blind having strong cards, and I didn't want to head off on that tangent again - ergo my 'I know what your going to say' type response.So please reread that post and don't 'hear' it with a condescending tone, but with the above in mind.Now back to the subject at hand...Yes, I've put up an absolute by stating:However, regardless of how many players are in the pot if it is raised back to you, never fold to a single bet raise.I agree that absolutes tend not to exist in poker, and I'm sure if I was in the SB next to a player in the BB who only raised with Aces, and I knew that for a fact, and we were the only 2 in the hand, and he raised - well yes then I would fold. But that's realitically not going to happen now is it?Now I like the fact that your objecting because I've made it an absolute - my hackles go up when I'm given an absolute and feel the need to prove it wrong.It's a very good way to start an argument and by arguing you push the limits of the concept. So when you find that to get around the statement you have to contrive circumstances like the above AA player, you have tested the extremes of the concept and in doing so explored a vast amount more than you normally would.So lets go through a couple of examples that have been put forward.wrto's limping with 10 5 suited from the small blind.My rebutal here that says thata) You've made a mistake by completing and not raising when its just you and the BB.B) By making this mistake you have made it correct for the BB to raise you with absolutely any hand - SabaAba explained that rather well earlier in this thread.c) So under these circumstances you are being offered 3-1 in a pot where you have commited money against a random hand. Given that 10-5s will win or split 49.493% of the time against a random hand (yes I was extremely surprised it was this high and triple checked!!) I say you have to call or it's a -'ve EV playNow lets have a look at yoursMaybe this seems so clear to me because I play a limit that has a 2/3 chip blind structure, 15/30. You complete ANY hand in sb if it isn't raised preflop because you're paying 1/3rd of a small bet (obviously you probably raise if it's folded to you, but I'm talking if there are limpers). And if you complete with T2o 73o or whatever, you're not obliged to call a raise if BB raises and the limpers call.Here I saya) The worst case scenario is that there is just 1 limper - ie giving you minimum pot & implied oddsB) In this scenario you would be getting offer 5-1 against what is likely to be a mediocre holding from the limper and a stronger holding from the BB raiserc) At this point I'm hearing what your saying - 'I've committed only $5 with 7-2o hoping for a great flop and now you expect me to add another $15? Intuition says it's just throwing good money after bad and if the BB has Aces then it definately is - however this is true of any non-paired hand going up against Aces and an unknown limper. (The flip side is that you tend to have higher implied odds against Aces but I think thats a whole different can of worms :wink: )d) So discounting paranoia and given that 7-2o will win or split against say AKs (and I use one of the suits in the 7-2o to make it as bad as possible for the 7-2) and an unknown hand 20.99% of the time, 5-1 covers this easily.On to the next point (sheesh this is long)The counter to the above was that we are not presented with an all-in situation and therefore cannot use pot-odds to make decisions.Of course you can! It is the same principle that allows us to call to a flush draw on the flop with 5-1 pot odds.We use pot-odds as a fairly accurate guide for bets in limit holdem anywhere. The further you are from the river the more inaccurate pot-odds are, however this is offset by the fact that the further you are from the river the higher your implied odds are. The flush draw on the turn has less implied odds than the flush draw on the flop. We use pot-odds because they are accurate enough and save us running hands through simulators and enumerators every time we get dealt 2 cards.And finally on a non-mathematical point, table image.Use your scenario againg Mr C. An astute player in the BB will see that you are completing with anything in the SB for a 1/3 of a bet - which is correct and should be the norm. However he notices you fold a weak holding to a raise here he is going to start raising with more marginal hands to get heads up against the 3rd player in the had - the MP who obviously has a marginal holding himself. Here he is getting offered 3-1 for the raise with a chance to a) Increase his pot equity by getting you to fold occasionly (where do you draw the line for folding because ABC starting hands probably count for 25% of all hands - are you going to take a stand for say an extra 25% and fold half the time?)B) take the iniative and force the limper to hit the flopSo more and more you are going to be throwing in $5 and not even seeing the flop...So in summary:I've made an absolute statement and to my mind, backed it up with sound mathematics as well as reasonable 'soft' tatical considerations.I have now taken the time and read some of your other posts and there is obviously a good poker brain there, so I would greatly appreciate if you could respond with your counter because as I said before, you do have my respect and I will listen.

[Smasharoo 0]

However, regardless of how many players are in the pot if it is raised back to you, never fold to a single bet raise. This is right unless you can see everyone's cards and then it might be wrong rarely.Can we move on. This is a pointless discussion about how to play after making a mistake pre-flop.Call the raise, it's right. It's been figured out 10000 times by people who've played millions of hands.It's not an open question, or something no one's applied math to before.Call the raise, raise in the SB if it's folded to you.

[MrConceit 0]

However, regardless of how many players are in the pot if it is raised back to you, never fold to a single bet raise. This is right unless you can see everyone's cards and then it might be wrong rarely.Can we move on. This is a pointless discussion about how to play after making a mistake pre-flop.Call the raise, it's right. It's been figured out 10000 times by people who've played millions of hands.It's not an open question, or something no one's applied math to before.Call the raise, raise in the SB if it's folded to you.

You realize Smash, you don't have to read this thread anymore. If we want to discuss it, we don't have to move on, sorry dude. And now I'll respond to DaToads long and well thought out post.I'm glad you have made your decision on this and don't want to think anymore about it because it's been "figured out 10000 times by people who've played millions of hands."

[Smasharoo 0]

You realize Smash, you don't have to read this thread anymore. If we want to discuss it, we don't have to move on, sorry dude. And now I'll respond to DaToads long and well thought out post. You realize that your meaningless, allready decided discussion that there's a correct answer to that's not open to debate is clogging up my project thread?Just checking.By all means, though, carry on being wrong. Who am I to try to put an end to that...Feel free to argue that the Earth is flat too.

[MrConceit 0]

Ahhh at last someone I can talk to!Your last 2 posts just earnt you a lot of respect in my books Mr C - well the first one at least. The second (above) I need to clear the air.The text you have quoted above was not meant to be insulting. If it came across as such, I'm sorry. At the time of posting I was literally walking out the door and is was an effort to get all facts in prior to what I assumed would be some standard retorts.I was worried that by stating the scenario was the same as shorthanded play would produce a response of effectively 'no its not...' and I was attemting to cut those arguments off before they started.Yes - I should have given you more credit, and normally I look at a posters previous posts to get some information on their character, however the luxury of time was not with me.Compounding this, there was a statement earlier on this thread stating that if everybody folds to the blinds that it increases the probability of the big blind having strong cards, and I didn't want to head off on that tangent again - ergo my 'I know what your going to say' type response.So please reread that post and don't 'hear' it with a condescending tone, but with the above in mind.

Yeah, actually I was kind of a whiny b1tch in my second post, sorry about that one. Your wording was not that insulting and it was my bad to make that second post. I understand your points of why you said it like you did.

Now back to the subject at hand...Yes, I've put up an absolute by stating:However, regardless of how many players are in the pot if it is raised back to you, never fold to a single bet raise.I agree that absolutes tend not to exist in poker, and I'm sure if I was in the SB next to a player in the BB who only raised with Aces, and I knew that for a fact, and we were the only 2 in the hand, and he raised - well yes then I would fold. But that's realitically not going to happen now is it?Now I like the fact that your objecting because I've made it an absolute - my hackles go up when I'm given an absolute and feel the need to prove it wrong.*snip*So lets go through a couple of examples that have been put forward.wrto's limping with 10 5 suited from the small blind.My rebutal here that says thata) You've made a mistake by completing and not raising when its just you and the BB.B) By making this mistake you have made it correct for the BB to raise you with absolutely any hand - SabaAba explained that rather well earlier in this thread.c) So under these circumstances you are being offered 3-1 in a pot where you have commited money against a random hand. Given that 10-5s will win or split 49.493% of the time against a random hand (yes I was extremely surprised it was this high and triple checked!!) I say you have to call or it's a -'ve EV play

I fully agree with you and SabaAba on this. Both in that if you had limped it's a definite call vs BB, and that you almost always should have raised it in the first place.

Now lets have a look at yoursMaybe this seems so clear to me because I play a limit that has a 2/3 chip blind structure, 15/30. You complete ANY hand in sb if it isn't raised preflop because you're paying 1/3rd of a small bet (obviously you probably raise if it's folded to you, but I'm talking if there are limpers). And if you complete with T2o 73o or whatever, you're not obliged to call a raise if BB raises and the limpers call.Here I saya) The worst case scenario is that there is just 1 limper - ie giving you minimum pot & implied oddsB) In this scenario you would be getting offer 5-1 against what is likely to be a mediocre holding from the limper and a stronger holding from the BB raiserc) At this point I'm hearing what your saying - 'I've committed only $5 with 7-2o hoping for a great flop and now you expect me to add another $15? Intuition says it's just throwing good money after bad and if the BB has Aces then it definately is - however this is true of any non-paired hand going up against Aces and an unknown limper. (The flip side is that you tend to have higher implied odds against Aces but I think thats a whole different can of worms :wink: )d) So discounting paranoia and given that 7-2o will win or split against say AKs (and I use one of the suits in the 7-2o to make it as bad as possible for the 7-2) and an unknown hand 20.99% of the time, 5-1 covers this easily.

As for a), to me it's close between 1 and 2 limpers as worst case senario. Sure pot odds increase for 2, but even more hands you have to beat (let's talk about a non-suited crap-holding). How about you have 84o, or T5o, you can never be very confident of your holding, unless maybe you get top pair, but between no kicker (straight or straight draw possibilities if they're ALL low) and likely overcards over 2 more cards, it can be kind of rough. As far as B) goes, I'll talk about that more pertaining to something you said below. With c), you wouldn't hear me say that. How much I've "commited" has little to no bearing on this. It's the same as if I was BB now, I will be ending action (unless there's a limp reraise), and the pot is the pot, what I had put in doesn't matter. I'm not really worried about just aces, I'm worried a BIT about any PP higher than my two cards, and worried some about a PP higher than 1 of my cards, and also just about solid hands like AK AQ AJ that will make hitting any mid/low pair hard to play. The problem with d) is you never know where you're at. Especially if the players are at all aggressive or even remotely tough. You have the worst position, and the hand will be difficult to play unless you flop two pair or trips.

On to the next point (sheesh this is long)The counter to the above was that we are not presented with an all-in situation and therefore cannot use pot-odds to make decisions.Of course you can! It is the same principle that allows us to call to a flush draw on the flop with 5-1 pot odds.We use pot-odds as a fairly accurate guide for bets in limit holdem anywhere. The further you are from the river the more inaccurate pot-odds are, however this is offset by the fact that the further you are from the river the higher your implied odds are. The flush draw on the turn has less implied odds than the flush draw on the flop. We use pot-odds because they are accurate enough and save us running hands through simulators and enumerators every time we get dealt 2 cards.

You definitely can use pot odds to make a decision, but it's not nearly as easy as you (sort of) imply. It's at most a similar principle that allow us to call a flush draw. We know the made flush will be a strong holding when we determine the pot odds, the same for a straight. Using simulations for who would win by river in a preflop 3way (or 4way) situation is kinda dicy. Just because you would have won with your 85o, on a board of 25J[Q][9] doesn't mean you can really push it, or even call in the face of bluff or semi-bluffs. Or even worse on a flop where you had literal bottom pair on the flop, say 5TQ against holdings of, for example, AK and 44. And while I agree in principle with your farther from river the higher your implied odds are, that isn't really the case with these weak holdings. You can only ever be confident about two pair or trips, and two pair is rather easy to be counterfeited if it's bottom two pair (not that I don't love to flop them still, but...).

And finally on a non-mathematical point, table image.Use your scenario againg Mr C. An astute player in the BB will see that you are completing with anything in the SB for a 1/3 of a bet - which is correct and should be the norm. However he notices you fold a weak holding to a raise here he is going to start raising with more marginal hands to get heads up against the 3rd player in the had - the MP who obviously has a marginal holding himself. Here he is getting offered 3-1 for the raise with a chance to a) Increase his pot equity by getting you to fold occasionly (where do you draw the line for folding because ABC starting hands probably count for 25% of all hands - are you going to take a stand for say an extra 25% and fold half the time?)B) take the iniative and force the limper to hit the flopSo more and more you are going to be throwing in $5 and not even seeing the flop...

Your point here is quite valid, but you don't have to, nor will you be, folding in all situations. It's only with your absolute worst holdings, and even then, if this situation comes up very often (first off you want to find a new table because it's crazytight, and pretty far from what I want on an online table), then you do two things. You raise (even with sh1t-holdings) yourself in SB a small portion of the time, or you DO defend more in this senario and likely bet out on the flop a certain amount of the time. The thing here is, if you know that BB will be making this play every time (and you learn pretty quick), then you will either be not completing your total worst hands in this senario, or you will be doing something asserting to fight for your share.But again, your point here was very valid. You have to notice if BB is doing this a lot, and not letting him take over so much.

So in summary:I've made an absolute statement and to my mind, backed it up with sound mathematics as well as reasonable 'soft' tatical considerations.I have now taken the time and read some of your other posts and there is obviously a good poker brain there, so I would greatly appreciate if you could respond with your counter because as I said before, you do have my respect and I will listen.

In retrospect, I really don't mind your statement. I personally don't feel it IS 100 percent, but it's so nearly so that it's starting to feel ridiculous to quibble. But I do have a related idea I'm going to post and ask you about.

[MrConceit 0]

You realize Smash, you don't have to read this thread anymore. If we want to discuss it, we don't have to move on, sorry dude. And now I'll respond to DaToads long and well thought out post. You realize that your meaningless, allready decided discussion that there's a correct answer to that's not open to debate is clogging up my project thread?Just checking.By all means, though, carry on being wrong. Who am I to try to put an end to that...Feel free to argue that the Earth is flat too.

Ok this will be my last post on this, but as usual you're being intolerant and condescending. You have a great grasp on poker, and you have your groupies who will now flame me, but this is ridiculous.It's great we should never discuss something "allready decided", heaven forbid we try to think it through ourselves so we understand it. And I'm glad that so many answers are not open to debate because gee, it's already been figured out. And for sure, I will carry on being wrong in an effort to think sh1t through and decide what I personally think.Sorry you never do once you've read the "correct" decision on the matter.Your only valid point is that I'm clogging your project thread. You're right. I won't post anymore here. My apologies for this one thing. Though I'm a little surprised you care so much as most threads don't stick exactly to topic.