- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The craziest/best poker call I've ever seen (270k pot)
Posted on 10/3/22 at 1:11 pm to Deactived
Posted on 10/3/22 at 1:11 pm to Deactived
quote:
Way late to this and not a poker player by any means. More pinochle so I do play cards, but is the guy just devoid of criticism here? He shoved everything in with complete garbage
If you're not a poker player, read the football analogy I posted on page 24.
No, he's not devoid of criticism; he's the one who put his chips in play. Seems like he's an aggressive player and/or notorious bluffer who are more prone to getting caught with their pants down every now and then.
The strange/suspicious part isn't that she called him. It's what she called him with. Basically, her call was a bigger "bluff" than his bet was. He had jack-shite, but with a chance to improve his hand. She also had jack-shite, without really any chance to improve.
The debate is between what happened: A) she innocently did something that insanely idiotic or B) something wasn't on the up-and-up
IMO, until we know more, there's a fair chance of it being either.
This post was edited on 10/3/22 at 1:13 pm
4
Posted on 10/3/22 at 1:14 pm to Deactived
quote:
Way late to this and not a poker player by any means. More pinochle so I do play cards, but is the guy just devoid of criticism here? He shoved everything in with complete garbage
He had 20 outs & 8x her stack. Nothing wrong with that play at all. He could win right there or flip a coin on the river.
Posted on 10/3/22 at 1:15 pm to UGATiger26
quote:
No, he's not devoid of criticism; he's the one who put his chips in play. Seems like he's an aggressive player and/or notorious bluffer who are more prone to getting caught with their pants down every now and then.
The strange/suspicious part isn't that she called him. It's what she called him with. Basically, her call was a bigger "bluff" than his bet was. He had jack-shite, but with a chance to improve his hand. She also had jack-shite, without really any chance to improve.
The debate is between what happened: A) she innocently did something that insanely idiotic or B) something wasn't on the up-and-up
IMO, until we know more, there's a fair chance of it being either.
So she bullshitted a bullshitter?
Posted on 10/3/22 at 1:18 pm to UGATiger26
quote:
The debate is between what happened: A) she innocently did something that insanely idiotic or B) something wasn't on the up-and-up
Or C) It's a card game and his 15 winning draws are still in the dealer's hand and her 2 winning ones are on the table.
Posted on 10/3/22 at 1:19 pm to AlterDWI
quote:
He had 20 outs & 8x her stack. Nothing wrong with that play at all. He could win right there or flip a coin on the river.
Not if she had a 10.
And if she had 10-9 then he had just two outs.
His all in was risky unless history told him something.
Posted on 10/3/22 at 1:21 pm to doubleb
quote:
With the board paired he took a huge risk. He had no way to know she had whiffed and was in a draw. Maybe her small raise on the turn told him something, but she certainly have a made hand already and he only had two outs. The entire hand is weird, but again watching one hand does not define what’s going on. You need the entire history of the session, etc.
She wasn’t on a draw. And you’re right, the extreme example that she has a full house of quads and snaps him off, he would be drawing to 2 outs. His exact hand has a lot of equity against a majority of the other hands she could call with. Also have to factor in she has a lot of folds to a 2x pot shove (this hand) that he takes down the pot without showdown. His 3 bet is fine
Posted on 10/3/22 at 1:21 pm to lance814
quote:
So you’re stance is that she’s just too new to know j4 isn’t a good call there. I could see that. Like I said, I’m not 100% convinced that she’s cheating. My only rebuttal to that is you’d see much more blunders if that’s the case. That j4 call is something a person with no poker knowledge would do. She’s played mid to high stakes 3 sessions on stream and nothing seemed to be completely out of line (except for the clear soft play vs RIP
No, my stance is that she just threw logic out the window which happens at poker tables all the time. Couple that with her being inexperienced, lights & cameras on her, playing for hundreds of thousands of dollars against some of the best players in the world...it just makes more sense to me than she was cheating which there is no evidence at all to support.
Posted on 10/3/22 at 1:25 pm to doubleb
quote:
Not if she had a 10.
And if she had 10-9 then he had just two outs.
His all in was risky unless history told him something.
That's true. The min click might have given him more information than it did us at home.
Posted on 10/3/22 at 1:26 pm to lance814
quote:
His 3 bet is fine
An all in three bet????
That screams of a bluff. Now if he had 10-9 and he wanted to win a big pot, he could have shoved hoping she had the other ten or a flush draw.
The entire hand was weird, but like I said I don’t know their history.
But even if I knew the guy was bluffing, I could never call with J high. I wouldn’t consider that a bluff catcher. No way. But I’m an amateur so what do I know.
Posted on 10/3/22 at 1:26 pm to doubleb
quote:
Not if she had a 10. And if she had 10-9 then he had just two outs. His all in was risky unless history told him something.
I know y’all see Daniel negreanu try to figure out a specific hand for an opponent on tv, but high stakes poker (I say high stakes, bc 1/3 you will see some weird shite, not j4 call weird) is a game of ranges. What are the combos my opponent is repping with their action. Have you ever seen Daniel say, I think you have Aces, the person has aces, and he calls anyway? That is because there’s other combos the person could have which causes the call to make sense.
Posted on 10/3/22 at 1:26 pm to doubleb
(no message)
Posted on 10/3/22 at 1:27 pm to tgrbaitn08
quote:
I'm not going to pretend to know much about this particular play....but doesnt the phrase, "Call my bluff" come from plays like this?
The "traditional" way of calling a bluff is that you sense the bettor is representing a stronger hand than what they actually hold, but weaker than the hand that you have.
You still have to be able to win once the cards are flipped. (as an aside, there are ways to beat a bluff with a worse hand, but that would assume the ability to re-raise the bluff bet, thereby forcing the bluffer to fold. This wasn't an option for the hand in question).
In other words, knowing someone is bluffing is only half the battle. Just because they are bluffing doesn't mean that their hand will automatically lose to anything and everything. Again, it just means they are representing a better hand than what they're actually holding.
For example, two players could be staring at a board of:
A K Q 10 2
Player 1 raises with a pair of Kings.
Player 2 re-raises big, representing that he has a J in his hand.
Player 1 has to make a decision. Does he believe player 2 has the straight? But even if he doesn't, he may still have a winning hand, such as a pair of aces. So it's not as simple as "is he bluffing or not?"
The reason the hand we're talking about is so bizarre is because, yes, she "called his bluff" but given the cards she held in her own hand, there were LOTS of cards he could've held that would be considered a "bluff," but with which she'd still be at a disadvantage.
This post was edited on 10/4/22 at 7:00 am
Posted on 10/3/22 at 1:28 pm to UGATiger26
quote:really? she coulsnt had drawn a Jack?
without really any chance to improve.
i think she was jack high...
This is what happens when statistics bite you in the arse. Didnt she still have a 43% chance of winning the hand?
Posted on 10/3/22 at 1:29 pm to CarRamrod
quote:
really? she coulsnt had drawn a Jack?
No, a J gives him the straight.
Posted on 10/3/22 at 1:30 pm to UGATiger26
quote:
The reason the hand we're talking about is so bizarre is because, yes, she "called his bluff" but given the cards she held in her own hand, there were LOTS of cards he could've held that would be considered a "bluff," but with which she'd still be at a disadvantage.
I think that his only real bluff range that she beats is the hand he held and the same hand in hearts. Maybe the 2 other combos to the gutter
Posted on 10/3/22 at 1:32 pm to UGATiger26
quote:but she didnt know that.
No, a J gives him the straight.
Posted on 10/3/22 at 1:33 pm to UGATiger26
quote:
The "traditional" way of calling a bluff is that you sense the bettor is representing a stronger hand than what they actually hold, but weaker than the hand that you have.
You still have to be able to win once the cards are flipped.
In other words, knowing someone is bluffing is only half the battle. Just because they are bluffing doesn't mean that their hand will automatically lose to anything and everything. Again, it just means they are representing a better hand.
For example, two players could be staring at a board of:
A K Q 10 2
Player 1 raises with a pair of Kings.
Player 2 re-raises big, representing that he has a J in his hand.
Player 1 has to make a decision. Does he believe player 2 has the straight? But even if he doesn't, he may still have a winning hand, such as a pair of aces. So it's not as simple as "is he bluffing or not?"
The reason the hand we're talking about is so bizarre is because, yes, she "called his bluff" but given the cards she held in her own hand, there were LOTS of cards he could've held that would be considered a "bluff," but with which she'd still be at a disadvantage.
Thank you..thats a great explanation.
Posted on 10/3/22 at 1:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
She only beats 87cc, 86cc and 76cc
Posted on 10/3/22 at 1:35 pm to CarRamrod
quote:
really? she coulsnt had drawn a Jack? i think she was jack high... This is what happens when statistics bite you in the arse. Didnt she still have a 43% chance of winning the hand?
He had to improve. She didn’t. If he improves she can not win.
If she improves he could have won anyway. Her only advantage as she was ahead.
But in an honest game you don’t know any of that. The great ones figure it out and more often than not they come out ahead but there’s no guarantee they will.
Posted on 10/3/22 at 1:36 pm to CarRamrod
quote:
really? she coulsnt had drawn a Jack? i think she was jack high... This is what happens when statistics bite you in the arse. Didnt she still have a 43% chance of winning the hand?
Jack was no good as addressed. Her equity vs his range was somewhere around 7%. It’s was 45% vs his exact hand
This post was edited on 10/3/22 at 1:37 pm
Page 25 of 38
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News