re: The craziest/best poker call I've ever seen (270k pot)

quote:

---

Caraway Rye

---

We get it. You're like that guy who went through a really messy divorce and is now convinced that the concept of marriage is evil and that any man who gets married is a moron.

I'm guessing you got taken to the cleaners at a poker table at some point in your life, and you probably consider yourself a pretty intelligent person, so your big take-away from that experience was "Bah! Poker is nothing but luck!"

quote:

---

They think this dude that got played by flesh with tits is a genius

---

I'd literally never heard of this guy until I read the OP. I barely watch TV, let alone poker games and livestreams. I only participated in this thread to comment on the extremely bizarre nature of the hand and to help those who aren't as familiar with poker understand why it was so bizarre.

quote:

---

Because they arent broke as frick begging for money.

---

Right. The guy playing in a cash game with over half a million dollars is "broke as frick begging for money." If that's what broke as frick looks like, where do I sign up?

Your contention that if poker were based on skill, math, and odds, then the people commenting in this thread should all be billionaires is as asinine as saying that anyone who is a good businessperson should be a billionaire. There's lots of reasons why that may not be the case.

Other asinine contentions which would be in the same category of ignorance include nuggets such as:

If Nick Saban is such a good football coach, why isn't he undefeated?

and...

If Tom Brady is such a good quarterback, why does he throw interceptions?

and...

If the 1985 Bears defense was so good, why did they allow 198 points?

As for professional players, you do realize there were professional players long before poker was "cool" and before sponsor dollars were involved, correct?

quote:

---

the ones that tripped through a big money tournament and you never heard from again

---

You mean a guy like Doyle Brunson who won the World Series of Poker in back-to-back years (what a lucky guy!!) yet continued playing and had lifetime tournament cashes totaling over $6 million (not adjusted for inflation)?

quote:

---

Caraway Rye

---

You are the perfect example of someone who screams to the world "I don't know shite about what I am talking about" without actually saying those exact words.




Job well done!!!!

quote:

---

Don't let reading these poker threads cause you to loosen up against morons. Their power comes in numbers at the table.

---

Ever since I "retired" from playing online when I got married, I just play the occasional home game with friends and acquaintances. It's not big money of course, but enough to pay for a nice dinner with the Mrs.

9 out of 10 times, the games are profitable because all I really have to do is play tight and sip whiskey while I wait to hit trips on the flop with a pocket pair; that's usually enough to make the night worth it.

The guys I play with are such casual/amateur players that they still haven't figured out that if I'm hanging around and making bets after the river is dealt, they're likely about to lose.

quote:

---

If you're not a poker player, read the football analogy I posted on page 24

---

I tried that earlier in the thread too. It doesn't do any good though. Idk if the same clueless morons are still posting, but some of them just won't ever get it no matter how much you dumb it down.

quote:

---

Late to the game here, but can someone explain the two river cards?

---

It's already been explained.

If you're heads up, you can agree to run it multiple times to decrease variance.

quote:

---

I'm guessing you don't play much poker if you don't see how crazy her call was. Yes she called cause she thought he was bluffing. Yes he was semi-bluffing. The problem with her call is that even if he is bluffing she still can only beat his EXACT hand in the range of hands that he could've possibly had. No player that knows even a little about poker would make a call knowing they can only beat 1 hand that their opponent could have.

---

Well that’s not really true though, right? She could have beaten more than just EXACTLY the 7/8 of clubs. I’m not saying her call was a good one or even a rational one based on what she had. But what does make at least some sense is when she literally said she doesn’t have shite but doesn’t think he does either and calls to see if he’s bluffing. Like that makes sense to me and makes her cards almost irrelevant.

quote:

---

Someone whose poker knowledge extends only as far as watching Rounders and a couple episodes of WSOP on ESPN with their friends will be along shortly to tell you that "it was a coin flip!"....
...without understanding that the only way those odds would be relevant is if they had played the hand with their cards face-up.

---

Those odds are relevant though. Bc even with her bad call she had a coin flip at worst. Like I said above, based on the cards her call was a bad one. But she says she didn’t make it based on her hand. She made it based on her thinking he had shite. And he was on a draw but she was basically right. Dude tried to bully her out of the hand and she didn’t back down. And he ended up losing because of that.

You can claim she got lucky or whatever, but the odds (which tell us unbeknownst to the players) say otherwise since it was essentially a coin flip for them both.

I get why this hand is being analyzed. I never said I didn’t. But my point is people call others all the time to see if they’re bluffing, regardless of what cards they have or don’t have. On the surface that seems like what happened here, and then she got nervous when people freaked out about it.

Like I said previously, could she be cheating? Sure. It’s not likely but certainly possible. But the simplest explanation is that she wanted to call to see if he was full of shite, which he was ultimately. Just not quite as full of shite (cards wise) as she was, no?

is this just a cash game? what else was at stake?

quote:

---

Making a call like that with the cards she held "just because she wanted to see he was bluffing" is incredibly idiotic; what do you mean you "that makes sense to you?"

---

I’m not saying it wasn’t stupid. I’m saying she literally said she didn’t have anything but called to see if he was bluffing. That’s what makes sense to me.

I’m not saying it was smart. I’m not saying I agree with her or that I would’ve done it at all. I’m saying that taking everything as on the up and up (ie assuming she isn’t cheating) she wanted to know if he was bluffing. So she called.

quote:

---

No, no. Even with her call, she had a coin flip, AT BEST. But even that is giving her too much credit. I don't know how this can be stressed any further: even if he was bluffing, her hand was so bad that LOTS of his bluffing hands still beat her. Yes, even "jack shite" hands

---

Of course. It was a stupid call, as I’ve said numerous times. And lots of hands beat her nothing hand, sure. But lots of hands also lose to her too.

And I get that her responses after the hand are awkward, which is why I get why this hand is being so scrutinized. I’m simply saying it’s not out of the realm of possibility that she does it and wins either.

quote:

---

Putting your chips all-in "to see if they are bluffing?"

---

The point is she thinks he’s bluffing. So she calls because she thinks he doesn’t have shite. And outside of a draw she was right. If you and I are playing and I think you’re bluffing and don’t have shite, if I’m confident enough then I’d risk my chips and call your all in. Maybe I win, maybe I lose. But if I’m confident in your bluffing I’m good with either outcome.

But to act like it’s virtually impossible for her to call and then win is what strikes me as so weird. People luck out in poker all the time. Even with bad calls (or awful, atrocious ones too). It could be that she called his bluff and then had to stick by her stupid decision, and then won in the end. Then saw the table reaction and got nervous.

Stupid call? Absolutely. But acting like it’s bullshite that she wins is just as stupid IMO (considering we know the probabilities were a coin flip).

And I haven’t played regular poker in years. And my games were very low stake, fun games. I’m no poker expert nor do I claim to be. And I understand what a lot of the bitching is about. I’m just saying this isn’t weird statistical anomaly. It could simply be a stupid call that worked out. And that happens in poker sometimes.

And everyone ignoring that the dude make a stupid decision too is also strange.

quote:

---

The point is she thinks he’s bluffing.

---

The point is that she loses to most of his bluffs. If she had a pair or even ace high, it would be a little different. It's enough to make the experts question things.