- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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 10/4/22 at 2:02 pm to EarlyCuyler3
Posted on 10/4/22 at 2:02 pm to EarlyCuyler3
quote:right, but if she is being bankrolled by some wealthy sugar daddy, does she really care if she loses a bad bet?
Just a few hundred grand, not much really.
Posted on 10/4/22 at 2:03 pm to Chicken
quote:
is this just a cash game? what else was at stake?
The pot was over $200K.
Posted on 10/4/22 at 2:03 pm to CocomoLSU
quote:
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.
Agreed. That's not what I think is the weird part.
quote:
But acting like it’s bullshite that she wins is just as stupid IMO
Not the "stupid part."
quote:
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.
This is the weird and stupid part. Add in the fact that hundreds of thousands of dollars were involved and it makes it exponentially weirder and stupider.
And then I would laugh uncontrollably when my pair of 3s - which I thought was a bluff when I made the bet - beats your queen-high "just because you wanted to see if I was bluffing."
This post was edited on 10/4/22 at 2:11 pm
Posted on 10/4/22 at 2:04 pm to Chicken
quote:
right, but if she is being bankrolled by some wealthy sugar daddy, does she really care if she loses a bad bet?
She should if she wants to keep playing. Even if I was rich, I'd be pretty sick watching a 4/10 donk off 200k of my money in a single hand.
Posted on 10/4/22 at 2:05 pm to Chicken
quote:
but if she is being bankrolled by some wealthy sugar daddy, does she really care if she loses a bad bet?
If she and her sugar daddy were cheating together (I'm not saying they were, but IF they were), then they would both care. Her sugar daddy was pissed off that she gave back the money.
Posted on 10/4/22 at 2:20 pm to EarlyCuyler3
quote:
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.
This seems to be where we are losing people.
Some seem to think that, just because he was the bluffer and she was the caller, it automatically means that her cards must be better than his. The stupidity of what she did is so incredible that rational minds can't seem to grasp what we're trying to say.
Here's just a small sampling of hands he could've held in that situation and with that board which would be considered "bluffing with jack shite" but still have her beat.
A 2
A 4
A 5
A 6
A 7
A 8
A J
A Q
A K
K 2
K 4
K 5
K 6
K 7
K 8
Q 2
Q 4
Q 5
Q 6
Q 7
I could go on...those are just starting from the top.
In other words, she could've been dead-on accurate that he had jack-shite (and she was...kind of; he was on a draw), but still easily lose $150K+ to him on that hand; that's how stupid of a decision it was.
In the end, it worked out for her. But not because of her decision-making; in spite of her decision-making.
Again, that's why this hand seems suspicious to some.
This post was edited on 10/4/22 at 2:34 pm
Posted on 10/4/22 at 2:24 pm to UGATiger26
quote:
The stupidity of what she did is so incredible that rational minds can't seem to grasp what we're trying to say.
That sounds about right. I've made some ace high calls before and felt and looked like a damn moron. I couldn't imagine showing down jack high. It's just unbelievable.
Posted on 10/4/22 at 2:28 pm to UGATiger26
quote:
This seems to be where we are losing people. Some seem to think that, just because he was the bluffer and she was the caller, it automatically means that her cards must be better than his. The stupidity of what she did is so incredible that rational minds can't seem to grasp what we're trying to say.
I think they’re familiar with old school Daniel negreanu saying, “I think you have aces” and that’s how you decide on a call. When if fact, you’re calling based on your opponent perceived range. I made this reference earlier and said sometimes Daniel would say a hand he couldn’t beat and still called, because he’s calling based on the opponent’s range.
Posted on 10/4/22 at 2:32 pm to EarlyCuyler3
quote:
The point is she thinks he’s bluffing.
She thinks he is bluffing, but she knew she was bluffing unless she had outside help.
She said she had a bluff catcher, but she really did not.
She won the hand by getting very lucky and perhaps by cheating too. She will go broke playing that way. That’s for certain.
Posted on 10/4/22 at 2:33 pm to EarlyCuyler3
quote:
That sounds about right. I've made some ace high calls before and felt and looked like a damn moron. I couldn't imagine showing down jack high. It's just unbelievable
I made a 1.8x pot call ($2.4k)against a studied player at l’auberge with AAc on a K9434 3 club board about a month ago. Anyone else on the table I snap fold the river. He had quads Lol
This post was edited on 10/4/22 at 2:36 pm
Posted on 10/4/22 at 2:36 pm to lance814
Well that's brutal. I would be lost in NLHE now. My mind has switched so much over to PLO, I wouldn't really know what to do. The CB'ing and everything else is just so different.
Posted on 10/4/22 at 2:36 pm to CocomoLSU
quote:
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 went into combos earlier in this thread and I'll do it again real quick.
His likely bluff range includes:
AKc, AQc, AJc, ATc, A8c, A7c, A6c and possibly the rest of Axc
KQoff with 1 club (2 combos)
KQc
KQh
KJc
KJh
All QJ (12 combos)
78c (what he had)
78h
67c
So she would beat 3 hands in his bluff range and lose to like 20 hands in his bluff range. And she wasn't getting 7:1 on her money to call.
This post was edited on 10/4/22 at 2:37 pm
Posted on 10/4/22 at 2:42 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
So she would beat 3 hands in his bluff range and lose to like 20 hands in his bluff range. And she wasn't getting 7:1 on her money to call.
Trust me, SFP. We aren't ready for this deep of a dive into expected value just yet
We're still explaining why it's moronic to risk your entire stack with J-high "just because the other guy is bluffing."
Posted on 10/4/22 at 2:46 pm to SlowFlowPro
You could remove AJcc and KJcc bc she has the j of clubs. A10cc is out too with the 10c on the board. Wheel aces are definitely in there too. Add in all those Ax of hearts combos too as the back door flush draw came in. So, it’s actually much worst.
She just knew he was bluffing with 8 high man
She just knew he was bluffing with 8 high man
This post was edited on 10/4/22 at 2:58 pm
Posted on 10/4/22 at 2:56 pm to UGATiger26
I get it, man. I was just messing around. ??
Posted on 10/4/22 at 2:59 pm to 9rocket
quote:
I get it, man. I was just messing around. ??
I know you were. Me too. I was just adding some value to the discussion since there were some Rounders-esque poker axioms being thrown around in this thread such as "she played the man; not the cards" and "sometimes you just gotta go with your gut."
This post was edited on 10/4/22 at 3:00 pm
Posted on 10/4/22 at 3:00 pm to EarlyCuyler3
quote:
Well that's brutal. I would be lost in NLHE now. My mind has switched so much over to PLO, I wouldn't really know what to do. The CB'ing and everything else is just so different
NLHE is a much different game when you get into higher stakes. I tend to play 1/2, 1/3, 2/5 and the occasional 5/10. My local casinos only have 1/2 and 2/5 (on Fridays), so that’s all I’ve been playing.
Posted on 10/4/22 at 3:04 pm to lance814
Sure. As the stakes rise, all forms of poker transition from primarily value betting (at our level), to protecting against getting bluffed off equity.
I know and played with a guy that moved to high stakes and it's just insane the money he plays for. I saw him post a hand on Facebook he lost at aria in the ivey room, nut flush vs straight flush. Want to say it was a 300k pot. I'd jump off the top of the building. Doesn't even faze him at all.
I know and played with a guy that moved to high stakes and it's just insane the money he plays for. I saw him post a hand on Facebook he lost at aria in the ivey room, nut flush vs straight flush. Want to say it was a 300k pot. I'd jump off the top of the building. Doesn't even faze him at all.
Posted on 10/4/22 at 3:26 pm to EarlyCuyler3
quote:
Sure. As the stakes rise, all forms of poker transition from primarily value betting (at our level), to protecting against getting bluffed off equity. I know and played with a guy that moved to high stakes and it's just insane the money he plays for. I saw him post a hand on Facebook he lost at aria in the ivey room, nut flush vs straight flush. Want to say it was a 300k pot. I'd jump off the top of the building. Doesn't even faze him at all.
Yep, fast playing big hands and not making big river calls is definitely the most profitable way of playing at low stakes.
Assuming he practices good bankroll management and is appropriately rolled for the game, that’s just part of the variance ride for poker pros. I’m with you in wanting to jump of the building.
While coolers hurt, they are a part of the game. I tend to get more upset when I replay the hand and realize I make a mistake.
Posted on 10/4/22 at 3:37 pm to UGATiger26
quote:
This is the weird and stupid part. Add in the fact that hundreds of thousands of dollars were involved and it makes it exponentially weirder and stupider.
But you’re playing with your value of money, not hers. Maybe that bet didn’t mean shite to her and it was worth losing that amount of money to see if he was bluffing and be able to read him better in the future.
quote:
And then I would laugh uncontrollably when my pair of 3s - which I thought was a bluff when I made the bet - beats your queen-high "just because you wanted to see if I was bluffing."
And that’s fine. Like I said, in my scenario I’m comfortable losing my bet. But if the flip were true and I ended up winning the hand, I suspect you’d bitch and moan just like the dude in this video, and come up with all sorts of weird scenarios of me cheating, all while the actual reason is that I just wanted to call you to see if you were bluffing and there’s really no other reasons than that.
Popular
Back to top


2




