doubt my skills?

[Taloo]

Woo no edit rickshaw. Replied before I followed link. Apparently the "local" gas station carries those. I'm so behind the times. Can't believe gas station wasn't my first destination when I wanted a prepaid debit card.

Would you like a neg or a pos good sir?

[Foler]

Originally Posted by Heavens_Myst

shrug you can use this to find out if they're sold by you : https://www.allaccessgift.com/gift/

Otherwise umm.. maybe it's time to get a bank account and think about one of those things human people call credit cards, not even for poker - just thinking about life here.

Yeah it's what all us cool Americans who enjoy spending money we don't have do.

[Phelps McManus]

Originally Posted by Zinke

If it went down more like how myst interpreted it, then the guy wasnt making that bad of a preflop call. I wouldn't have done it, but even if he specifically puts you on KK and the initial raiser on AA, then he knows he'll get paid off if he hits his 2 pair, cause neither of you will likely get away from the hand.

Did you just justify playing 73o for "two pair mining"?

-EV

[krax]

Lumie, I am so disappointed in you. I can't believe someone as smart as you is falling for it. The reptilian space angels run the on-line gambling industry (most of the real word gambling as well.) They are clearly letting you win to distract you from your important work with cancer and informing the world of their true plans.

[Black_Death]

Originally Posted by Burkex

we need a poker thread or something.

But last night, early on in a tourney I am dealt KK, mid position, about 4 people in front of me raise 2x the BB, so I raised 6x the BB. I got 2 callers. The flop comes 7Q3 Rainbow. So I continuation bet 1/3 of the pot one guy folds and the other pushed all in. Preflop he limped in then called my huge raise. Now I am worried he has pocket 33 or 77 but I think about it and put him on a hand like KQ. Turns out he had 73 off suit. Yes I called and the turn was a Q and I won the hand but still. How does a guy with 73 call a huge preflop raise like that? He was not short stacked it was maybe the 2nd hand in a SNG. Way too many donkeys online in the lower stakes games. Are the $10+ games that bad?

I was going to try to type out a post that defended your play, but it proved impossible to do because of the poor quality and lack of information in your post. Get the history and run it through a hand converter and post the results.

You say that the villain limped in preflop, but you also say you were in middle position and the initial raise came from someone 4 seats in front of you. Assuming you were in middle position, 4 seats in front of you would imply that the initial raise came from the UTG player, so no one could have limped in. Calling a raise is not a limp in.

So lets assume for the sake of argument that UTG did limp in and UTG+1 raised to 2xBB. So right now the pot is at 9 units (SB, BB, limp, 2xBB). You raised to 6xBB making the pot 21 units. I am going to assume everyone folded back to the UTG seat. UTG needed another 5xBB to make the call (risking 10 units since he limped in initially to win 21 units). UTG+1 also called (risking 8 units to win 31 units). This was a pretty terrible call for UTG to make with 73o. It was not that bad of a call for the UTG+1 (initial raiser) to make assuming he had something decent. Even though his initial raise amount was terrible (2xBB with a limper and most of the table left to act? no thanks.) I would put him on something like TT+, QJs+, AJo+.

I disagree with Myst's interpretation of the hand. I do not think there were as many callers as he made it out to be, but that still does not justify this:

If it went down more like how myst interpreted it, then the guy wasnt making that bad of a preflop call. I wouldn't have done it, but even if he specifically puts you on KK and the initial raiser on AA, then he knows he'll get paid off if he hits his 2 pair, cause neither of you will likely get away from the hand.

Paid off if he hits his two pair? The probability of hitting two pair on the flop is just over 2%. His pot odds were no where near 48:1 in any of the scenarios that have been brought up so far in this thread. Maybe he was set mining with his 73o? The probability of him hitting a set on the flop were 1.44%. His odds improve if he sees the hand through to showdown, but I am assuming that he would already be out of money if he did that. I will run it through pokerstove and see what kind of equity he would get if he always saw 73o through to showdown against premium hands.

Did he see every flop no matter what? Also the probability of someone with pockets making a set is 11.8%, so if he put you on pockets and makes his two pair or his set, he is still going to be behind 11.8% of the time. Terrible call that is very very rarely justified.

Lets run the numbers through pokerstove and see what we get. Remember that these numbers only apply if the hand makes it all the way to a showdown...

11,152,454,544  games    19.530 secs   571,042,219  games/sec

Board: 
Dead:  

		equity 		win 	tie 	      pots won 	 pots tied	
Hand 0: 	13.247%  	13.14% 	00.11% 	    1465457328 	 11959404.00   { 73o }
Hand 1: 	23.391%  	22.85% 	00.54% 	    2548003860 	 60640944.00   { 88+, ATs+, KJs+, QJs, AJo+, KJo+, QJo }
Hand 2: 	63.362%  	62.82% 	00.54% 	    7005752064 	 60640944.00   { KK }

If you take out the 2nd hand you get:

 123,285,888  games     0.005 secs    24,657,177,600  games/sec

Board: 
Dead:  

		equity 		win 	tie 	      pots won 	pots tied	
Hand 0: 	13.857%  	13.65% 	00.20% 	      16831656 	   252630.00   { 73o }
Hand 1: 	86.143%  	85.94% 	00.20% 	     105948972 	   252630.00   { KK }

The moral of the story is that you need to think about your bet sizing a little more. Even against just the initial raiser you are only going to win the hand ~75% of the time based on the range I put them on above.

Also, to answer your question, yes there are a ton of bad players online. Don't be one of them.

TL;DR version: Post the actual hand history.

[Zinke]

jesus fucking christ. I specifically said it was wrong, and I would not have done it, but if the action went down in the way myst interpreted it, it wasn't AS BAD as you would originally think. There was two ways to understand the action Burke described, on one extreme end, the person could be getting something like 12-1 JUST TO SEE THE FLOP. If he hits 'big' (I just said 2 pair as the baseline for what he needs to hit to think about staying in post flop, figuring anything higher would be obviously better), he's got implied odds of doubling/tripling up as the other big hands are less likely to fold, especially at low level stakes like this where people see AK to the river without hitting anything. I'm not saying this line of thinking is correct, just explaining the donk mentality in these lower stake tournies.

Again, no, it's not +ev, I fucking know that. I would never play it and specifically said that. But, at least at the the lower levels I've been building up through, you have to overbet to get rid of people like that or they use fuzzy math and/or their 'gut' to justify calling with that crap. If the pot odds are 2-1 and they are a 3-1 dog, they fucking call. Yea, you win those hands most of the time, but when 20% of the field in a 90 person SNG plays like that, one of them gets lucky and busts you before you make the money. A tight image is higher ev then a loose image through most phases of most types of tournaments.

[Zinke]

Before someone jumps on the number, I threw out 12-1 as an exaggeration. I think the more likely situation is he was getting maybe 3-1 or 4-1 at most, but if you took the description in a certain way, it gets much higher. The scenario I was thinking of: If the blinds are 50/100, initial raiser is UTG and raises to 200, and villain with 73o was utg+1 and called (which is already horrible, but whatever), then had 4 callers (this seems unlikely, but hard to tell by his description), then 600 by burke (pot would be 1950 now) with 2 callers after (2750), and then villain. He called 400 more into a 2750 pot. So, just under 6-1 to make the call, with implied odds of however much he's got in front of him times the number of players in the hand he puts on a big hand (i.e. Burke and initial raiser) is what I was getting at.

Again, stupid, not a good move at any point, just illustrating the line of thinking the donks use to justify bad moves after they go skim a poker book or something.

[Phelps McManus]

Just seems like you are overanalyzing a bad player who has no idea what pot odds are, let alone implied odds. He could have been paying to see every flop. In which case, good luck putting him on a hand.

If he tends to check/fold when he misses the flop, then his shove should have been a big indicator to get out of the way.

[Zinke]

Well, I don't honestly think half what I wrote went through his head. More likely, if it was early on a tournament, he just saw the bet being small relative to his stack. The donks rarely look at actual bets relative to the pot, but rather relative to their stack. I.e. in the turbo KO 90 person SNGs I play, blinds start at 15/30, and 3000 in starting chips. If you raise to 105 UTG, you get a bunch of callers anyway, even though that's a pretty strong bet in normal circumstances.

My point was that you can't give them anywhere close to pot odds or they get tempted to call anyway. Or the bet needs to not take into consideration pot odds, but rather their stack.