Bad all in?
The under the gun player limped for 2 and I raised to $12 with JJ. He called and we were heads up. Flop comes 7 9 2 rainbow. He checks I bet 15 he calls. Next card is a 4. He checks I bet 30 he calls. Next card a J for set of Js. He bets into me $50. He had about 100-120 left. Of course I knew 8-10 was the nuts but we were heads up pre flop and he was under the gun so I reraised all in and he instacalled with 8-10. Bad reraise?
The open ended straight draw made it worthwhile for him to hang around. Do you recall if his cards were three suited after the flop, and four suited after the turn? In this case he had many outs. What were your thoughts when he bet the $50 on the river after checking every other round? What hands did you put him on? Did his previous actions convince you he was bluffing with a bet sized at only half the pot?
Quote: clarkacalRecently I was playing in a 1-2 nl hold em game on the strip and I wonder if I could get some opinions on this all in.
The under the gun player limped for 2 and I raised to $12 with JJ. He called and we were heads up. Flop comes 7 9 2 rainbow. He checks I bet 15 he calls. Next card is a 4. He checks I bet 30 he calls. Next card a J for set of Js. He bets into me $50. He had about 100-120 left. Of course I knew 8-10 was the nuts but we were heads up pre flop and he was under the gun so I reraised all in and he instacalled with 8-10. Bad reraise?
Consider what your betting pattern represented: an overpair to the board. You raise preflop, board comes rag, rag, rag, you keep betting; you bet again on the turn even though he appears to not be inclined to lay his hand down. From his POV, you COULD be pounding away with something like AK, but your betting pretty much screams "big pair". Now the river comes, and he bets into you, BUT YOU RAISE ALL IN ANYWAY. From his perspective, what the hell could you possibly have? AA/KK/QQ don't make any sense--why would you shove with only one pair? The only plausible holdings you could have that fit your chosen line are JJ, and perhaps 99. So HE ISN'T GOING TO CALL YOUR ALL-IN WITH ANYTHING LESS. What this means is that your final bet couldn't win any money, because your action was so transparent--he would fold all hands that were losing to you, and call with the straight. His other plausible hands (besides his actual 108) were small pairs that made sets: 77, 22, 44, etc. But he would have to have been playing those hands awfully passively up to this point.
So even though you were probably winning at that point, the raise on the river couldn't win you any money, and carried with it the risk of losing more money than you had to if you were, in fact, beaten. So a flat call was best.
By the way, your flop and turn bets were too small. You should be betting the size of the pot in these situations--you want to take down the pot right there, and failing that, deny your opponent the proper odeds to draw. The $15 bet into a $24 pot on the flop, for example, gave your opponent the proper odds (explicit+implied, given your stack sizes) to draw to even something as thin as a gutshot or bottom pair.
Quote: clarkacalRecently I was playing in a 1-2 nl hold em game on the strip and I wonder if I could get some opinions on this all in.
The under the gun player limped for 2 and I raised to $12 with JJ. He called and we were heads up. Flop comes 7 9 2 rainbow. He checks I bet 15 he calls. Next card is a 4. He checks I bet 30 he calls. Next card a J for set of Js. He bets into me $50. He had about 100-120 left. Of course I knew 8-10 was the nuts but we were heads up pre flop and he was under the gun so I reraised all in and he instacalled with 8-10. Bad reraise?
Tough tough tough ... I would have been on the same bad ride as you. I may not have lost as much because I am a much more tight player. Someone limps in under the gun and I am thinking suited connector, big pair or Ass Kicker. When he calls your raise, I would be thinking the latter two. Since I am a tight player, I would have checked as well after the flop. After the turn, if he had still checked I would have bet the pot ($27). If he'd bet I would call not wanting to get trapped. After the river, I would have thought the hand is mine. If he still came with $50, I would have thouht WTF. I would be thinking 10-8, but who the fuck plays 10-8 from under the gun even after a raise. Would have called and lost, I would not have gone all in. It just is not my way to play poker that loose.
Looking back, maybe this guy doesn't sweat the money at all. It is afterall a low stakes game. To him he would have saw a flop no matter what. I am not sure if this was the case. If the game was 100-200 NL I don't think anyone plays 10-8 from under the gun after a raise.
Betting more on the turn will allow you to take the pot right then. You want that. Why? the 18.2% of the time his straight comes, you lose 12+15+30+120 = ~177. if his straight doesn't come, he'll fold and you get 12+15+30 = 57. Your expectation when they are flipping over the river card is ~$14.4.
That's right, only $14. The pot had $27 in it that wasn't yours on the turn. You want it NOW. Bet the pot, make the suckouts PAY in expectation.
Quote: clarkacalRecently I was playing in a 1-2 nl hold em game on the strip and I wonder if I could get some opinions on this all in.
The under the gun player limped for 2 and I raised to $12 with JJ. He called and we were heads up. Flop comes 7 9 2 rainbow. He checks I bet 15 he calls. Next card is a 4. He checks I bet 30 he calls. Next card a J for set of Js. He bets into me $50. He had about 100-120 left. Of course I knew 8-10 was the nuts but we were heads up pre flop and he was under the gun so I reraised all in and he instacalled with 8-10. Bad reraise?
First of all, yeah, this was unlucky and (from what you've disclosed), the player and his money will soon be parted. And yeah, I too get the sense that you want a blankie. That said, and in the absence of other information, all there is to go by is the math ...
With him UTG and you raising to $12 and him calling, that puts $27 in the pot.
Before the flop, generally T8 is folded to a raise, but this just may been his 1-in-however-many hands where it's just time to play with garbage. All players do that to mix up their table image, so I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt (in the absence of other information). $10 barely covers a Double Whopper Value Meal. Score one for "blankie": Blankie 1, Donkey 0.
After the flop, you bet $15. From his perspective (not knowing you hold JJ), he's got roughly a 1-in-3 chance of hitting his straight. His pot odds are 15-in-42, or just about 1-in-3 ... a little negative (from his point of view), but I probably would have stayed in, too. I probably woudl have check-called with two pair, too. You knew, of course, that at best, his odds were roughly 1-in-4, so the roughly 1/3 pot bet on your part makes sense. Point for "blankie": Blankie 2, Donkey 0.
At this point, you probably should have had a clue that (outside of a total bluff), he had at worst a 3:1 draw, and given the board, it had to be either T8 or 86. Granted, it doesn't make sense given his preflop call, but oh well. But ... was his T8 suited with two cards on the board? If not suited, from his point of view, he was roughly 1-in-6, so $30 into an $87 pot doesn't make sense. If he had a flush draw, his outs go up to 15 (from his point of view), which is, what, still roughly 1-in-3, in which case $30 to win $87, while still borderline and even a little negative, can at least make some sense. This may be the case given his call after the flop. But still, it's now 3 Double Whopper Value Meals we're talking about, so ... Blankie 2, Donkey 1.
When the J fell and he bet the $50, you should have been suspicious given his call after the flop. (I'm assuming the river J didn't put three suited cards on the board.) And, the $50 smells a little like a value bet, since it's less than half the pot. Putting those together, I probably would have just called, but I'm sure I wouldn't've folded. That said, it was a little bad luck for you. Had the 6 fallen, you probably would have just called thinking maybe 2 pair or straight, but with the J, you had 2 pair beat. But that's poker ... Blanke 3, Donkey 1.
Quote: clarkacalMKL you really seem to be the know it all on these forums. Dude, I want to bet an amount as high as possible that he will still call. Why wouldn't I want him to call 30 into an $84 pot when he has 6 outs at the most? He isn't calling $45 or $50. He hits a ten and he has to call and he hits an 8 I value bet and he prob calls. If you always price your opponents out of pots so you take them down early you don't stand to win much. You have a knack for being a talented revisionist simplifier it seems. And get over yourself telling me my thinking is garbaged up. I think the wizard needs to give you a brain. In fact maybe just don't reply if all you can do is criticize.
I have a great deal of experience at live NLHE, and if there's one thing I hear more than any other from losers, it's how someone "sucked out on them". That happens more often than not because someone failed to protect his hand.
The concept you are ignoring (or, ignorant of) is REVERSE IMPLIED ODDS. You don't bet just $30 into an $84 pot in situations like that, because if he makes his hand IT WILL COST YOU A SIGNIFICANT PORTION, OR ALL, OF YOUR STACK. In other words, he will get a payoff, if he hits, of not just the existing pot, but the rest of your money as well. And you, conversely, are LAYING those odds.
Finally, if you still have one pair after the flop, your hand is vulnerable. You can make tiny bets that offer your opponent great pot odds PLUS implied odds, but don't tell me a bad beat story afterwards.
Quote: clarkacalNo I do want opinions, it's just that guy in particular is all over other posts as well with the same know it all demeanor.
OK, I'll give you a different response. YOU WERE HORRIBLY UNLUCKY. Feel all better now?
And BTW, if you truly don't understand the things you did wrong in that hand, I may not "know it all", but I sure know more than you. So you might actually listen to my advice instead of overreacting to it. You blew it. You dumped your stack for no good reason. It happens. The trick is to not have it happen NEXT time.
Quote: clarkacalThe toughest thing in that hand was changing my read. I put him on a small pocket pair all the way until the river. He was suited but never had a flush draw btw. When he bet $50 I looked at the board and said to myself "an 8 10 is the only hand that beats me but he could have a set, 1010, J9, or even limped w AA and w a raise of about $100 more would he call w those hands too" and in hindsight I guess I should have been able to change my read.
All that makes sense, too, but even adding that to my last post, it still all adds up to no more than calling on the river ... or folding, if you could see through his cards.
So, yeah, IMHO, it was a bad all-in on your part for a lot of reasons.
But oh well ... I've made bad decisions, too, we all have. Just learn the lesson and move forward.
BTW, sorry if I got personal with my comment last night, I had been drinking and I actually do enjoy educated disagreements.
The half pot sized bet after the Jack on the river was a key move. That particular card could not have helped him if he was actually on two pair, or a small set, as was your early read. Why would he bet? Most likely:
-- He slow played the small set he flopped, and is looking to get paid off by your overpair.
-- He is trying to buy the pot holding only a pair; representing an overpair, or the set of Jacks himself.
-- He made the staight.
I assume his prior play was conservative, and convinced you that it was unlikely that he would have called your initial raise with 8T. If that is the case, he had you in a bad way from the start. Again, your opponent leading out with a half pot sized bet on the river, after check/calling the other streets, should always give you pause.
I would hope that I would have flat called his bet, but seeing that third Jack would have made it really hard not to hit the "greed" button.
Quote: clarkacalI understand the whole pot odds idea but it is revisionist for this reason: You now know he had 8 10. If you read him to have a small to medium pocket pair which I falsely did, you would want to bet an amount that he would call because it looks like you are trying to buy w AK. Also, with me having pocket Jacks and playing at a full table the most outs he could have with an open ender is 6 but more likely he has 5 or 4, definitely not the 8 some are plugging into their equation.
BTW, sorry if I got personal with my comment last night, I had been drinking and I actually do enjoy educated disagreements.
Hey now, don't confuse me with mkl!
What I can say is, as I ran through the hand, I tried to look at it from a non-revisionist standpoint. I neglected the overpair because of the betting .. if he had one, his betting would have been unusual (which happens, but if you chase every rabbit trail ....)
I didn't look at the small set, which was a fault in my discussion, but doesn't change my opinion. But the strongest point is his call after the flop, which should (IMHO) have alerted you to the "his worst possible hand is a 3:1 draw." Despite his (knowing now there was no flush draw) ridiculous call after the turn, this should never leave your information "library".
His betting/calling could have been similar all the way down with a small set, but (IMHO) the ultimate decision is still the same. The 3:1 call after the flop and the value-smelling bet ... all this points to a call. If he just had a smaller pair, then he's just an idiot ... but I don't get that sense from the info you provided, which is all I have to go by.
From a marginal standpoint, you only stood to win the extra $100 or so (by then, that was less than 1/3 of the pot) if he called your all-in with something other than the nuts ... which, given his post-flop call, should have been squarely on your radar.
Also remember that you knew you had JJ, but he didn't, so he didn't know to reduce his odds. This information can be used in your favor but you can't assume he knows it in his calculations. Also, I wouldn't assume that another out is out. I know it happens, but if you look at the percentages shown on, say, ESPN's WSOP coverage, they frequently reflect that all the outs are still in the deck. It's a calculated risk ... not an insane one, but given the thinning margin for error, one that could cost you.
FWIW, I also think your bets pre-flop, post-flop and post-turn were a little small ... not insanely small, but small enough so that his calls (outside of his post-turn call) weren't insane, either. Add to that that he introduced no new money until after the river (i.e., he only called, didn't bet or raise), and that, IMHO, should have kept you from doing any more than calling his river bet.
You wanted opinions, there's mine. FWIW, it's also my opinion that you got a little unlucky, but that's a Blankie thing. We've all gotten unlucky. The only thing he donked was, IMHO, the call after the turn.
PS - Never drink and post!
EDIT: He would be calling into less than 1/3 of the pot. Before the last round of betting, the pot was $117. His $50 and your all-in made it $117 + $50 + $50 + $110 = $327. He was calling 110-to-327, or just less than 1/3 of thh pot.
But that is a simplistic statement too. As you pointed out, when you have good hands you need to extract as much money as possible from your opponents. If you over bet and take hands down early every time, you may have a winning hand percentage, but you are not extracting maximum winnings. Playing to end hands early puts more pressure on you to have a larger percentage of winning hands for your session to still be profitable.
You made your read on his hand early, and you played to extract maximum dollars from him. At the river you probably should have only called, unless, you had a previous read that said he was going to call your river raise even if he was only holding 2 pair. If you are certain he was going to call you with 2 pair, then you gambled trying to extract maximum dollars, and you lost that gamble. If you are not certain he would have called you with 2 pair, then you made a mistake by raising the river, since you would have not gotten paid any more than a call would have made.
So, IMO, you gambled trying to extract max value, and lost, OR, you made a mistake by raising the river bet.
Quote: clarkacalI understand the whole pot odds idea but it is revisionist for this reason: You now know he had 8 10. If you read him to have a small to medium pocket pair which I falsely did, you would want to bet an amount that he would call because it looks like you are trying to buy w AK. Also, with me having pocket Jacks and playing at a full table the most outs he could have with an open ender is 6 but more likely he has 5 or 4, definitely not the 8 some are plugging into their equation.
BTW, sorry if I got personal with my comment last night, I had been drinking and I actually do enjoy educated disagreements.
The pot odds discussion only is relevant to your actions on the flop and on the turn. On the river, the question of pot odds is irrelevant because you were at LEAST going to call the $50--any more money you put in the pot was voluntary (to contrast, pot odds WOULD have been a consideration if he had put either you or himself all-in with his river bet).
The analysis that he has a small PP AND thinks that you have AK AND he will call your bets is a parlay. Parlays don't come in very often. A lot of things would have to be true for your play to be correct on the basis of that analysis.
Quote: RaleighCrapsBut that is a simplistic statement too. As you pointed out, when you have good hands you need to extract as much money as possible from your opponents. If you over bet and take hands down early every time, you may have a winning hand percentage, but you are not extracting maximum winnings. Playing to end hands early puts more pressure on you to have a larger percentage of winning hands for your session to still be profitable.
But playing to end hands early will do that exact thing--raise your win percentage. After the flop, our hero was in good but not fantastic shape. Either his opponent had missed the flop completely, in which case he wasn't going to win any more money, or his opponent had some reasonable number of outs, which the check-call on the flop seemed to confirm was the case. Our hero had one pair of Jacks--NOT a monster. The hand needed protection for the twin reasons that it was ahead and it was probably not very far ahead. The key concept, once again, is that a made hand vs. a draw is laying heavy reverse implied odds whenever it makes a small postflop bet. Thus, the risk:reward ratio is magnified, because the made hand will be compelled to pay off the drawing hand when it gets there, due to pot size.
I don't disagree with the small flop bet that much, since Hero didn't know exactly where he was at, but the turn bet should have been the size of the pot, to deny drawing odds. If your opponent calls such a bet, you're happy, regardless of the result. The way it was played, the money went in AFTER the opponent made his hand. Not optimal for Hero.
One of the goals of a winning poker player should be to minimize variance. Making small, callable bets when you are ahead may (or, may not!) increase your overall winnings, but it will definitely increase your variance.
To the best of my recollection it was relatively early in play at the table and he was directly to my right. I noticed he was experienced and played a lot of hands pre flop, and I also remember him straddling and trying to get me to straddle a few times which I wouldn't so he probably had me pegged for solid.
Really the biggest factor in making the reraise was looking at his stack and looking at the size of the pot. Like I said, I didn't have him on 8 10 but I was aware of the possibility, but from his willingness to gamble so far I thought he would have a hard time laying down a set or 2 pair getting over 3:1.
It turns out later in the session I gauged him as being a good player, making some good laydowns against me and much tighter on later streets than I thought at first. I did end up winning the $220 back plus about $110
I'll do it in units instead of cash (its how I think, so i find it easier).
It is my first hand at the table, I come in on the BB.
I have 120 BB stack (table average).
Fold around to button-1. Button-1 bets the pot; 3.5 bets total. Folds to me.
I have 66, I call from BB. Pot = 7.5 bets.
Flop 962 2x diamonds. I lead out with 5 bets. Flat call. Pot = 17.5 bets.
Turn 4 clubs. I lead out with 17.5 bets. Flat call. Pot = 42.5 bets.
River 3 spades. I hesitate, then lead with 35 bets, opponent reraises all-in.
Pot = 112.5 bets with 56.5 bets needed to make the call.
I won't put the result up yet, but I'd like a critique of how the hand was played and what the final decision should be?
Quote: rtpudNot to hijack, but figured this is a similar thread on this discussion:
I'll do it in units instead of cash (its how I think, so i find it easier).
It is my first hand at the table, I come in on the BB.
I have 120 BB stack (table average).
Fold around to button-1. Button-1 bets the pot; 3.5 bets total. Folds to me.
I have 66, I call from BB. Pot = 7.5 bets.
Flop 962 2x diamonds. I lead out with 5 bets. Flat call. Pot = 17.5 bets.
Turn 4 clubs. I lead out with 17.5 bets. Flat call. Pot = 42.5 bets.
River 3 spades. I hesitate, then lead with 35 bets, opponent reraises all-in.
Pot = 112.5 bets with 56.5 bets needed to make the call.
I won't put the result up yet, but I'd like a critique of how the hand was played and what the final decision should be?
It's difficult to imagine a hand that your opponent could have that contains a 5--so you're not up against a straight. The only possibility is something like A5--which he could have been trying to steal the blinds with, but his flat calls on the flop and turn would have made very little sense. He could also have had some nonsense like 75 and have stuck with you all the way--flopping a gutshot and turning a double-gutter. But it's hard to imagine him trying a steal with THAT preflop.
So you have to ask yourself, what the hell does he have? For him to have raised preflop, and then be flat calling your bets (you've shown strength by leading out on each street), means he has a made hand and is in defensive mode (something like 1010), or he has a draw, or he has some kind of monster, and is letting you hang yourself. Just about the only plausible draw is 78, or a diamond draw--and both of those hands are unlikely, given his preflop raise. (As I noted above, though, his range for a possibly steal-raise is pretty wide.) I would expect his single most likely hand to be 99.
The pot is offering you 2-1 on your final call. If you win more than 1/3 of the time, you profit. So, examining your opponent's possible hands, you have:
99 (quite possible)
22, 33, 44 (all possible)
some random 5 in a steal hand (unlikely)
78, or 75 (possible because the draws would fit his action)
a busted flush draw (possible)
Unfortunately, the possibility of a busted flush draw or a smaller set in his hand compels the call. You're probably not going to like the result, though. A tiebreaker might be: is he tight? Loose? Aggressive? What is YOUR table image? How did you make your final bet? In other words, does your table image or the physical way you've been betting suggest that you can be pushed off your hand? The trouble is, someone slowplaying a monster (99) OR someone playing a flush draw would bet with the same exact pattern. That's why you have to make a crying call.
I'm gonna guess he had 99 or higher, specifically TT, JJ, or QQ ... although that would make his post-flop call a weird decision.
I'm also going to guess AdXd, maybe lucky enough to be Ad5d, although that would make his pre-flop bet and turn call a little weird ... not that every poker hand goes exactly to script! If it was Ad5d, the draw to both the flush or straight might have been too much to resist.
IF I'm guessing right, then the only thing you might have done differently - not to construed as me calling it a mistake - was bet more on the turn, say, 25 ... but you may have been playing PL.
EDIT: Forgot to add the decision! I'm going with CALL.
Quote: mkl654321It's difficult to imagine a hand that your opponent could have that contains a 5--so you're not up against a straight. The only possibility is something like A5--which he could have been trying to steal the blinds with, but his flat calls on the flop and turn would have made very little sense. He could also have had some nonsense like 75 and have stuck with you all the way--flopping a gutshot and turning a double-gutter. But it's hard to imagine him trying a steal with THAT preflop.
So you have to ask yourself, what the hell does he have? For him to have raised preflop, and then be flat calling your bets (you've shown strength by leading out on each street), means he has a made hand and is in defensive mode (something like 1010), or he has a draw, or he has some kind of monster, and is letting you hang yourself. Just about the only plausible draw is 78, or a diamond draw--and both of those hands are unlikely, given his preflop raise. (As I noted above, though, his range for a possibly steal-raise is pretty wide.) I would expect his single most likely hand to be 99.
The pot is offering you 2-1 on your final call. If you win more than 1/3 of the time, you profit. So, examining your opponent's possible hands, you have:
99 (quite possible)
22, 33, 44 (all possible)
some random 5 in a steal hand (unlikely)
78, or 75 (possible because the draws would fit his action)
a busted flush draw (possible)
Unfortunately, the possibility of a busted flush draw or a smaller set in his hand compels the call. You're probably not going to like the result, though. A tiebreaker might be: is he tight? Loose? Aggressive? What is YOUR table image? How did you make your final bet? In other words, does your table image or the physical way you've been betting suggest that you can be pushed off your hand? The trouble is, someone slowplaying a monster (99) OR someone playing a flush draw would bet with the same exact pattern. That's why you have to make a crying call.
This is similar to my line of thought.
I could reason 99, although I think the 99 would be impatient on the turn and reraise.
I could reason a busted flush, AK to AT as these are blind stealers.
A5 diamonds was also one I thought of.
I didn't reason the connectors with a 5 at all; don't see how they could hang in.
I couldn't figure what would be so attractive that you go all-in on the river. It has to be a 5 or nothing. I think most people will flat call the river bet even with 99. Because the busted flush was possible (only for this reason), I obviously had to call in case he was chasing the equity he put into the pot by attempting to push me off.
Although it doesn't really matter for the analysis, he showed up 55.
Is there anyone here who thinks that the river bet is unnecessary?
The hands I really had him on, which led me to feed the river bet instead of checking were (EV based on my bet of intended bet of 35 BB):
AK, AQ, AJ of diamonds - these all will fold to the river bet or bluff, EV=0 or +EV=>35 bets.
TT, JJ, QQ, KK, AA - these all call the river bet, +EV=35 bets.
22, 33, 44 - these all call or maybe raise the river bet, +EV=35 bets.
55 - reraise the river all-in, -EV=91.5 bets.
99 - call or reraise the river, -EV=35 bets or -EV=91.5 bets
My reanalysis here still puts him on an overpair more often than 99 or 55 based on hand dynamics. I think on the flop or turn, 99 or AA will reraise; my true read in the situation was JJ/QQ/KK or AdXd. Most people playing 99 there will reraise the turn, while most people with AA will reraise the flop to see where they are. Without assigning percentages, I still think leading with the bet on the river is a positive EV play.
Does anyone check the river? Does anyone bet a different amount?
I was not playing PL, FYI. But I usually refrain from betting more than the pot unless on the next street I won't have enough money in play to follow up with another pot sized bet.
Quote: rtpudIt has to be a 5 or nothing.
Is there anyone here who thinks that the river bet is unnecessary?
I still think leading with the bet on the river is a positive EV play.
No, he doesn't have to have a 5 to shove on the river, because from his point of view, it's extremely unlikely that YOU have a 5. What hand containing a 5 could you possibly have that justifies your actions? Only a few, not very likely possibilities.
You pretty much have to bet the river for the same reason, i.e., that it is unlikely your opponent has a 5. His actual hand, 55 was very unlikely because that meant he called on the flop with third pair and on the turn with third pair and a gutshot. If you can get people to play that deep into the hand with you with nothing but a baby pair, you'll make money, this particular hand notwithstanding. You were something like a 9-1 favorite after the flop.
This was pretty much a case of "donkey bites man", and the only consolation I can offer is that the presence of people who chase with crap like third pair and gutshots is ultimately profitable to you.
The problem is that you were screwed from the get go when he called the pre-flop raise with garbage when he was in such poor position to boot. I am generally as wary about people playing garbage from the button as I am about un-raised big blinds. But someone UTG calling usually means he has something. Unless, of course, he is a loose, chasing, drunken idiot, "gambler". Seems like they are always the ones to win the really big pots though. The reason is simple. You can't put them on a hand. They are being rewarded for their "gambling".
I disagree with whoever said that you have to factor in it was only a 1-2 table. I don't see any more stupid stuff at a 1-2 table than I do at a 2-5 table. Heck, I don't even see a lot of stupid stuff on Poker Stars when I'm playing at a one cent - two cent table. People for the most part are competing and the way to keep score is money, regardless of what those units are.
Take solace in what Doyle Brunson said in his book about doing all the right things but still getting hosed on occasion.
"Sometimes you lose."
Quote: BigTip
I disagree with whoever said that you have to factor in it was only a 1-2 table. I don't see any more stupid stuff at a 1-2 table than I do at a 2-5 table. Heck, I don't even see a lot of stupid stuff on Poker Stars when I'm playing at a one cent - two cent table. People for the most part are competing and the way to keep score is money, regardless of what those units are.
If anything it seems being on a 1-2 table would lend support to a raise.
