probably standard AAxx hand
 

no reads, im playng pretty aggro in pos around 30/24

Full Tilt Poker - Pot Limit Omaha Cash Game - $0.50/$1 Blinds - 6 Players - (LegoPoker Hand History Converter)

Hero (SB): $342.80
BB: $78.65
UTG: $38.75
MP: $17.00
CO: $145.85
BTN: $378.40

Preflop: Hero is dealt A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 9[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] (6 Players)
UTG folds, <font color="red">MP raises to $3.50</font>, CO calls $3.50, BTN folds, <font color="red">Hero raises to $15.00</font>, 2 folds, CO calls $11.50

Flop: ($34.50) 5[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] T[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 8[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (2 Players)
<font color="red">Hero bets $25.00</font>, <font color="red">CO raises to $109.50</font> Hero ???

1. allin or fold? note that we're 150BB deep
2. if we were 100BB deep, allin or fold?
3. does the answers to 1 and 2 change if hero doesn't have 2 backdoor flushdraws

Re: probably standard AAxx hand
 

I lay it down.

Re: probably standard AAxx hand
 

have you been reraising hands other than aaxx in the sb often?

Re: probably standard AAxx hand
 

No reads + depth of stack means you're up against two pair alot, a straight draw and a pair a lot, and wraps, and against that range you're doing awfully. Standard fold. Runner runner flush outs count for about half an out each, but that's not gonna swing this hand enough.

Re: probably standard AAxx hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
I lay it down.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: probably standard AAxx hand
 

instafold

Re: probably standard AAxx hand
 

probably standard AAxx hand

Re: probably standard AAxx hand
 

yeah shove has zero fold equity, snapfold

Re: probably standard AAxx hand
 

I fold. I don't like the reraise out of the SB. It gives away your hand too easily, and if you haven't been very showdown bound, he can just repop you here on a semibluff.

Re: probably standard AAxx hand
 

fwiw, i think this is a *snap* all-in. you have ~15% equity against top set, ~35% equity against top 2 pair, ~40% equity against the best possible wrap, about ~45% equity against a pair and open-ender with all live sidecards, and greater than 50% equity against basically everything else, i.e. the myriad of one-pair with 3 live cards hands that he plays the same way. and you only have to call $105 more to win an almost $300 pot. easy easy call and i'm really surprised so many people said otherwise.

Re: probably standard AAxx hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
fwiw, i think this is a *snap* all-in. you have ~15% equity against top set, ~35% equity against top 2 pair, ~40% equity against the best possible wrap, about ~45% equity against a pair and open-ender with all live sidecards, and greater than 50% equity against basically everything else, i.e. the myriad of one-pair with 3 live cards hands that he plays the same way. and you only have to call $105 more to win an almost $300 pot. easy easy call and i'm really surprised so many people said otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think some people actually try to get there moneies in while they are ahead rather than a 2:1 dogish... lol

Re: probably standard AAxx hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
fwiw, i think this is a *snap* all-in. you have ~15% equity against top set, ~35% equity against top 2 pair, ~40% equity against the best possible wrap, about ~45% equity against a pair and open-ender with all live sidecards, and greater than 50% equity against basically everything else, i.e. the myriad of one-pair with 3 live cards hands that he plays the same way. and you only have to call $105 more to win an almost $300 pot. easy easy call and i'm really surprised so many people said otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think some people actually try to get there moneies in while they are ahead rather than a 2:1 dogish... lol

[/ QUOTE ]
you're joking, right?

Re: probably standard AAxx hand
 

ez shove

Re: probably standard AAxx hand
 

do you think villain can do big bluff since your aces are face up?
I fold this against random to nitty, and shove against crazy LAGtard who is capable of reraising with any str8 draw to push you off.

I think the most important is : do you reraise only good aces?

Re: probably standard AAxx hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
ez shove

[/ QUOTE ]
Loc: making the dumbest posts in the history of 2+2

i'm confused...

[ QUOTE ]
I think the most important is : do you reraise only good aces?


[/ QUOTE ]
I don't just 3bet good aces but this is the first hand that villain has seen me 3bet. He has just seen me opening/raising limpers a decent amount and a couple times folded to shoves from a shortstack. Postflop, i've done nothing crazy.

[ QUOTE ]
fwiw, i think this is a *snap* all-in. you have ~15% equity against top set, ~35% equity against top 2 pair, ~40% equity against the best possible wrap, about ~45% equity against a pair and open-ender with all live sidecards, and greater than 50% equity against basically everything else, i.e. the myriad of one-pair with 3 live cards hands that he plays the same way. and you only have to call $105 more to win an almost $300 pot. easy easy call and i'm really surprised so many people said otherwise.


[/ QUOTE ]

i folded cause we were kinda deep. I think getting ~2:1 its a easy call. I got odds to call against 2pair, and all draws. But i'm crushed against sets and i dont see him going nuts with 1pair+livecards hands since i obviously have AAxx a lot here.

Re: probably standard AAxx hand
 

It's an easy call at 2 to 1 but a fold at 1.8 to 1?

You go from needing 33% equity to needing 35.5% equity. Just take a look at pete's post if you have any doubts about whether you have 35.5% equity vs his range.

Re: probably standard AAxx hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
i dont see him going nuts with 1pair+livecards hands since i obviously have AAxx a lot here.

[/ QUOTE ]

if you have "no reads", as you professed in the OP, this statement is ridiculous. going nuts with 1 pair + live cards against a likely aces hand is totally standard.

Re: probably standard AAxx hand
 

I'd get it in there too. Also, I would've bet more like 30 or full pot instead of 25.

Re: probably standard AAxx hand
 

the people that said fold really suck at poker

Re: probably standard AAxx hand
 

stick it in not close really from equity / odds standpoint

also preflop gotta repop, the hand just is too strong and plays too well to not get more money in

Re: probably standard AAxx hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
Runner runner flush outs count for about half an out each

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

do some math

Re: probably standard AAxx hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'd get it in there too. Also, I would've bet more like 30 or full pot instead of 25.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah but you only min buy in and shortstack at the table anyway, so shoving for $7 more really isn't important.

Re: probably standard AAxx hand
 

??

Re: probably standard AAxx hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
??

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you have me on ignore or something as well?

Re: probably standard AAxx hand
 

I don't know where that comment came from. I've done the minbuyin/shortstack thing a couple times but 98% of the time I play full stack. So yeah....

Re: probably standard AAxx hand
 

when i learned about odds, implied odds and so on i was a bit confused.
the main thing we should take as axiom that the money we gave the pot now is a *dead* and we may forget about it and dont take in math. but actually it isnt the 100% true, and the reasons why we raising sometimes to come contrariety with odds. maybe you shouldnt math money in the pot as *yours* but you became "negative commited" with infoirmation you get by your bets/calls which should discount your outs.
so if you raised by special reasons and not by odds, why you are falling in love with your hand when you get an information about? i see many people really like to count these odds and make decisions based on it, but, again, the poker is a game about information. after he reraised we 've got some information, and we should take it. if we would make our decisions only based on odds we go broke.
even more, with "odds" approach you may make yourself commited on every pot like this.

about this situation, author said that he was pretty agro, and raised a lot. but after his flop raise we see he's reraised. now i suppose that average player wouldnt reraise aggro player with just about top and botom cards. i also suggest there is not a str8 draw, because for opponent would be safer to call it. very few players wold make agression against big agressor w/o something, esp. for all their stack.

Re: probably standard AAxx hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
when i learned about odds, implied odds and so on i was a bit confused.
the main thing we should take as axiom that the money we gave the pot now is a *dead* and we may forget about it and dont take in math. but actually it isnt the 100% true, and the reasons why we raising sometimes to come contrariety with odds. maybe you shouldnt math money in the pot as *yours* but you became "negative commited" with infoirmation you get by your bets/calls which should discount your outs.
so if you raised by special reasons and not by odds, why you are falling in love with your hand when you get an information about? i see many people really like to count these odds and make decisions based on it, but, again, the poker is a game about information. after he reraised we 've got some information, and we should take it. if we would make our decisions only based on odds we go broke.
even more, with "odds" approach you may make yourself commited on every pot like this.

[/ QUOTE ]

what?

[ QUOTE ]
about this situation, author said that he was pretty agro, and raised a lot. but after his flop raise we see he's reraised. now i suppose that average player wouldnt reraise aggro player with just about top and botom cards. i also suggest there is not a str8 draw, because for opponent would be safer to call it. very few players wold make agression against big agressor w/o something, esp. for all their stack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just the opposite?

Re: probably standard AAxx hand
 

I would have called the raise pre-flop. This leads to an easy decision on the flop to all three questions: check-FOLD!

Re: probably standard AAxx hand
 

oh my english is bad
i try to explain again

when you raise not by odds you may make correct decision. but if you firstly based your decision based on your experience and then, faced with problem, come to base your decision based on odds its very wrong.
i mean, after your raised, you get some information about and you should take it and reevaulate your chanses of winning

at this situation, as i said, you faced with reraise which probably means you've already beaten.