[MDMA]

First of all, people has to realize a few finer points about what the 4-bet is, and what kind of effects on the game it has. It can definately be a bluff, there's no doubt about that.

How will the 4-beter react when he gets called preflop? Well, basically by putting 3-beter on a very strong hand, prob QQ+ like 98% of the time and if 4-beter is bluffing, he's very well aware that because of that fact, it's VERY likely that he would get called if he pushes on a ragged flop. How does that change things? Well, basically it makes what some people has said in this thread completely untrue; e.g a 4-beter "very often following through pushing on any flop". No, a 4-bet that was a bluff is VERY often gonna checkfold flop nearly regardless of how it comes, since by getting called 3-beter has pretty much declared that he has a really good hand to play here, there is no such thing as a "continuation bet" after it gets 4-bet preflop, and a lot of people doesn't seem to realize that here; it just doesn't work like when you raise or 3-bet preflop and most of the time just follow up, this of course because of what I said, a 4-bet getting called preflop is NEARLY ALWAYS a very, very big hand.

Also, for the idiots thinking in ways of "if you call preflop you have to call flop because nothing has changed" are obviously not understanding anything; these are the same guys reasoning that you have to call river as well if you called turn and "nothing changed". It's bad reasoning and most already knew that; some didn't.

Ironically, because it would be such a bad bluff to "continuation bet" on a ragged flop after getting one's 4-bet cold called, since you'd expect to get called very often because of the preflop 4-bet caller nearly always having a big overpair, most likely kings or aces, that is also why samo decided to fold.

E.g, Samo knows that 4-beter knows that he shouldn't nearly ever "follow through" on the flop because of the fact that samo SHOULD be very likely to call nearly all of the time, and when he STILL fires, knowing this, samo expect it to be aces nearly all of the time and thus folds.

Obv if this is QQ he's gonna fire too, but that isn't really of any interest since I believe samo's analysis was that by most people, and this player in particular obv, that preflop 4-bet is either gonna mean aces or a bluff a near 100% of the time. This probably is a fair assumption, since most people (and in samos analysis, obv also this guy) reasons that overrepresenting/4-beting QQ here would be a big mistake, and he'd expect them to only cold-call, and I think he's correct in that assumption as well.

The problem for me w/ this post is basically that's impossible to discuss; obv, math clearly suggests that you'd be EXTREMELY exploitable since in this case, (as a friend said), you could make a 4-bet w/ any 2 in BB in this spot profitable. This is not about a long-term ev+, or something that would ever be used in some optimal game-theory based strategy for poker which lies years ahead; it's simply a matter of how samo believes this guy, and most human beings, would reason in the first occurrence of this spot between these two players ever.

It's not something that is meant to work longterm; it won't because of what I said about making 4-beting any two a profitable play; it's about samo deciding, in what I like to refer to as a first and only time scenario (basically if we would imagine this scenario would occur only ONE time ever and never repeat itself, which decision would we take that ONE single time?) and we'd have to make a decision, how this particular villain is thinking in this exact hand; not trying to balancing this longterm or anything like this, just this one hand, in this very moment of decision. As you notice, it becomes impossible to discuss because of the lack of "longtermness"; it's actually much more like Taylors post a while ago, something you cannot put into terms of poker theory; a feel, a sense of what most humans/players would do the first time they were put into this scenario.

Because of this fact, discussion is useless; instead just ask yourself, if this situation would happen once, and only once, how often you you think samos decision that the guy does have aces given how the hand played out is going to be correct, strictly result-orientated? It's impossible to discuss further than that as I see it, since we cannot attack the question scientifically w/ math and/or other forms of science.

Samo is basically trying to go one level further than what is normally done thinking-wise, e.g taking it to a level which seems very reasonble (e.g knowing that 4-betor knows samo is a huge favourite to call flop w/ his hand range and still fires, samo reckons him to have aces nearly all of the time) but which also theoretically get's exploitable beyond belief when analyzed in terms of correct poker theory (as w/ 4-beting any 2 totally destroying this), and because of this fact, it cannot be discussed really. It's something that you can do and be right in doing, but not something I would ever try to write a post about, since it's basically impossible.

I'm not so sure this post made much sense to anyone, and basically it wasn't meant to do. Why? Because, as I said, this hand is impossible to discuss in other forms than just a feel for human nature and tendencies regarding a problem/situation when put in a vacuum. Against a perfect opponent, you cannot ever do this fold profitably, not long-term, not short-term, not ever.

Against a normal, sane and rational player with human flaws and a generaly healthy way of thinking about poker, I am however positive that if I had only one chance to play this hand in my entire life, I would definately be inclined to make the fold. This is what this hand is about.