"I have a big hand and pot odds. I fold"

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

Don't apologize that some don't get it. A crucial skill lacking in some of the best players is on display here, and it isn't your fault some are unable to pick up on it.

And good god people, don't underestimate the value of saving 8BBs and playing on. "I'll have nothing left so I might as well call" when the truth is you'll have 8BBs is just so bad, and yet so prevalent. One steal and one double up and you are at 20BBs, for god's sake.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that's the main problem people have with the hand. The problem is that in order to make this a good fold you need to narrow his range to AA, a J, or QQ. If you include even just KK in there - and on this board, don't you think many players are going to play KK like essentially the mortal nuts? - to make it a fold you're going to need to include a pretty wide range of J's. There are 2 AJ's, 3 QJ's, 4 KJ's, 4 JT's. So you're going to need to go out to J9 or so. If you include TT as well, another hand which seems eminently reasonable for villain to have, you're going to need to include just about every possible J holding in the deck to make it a fold, which isn't realistic for even the donkiest of players.

[schwah]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think that's the main problem people have with the hand. The problem is that in order to make this a good fold you need to narrow his range to AA, a J, or QQ. If you include even just KK in there - and on this board, don't you think many players are going to play KK like essentially the mortal nuts? - to make it a fold you're going to need to include a pretty wide range of J's. There are 2 AJ's, 3 QJ's, 4 KJ's, 4 JT's. So you're going to need to go out to J9 or so. If you include TT as well, another hand which seems eminently reasonable for villain to have, you're going to need to include just about every possible J holding in the deck to make it a fold, which isn't realistic for even the donkiest of players.

[/ QUOTE ]

he could easily have QK or AQ as well. i don't like that fold at all.

[adanthar]

Like I said, the hand on its own is almost indefensible. It's largely a matter of timing tells and non-quantifiable stuff, and the point is that I was overwhelmingly sure of being beaten that particular time. I'll probably never make this fold again because it'll never come up, and the argument I'm trying to make is not about the hand at all.

OK OK we get it. Great point, lousy example. Let's not kill the mystique here.

[Clayton]

[ QUOTE ]
OK OK we get it. Great point, lousy example. Let's not kill the mystique here.

[/ QUOTE ]

YOU ARE DEAD TO ME

[sunrise]

blackaces...now you're just being silly.

NHFunkii, you are right, so that makes it 1/43 or 1/21.5, which is less than 5%, objectively speaking.
So you are saying the information given..

1) flat calling the raise PF
2) villain had D on his forehead, for Donk I assume.
3) villain checks flop
4) villain smooth calls tiny bet on turn
5) villain bets a random unknown amount of chips on the river

Is there something I am missing? Please clue me in as to how this subjective information allows you to skew the less than 5% chance villain has a J to a great enough probability that he does have a J which makes folding the correct option, not just for this hand but in the long run as well.

To a beginner there is a lot of inference going on in this post without a whole lot of real critical analysis. Perhaps some of you more enlightened players, namely adanthar, can explain further as to why you are sure AA is beat here.

From a gut feeling, I could concur if I was in the hand as I have had that "feeling" that someone has that 4th 8, or K or what have you, and was correct. However I can't convey what exactly led me to this assumption and put it into words which would lead someone else to the same conclusion.
However I know that my calls with the 2nd or 3rd nuts with boards that had 3 of one card on them have been correct enough to profit vs the incorrect calls when someone had the quads.

[jcm4ccc]

[ QUOTE ]
Like I said, the hand on its own is almost indefensible. It's largely a matter of timing tells and non-quantifiable stuff, and the point is that I was overwhelmingly sure of being beaten that particular time.

[/ QUOTE ] What kind of point is that? That you trusted your "timing tells" and "non-quantifiable stuff" over common sense and logic? Your spidey sense was tingling?

In "The Little Green Book," Phil Gordon gave a point-by-point analysis, in plain english, as to why he laid down kings preflop at a final table. I don't think he used the phrase "non-quantifiable stuff" in the whole book.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Like I said, the hand on its own is almost indefensible. It's largely a matter of timing tells and non-quantifiable stuff, and the point is that I was overwhelmingly sure of being beaten that particular time.

[/ QUOTE ] What kind of point is that? That you trusted your "timing tells" and "non-quantifiable stuff" over common sense and logic? Your spidey sense was tingling?

In "The Little Green Book," Phil Gordon gave a point-by-point analysis, in plain english, as to why he laid down kings preflop at a final table. I don't think he used the phrase "non-quantifiable stuff" in the whole book.

[/ QUOTE ]

Congrats, you've successfully discovered that I don't put as much effort into message board posts or have the writing experience of Phil Gordon after he publishes a book?

etiejkdfjkjwrrkd this post isn't even supposed to be about the damn hand

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

etiejkdfjkjwrrkd this post isn't even supposed to be about the damn hand

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why include it? I think you can make your point without it.

[adanthar]

It looked like a good idea at the time but my read turned out to blow more chunks than that guy did into the toilet?