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

[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?

[A_PLUS]

[ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Adanthar is like Col. Jessup from a few good men.

Why did he post the AA hand:

"I think he wants to post it. I think he's pissed off that he's gotta hide from us. He made a poker decision and that's the end of it. He just won more money in a tournament than you made last year, and no one's gonna tell him how to play his hand. Least of all the pushy JCM, the pukey Soss, or that A-plus clown."

[jcm4ccc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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

[/ QUOTE ] Neither is my post. It's about your turning poker into some metaphysical hand-reading exercise that operates at a plane far above the capability of us mere mortals to understand.

Which Phil do you aspire to be? Gordon or Helmuth?