I thought this was fairly straightforward

[KingNeo]

[ QUOTE ]
I think everyone is making this analysis way too complicated. It all boils down to whether he thinks villain has to have AA a majority of the time preflop to make that last raise.

If answer is yes then stacks aren't deep enough to call for set value so he should have folded.

If the answer is no, but still with some possibility he is indeed up against AA, then the principle of playing in such a way as not to win the least when ahead and lose the most when behind applies. Which means he should just call preflop and then call any flop push except an A flop, and maybe even then, or push when checked to. This means when the answer is no to the original consideration, that he isn't just running off QQ/JJ/AK and getting stacked by AA, but is still committed nonetheless to getting the rest of it in on a non-A flop.

So as played he should have called the flop push or just folded pre.


[/ QUOTE ]

While I realize that Sam and MDMA both have man crushes on each other that does not mean either one of you are even close to being correct. Perhaps you guys do not realize that the hands you post are from 5/10 and 10/20 capped games. I.E. they are extremely straighforward for the most part.

Sam I think you are a quality poster but your follow up responses in this thread seem like a cop out to justify looking very silly in this hand.

I quoted Bluffthis's post because this is what I previously posted and it needs to be repeated.

Calling preflop and folding to a push is VERY VERY VERY poor. Hopefully I made myself clear.

[Melchiades]

[ QUOTE ]
also, this is going to be a stone-cold move with air preflop a much larger % of the time than people are crediting.one i am willing to follow through with on the flop when i hit no pair no draw quite often.

[/ QUOTE ]
"Right."

Nice fold samo. He clearly had AA.

[SmackinYaUp]

[ QUOTE ]


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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who the [censored] are you to call people idiots? Very few people agree with you yet no one has called you an idiot. I always look forward to your posts but I have to say thats a pretty condescending thing to say.

If I'm calling 50BB preflop with KK, im calling a potsized bet on any flop. 50bb does not = playing for set value. If you can find a fold preflop then fine but whats the point in calling 50BB only to fold when you miss the set. A flop push is coming probably 95% of the time here and that should be taken into account before you call that much off preflop. KK is not a bluff catcher, its a strong hand preflop and when 50BB have gone in PF, then the rest should go in on the flop.

[MDMA]

SmackinYaUp:

I haven't even said anything about whether I like the fold or not; what MY approach to this problem is isn't really relevant, I was just trying to illustrate for people how I thought Sam was thinking, and why there IS logic behind it.

This doesn't mean the fold is good, it's just me trying to explain the thought process behind it, and why it's not so insane as a lot of people would like to believe based on the responses in this thread.

Also, that part about me calling people idiots was never specifically about THIS hand, clearly you failed to see this. My comment was about that way of thinking GENERALLY, e.g not realizing peoples frequencies for a certain move changes from street to street based on YOUR responses to his previous actions, which I was trying to give an example of by that turn-river-thing, e.g you calling down a second barrel because you believe he's firing 60% of the time w/ air here, but you still fold on river because you assign him only a 10% chance of bluffing river AFTER you called him on turn, regardless of what card came on river.

[Gus Spangles]

melch, poppin,

annoying. i posted towards the beginning of this thread why i found sam's play in this hand to be very poor in a nice way without having to rub in his face how incorrect he was this particular instance.

like i said i have respect for sam's game, and yes of course i am going to have AA a LOT of the time here. however not that often, and on this hand i did not.

[KingNeo]

Regardless of the responses in this thread, MDMA and Sam are 2 of the best posters on this entire forum.

Keep up the nice work fellas.

[FoxwoodsFiend]

[ QUOTE ]
SmackinYaUp:

I haven't even said anything about whether I like the fold or not; what MY approach to this problem is isn't really relevant, I was just trying to illustrate for people how I thought Sam was thinking, and why there IS logic behind it.

This doesn't mean the fold is good, it's just me trying to explain the thought process behind it, and why it's not so insane as a lot of people would like to believe based on the responses in this thread.

Also, that part about me calling people idiots was never specifically about THIS hand, clearly you failed to see this. My comment was about that way of thinking GENERALLY, e.g not realizing peoples frequencies for a certain move changes from street to street based on YOUR responses to his previous actions, which I was trying to give an example of by that turn-river-thing, e.g you calling down a second barrel because you believe he's firing 60% of the time w/ air here, but you still fold on river because you assign him only a 10% chance of bluffing river AFTER you called him on turn, regardless of what card came on river.

[/ QUOTE ]

MDMA,

As one of the "idiots" that disagrees with you, let me clarify my quote of "i agree with the other player" from earlier in this thread. I have NEVER seen a preflop 4-better not push the flop. Perhaps Samo was giving the guy credit for realizing he must have a big hand and thus tightening villain's pushing range, but the vast majority of the time he's erroneous to do so. This is especially true considering how likely the opponent is to be poorly responding to Samoleus' aggression with some sort of hopeless bluff or overvaluing JJ.

In other words, thanks for the revolutionary insight that your opinion of villain's holdings can sometimes change from preflop to the flop, justifying a flop line inconsistent with the thinking behind the preflop line. But when the flop action is pretty much automatic and happens nearly every time in this situation, it can't be used as a signal to narrow villain's range. So unless we're going on these legendary "gut hunches" to change villian's ranges, there's simply no ground on which to change our estimation of villain's hand as his flop bet is non-indicative.

[SmackinYaUp]

MDMA, I admit I was probably a little quick to be offended and although I disagree with the hand in question, I did find the rest of your post to be very interesting.

Also, I am quite aware that calling on one street does not lead to instacalls the rest of the way down. However I am not aware of any time I would call off significant chunks of my stack without planning on putting the rest in.

Honestly, I will never undertstand this particular hand unless Samo decides to explain more.

[MDMA]

FF: First of all, please, my mentioning of idiots was never meant to offend anyone; I was simply explaining that this way of reasoning IN GENERAL is very bad reasoning, and illustrated that by an example that so clearly shows this, e.g when calling down second barrels and still folding to a much less likely 3rd barrel although nothing has changed; except for the bettors frequencies, a fact a lot of people just seem to ignore.

This specific hand would be an EXTREMELY bad example if you wanted to try to explain that concept, since it's doubtful we could ever apply that kind of reasoning here at all.

I was just trying to attack the principle behind that faulty logic, and it was really never directed at this hand at all (since, as I said, it's very, very doubtful it's even appliable in this case), but rather at the idea of this in general which a lot of people still fail to grasp.

I understand from your response that you think that I think this concept is of the utmost importance in this hand; I don't. As I said, I sincerely doubt whether you can take that concept into consideration here at all given how much went in preflop and how little information we gain after the flop (e.g the only information different on flop compared to preflop is that we would expect a lot of 4-bet bluffs to give up.) I was just speaking of that idea in general based on some responses in the thread that gave me the impression of not understanding this.

I'm sorry you feel so aggravated that you had to resort to sarcasm (e.g "thanks for the revolutionary insight...") when I never meant to berate anyone.

[EmpireMaker2]

The fact that people are writing 7 paragraph papers about this hand makes me laugh.