how to play LA maniac lucky idiot?

[cardcounter0]

[ QUOTE ]
There are two more players left to act, what if they jump in the pot too??

[/ QUOTE ]

This convinces me the whole thing is a joke.

[xVICTORx]

It is not a joke - it is a hypothetical scenario to test your understanding of the game.

Do you call an all-in bet after 4 players went all-in and 2 players left to act?

There are 2 types of behaviors: consequential and nonconsequential.

The first one weighs all positive factors vs negative and then depends on what outweighs what it makes a decision based on that.

The second one believes in the rules and acts upon them regardless if it is right or wrong, because the rules are set to abide them.

Therefore, if you use the consequential behavior, you will make sound decisions, and if you think that just because you have the best starting hand you should go to a showdown with 4 other opponents for your whole stack because you have the best hand pre-flop, then you are applying nonconsequential behavior and, theoretically, bound to make errors, because you are not considering all other important factors that actually state that you may not have the best hand.

Here is an example:

I was sitting at a tournament (I was out of the hand) but here is what happened. It was late in the tourney, blinds were very high, UTG+1 limps in, UTG+3 calls, small blind completes the blind, and BB checks. Flop came Jd 9s 9d. Small blind checked, BB checked, UTG+1 went all-in, UTG+2 called, SB called, and BB called too. SB had 96, BB had 2 diamonds, UTG+1 had AA, UTG+3 had QQ. The turn was Js, and the river was Qd. Here every one made a hand, SB made 9's full of J's, BB made a flush, UTG+3 made the best hand Q's full of J's, but poor AA was left with just two pair.

So, why would you want to be against 4 other opponents with AA??

[Mutant K12]

In a cash game I would go all in every single time with AA preflop against 9 other players already all in. Hell, I would start asking if we could expand the table to 20 players. Yes, you have much less of a chance to win an individual pot vs playing HU, but cash poker is about winning the most money, not the most pots. Nothing short of a heart attack is ever going to make me fold AA preflop, and that would have to be fatal on the spot. I would play them in a bar, I would play them in a car, in a house, with a mouse.

The tournament issue is different, but as others have pointed out that is just poor playing in general preflop and postflop.

[CaseS87]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
why would you ever fold AA preflop in a cash game?? please explain

[/ QUOTE ]

so victor.... you gonna answer my question or just call me stupid and leave it at that?

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, the question was that you are on the button and 4 players went all-in before you and 2 players after you left to act ( lets assume that everyone is playing $100NL and everyone has that much going all-in). So, the first question is what are the odds of winning with AA against 4 other players and what are the pot odds?? The second question is, will this be a sound decision will that be a total gamble?? Third, why would you risk your whole stack in this situation?? Are you sure that you are going to win against 4 other players?? There are two more players left to act, what if they jump in the pot too??

So, therefore, calling this particular all-in bet would be totally wrong unless you actually want to gamble and don’t care about protection of your stack. There will be plenty of other opportunities for you to put your money in, but IMO, this particular one is not it.

[/ QUOTE ]

do you have any concept of EQUITY sir?? why would i need to protect my stack its a frigging cash game idiot.


but seriously, good joke

[CaseS87]

[ QUOTE ]
It is not a joke - it is a hypothetical scenario to test your understanding of the game.

Do you call an all-in bet after 4 players went all-in and 2 players left to act?

There are 2 types of behaviors: consequential and nonconsequential.

The first one weighs all positive factors vs negative and then depends on what outweighs what it makes a decision based on that.

The second one believes in the rules and acts upon them regardless if it is right or wrong, because the rules are set to abide them.

Therefore, if you use the consequential behavior, you will make sound decisions, and if you think that just because you have the best starting hand you should go to a showdown with 4 other opponents for your whole stack because you have the best hand pre-flop, then you are applying nonconsequential behavior and, theoretically, bound to make errors, because you are not considering all other important factors that actually state that you may not have the best hand.

Here is an example:

I was sitting at a tournament (I was out of the hand) but here is what happened. It was late in the tourney, blinds were very high, UTG+1 limps in, UTG+3 calls, small blind completes the blind, and BB checks. Flop came Jd 9s 9d. Small blind checked, BB checked, UTG+1 went all-in, UTG+2 called, SB called, and BB called too. SB had 96, BB had 2 diamonds, UTG+1 had AA, UTG+3 had QQ. The turn was Js, and the river was Qd. Here every one made a hand, SB made 9's full of J's, BB made a flush, UTG+3 made the best hand Q's full of J's, but poor AA was left with just two pair.

So, why would you want to be against 4 other opponents with AA??

[/ QUOTE ]

this is not an example. you said going all in preflop, also in a cash game, not a tournament. this is either a joke, or you are a complete moron. either way you should be banned from posting this dangerous misinformation.

[infinite_loop]

The first thing you should do is quit connecting the results of hands together to create this false idea that he is in a state of being 'lucky.' He isn't. He may have a huge string of situations where he ended up winning as an underdog, but they aren't connected to eachother. He has just as much chance to be lucky or unlucky the very next hand after a stretch.

Play him for what he is. A loose-maniac. Play tight, punish him. Take your edges. That's all poker is.

[kazana]

[ QUOTE ]
There are 3 types of behaviors: consequential, nonconsequential, and forumtrolling.

[/ QUOTE ]
FYP.
And you sir, belong to the 3rd group.

[Punker]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is an example...
I hold 72 off, everyone folds to me on the button, I raise 3 times BB, get re-raised by the BB 2.5 times, I call and the flop comes KT4. The BB comes out firing with a slight overbet and I fold, wondering why the hell I put in 6 BB preflop with 72o. .

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a more realistic example of what will happen 90%+ of the time.

[xVICTORx]

You know, everyone has their own styles. What works for me - may not work for you.

First, I did not call any names on anyone, therefore, I expect to be treated the same way. If you have your thoughts about something, then express them in a nice way.

Second, when I play, after 2 or 3 hours of play, I usually sit at anywhere 4-7 times the buy in, and I do that consistently. I would not advocate my style if I was not successful at it.

Third, I don't play cards - I play players. I made players lay down trip T's with trip 8's.

Fourth, I play next to tight players who sit there and wait for best hands. Sure, I'll loose few small pots here and there, but then I'll take their entire stack.

Fifth, the skill of poker lies in putting your money with the best of it, inducing mistakes, and protecting your money. Going to a showdown with 4 other players with AA is a gamble - not a smart play. Holdem is seven card poker - not two cards.

Sixth, I play players just like you who sit there and think that they will punish me for breaking the law of playing too many hands, but most of them end up being punished themselves. Like I said, LAG style requires good skills and ability to smell the danger. Most of players can't do that and that is why they play tight-aggressive only.

Most of you never get any action because you are TOO easy to read. I however, get paid off on my hands when I put players all-in for lots of money.

[bulldawgblue]

xVictorx - Screen Name PLZ?!?!?!