how to play LA maniac lucky idiot?

[GMMigge]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] WTF [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] LOL [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] OMFG [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] ROFL [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

please can anybody lock this totally stupid thread or send it to the no limit forum...they'll probably enjoy it.

[Minimant]

I aggre with my good friend mike here

[Draven]

AA is roughly 49% to win against 5 other random all-in hands. So if everybody has $100 and puts it in the pot, then I have 5:1 pot odds and I'm going to win roughly one out of every 2 trials. Yes, I will lose more than I will win (barely). I stand to win a substantial amount of money in the long run by calling this bet every single time it is offered to me. The only "not very bright" play here is to fold.

Again, this is a cash game. I'm not out of the game if I get stacked.

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

[/ QUOTE ]

It looks as though you don't have a real solid understanding of the mathematics behind the game.

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

[/ QUOTE ]

In a ring game? Without a second thought. In a tournament? Depends on the stage of the tournament. First hand of the main event of the WSOP, no. But we're discussing ring games.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, so if I win (which I will about every other time), I win 5x my bet. I only have to be right 1 time in 5 to make it profitable.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or, in your case ignores the rules "regardless if it is right or wrong."

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Incorrect. It is best to put my whole stack (which isn't my entire bankroll) in the middle with the best hand in this case because of the extraordinary odds that my opponents are offering me. You see, if you fold here then you haven't really considered the consequences. With AA preflop you have the best hand. Period. Can you lose? Yup. But you will win enough to not only make up for the times that you lose, but to make a substantial profit from this scenario.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

As you've already proven, even 72 hits every once in a while. So, since there is a chance that I might lose no matter what hand I hold, should I fold every hand?

Your example really has no bearing on this scenario since the players were all in after the flop.

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Because I'm getting 4:1 with a hand that holds up more than any other hand in the deck.

[doubledummy]

So what you are really asking is, are you a better player than the pre flop odds off an all in with AA against 4 with potential of 6 runners. against 4 runners you are much better than the 20% you need for it to be +EV, however if you were capable of crushing the game, then your $100 is going to bring you much more in time. ie you play 3 hours get to $600 so are $500 up.

When you go all in for your $100 lets assume you win 1 in 3. 2 in 3 times the rest of the session is a reloaded $100 to get to 500, and 1 in three is automatically at 500 without the three hours of play, so presumably the three hours nets you $900 (500 standard profit plus the $400 we win with AA)

Therefore the three sessions provide a win rate of $1900 for $500, when we play AA compared to $1500 for $300 when we fold AA preflop. Without looking deeper it appears in the long run, the average for three sessions is better when we fold pre-flop 19/5 compared to 5/1.

So really what you are asking is, am I better than 3.8/1 return on my money for my average session.

No, not yet I'm not, I reckon when I sit at $100 NL my average return isn't $380 per session, its about $210 so I need to play, however if I have read your question correctly I can see how you could win more by doing so.

Please note that my workings aren't based on any real figures, I have just grabbed numbers that appear reasonable, if anyone has more time to calculate odds Vs all in ranges with four opponents 3 of whom should have decent starting hards (not many call all in with 7-2 off, let alone 2 or 3)
please feel free to rework the problem swith real data.

[doubledummy]

Mind you, you are still giving up money, $400 every 3 sessions if you are a winning player. You only lose if you don't have the capacity to reload for the extra $100.

Still interesting question but I'm calling just the same.

[CaseS87]

[ QUOTE ]


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.


[/ QUOTE ]

ORLY????

[ QUOTE ]
Second, if you answered YES to my question about calling an ALL-IN bet with AA with 4 players ALL-IN and 2 players left to act, then you are not very bright.


[/ QUOTE ]

you are bad at poker. you are an idiot. that pretty much should end this thread.

[xVICTORx]

I think this will be my last post here sharing my thoughts. Some posters here just can't be nice. They hate LAG players and want order in their game - they don't want chaos that LAG players create.

They will be happy to go up against a very poor hand with a premium hand, but then when they loose they start saying things like how can you play those kind of hands, you are an idiot, etc.

I play players from late position regardless what I hold. If I have a feeling that you just have a high pair and I have 2 pair or higher, then I will take your stack, based on the fact that my hand ranks higher than yours and that you just can't fold those aces or kings.

I don't play marginal hands out of position and I don't call raises from late position players with poor hands - I am not an idiot, I don't do anyone any favors. Instead, I attack early position players.

I don't like to see variance in my bank roll and in my stack. I like to sit there and play small pot poker and slowly but surely build my stack, by taking stabs at pots and making creative plays. I'll play big pot post-flop if I have a very strong hand.

I create an image at a table that most players start to think that I am an idiot, and start challenging my raises and bets with marginal holdings, because they start thinking that my holding is very poor on average. I'll fold, but, then, at a wrong time, I'll take their stack. It is great to play LAG, because when on fourth street or river I go all-in with the nuts, I'll get a call from a player with TPGK or TPTK, or Two Pair, or a set. And this is when I recover all my small losses and make all my money.

The reason why I said that going to a showdown with 4 other players with AA is not good, is that you will not be against an average hand against which AA does pretty good. Most likely, you will be against other 4 strong hands: pairs or two suited high cards. No one will put all his money in the pot with J9 off. Therfore, your chances of winning against other 4 players are not that great and pot odds, IMO, don't justify this call. Also, why would you want to see a variance in your roll when you can just wait for the next hand and continue to build your stack slowly but surely?

I see players that call me names and make bad comments towards my posts here. Interesting thing is, when I look at their profiles, they say something like: "I started playing poker one year ago" or "I am a very strong chess player". Well, I've been playing poker for over 5 years now. I have a COMPLETE understanding of this game, and I think much bigger than of those who have been playing for just a year.

And for those who think they are strong at chess (GMMigge), I can prove to you that you still have LOTS to learn.

[CaseS87]

its kind of funny how wrong you are and how out of touch you are with what poker really is.

[ QUOTE ]
I think this will be my last post here sharing my thoughts. Some posters here just can't be nice. They hate LAG players and want order in their game - they don't want chaos that LAG players create.

[/ QUOTE ]

thats wrong. i love lags most of the time because they make mistakes against me.

[ QUOTE ]
They will be happy to go up against a very poor hand with a premium hand, but then when they loose they start saying things like how can you play those kind of hands, you are an idiot, etc.


[/ QUOTE ]

some people do, i have never berated anyone for a play that i thought was sub-optimal, but this is not the reason that im calliong you an idiot.


[ QUOTE ]
I play players from late position regardless what I hold. If I have a feeling that you just have a high pair and I have 2 pair or higher, then I will take your stack, based on the fact that my hand ranks higher than yours and that you just can't fold those aces or kings.

I don't play marginal hands out of position and I don't call raises from late position players with poor hands - I am not an idiot, I don't do anyone any favors. Instead, I attack early position players.

I don't like to see variance in my bank roll and in my stack. I like to sit there and play small pot poker and slowly but surely build my stack, by taking stabs at pots and making creative plays. I'll play big pot post-flop if I have a very strong hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, creative plays. that will never stop being hillarious. so you will fold a set if you know the guy has a flush draw postflop right? this would be logical given your reasoning for folding AA preflop. (you are an idiot btw)

[ QUOTE ]
I create an image at a table that most players start to think that I am an idiot, and start challenging my raises and bets with marginal holdings, because they start thinking that my holding is very poor on average. I'll fold, but, then, at a wrong time, I'll take their stack. It is great to play LAG, because when on fourth street or river I go all-in with the nuts, I'll get a call from a player with TPGK or TPTK, or Two Pair, or a set. And this is when I recover all my small losses and make all my money.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is your only statement that has any real merit.

[ QUOTE ]
The reason why I said that going to a showdown with 4 other players with AA is not good, is that you will not be against an average hand against which AA does pretty good. Most likely, you will be against other 4 strong hands: pairs or two suited high cards. No one will put all his money in the pot with J9 off. Therfore, your chances of winning against other 4 players are not that great and pot odds, IMO, don't justify this call. Also, why would you want to see a variance in your roll when you can just wait for the next hand and continue to build your stack slowly but surely?

[/ QUOTE ]

there is no IMO. pot odds are not a case of opinion in cash games. you are literally just giving away money by folding AA preflop. the reason you are an idiot is because you don't even understand why that is, and continue your posts as though you have COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING OF THE GAME.
if i had my entire bankroll on the table, i might fold AA preflop, but i never will. this is the reason we practice smart bankroll management.

[ QUOTE ]
I see players that call me names and make bad comments towards my posts here. Interesting thing is, when I look at their profiles, they say something like: "I started playing poker one year ago" or "I am a very strong chess player". Well, I've been playing poker for over 5 years now. I have a COMPLETE understanding of this game, and I think much bigger than of those who have been playing for just a year.


[/ QUOTE ]

i have played poker with people who have played for 20 years and have absolutely no clue, i don't get your point.

[Mike]

The poster say's he makes $$ and explains some of _his/her_ game for _your_ benifit.

What is your point?

Do you think you could agree or disagree without being rude about it? This is a forum after all....

[xVICTORx]

Thanks Mike!