Player Discussion

[El Diablo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You know Mason's pissed when he doesn't say "Best Wishes".

[/ QUOTE ]

If anyone has reason to be pissed in this thread, it's me, but I'm not even pissed, just disappointed.

[/ QUOTE ]
i think you guys are arguing semantics at this point. mason's said his wording about which hand is "better" was poorly formulated, he's now just claiming that calling the reraise is +ev. yes, he had to concoct a case using tortured logic and dubious assumptions, as well as retreating from that aforementioned wording, but i don't see how there's any point left in grilling him anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no ambiguity in better, imo.

[Phaedrus]

[ QUOTE ]
the jacks want the ace-queen suited to fold...

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
if the ace-queen suited folds as they should...

[/ QUOTE ]

Under the Fundamental Theorem of Poker it can't be correct for both players to be rooting for the same thing.

If the cards were face up the player with the AQs would think:

Damn! I wish I was had his hand because it has an EV of $40 while mine only has an EV of $15.

Then he would call because folding is a $15 mistake.

[lapoker17]

At the very least, they should give Diablo a red name.

[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me try one more time. There is no question the jacks are the better hand. But at the point in time the question is asked, the jacks want the ace-queen suited to fold because the expectation for the ace-queen suited is positive from this point on out which means the jacks lose money from that point on. I have made this clear in my other posts.

The expectation equation needs to be started from the point in time that the question was asked. If you choose to start the expectation equation from the beginning of the problem then it will show that the jacks are the profitable hand and the ace-queen suited is not.

In othe words, someone else would gladly take over Player A's position (he holds the ace-queen suited) from that point on if he didn't have to put in the original $40, and that was the point of my answer.

As for the jacks, they have made in this hand more money than what the ace-queen suited will make from this point on because they have already made this money. Remember if the ace-queen suited folds as they should, and no one else plays, the jacks gets the $55 already in the pot.

I don't see how it can be more clear than this.

MM

[/ QUOTE ]

Prefering that your opponent fold is not the same thing as wishing you were them if they call!

[aba20]

Mason,

I can see why many of the best posters end up leaving 2+2. I wasn't around when others(Abdul Jalib, etc.) left but I can see by your treatment of Diablo in this problem why others in the past have left. It sucks to swallow your pride and saw you are wrong, but as a mature adult you sometimes need to.

Brian

[TheWorstPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me try one more time. There is no question the jacks are the better hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
From OP:
[ QUOTE ]
This of course started a discussion as to which hand was better. Most of the table agreed that the pair of jacks were better since they would win over 50 percent of the time in a show down. Then someone said, "Let's ask Mason since he writes all the books." My answer was that if someone was all-in, he jacks would be better, but if they each had chips left, which was the case here, the ace-queen suited was better.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how it can be more clear than this.

[/ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[El Diablo]

Just to remind everyone what the question was in the first place:

[ QUOTE ]
What happen was that a player raised to $40 and then got reraised to $150. The original raiser then folded and showed AQ. His opponent then showed JJ.

This of course started a discussion as to which hand was better. Most of the table agreed that the pair of jacks were better since they would win over 50 percent of the time in a show down. Then someone said, "Let's ask Mason since he writes all the books." My answer was that if someone was all-in, the jacks would be better, but if they each had chips left, which was the case here, the ace-queen suited was better.

Well, no one understood what I was talking about. No wonder the games are good.

[/ QUOTE ]

And clarification from Mason re: what the question is:

[ QUOTE ]
The question is regardless as to whether it is right or wrong to call the raise, if you do go ahead and call it, which hand would you now rather have. (Of course in reality if you hold the ace-queen you don't know that your opponent holds precisely jacks and vice-versa.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason, you are just plain wrong in your assertion that the answer to this question is AQs (using YOUR assumptions, which I believe are nowhere close to correct, but that is beside the point). I have tried multiple times in this thread to explain where you got confused, but you seem to refuse to even attempt to understand where you went wrong in your logic. It is very dissappointing to me to see such advice so vehemently and arrogantly defended by 2+2.

[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]
Mason,

I can see why many of the best posters end up leaving 2+2. I wasn't around when others(Abdul Jalib, etc.) left but I can see by your treatment of Diablo in this problem why others in the past have left. It sucks to swallow your pride and saw you are wrong, but as a mature adult you sometimes need to.

Brian

[/ QUOTE ]

This quote:

"My answer was that if someone was all-in, the jacks would be better, but if they each had chips left, which was the case here, the ace-queen suited was better."

from the original post makes it clear that his intended point had something to do with postflop action.

If the "real point" was this business about AQs having a profitable call, then it would be true whether or not the players were allin. If JJ's $150 raise were allin, AQs should still call, because the call has positive expectation. By calling, AQs takes $ from JJ. Exact same as if there is money behind. Yet Mason's OP claims that AQs > JJ only if there is money behind. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PROFITABLE CALL ARGUMENT HE MAKES LATER

This entire thread is an exercise in ego. He reconstructed his argument because he refused to admit he was wrong. What a joke.

[mikech]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let me try one more time. There is no question the jacks are the better hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
From OP:
[ QUOTE ]
This of course started a discussion as to which hand was better. Most of the table agreed that the pair of jacks were better since they would win over 50 percent of the time in a show down. Then someone said, "Let's ask Mason since he writes all the books." My answer was that if someone was all-in, he jacks would be better, but if they each had chips left, which was the case here, the ace-queen suited was better.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how it can be more clear than this.

[/ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
i think you guys are arguing semantics at this point. mason's said his wording about which hand is "better" was poorly formulated, he's now just claiming that calling the reraise is +ev. yes, he had to concoct a case using tortured logic and dubious assumptions, as well as retreating from that aforementioned wording, but i don't see how there's any point left in grilling him anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]
i've been very critical of mason in this thread, calling 2+2's credibility into question, but he has backed away from the "better" claim. i don't know what we should expect him to do now, publicly apologize? c'mon. he has backtracked, let the man save some face and let's move on.

[El Diablo]

[ QUOTE ]
Mason,

I can see why many of the best posters end up leaving 2+2. I wasn't around when others(Abdul Jalib, etc.) left but I can see by your treatment of Diablo in this problem why others in the past have left. It sucks to swallow your pride and saw you are wrong, but as a mature adult you sometimes need to.

Brian

[/ QUOTE ]

I can only wonder how Mason/David would respond if Mason's arguments in this thread had been made by Lee Jones, Rolf Slotboom, or Paul Phillips, among others.