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

[Black Aces 518]

[ QUOTE ]
How does this explain why it is irrelevant??

Anyway your question does not sound like a true or false question anyhow. Based on pure statistics, the answer is true. However there's always going to be more to the equation. Stack sizes...position, reads, raises, PF vs post flop, # of players...etc....
So my answer would be conditional, therefore I cannot say either way.

Given the AA problem in hand 1 I'm just considering the pure statistical nature of the problem. As I figure it there are 40 cards left after we subtract Adanthar's hand, the board cards, the burn cards, and the SB's hand.
Villain can have 1 J out of his 2 cards. 1/40 x 2 = 1/20.
So is it not a 5% chance he has the J??

[/ QUOTE ]

UTG goes allin. UTG +1 goes allin. UTG +2 goes allin. MP1 looks at his cards laughs and goes allin. The odds of being dealt AA are 1 in 220. Therefore the odds MP1 has AA are 1 in 220, right?

[Clayton]

[ QUOTE ]
OK OK we get it. Great point, lousy example. Let's not kill the mystique here.

[/ QUOTE ]

YOU ARE DEAD TO ME

[snelgrave]

Hand 1: I'm curious why you called the turn if you thought your "hand sucked?" What river card would change your decision? You were crushing everything except Jx and only QQ and KK can catch 2 outers to best you. Even a river A wouldn't change the relative strength of your hand.

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I like you hand in hand 1 if one of your aces was a king, except I would probably have called the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

Soss,

I realize there is some hyperbole involved, but if you call AK on the river, [img-vomiting guy.]

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought 23o would be terribly obvious.

[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.

[A_PLUS]

[ QUOTE ]
And before I get slammed, I'm not saying you shouldn't call because you have 8 BBs left. I'm saying, if your read is pretty solid that villain has you beat, for whatever reason, don't spite call because you're getting tasty odds, have a pretty hand, and would "only" be left with 8 BBs.

[/ QUOTE ]

When is a read ever that solid, given that he has no history with the players, and it is online.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
Hand 1: I'm curious why you called the turn if you thought your "hand sucked?"

[/ QUOTE ]

My hand "probably" sucked, but if they both check whatever river comes after I overcall (BB is the major problem) they are both another species of donk and I'm usually good.

[ QUOTE ]
When is a read ever that solid, given that he has no history with the players, and it is online.

[/ QUOTE ]

90% of the non-ABC stuff I do is based on a read on somebody I've hardly noticed until 30 seconds and two streets earlier, when he did something odd.

[uclabruinz]

Oh I'm sure if you think hard enough you can think of some examples.

[A_PLUS]

I think online 'reads' are grossly over valued in general. You constantly see players ignore any statistical reasoning when developing uber-tight hand ranges for their opponents (I am not talking about either of these hands, more of the 'I put him on JJ+,AK hands') So many random factors effect other people's play. I believe, that given the action in the above hand #1, it is impossible to ever narrow our range tight enough to make this a fold. Especially with no history, early in a donk filled event. Someone trying to get a timing tell on me at this stage of an event, is sadly over estimating its usefullness, as my reaction depends on: other tables, what is on TV, what is on 2+2, if I am on a laptop or desktop, etc, etc.

-I realize that the hand itself wasn't the point of the OP. And I think the intended point is a very good one.

-I am very impressed with how the OP 'reads' his opponents hands. But I think he is over estimating how often he is correct in this case. Let's say Adanthar is the best in the world, at 'reading' hands online. I think it is still impossible to correctly fold AA in that spot. I might be wrong, but until someone convinces me, I will live in blissful ignorance.

[adanthar]

ok the rest of your post is fine, but

[ QUOTE ]
I think online 'reads' are grossly over valued in general.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img-vomiting guy]