Is this all-in call with JJ proper? - Page 2

-sk00lb0y- · #11 03-09-2007, 08:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
FreakDaddy,
you are wrong. It may be a call or fold (I happen to lean towards call)but the deciding factor has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not villain has you covered.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the deciding factor?

Ansky · #12 03-09-2007, 08:29 PM

it's just the fact that you see lower pairs/ak/ random retarded [censored] enough times for it to be +EV. Experience tells me this, it's not like solving a puzzle, i just know what that move means in terms of range.

that said, given that this is a thread, im sure the op lost to AA, cause thats how all these threads turn out.

MLG · #13 03-09-2007, 08:30 PM

skool,
whether or not you think that calling is +cEV vs. his weighted range of hands. period end of story.

Ansky · #14 03-09-2007, 08:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
99.99% of the time when someone limp reraises UTG its with AA/KK/QQ/AK,

[/ QUOTE ]

honestly this is just wrong. sorry i can't explain myself, i just really disagree with this.

-sk00lb0y- · #15 03-09-2007, 08:39 PM

Ty Both of you.

FreakDaddy · #16 03-09-2007, 08:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
FreakDaddy,
you are wrong. It may be a call or fold (I happen to lean towards call) but the deciding factor has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not villain has you covered.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I'm saying is, when it's a close decision, which this is (ie you are racing or badly dominated), the deciding factor should be that you are convered. Sorry if you disagree.

MLG · #17 03-09-2007, 08:43 PM

Daddy,
I understand what you are saying. You are still wrong. And this line of thinking is very dangerous and detrimental to your game.

Ineluki · #18 03-09-2007, 08:50 PM

FWIW, Villain had AK. Doing quick calcs in my head at the time, I figured out I was roughly 43% vs my range for him which was quite tight (TT+, AK+). Taking into account what Ansky said, that people make this play with less than that range, and given the fact that I would have had a well above avg stack if I won, I made the call.

Imagethegod · #19 03-09-2007, 08:56 PM

FreakDaddy, it's not about agreeing or disagreeing, it's just disgusting to use these stack sizes as some sort of EV tiebreaker when deciding on which move to make

To the OP, this is a call, and I don't think it's even a remotely tough one without an extremely strong read

FreakDaddy · #20 03-09-2007, 09:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Daddy,
I understand what you are saying. You are still wrong. And this line of thinking is very dangerous and detrimental to your game.

[/ QUOTE ]

And perhaps I didn't make this crystal clear, my OP was precluding to how HERO saw the hand, a close decision. I'd just muck it. I don't see enough people doing this with under pairs to hero's or other Ax combos besides AK.

As a side note, this is a topic that's been debated on here over the years. It's not, yes you are wrong, no you are not. The argument is as follows though: If you are on average better than your competition, should you pass up small edges for bigger ones when your tournament is on the line? Some say yes, and some say no.

My position is yes you should, because I think most tournament players are fairly weak on average (not trying to offend). The bottom line though is that every decision you make should contain a multitude of reasons to consider before you make a conclusion. If you aren't considering this, then it's my position you are not factoring in all the variables. You can disagree, but it's not going to change my position in this, as I've argued this before. I'm always open to hear what you have to say, but I trust my game.

In this particular example, you need to consider that because stacks are so close, villian is also putting his tournament on the line, and this should factor in heavily too.