Does this hand prove I really haven't grasped PL O/8 yet?

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are arguably exactly 0 hands that can cold-call a re-raise that don't contain an A.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure if you noticed, but this is the PLO8 forum. Have you ever played PLO8? Seriously? At this limit?

Now, if you said that there are exactly 0 hands that should call a reraise, well, that I might agree with...

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're agreeing with me, but have a semantic issue? Got it.

[bbartlog]

He seems to be saying that your claim about hand reading and villain's neccesarily narrow range is overblown. Without knowing more about villain, it's hard to know who's right. Not just a semantic issue though.

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]
He seems to be saying that your claim about hand reading and villain's neccesarily narrow range is overblown. Without knowing more about villain, it's hard to know who's right. Not just a semantic issue though.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, this is one of the problems with discussing hands on the internet. You have to make some sort of assumption that villain plays semi-sane poker unless told otherwise. If villain was the kind of guy who would cold-call a re-raise with JT54r and then call the flop with air, OP needs to tell us that. Because against some idiot like that, obviously you're going to take anything with passable showdown value and head for the river.

But barring gross stupidity on villain's part, he's showing up with a limited range of hands. And that limited range has the odd property that either they completely missed the flop, or completely hit it (ie they're dead or rolling. No inbetween). The ones that hit it create odds insufficient to call off his stack, and the ones that miss it he wants to induce a bluff from. This odd split stems from the fact that hero has no low on an all-low board and thus only wants action from someone who also has no low.

It's probably not a coincidence that villain showed up with exactly the hand sound opening theory for PLO8 says he has to have.

[PorkPieHat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are arguably exactly 0 hands that can cold-call a re-raise that don't contain an A.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure if you noticed, but this is the PLO8 forum. Have you ever played PLO8? Seriously? At this limit?

Now, if you said that there are exactly 0 hands that should call a reraise, well, that I might agree with...

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're agreeing with me, but have a semantic issue? Got it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice use of selective quoting. When you get done reading Play Poker Like the Pros and actually play some PLO8 in the real world we'll talk.

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]
When you get done reading Play Poker Like the Pros and actually play some PLO8 in the real world we'll talk.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you're just flailing around trying to find some way to insult me. That's an expert play, sir [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[EffenDolts]

[ QUOTE ]

It's probably not a coincidence that villain showed up with exactly the hand sound opening theory for PLO8 says he has to have.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's say we read villain for 2345, the other preflop player for an AWWH, and we have AALH. The chances of the flop giving 2345 the made nut low is less than 2% (less for his actual hand). When it happens, though, it is really bad for us if we have no low.

It may seem like we are giving up a lot by backing off with top set here, but it is very rare that we find ourselves in this situation. I don't think it costs us much in the long run to be very cautious here (against sane opponents).

There are a lot of hands that villain could have preflop that hate this flop. A half-pot c-bet should be enough to get rid of him if he has one of these hands. After all, villain should fear that you have A23x, or similar monster flop fit. I can't see him repotting without rolling us.

If there were only two low cards on the flop, I would pot everytime with top set, even flush boards (since villain cannot have the Ace of the flush suit in that case.)

Effen

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When you get done reading Play Poker Like the Pros and actually play some PLO8 in the real world we'll talk.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you're just flailing around trying to find some way to insult me. That's an expert play, sir [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
I can't believe people are still debating this fool. I'm going to make a final comment so I can ignore the [censored].

[ QUOTE ]

Final note: I totally disagree with your analysis of this hand, but I give you lots of credit for being mostly civil in response to some fairly insulting posts.
[ QUOTE ]
I try...

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
No, you've been nothing but a know it all ass in this thread. Which is priceless given that some of the most basic concepts from poker theory have gone over your head. Here they are for you:

<u>1. You must put opponents on a wide enough range.</u> Your logic that he has 23LL exactly is laughable. A2xx, KKxx, A3xx are all likely candidates.

In case you still don't see where you went wrong, I'll break it down for you. Here's what you said:
[ QUOTE ]
You failed to practice hand reading - if you've seen 3 aces, and someone raise from EP in front of you, it's highly likely all four aces are accounted for. That means villain, if he has any kind of hand standards at all, has to have exactly 23LL. Which is exactly the case that rolls you the worst.

[/ QUOTE ]

If villain has any kind of hand standards, he's not calling 14BB cold with 23LL. You can't have it both ways. You also seem to have missed OP's comment that short stack often pot raises, and therefore is not particularly likely to have an A. You failed to practice reading comprehension.

The other point is that 23LL is very small percentage of hands (1.5%); so unless he always folds every other hand possibility (including A2, A3, KK, 3456, A4KK, etc), he will have one of these more likely hands a reasonable percentage of the time. BTW, 3 aces accounted for leaves a 3.6% probability of A2 or A3, more than twice as often as 23LL. Your flaw here is not realizing that the short stacked raiser has a wide range (you should realize this even without the knowing of the regular pot raises). And then being overconfident in the result, because of the fallacy of results oriented thinking - assuming you didn't just look at the results and "work backwards". Had you been smarter or more humble, common sense would normally spot an idiotic conclusion and go searching for flawed premises.

<u>2. You must take the pot size into account.</u> Even giving villain the ridiculously narrow range of 23LL, the pot is large enough to make folding a mistake. Did you realize that?

<u>3. When the pot is large relative to stacks, an opponent fold becomes increasingly desirable over a call.</u>

<u>4. When you have a large pot and a vulnerable hand that you cannot fold, maximizing fold equity is your primary goal.</u>

It's unfortunate that you screwed up the preflop range estimation. But then you mangled it further when you failed to realize that your very own range, 23LL, has 38.6% equity on the flop. Because of the size of the pot, even the restrictions of your own precise range dictate betting the flop.

BTW, if your read is off, it becomes more important that you bet the flop. See principle #2, #3 and #4 above. If someone can't understand why, I'll explain it to them.

Anyway, since you're so pleased with your "read" of 23LL, I'm putting up a poll for your benefit, so you can see how many people agree with your assessment.

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]

If there were only two low cards on the flop, I would pot everytime with top set, even flush boards (since villain cannot have the Ace of the flush suit in that case.)

Effen

[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly. Change the 8 to a 9 on that flop, and you're in great shape.

As I said earlier, people are missing the implication of the made low.

[SplawnDarts]

Wow, now Phil has a whole new batch of misinformation, and a poll to boot. Excelent. I'll put correcting that misinformation somewhere way down on my todo list and get back to y'all. Maybe someone will be nice like last time and post an equivilent but better worded post so I can respond to something with better formatting and structure [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
As I said earlier, people are missing the implication of the made low.

[/ QUOTE ]
It has no implications. The only thing to consider is equity vs the size of the pot.

If the pot was $100, and you had $10 left with this hand, would you fold so you didn't get freerolled?

[ QUOTE ]
I'll put correcting that misinformation somewhere way down on my todo list and get back to y'all.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sounds like someone finally wised up. Even you must have realized how stupid your position is by now. If not, I look forward to your amusing rebuttals.