|
|
#42
11-30-2006, 05:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 50/100 big big pot
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] you can say the same about any situation in poker. justifying making a mistake by saying you're not going to make it often is just stupid. it's still a mistake. [/ QUOTE ] So far you are the only one saying it's a mistake. I call here in a heartbeat. 15-1 with huge implied gets me excited because im usually the one laying the price. Nice to have the positive side of a longshot every now and then. Tuco. [/ QUOTE ] you're crazy to think you have huge implieds here. if someone can quantify it, be my guest, but i'm pretty sure your implied odds are close to zero, and probably on the negative side, assuming you play close to correctly postflop, and don't throw away things like gutshots when you shouldn't. 
|
|
#43
11-30-2006, 05:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 50/100 big big pot
[ QUOTE ]
ou're crazy to think you have huge implieds here. [/ QUOTE ] Oops. I agree about the implied. My mistake. Doesn't change the fact that 15-1 up against a field that plays bad is still a call IMO. Tuco.
|
|
#45
11-30-2006, 07:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 50/100 big big pot
[ QUOTE ]
I wish people would actually respond to the hand and not Stinky Petes spamming which he seems to do a lot [/ QUOTE ] nobody's responding because it's totally standard. the only part worth discussing is preflop.
|
|
#46
11-30-2006, 08:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 50/100 big big pot
[ QUOTE ]
I wish people would actually respond to the hand and not Stinky Petes spamming which he seems to do a lot [/ QUOTE ] Pete isn't "spamming", he's actually trying to have a good discussion about this. The reason nobody is discussing the rest of the hand is that you played it perfectly and there's not much to discuss.
|
|
#47
11-30-2006, 08:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 50/100 big big pot
[ QUOTE ]
pete, you are calling $50 with 700 already in the pot. You are a crazy person if you think you lose 30 cents on every dollar of immediate ev with 74o. [/ QUOTE ] $15 was just a guess that i made because i was asked for it, and i accept that it might be off by a fairly large margin. i'd love to see some calculations or other reasoning that supports that calling here is +EV. everything i've read on the subject advocates folding. if anyone has any web links or can point me to a book or something, i'd appreciate it.
|
|
#48
11-30-2006, 09:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 50/100 big big pot
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] sometimes i get mad after the hand and go play $500 a hand blackjack. should i factor that in? [/ QUOTE ] Obviously. If the call is going to increase the chance of you losing $500 at BJ, then that is still money coming out of your pocket and should be factored into the EV calc. This is all about optimizing wealth. Who cares how unrelated the factors might be? Your bank account doesn't know whether you lost the money on a river call or on a hand of BJ. [ QUOTE ] you're wrong. [/ QUOTE ] No, I'm not. Are you suggesting reverse implied odds shouldn't be factored into your EV calc? [/ QUOTE ] i think things like implied odds, reverse implied odds, etc. are different than "how much does this bet cost me?" which i take to be more like effective odds.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
