An absolutly WORLD CLASS play in my opinion......your thoughts please

[The_Dealor]

In order to know if this is a good fold i guess we would have to know how often this guy makes this kind of laydown, and what % is correct, which is impossible to find out.

It can be compared to a friend of mine kinda, he is a decent player, mainly plays in home games or weak tournys, if he makes a play at someone, and they call him with middle pair, or ace high, or a weak hand, he always assumes that they are just a weak player calling with any two cards and falling in love with their hand because they have paired.

But to his own admission if he makes that exact same play against someone who he thinks can at least play the game, he respects it as a good call.

If the guy who folded 44 was a well known respected player maybe people would have assumed he just read the guy perfectly and therefore on this particular hand, nevermind whether its a losing play in the long run, knew he was behind.

I understand what you guys mean that folding is a losing play over a period of time, but if your sitting at the table, and you are just sure you are beat, do you think, no well hang on, if i fold here 100 times i will wrong more times than im right so im going to call anyway, even though are almost positive you beat.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

NEVER is a bad word in poker. For example, I flop a set in position, bet the flop strongly and get called in 2 places, the turn puts 4 cards of the same suit on the board and its shove, fold to me and I'm not getting at least 3.6:1, I'll probably fold

[tarheeljks]

seriously take this esp talk to the SMP forum

[allyasia]

reading this remind me
I think phil hellmouth say, internet players are better then normal average poker players, because they play more hands on internet.
BUT,they cannot be the best, because no internet player can fold a SET, when it's beat.

[Praxising]

[ QUOTE ]
I would point out that if you are playing against someone who keeps beating you for no reason you can see, then whatever is happening will, in your perception, be no different to ESP.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this is a valid point, and sometimes happens. But I don't believe this is always the case. Brunson wasn't saying others had it - he was saying he had it - as well as others. Here, you stated, pretty much categorically:

[ QUOTE ]
But no credible experiments have ever found a trace of ESP

[/ QUOTE ]
This is incorrect as to fact. Some of the more compelling math that demonstrates the ability was done by the head of the Stanford (I believe) statistics dept - poker is math, some say, and so should be understandable to most players. If you want info, try Googling "remote viewing" and see what pops up.

However, it doesn't matter. You will use your own esp, call it whatever you like and believe that's what it is. I'll do it my way. It's immaterial, really. I don't believe in math as the essential driving force in poker judgements because I think all the behavior based on probability is based on a load of false assumptions. If you do believe in it, you should play that way.

I've folded sets and been glad I did. I've never folded one I regretted. Other donkelicious plays have been made by me to my opponents' delight from time to time, but the big laydowns...not so much. I trust myself. Probability is only one tool. IMHO, anyway.

prax

[Gonso]

Wait, lets review this one more time, lol. This is getting out of hand. The player open limp-calls a pair, and makes bottom set on a dry board. Standard action ensues, and no where does this guy shows any real strength. Then, he

[ QUOTE ]
goes into the tank for 40-50 seconds and peeks back down at his cards and says to andy, "man andy i feel like you got it, i got a nice hand, but i feel like you got it"

[/ QUOTE ]
...and folds, showing his hand. That's what happened here in the OP's story.

Now, based on the result, some poeple are coming up with ideas like there must have been a "set-specific tell", or some level of ESP to explain it. Do you seriously consider these ideas every time you see someone makes an oddball play which turns out to be correct? Where was this ESP when he played 44 vs 88 in the first place? If he had a "set-specific tell", why did he call the T600 flop bet?

[SNOWBALL]

I saw a this nutter lady check fold bottom set when a flush draw hit the river. The other dude almost certainly didn't have a flush and the pot was a gooooood size. Later she called me down with some abominable hands. People is weird. A single hand means nothing.

Anyway, even if "SP" had a strong physical tell, it would still be wrong to fold. Andy could have been overexcited about a different big hand, like top 2 pair.

[Flip-Flop]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

- THERE IS MUCH MORE TO POKER THEN PROBABILITY !!!


[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe. But not this hand.

Sincerely,

One of the Know It All Pricks.

PS. Maybe now that you've vented all your pent up hostility you could try articulating a position, like a reasoned analysis that would explain this "sick laydown" as something other than a negative EV play saved by dumb luck.

[/ QUOTE ]

My position was known with my first post in this thread.
I don`t call it a world class nor do I call it an idiot move.
It`s a very situational move and only one that can explain it is the dude that made it.
I`m just getting lil tired of robot-like online players that jump to conclusions too fast every time a poker move does not compute with the math they learned from some book somewhere that someone wrote.
On the other hand, I wouldn`t want hands like these to make people stop quoting well known books and players and start thinking for themselves.
I want my competition as close-minded as possible.
So it`s all good.
[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[tarheeljks]

[ QUOTE ]
Wait, lets review this one more time, lol. This is getting out of hand. The player open limp-calls a pair, and makes bottom set on a dry board. Standard action ensues, and no where does this guy shows any real strength. Then, he

[ QUOTE ]
goes into the tank for 40-50 seconds and peeks back down at his cards and says to andy, "man andy i feel like you got it, i got a nice hand, but i feel like you got it"

[/ QUOTE ]
...and folds, showing his hand. That's what happened here in the OP's story.

Now, based on the result, some poeple are coming up with ideas like there must have been a "set-specific tell", or some level of ESP to explain it. Do you seriously consider these ideas every time you see someone makes an oddball play which turns out to be correct? Where was this ESP when he played 44 vs 88 in the first place? If he had a "set-specific tell", why did he call the T600 flop bet?

[/ QUOTE ]

just another reason this esp talk is [censored]

[El_Hombre_Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, ESP is the only viable reason I can think of to lay this hand down.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then you can't be a very good poker player.

[ QUOTE ]
If I had ESP, I would lay this down. But short of that, the ratio of hands he could/should be betting that I beat far outweighs the number of hands he could/should be betting that beats me, and there is already a pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless he spotted a set specific tell.

[ QUOTE ]
And showing its the absolute worst, if anyone at the table has a heartbeat or a brain. You just announced your willingness to fold pretty much anything to aggression on a dry board.

[/ QUOTE ]
Au contraire, very much au contraire.

If he had spotted a tell, giving the world the impression you will fold for entirely spuriuous reasons under circumstances where you would normally not is advertising false information.

In poker, usually considered (when believable) to be 'a good thing'.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. I have never even claimed to be a good poker player. But I wouldn't need to be to see a problem with set mining, flopping a set, and then folding that set in this situation to aggression in a $60 Donkament

2. LOL. Where did any of this come from? A "set specific tell?" As likely as the Easter Bunny. B.S. Peddle it elsewhere. Again, ESP is the best reason I've heard so far, and I don't believe in ESP. Maybe it was the ol' pocket 8s tell I had on old Bob. This is a fairy tale, concocted to impress fools.

3. I haven't the slightest idea how you could possibly claim that this whole situation is actually a winner because the guy is giving false advertising as someone who is weak tight but actually isn't. What evidence is there other than the mere result that he isn't just engaged in a weak tight play, which is actually not false advertsing at all, but rather just plain old weak tight play. If this is really for meta-game purposes, I can think of better uses for all those chips than convincing players at the table to take shots at you.

If a "set specific tell" and ESP are the best you guys have got, I'm going to consider this matter concluded.

Weak tight fold of a probable best hand, justified only by the outcome.