|
|
#31
02-20-2007, 07:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: I didn\'t protect my hand so I\'ll just play two random cards
[ QUOTE ]
Although your first post "I've never seen THAT before" was about the same level of interest for everyone as well. [/ QUOTE ] Touche, but a throwaway one-liner is rather less clutter than several posts of dispute. And now I'm guilty of posting several posts about the clutter posed by other posts, so I'll stop. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] 
|
|
#32
02-20-2007, 08:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I didn\'t protect my hand so I\'ll just play two random cards
Not to let facts get in the way of a good argument, but my read of the OP is that Mr no-hand offered to give the other guy $12 from his $54 and take back $42. In other words, the valid hand would have received his $12 bet back, plus $12 from the no-hand guy and any limps, blinds, etc.
Obviously, it would be better for no hand to take this versus putting an additional $42 up against a hand that was better than his. I apologize if I missed a hypothetical that changed the underlying facts.
|
|
#33
02-20-2007, 09:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I didn\'t protect my hand so I\'ll just play two random cards
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] If you're holding an 8 high (which is -EV against 2 random cards if you both see the river) and someone offers to give you $12 in place of running the hands, you should obviously take it. [/ QUOTE ] No. The BB did not have a hand. $6 limpers, $12 raise by the 87, and the $3 blinds. If I'm the 87, it's "Give me $21 and let's move on to the next hand or I call your raise, you have no hand, and I win your remaining stack." The 87s had all the power, why should he even consider the BB's offer? Even looking at it from what happened: $42 for 87h to call ...pot becomes total of $115 ( 2*54 + $6 from limpers + $1 sb) 87s is 47.936% vs random two cards. $115 * .47936 = $55.12 $55.12 - $42 call = $13.13 "profit" vs $12 "profit" taking his $12 back. [/ QUOTE ] maybe i'm crazy, but i'll take $12 with 0 variance any day. [/ QUOTE ] Thats because you don't have any [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]! [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]
|
|
#34
02-20-2007, 09:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I didn\'t protect my hand so I\'ll just play two random cards
[ QUOTE ]
Not to let facts get in the way of a good argument, but my read of the OP is that Mr no-hand offered to give the other guy $12 from his $54 and take back $42. In other words, the valid hand would have received his $12 bet back, plus $12 from the no-hand guy and any limps, blinds, etc. Obviously, it would be better for no hand to take this versus putting an additional $42 up against a hand that was better than his. I apologize if I missed a hypothetical that changed the underlying facts. [/ QUOTE ] Nope - you didn't miss a thing. There's just some rather slow posters here that didn't follow along very well.
|
|
#35
02-20-2007, 11:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I didn\'t protect my hand so I\'ll just play two random cards
[ QUOTE ]
There's just some rather slow posters here that didn't follow along very well. [/ QUOTE ] Let it go already....
|
|
#36
02-20-2007, 11:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I didn\'t protect my hand so I\'ll just play two random cards
[ QUOTE ]
Genius. The guy raised to $12 with 87s KNOWING the BB was going to go all-in? And then fought hard to not accept the $18 in the pot and insisted on playing it out? He lost as he so totally deserved to, and $54 dude doubled up. [/ QUOTE ] And the poker gods punish the greedy appropriately....
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
