Insane HH from Niagara 10k involving THE Vanessa Rousso (and Shaniac)

[aislephive]

[ QUOTE ]
btw I think folding the flop is really insane! Vanessa has showed quite a few times to have no concept of the relative value of hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. I saw another hand she played in a Stars tourney where she slowplayed KK preflop with very deep stacks, and gave a ton of action on a rag flop like her hand was the nuts.

I think folding 47s here is atrocious against Vanessa, and probably vs anybody. We made a small flop bet, Shaniac probably raises a good amount of hands here, obviously two pair and sets, but stuff like flush draws / pair + straight draw a fair amount of the time as well. The point is Shaniac is raising a far wider range than just flopped straights, and Vanessa could easily be going nuts with two pair, let alone a set which she would never fold ever no matter how deep or how much action she got. Don't fold plz for the love of god.

[aislephive]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
whoa...that's definitely false. all that has to happen is you stacking off with a second best 7 high flush more than they stack off with whatever they called with, and that is exponentially more likely to happen 400 BB deep OOP than 100 on the button.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Or with 2nd nut straight to nut straight. Granted it didn't happen in this spot, and I don't think anyone is advocating folding here even because of villain(s), but just because this hand is almost best case scenario doesn't mean it isn't bad to overall.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reverse implied odds with 47s have way more to do with the flush over flush possibilities than the straight over straight ones.

[WarDekar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
whoa...that's definitely false. all that has to happen is you stacking off with a second best 7 high flush more than they stack off with whatever they called with, and that is exponentially more likely to happen 400 BB deep OOP than 100 on the button.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Or with 2nd nut straight to nut straight. Granted it didn't happen in this spot, and I don't think anyone is advocating folding here even because of villain(s), but just because this hand is almost best case scenario doesn't mean it isn't bad to overall.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reverse implied odds with 47s have way more to do with the flush over flush possibilities than the straight over straight ones.

[/ QUOTE ]

While it may happen more, you can also get away from a 7-high flush a lot easier than a 2nd nut straight.

[aislephive]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
whoa...that's definitely false. all that has to happen is you stacking off with a second best 7 high flush more than they stack off with whatever they called with, and that is exponentially more likely to happen 400 BB deep OOP than 100 on the button.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Or with 2nd nut straight to nut straight. Granted it didn't happen in this spot, and I don't think anyone is advocating folding here even because of villain(s), but just because this hand is almost best case scenario doesn't mean it isn't bad to overall.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reverse implied odds with 47s have way more to do with the flush over flush possibilities than the straight over straight ones.

[/ QUOTE ]

While it may happen more, you can also get away from a 7-high flush a lot easier than a 2nd nut straight.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that when you have a straight on a non flush or paired board there are tons of hands people will get it in with that you beat. Not so much with a baby flush on a flush board.

[uclabruinz]

Curtains, you're a 2p2 legend in my book, but you're really wrong here. Go back and reread Ansky's posts, please.

[Requin]

If I'm understanding this right you guys are arguing that our -ev decision will automatically force us into future -ev decisions?

[postoakpoker]

the verdict seems to be that raising w/ 74 utg 400 bb deep has negative implied odds. the only argument against that so far is that raising in that spot w/ 74 can benefit your meta game. but isn't it hard to benefit the meta if you don't go to a showdown? can doing something "deceptive" without anybody knowing what you're doing actually benefit meta on a hand for hand basis? (obviously someone will catch on that you're playing loose UTG if you raise 25% of your hands)

[postoakpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
If I'm understanding this right you guys are arguing that our -ev decision will automatically force us into future -ev decisions?

[/ QUOTE ]

If I'm comprehending what they're saying, I believe that this -EV decision CAN lead to future -EV decisions, but it's not automatic. We can avoid marginal situations

[Requin]

Yeah but if it's not automatic then it's dependent on our playing well or badly and curtains is right.

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
whoa...that's definitely false. all that has to happen is you stacking off with a second best 7 high flush more than they stack off with whatever they called with, and that is exponentially more likely to happen 400 BB deep OOP than 100 on the button.

[/ QUOTE ]

wtf? This makes no sense. If you played a simplistic strategy of simply opening allin on the flop if you flopped the nuts, yet check folded everything else, you would lose less than 150 per hand. Honestly everyone who is saying that you are somehow losing more than 150 per hand, once you've put the 150 in, is completely insane.

It's not like we have 72o. We don't have to put all our chips in the pot when we flop a flush draw. And again, even if we play with the strategy I described, we lose less than 150. If you choose to play with a different strategy than me by guest. If you think that your strategy loses more than 150 then my simplistic yet stupid one is better than yours. However it's completely ludicrous to say that our EV after raising to 150 is more than negative 150.