Posted Wed May 04, 2005 9:59 am GMT by Skribbles
Every other time I've hit quads, I've barely got paid off for them. This guy however... was a moron.
PokerStars Game #1632301244: Hold'em No Limit ($0.50/$1.00) - 2005/05/03 -
19:44:59 (ET)
Table 'Bistro' Seat #7 is the button
Seat 1: Love2HatePS ($39.60 in chips)
Seat 2: vpraze ($37.95 in chips)
Seat 3: lobo54 ($85.25 in chips)
Seat 4: Ultra Rays ($124 in chips)
Seat 5: llko32 ($37 in chips)
Seat 6: Dave_Babych8 ($84 in chips)
Seat 7: Murfdawgg ($64.85 in chips)
Seat 8: criminal ($118.35 in chips)
Seat 9: graxx ($162.70 in chips)
criminal: posts small blind $0.50
graxx: posts big blind $1
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Dave_Babych8  
Love2HatePS: calls $1
vpraze: folds
lobo54: raises $1 to $2
Ultra Rays: folds
llko32: folds
Dave_Babych8: calls $2
Murfdawgg: folds
criminal: calls $1.50
graxx: calls $1
Love2HatePS: calls $1
*** FLOP ***   
criminal: checks
graxx: checks
Love2HatePS: checks
lobo54: bets $4
Dave_Babych8: calls $4
criminal: folds
graxx: folds
Love2HatePS: folds
*** TURN *** 
lobo54: checks
Dave_Babych8: checks
*** RIVER *** 
lobo54: bets $79.25 and is all-in
Dave_Babych8: calls $78 and is all-in
*** SHOW DOWN ***
lobo54: shows   (a full house, Queens full of Deuces)
Dave_Babych8: shows (four of a kind, Deuces)
Dave_Babych8 collected $171 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $174 | Rake $3
Board
Seat 1: Love2HatePS folded on the Flop
Seat 2: vpraze folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 3: lobo54 showed and lost with a full house, Queens full of Deuces
Seat 4: Ultra Rays folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 5: llko32 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 6: Dave_Babych8 showed and won ($171) with four of a kind, Deuces
Seat 7: Murfdawgg (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 8: criminal (small blind) folded on the Flop
Seat 9: graxx (big blind) folded on the Flop
What the hell was the guy thinking pushing all-in? Sure he had a full boat, but the best outcome for him on this hand would be splitting the pot. No one in their right mind would call this bet without a Q in hand. And had someone been holding Q5 he would have been beat by that.
I wish I had the chat from after the hand. According to him I played this hand horribly. 
Did you know that participating in a poker forum can help you improve your own game? Be it by sharing experiences or simply asking for help, participation in a forum helps you focus and keep 'on topic' which will help you improve your game. You can learn from other players feedback and from their experiences. Why the THP poker forums? We offer one of the best managed texas holdem poker forums available, and the community within is far more friendly than those typicaly found on other sites. We've made a 'lurkers edition' of the poker forum available here on Holdem Poker Online, but we encourage all visitors to register and join in on the conversations on TexasHoldem-Poker.com
Posted Wed May 04, 2005 10:17 am GMT by arras
How can he consider you playing the hand poorly when you took all his chips  What more could you have done?
Posted Wed May 04, 2005 10:29 am GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| Skribbles wrote: | What the hell was the guy thinking pushing all-in? Sure he had a full boat, but the best outcome for him on this hand would be splitting the pot. No one in their right mind would call this bet without a Q in hand. And had someone been holding Q5 he would have been beat by that.
I wish I had the chat from after the hand. According to him I played this hand horribly. |
Well you obviously didn't play it poorly since you broke him, but I don't see what's wrong with his pushing in. He was beaten by exactly 2 hands: Q5 and 22. Even if he bets a small amount, you're gonna come over the top and there's no way he folds. He was going broke either way.
I also think you'll find some people will call that overbet with a 5 or another pocket pair because the size of it looks like a steal.
Posted Wed May 04, 2005 10:29 am GMT by Skribbles
I have no idea. From the way he plays, I guess I should have pushed all-in on the flop. 
Posted Wed May 04, 2005 10:35 am GMT by Skribbles
| Sean_in_NJ wrote: |
Well you obviously didn't play it poorly since you broke him, but I don't see what's wrong with his pushing in. He was beaten by exactly 2 hands: Q5 and 22. Even if he bets a small amount, you're gonna come over the top and there's no way he folds. He was going broke either way.
I also think you'll find some people will call that overbet with a 5 or another pocket pair because the size of it looks like a steal. |
So he bets out small, $10. I go over the top for $20 more. He just calls. The best he could be hoping for is a split pot, in my opinion. It may just be me, but with a 2 pair on the board, you don't bet unless you have the boat and not the low boat.
I just hate (well I love it) his bet. The only person that would call that bet, would either split the pot (Pokerstars wins the hand) or have him beat.
Posted Wed May 04, 2005 10:50 am GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| Skribbles wrote: | | So he bets out small, $10. I go over the top for $20 more. |
Why in the world would you only raise $20? You have the same predicament. You're only getting called by a Q, but you didn't think he had one? AA,KK,JJ etc don't check the turn, IMO. The check screams, "I HAVE A QUEEN!"
Posted Wed May 04, 2005 11:21 am GMT by Skribbles
| Sean_in_NJ wrote: | | Why in the world would you only raise $20? You have the same predicament. You're only getting called by a Q, but you didn't think he had one? AA,KK,JJ etc don't check the turn, IMO. The check screams, "I HAVE A QUEEN!" |
I was 100% sure he had a Q. I could have put a bet out on the turn, but I had the 2nd nuts and wasn't too worried about him having QQ so I wanted him to put the first bet out.
I just said a raise of $20 for an example. I don't know what I would have done. I wouldn't have pushed in because I would have wanted to make some cash on the hand. I would have probably raised between $30-$50 and hope that he would go over the top.
I don't see how my predicament in the same. I was sure that I had the best hand and was thinking about how to get the most money out of him.
Posted Wed May 04, 2005 11:53 am GMT by suitedaces84
I don't think his bet on the river was that bad. Maybe he had you pegged as a fish who would use the logic of 'he's betting big because he doesn't want to be called therefore he doens't have anything good, so I should call with my marginal hand'. Try just betting your big hands strong you'll be surprised how many players don't believe you, this won't work everytime, but it extracts money from the true fish very efficiently. There are a lot of bad players out there, who would flop trip twos, slowplay and not be able to let go. There are only two hands out there that beat him he's gotta figure it's a split pot at worst.
Posted Wed May 04, 2005 1:08 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| Skribbles wrote: | | I don't see how my predicament in the same. |
You both are only getting called by a Q (or in his case, quads). That's your predicament: how much can I bet and still get called by a hand without a Q. This time, it's not a problem at all. The money is going in the middle on this hand, whether you do the square dance or not.
Posted Thu May 05, 2005 12:56 am GMT by Skribbles
The difference is I know that I'm going to win the hand no matter what I bet. He is only going to get called and have a split pot or lose.
Posted Thu May 05, 2005 5:23 am GMT by fiezk
That's not exactly true.
I would imagine that many players would call that all in bet with less than Queens full. The mere size of that bet would, to some players, suggest that he's bluffing.
Posted Thu May 05, 2005 7:35 am GMT by Idaho
I think you are all overcomplicating it. When there is two pair on the board 95% of the time the hand shows down between the top boat and the bottom one. The quads are such a rarity that they don't really figure in calculations.
Posted Thu May 05, 2005 8:23 am GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| Skribbles wrote: | | The difference is I know that I'm going to win the hand no matter what I bet. He is only going to get called and have a split pot or lose. |
He can't possibly expect you to have 22 or Q5. From his perspective you could have a single deuce, a 5 or any other pocket pair as well as a Q. He just looks like an idiot to you because you know what you have.
| Sean_in_NJ wrote: | | That's your predicament: how much can I bet and still get called by a hand without a Q. |
This applies to both of you, and I still stand by this. He believes, without a doubt, that he has the best hand. I would too.
Posted Thu May 05, 2005 8:47 am GMT by Soup_dog
I agree. I would have thought my full boat was good too. I would never bet $75 though... I'm too cheap. (Maybe thats why I keep losing. Hmmmmmm)
Posted Thu May 05, 2005 9:30 am GMT by Skribbles
I agree that he thought he hand was good. But he pushed $75 into a pot that was only $18 when he didn't have the nuts.
Anyway, I just really hate his bet (except that it was against me). 98% of the time that he gets called, it would be a split pot. All that would be accomplished is feeding the rake. 1% of the time he gets a fish that would call. And the last 1%.... he GIVES ME MONEY!
Posted Fri May 06, 2005 5:28 am GMT by Verdi
What if he had two queens? Would that make you a fish for calling that bet without the nuts?
Posted Fri May 06, 2005 6:33 am GMT by Idaho
| Verdi wrote: | | What if he had two queens? Would that make you a fish for calling that bet without the nuts? |
Yeah just what I was thinking.
Posted Fri May 06, 2005 9:12 am GMT by Skribbles
As I said in a previous post, I was 100% sure he did not have quad Q's. He min raised pre-flop, which barely ever happens in NL100 when someone has anything JJ or higher, based on my experience. I never called him a fish, just a moron. His bet on the river was foolish. That is all I'm trying to say. He pushed $75 into a $20 or so pot, an extreme over bet in my opinion. I just think that its foolish risking your whole buy-in when if you do get a caller, your getting a split pot at best.
Posted Fri May 06, 2005 9:40 am GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| Skribbles wrote: | | I just think that its foolish risking your whole buy-in when if you do get a caller, your getting a split pot at best. |
And we're saying that's not always the case. People have called with much worse.
Posted Fri May 06, 2005 9:52 am GMT by Soup_dog
He is looking to catch one of those people we love called... the fishies. Who think everyone is bluffing and feel compelled to call their bluff with the top pair. Happens all the time from what I've seen. Unfortunately, all to often I'm the fishy.
Posted Fri May 06, 2005 2:29 pm GMT by suitedaces84
| Skribbles wrote: | | 98% of the time that he gets called, it would be a split pot. |
That's simply not true. You over-estimate the ability of the average player at that table. There are a lot of very bad players who would call without a queen.
I'm sure you wouldn't have called without a Queen, but that's true of fewer players than you might think.
Posted Fri May 06, 2005 3:05 pm GMT by Skribbles
Well then I guess I under estimated the sheer idiocy of some players. To me it just looks like a horrible bet where nothing can be gained except feeding the rake.
Posted Fri May 06, 2005 3:32 pm GMT by Soup_dog
LMAO. I can't remember who's tag line this is... but I loved it. It was something like genius' are limited but stupidity is limitless. I always lliked that.
Posted Fri May 06, 2005 3:53 pm GMT by Skribbles
The problem with the world is stupidity. I'm not saying there should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?
*I love this statement*
|
|
