Posted Tue Jun 13, 2006 8:36 pm GMT by tutubird
This is a cash game 25 NL. Say UTG goes all in for $25 and you know that he has AK off. Everyone folds to you in the Big Blind with $25 and you have 33. Because you are in a cash game, you are technically are a slight favorite, does that mean you should call since you are going to win money in the long run?
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 Tue Jun 13, 2006 8:44 pm GMT by tame_deuces
Yes.
Posted Tue Jun 13, 2006 8:53 pm GMT by JackKingOff
how u know he has AK? or are u just giving us a situation?
Posted Tue Jun 13, 2006 9:30 pm GMT by LeafsFan1122
It's just a given situation, but call. This is where cash games differ from tournaments. In a tournament it may not be wise to make that call because of the structure or whatever it may be but when given even the slightest advantage in a cash game, take the race.
Posted Tue Jun 13, 2006 10:37 pm GMT by crack
Yes
Posted Tue Jun 13, 2006 11:35 pm GMT by mindgame
What's the issue? Unless you can raise, you MUST call in a cash game when you know you are the favorite--that's the whole point of knowing anything at all about the game.
Posted Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:26 am GMT by supafrey
I dont like races that are any less than 60-40, so I'd probably fold.
Posted Wed Jun 14, 2006 8:21 am GMT by Gogie
| supafrey wrote: | | I dont like races that are any less than 60-40, so I'd probably fold. |
So I guess you don't like making money! :D As some wise poker sage once said (I've paraphrased this a bit....actually I've paraphrased it a lot), poker is not a series of discrete sessions but one continuous game - you have to press your advantage everytime to come out ahead in the long run and learn to live with the variance in the short run.
Posted Wed Jun 14, 2006 8:29 am GMT by Johny
I don't like coin flips for my entire stack in cash games. I know there's a very good chance that I'll be able to get my money in as 4-1 favorite or better later on.
Posted Wed Jun 14, 2006 8:31 am GMT by Dave B
I agree w/ supa here. Unless the size of the blinds price in a call, why risk your stack when you know you are 52/48. I think you can always find a better spot.
Know, if there was some dead money posts that fold to the all in and you are last to call and $48 gets you $60, that is a different story.
Or, if you feel that you can use the extra chips to push the table around if you win, then you might consider calling too.
But, if some drunk shows his AK by accident and it is on me to call and double up w/ a low pair, I likely fold. Why bother. I will wait for him to show 66 when I have 88.
Posted Wed Jun 14, 2006 8:34 am GMT by Johny
| LeafsFan1122 wrote: | | It's just a given situation, but call. This is where cash games differ from tournaments. In a tournament it may not be wise to make that call because of the structure or whatever it may be but when given even the slightest advantage in a cash game, take the race. |
Most times in tournaments you have to win a lot of coin flips to be successful. I'll gamble a lot in tourneys, but don't see the point in cash games.
In tournaments, the blinds increase so you can't wait around for a hand, just get your money in and gamble.
In a cash game however, you can wait around without worrying about the blinds. That's the reason I try to avoid coin flips.
Posted Wed Jun 14, 2006 8:59 am GMT by Gogie
Ultimately I guess it depends on your bankroll. If you're playing with a significant chunk of your bankroll at risk, then I guess you look for better odds to get it all in. If you can afford to lose a few all-ins knowing that in the long run you'll come out ahead (without decimating your bankroll), then I guess you call. Lots of variables to consider.
Posted Wed Jun 14, 2006 9:13 am GMT by KingOHearts
I think gogie makes a good point...if you can rebuy then you dont really have to "wait for a better situation" to get your chips in. If its better than a coin flip over the long run, I'll take it and rebuy if I lose.
Posted Wed Jun 14, 2006 9:28 am GMT by shorn7
Obviously, from a purely mathematical standpoint it is a clear call since in the long run you will win more than you lose. But, I think there is definitely some merit to waiting for a better spot to get it all in. I am not fond of playing for my entire stack preflop on a coin flip, especially where (as in this case), there are so many more other hands that my opponent could hold where I am in huge trouble. So, as with many things in poker, it really depends on the situation at hand.
IF he raised all-in and turned over his cards and showed the AK, I would call. But otherwise, I would probably lay 33 down here because of the other factors stated above.
Posted Wed Jun 14, 2006 9:41 am GMT by Dave B
Sure, with an infinate bankroll. However, bad streaks are bound to happen. But, consider this:
52% favorite odds of losing 5 in a row 2.55%
60% favorite odds of losing 5 in a row 1.02%
52% 6 times 1.22%
60% 6 times .041%
52% 7 times .59%
60% 7 times .16%
My point? If you cant reload infinate times, your odds of going broke playing coin flips is 2.5-4 times more likely if you hit a bad streak and have 5-7 times the buy in. How many times have you lost 5 coin flips in a row? I have. You likely have too.
Posted Wed Jun 14, 2006 9:51 am GMT by supafrey
| Gogie wrote: | | Ultimately I guess it depends on your bankroll. If you're playing with a significant chunk of your bankroll at risk, then I guess you look for better odds to get it all in. If you can afford to lose a few all-ins knowing that in the long run you'll come out ahead (without decimating your bankroll), then I guess you call. Lots of variables to consider. |
Even at the highest stakes I play I have about 40 buyins. It's not that at all.
I'm a much better player than most - I am in no rush to gamble with my 50/50s.
Posted Wed Jun 14, 2006 12:52 pm GMT by Gogie
This discussion is kind of reminding me of those people who, when playing blackjack, will take even money with their blackjack against the dealer's Ace but won't take insurance otherwise. It's the same bet - you will lose money in the long run by taking even money but lots of people think you're crazy if you don't take it. Don't even bother trying to explain the odds and expected value of declining insurance vs. taking it. In one ear and out the other.
I'm not implying that supa is an idiot for folding - far from it. The decision ultimately gets into expected value vs. the law of large numbers. As Dave B points out, if you can't rebuy an infinite number of times than you do stand a chance of going completely broke. The more times you can take advantage of slight odds, the better your chances of coming out ahead are. If you were offered a coinflip whereby if you win you get $2 million but if you lose you lose $1 million, how many of you would take the bet? Even though you're a getting 50% odds to win $2 million vs. 50% odds to lose $1 million (meaning your expected value for the bet is $500,000) I wouldn't take the bet if it was a one-time thing. If I was offered this bet an infinite number of times (and I had the bankroll to finance it) then of course I'd take it. I think this is the position that supa is taking. Is your bankroll large enough that you can afford to take the positive odds? If not, then you're probably better off to live to fight another day.
Posted Wed Jun 14, 2006 3:07 pm GMT by supafrey
Poker is a very easy game. It's alot easier to wait until the next hand where I'm a much bigger favourite and don't have to give away stupid information like this hand.
Posted Thu Jun 15, 2006 3:38 pm GMT by jimmer
this is NOT a stupid question!
Posted Thu Jun 15, 2006 5:12 pm GMT by mindgame
I hear most peopel saying it's not enough to ABSOLUTELY KNOW you're a favorite--you have to be a better favorite than 48/52. How often can you absolutely know ANYTHING in a poker game???? I remind you that your chances of winning are not 4% better than his, but 8% better than his (52/48 =1.0833..). These AREN'T coin flips. So how much better do you have to be??? I guess that all depends on your tolerance for risk, but lord in heaven....
Where are all you people when I push in my stack on AK and get called by small pairs time time after time (and losing, I do not doubt, 52% of the time)? Would you mind schooling my opposition on this caution you preach? I am unable to find anyone practicing it, but I'd be perfectly happy to have 132 out of the 144 possible pairs fold every time I was betting my AK.
Posted Thu Jun 15, 2006 5:36 pm GMT by KingOHearts
I'll take the edge when I can get it. Its not like I have to choose between this situation and a better one, I can play them both! I'll take the +EV situation every time......
....except the problem posed by the OP and re-emphasized by Mindgame is that you rarely if ever KNOW that villian has AK. If you think there is even a 25% chance he/she has an overpair, then your +EV is out the window.
Which is why, in reality, I dont make this call very often in a cash game.
Posted Thu Jun 15, 2006 5:46 pm GMT by supafrey
| Quote: | | I remind you that your chances of winning are not 4% better than his, but 8% better than his (52/48 =1.0833..). |
Horrible, irrelevant use of math.
Posted Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:54 pm GMT by Jefecaminador
Well you also have to take into consideration the future consequences of wiinning/lossing the coin flip. IF you win you double up, and have that much more power in the game which should lead you to make even MORE money. And if you lose, you can buy back in for the same amount you lost, but now your opponent has doubled up. The question you have to ask yourself is, does having him double up impact me worse than the benefit of me doubling up for future profits at the table. If your opponent is a donk and liable to piss away his winnings then you damn well take the 52/48.
And this isnt even taking into account how your call will effect your table image. If you're generally tight, calling here can only benefit you, it'll make it more likely that you'll get paid off on your big hands later.
So basically, it depends, but in general I say take the chance.
Posted Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:55 pm GMT by tutubird
Thanks for the replies. I was just wondering about this in cash games if whether not I am losing a significant amount of money if I fold ( which I was doing in the first place ). I agree with supafrey what I would rather put my money in a better spot.
Posted Thu Jun 15, 2006 10:59 pm GMT by tame_deuces
Trying to avoid 'coinflips' is a very exploitable trait in poker.
Posted Fri Jun 16, 2006 4:14 am GMT by supafrey
| tame_deuces wrote: | | Trying to avoid 'coinflips' is a very exploitable trait in poker. |
Probably, if they're smart enough to know my cards. Most people aren't. Not a concern.
Posted Fri Jun 16, 2006 8:12 am GMT by UrAteUp
Coinflips are just what they say. You have a chance to win but you also stand a chance to lose. It might be right to call everytime in an AK VS pp situation but for some players it just isn't going to happen because the mind tells them its a bad call and the hand moves the mouse to the fold button.
Edit: Yes I will and have made this type of call before and would do so again.
Posted Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:12 pm GMT by Phil14312
Supa I don't understand, given an infinite bankroll and you 100% know your opponent has AK, you wouldn't call with 33? Real world, nothing would ever be like that. But waiting for a better spot, c'mon. Its pure math and if you don't call, you are leaving money on the table.
Posted Fri Jun 16, 2006 4:01 pm GMT by supafrey
| Phil14312 wrote: | | Supa I don't understand, given an infinite bankroll and you 100% know your opponent has AK, you wouldn't call with 33? Real world, nothing would ever be like that. But waiting for a better spot, c'mon. Its pure math and if you don't call, you are leaving money on the table. |
I understand the concept - I'm not disputing it. It's just not a profitable enough situation for me to get all excited about... I honestly think I'm good enough to get a better opportunity with no rush.
Add in some meta game bs about not showing off my mediocre cards, coupled with a very individual belief that too many aces are out there ("other people would have called if they had AK, AQ, AA, etc, so there's probably a bunch of aces left in the deck")... and it's really not a big deal for me.
Posted Fri Jun 16, 2006 4:32 pm GMT by Phil14312
| supafrey wrote: | | Phil14312 wrote: | | Supa I don't understand, given an infinite bankroll and you 100% know your opponent has AK, you wouldn't call with 33? Real world, nothing would ever be like that. But waiting for a better spot, c'mon. Its pure math and if you don't call, you are leaving money on the table. |
I understand the concept - I'm not disputing it. It's just not a profitable enough situation for me to get all excited about... I honestly think I'm good enough to get a better opportunity with no rush.
Add in some meta game bs about not showing off my mediocre cards, coupled with a very individual belief that too many aces are out there ("other people would have called if they had AK, AQ, AA, etc, so there's probably a bunch of aces left in the deck")... and it's really not a big deal for me. |
Leave out everything else and you call right? Profitable enough, in a cash game, we should be excited about putting our money in during any profitable situation. No doubt something like this is almost impossible to come upon real world, but in our theoretical example, you have to call.
Posted Fri Jun 16, 2006 4:36 pm GMT by golddog
I'm going to sidetrack this for a moment. This isn't directed at the OP, BTW.
I seem to remember a movie line like: "There are no stupid questions....only stupid people with questions."
Anyone?
Posted Fri Jun 16, 2006 4:44 pm GMT by Nihil75
Isn't it "There are no stupid questions, just stupid answers." ?
I may be wrong on that one though. 
|
|
