Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="aliengenius, post: 899040, member: 11924"] Ok, let me make some purely theoretical arguments against your concept: 1. Although no hand is usually that big of a dog to another in hold'em (even a dominated ace has a 30% chance to win), that is taking into account SEEING THE RIVER. For example: super tight player raises, and you are certain he has a big pair; you hold 22, and call a raise with then intention of only continuing if you hit a set. Your 22 is 20% to win vs. his AA (5:1 odds): [B]IF[/B] you see all five cards! However, you are only 7.5:1 to flop a set (vs. 5:1 for all five cards). So you have to fold to his c-bet when you miss. The point I'm trying to make here: although no hand is, for example, a 7:1 dog to any other hand, this still isn't enough to complete the sb many time. Why? Because you wont usually see the river, especially since: 2. You can often times [U]hit and still lose[/U], especially with a very weak hand. Maybe you're a super post flop player, and maybe you can lay down A4o on an A72 flop, maybe not. But then, why call 20% of your stack if you need to hit THAT hard to continue. In other words, your setting yourself up to spew with one pair that is probably no good. This is especially true in a multi-way pot, where even TWO pair might not end up a winner. Your argument is an attempt to understand implied odds, but really you end up putting yourself into [I]negative implied odd[/I] situations a lot of the time. 3. Your action is essentially a passive one (call and hope to hit/huge), but there are other more profitable avenues available to you-- if a raiser gets multiple callers, why not try a squeeze play? If there is 20% of your stack out there already to win, why not shove and put them to the test? ^^fairly unorganized thoughts off the top of my head, fwiw. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us