Hot answers tagged

9

If your laying down AK to a loose cannon that is raising all in all the time you are making a huge mistake. These calls you made all in were just fine. You will get the guy sooner or later. The 99 he had you were slightly behind but for the Qx you dominated. I will sometimes get out of games like this, usually because I am not able to get the guy and ...


7

You haven't provided enough information. This is entirely dependent on what the action was leading to the all-in, current stack sizes, and the frequency with which your opponent is taking said action. I can tell you, just from experience, that your opponent would either need to be very short stacked, ~13-15BB or less, or jamming all-in with a very wide ...


7

You also have to take into account whether you are playing a tournament or Cashgame. For tournaments, the ruling is as described by Radu Murzea In Cashgames, there is usually no showdown until the river is dealt. The player who has gone all in has to show his cards first. The player who called can then still muck his cards if he cannot beat his opponents ...


7

Well, I'd have to say "it depends". If you are going against AA then you are a 4 to 1 dog. Not a good situation. If you are playing against a super-rock (TAG) then it might be a fair bet that their super-aggressive play is advertising AA. However, those players are fairly rare and the average TAG is capable of going over the top with AKs, in which case ...


6

It is definitely profitable to be calling with AKo and AKs against someone shoving 100% of their hands. Using the Poker stove calculator, AKo will win 65.20% of the time against an opponent's random holding, and will still win 62.12% of the time against an opponent who shoves only with the top 20% of hands dealt. Similarly AKs wins 67% of the time against ...


6

The rule is: The cards must be shown in the case of all-in when there are no more possible moves (fold/check/bet/raise) to be made by any of the players that are in the hand. Now, this happens when: all the chips of the participanting players are in the pot there is only player in the hand that has chips. This is so because, since he's the only one left ...


5

My short answer is this: as long as your opponents have 100BBs, it doesn't matter how many BBs you have (as long as you have them covered). You will only play for their 100 BBs. Shoving every hand when you have 10000 BBs is as bad as shoving every hand when you have 100 BBs. The difference is that in former case you don't have to re-buy every time after you ...


5

See here: How are side pots built? . I don't think the rules about side pots will change if a player is so severely short stacked. In your particular case, I think it will be: Main Pot: 40 (10 from each player, since player 2 has the fewest chips) Side Pot 1: 60 (player 1 has 20 left, so players 3 and 4 also put 20 chips in. 3 x 20 = 60). Side Pot 2: 40 ...


5

You've played the hand fairly weak up to this point: betting $30 into a $200 pot and checking the Ace on the turn. He can't give you much credit for an Ace at the moment - maybe he thinks you have a flush draw or a PP? He is likely to continue bluffing if you just call. Generally how you proceed depends on your table image - if you aren't likely to be ...


4

Firstly, the term "short stack" only really relates to a pre-flop description of relative stack sizes of all players. It doesn't have a reasonable use after the action has started. That said, a player may be "short stacked" post-flop but that's entirely down to what action has occurred. Specific to the example, player A can only call the All-In for $7, ...


4

This is actually an interesting question and not because it might relate to good strategy when considering hand equity match-ups or Expected Value, (let's face it, random All-In shoves every hand don't fair well in terms of overall strategies) but because it's a good example of bankroll management, and how people misapply it. The key concept here is how ...


4

Yes, definitely go all-in. Most people go all-in pre-flop with hands way worse than KK, e.g., AK, AQ, QQ, JJ. And statistically speaking, KK is only worse than AA, so you should definitely go all-in.


4

This sounds like a play money game, am I correct? If so, then I can assure you these same people would not be doing this in a real money game in almost all typical circumstances, except maybe a tournament structure where the blinds are very high relative to stack sizes. The simple answer to your second problem is, a better starting hand than your ...


4

It depends on a lot of things. The first thing to consider regardless of your cards is how well do you manage your bankroll ? If you are playing for all the money you have in your life then the answer is easy here... Even with AA you should fold, and you should leave the table and play some lower stakes. Even if the math shows a positive expected value you ...


4

I agree with vtzl that this was the wrong hand to defend with, not only because of the bad math of the hand, but it also really messed with your table image with this guy if you had to show this hand down. Once this kind of player sees you show down a hand like that he is coming for you. He will be at your blind and he is upping his aggression every time you ...


4

It is true that running it multiple times will not influence the expected value and therefore the hand of the other player does not matter in the decision to run it multiple times. As an example: Player A has a probability of 0.9 to win the pot of €2000,- and Player B a probability of 0.1. The expected value for a single run: Player A: 0.9 * 2000 = ...


4

Short answer: no, player 1 can't raise here. Assuming here that player 1 opens the betting in your example, player 2's all-in is less than an official raise, so it does not re-open the betting for a player who has already acted. Player 3 is free to raise here because he has not yet acted, but he elects to call instead. If player 3 had raised, player 1 ...


3

I would go back a little further than the point you're asking about here. When the cards are being dealt out, your stack is ten big blinds, and the blinds are coming up fast. I think you're in territory where your only options are fold or open-shove, and you may not have the luxury of waiting for a better hand to come along. Given the way the hand actually ...


3

It's important to realize that running it more than once does not change the odds at all. It will only reduce the variance for you and your opponent. If you want to reduce your variance as much as possible, you could run it as many times as the stub (remaining cards in the deck) would permit. Even more efficient would be to just chop the pot based on your ...


3

The only one I've heard is something like "x-way all-in", for example "There's 4-way all-in".


3

You lose as many chips as he had, the rest of chips are considered the same as an uncalled raise and are returned to you.


3

Common rules: The initial bet was the $20 big blind. John's $35 all-in does not constitute a raise, and so does not affect the action. Pete's $45 all-in is the first raise. The next raise would have to be $70. There are a few places I've been with a house rule that an all-in of more than half the proper amount does constitute a raise, and so in one of those ...


3

No. Player 2 can either call by putting in 100 to match the big blind here, or he can raise to any amount 200 (100 big blind + 100) or more. Then players 3 and 4 will have their right to act, during which they can each opt to call, raise, or fold when the action is on them. A player going all-in for less than the blind doesn't eliminate those players' right ...


3

It seems the app is poorly designed. If you raise and win a pot your stack still goes down. The developer forgot to add the winning amount back to the winners stack. So as far as the game is concerned after an all in the player is out of the game as they have no chips. As for all-in betting, if it's a no limit game you can bet everything you have at any ...


3

if your bet leaves you with the stack less than the bet itself, you should have gone all in on the flop. In general, if your bet takes the third of your stack you have to go all-in.


3

We need a bit more information. Starting stacks, bets pre-flop etc. From what it sounds like so far you should have pushed all in pre-flop or after the flop. One thing I disagree with however is when you said that in the long run you would lose money to a flush draw. If you are positive you have him beat and the only thing that will save him is if he ...


3

Your "paradox" arises from the fact that aside from your bet, the pot contains enough expected value already for each player that neither could improve their expected ending stack by folding. With too small of a stack, you can't bet enough so that the opponent loses money. However, with your bet you can still reduce the expected overall gain from his point ...


3

Player three wins the money from the other players that match player three's money. In this case player three is going to get the main pot, which is seventy five. That is twenty five from player one, twenty five from player two and player three's original betting. Player one or two only wins the seventy five in the main pot if he can show down a better ...


2

• The minimum legal raise is equal to the previous raise amount. • If the previous all-in raise amount was less than the minimum raise, then the minimum raise is equal to the previous minimum raise. • If a player goes all-in for less than the minimum legal raise after the open raiser, and is called by at least another player, the open raiser will only be ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible