# Tag Info

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 ...

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 = €...

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

Yes. You must burn a card every street, I.E. before the flop, before the turn and before the river.

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

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 ...

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

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 ...

2

When you are short stacked you unfortunately don't have the chips to force a bad decision. Accept the opponent is not going to fold. 1/4 pot bet is not going to get them off a flush draw. If you are short stacked then you need to look at it as you are getting 4:1 and you are not going to get a better chance to get your money in. If you held back and ...

2

You have 3 pots \$40 - player1, player2, player3, player4 \$120 - player2, player3, player4 \$100 - player3, player4 Hand order 1 - Player1 Player2 tie 9933A 2 - Player3 Player4 tie 3322A Player1 and Player 2 split the \$40 pot Player2 wins the \$120 pot Player3 and Player4 spit the \$100 pot

2

What is the reasoning behind this? If your goal is to reduce your variance, then a good number of times to run the cards is the LCD of your winning chances. For example, if you are 66% and he is 33%, you want to run it three times. If you are 75% and he is 25%, four times should be enough, etc. (it is "expected" that you will win the correct number of ...

1

Agree burn the turn and river serves no purpose if everyone is all in preflop. If the card is marked that information is of no value as betting is over. But it is still the rule. In a home game you are free to modify the rules. Same thing with running the board multiple times. Burning the card serves no purpose as betting is over but they still do it.

1

Burn cards are burned in live poker to prevent cheating. If somebody spies, loads the deck or otherwise has an idea of the order of the cards then burn cards help mix it up and make cheating more difficult. Mostly, it is a deterrent so that people don't think they can get away with cheating. This also prevents conflicts about loaded decks etc that could ...

1

I think it is marginal to play that from the BB 8-9 suited would be been (maybe) OK Preflop you were getting 3.5 : 2 A flush has the chance of stacking an aggressive player You would be playing it for the implied odds But since you only started the hand with like \$65 you don't even have that great of implied odds You were getting pot odds to call the \$6 ...

1

First I would not necessarily put him on a flush draw. He raised pre flop with only you. Flush draw does not play well head up and you know he does not have the Ace. \$100 preflop with even K little suited is very aggressive. A flush draw would likely just call the \$30 on the flop to see another card for free. \$100 is more of a value bet. On the draw why ...

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