Hot answers tagged

5

Yes, you might be 80% against a random hand, but unless he really is just gambling on his last hand (how can you know?) his likely range will significantly lower your odds. For example: You're getting pot odds of 42%. Your card odds are around 18% if he's only ever shoving AA in this spot, around 23% if he's shoving AA or KK, and 50% if he's shoving AA, KK ...


5

Unless you think your opponent only ever does this move with AA, you're likely to be at least a 70-80% favourite to win the hand. Maybe not the bet to be making with your entire net worth, but with a portion of your poker bank on the table, I'd call this every time. Of course you're not going to win 100% of the time (and it hurts when you do lose - ...


2

Your opponent is entitled to know your stack size. You have a responsibility not to deceptively stack your chips, obscure them, or otherwise interfere with your opponent's ability to judge your stack. You do not, however, have to help him count. If he asks the dealer for a count, the dealer can and should count your chips, and you may not interfere (though ...


2

Bad beat Jackpots are zero sum. There is really no skill involved in hitting one. The hands you need to start with, essentially pocket jacks or better, you are usually going to be playing anyway. Then there are the small suited connectors. Many players play these hands for way to much on the premise that a jackpot justifies it. The big problem with a big ...


2

I own a poker tour in Colorado that specializes in "bar poker". I feel your pain in the sense of not wanting people who aren't spending money to win anything, but the way the law is interpreted in my state it's just a change you are going to have to take. As an owner, I don't want non-paying customers to win any more than the venue (bar) does. Generally if ...


2

Not Sure if it breaks laws, but you could give paying customers an advantage by adding to their chip stacks if they buy products. As long as it's obvious to everyone of course. However, that may mean it's not neccesarily a "Freeroll" anymore. Ethically speaking, "weeding" out non buying customers from winning may amount to cheating on the poker providers ...


2

I am waffling on this. I think I could be convinced by any strategy that tries to get all of UTG+2's stack in the middle, and I could also be convinced to fold to a shove by UTG+2 if you call or min-raise the flop. I think this really comes down to reads you might have on UTG+2. If he's tight, then I'd be inclined to fold against a flop reshove from him. ...


2

Often the reason you end up loosing before reaching a final table means you didn't put enough pressure or you pressured randomly. Knowing your opponents is the key to success in poker. You should maybe try to learn on playing against better players(it's called leveling yourself). You're really good playing against bad players but late stage most of the bad ...


1

I am a winning cash game player and have been playing the cash games for over 25 years. I always look at my hand right away, and have noticed that most players do the same. The reason for this is because if I and every other player at the table look at their cards in turn, then the game will slow down to a crawl... This is not good for the game. There are ...


1

I would wait as long as possible to buy in and focus on making it to the time of the add-on. I'd approach the question this way--how many chips do you expect to have after level 6 and what do you expect to spend for either of the following two scenarios: 1) you buy in right away or 2) you wait until as long as you can. For the second scenario, assume ...


1

The most common way to blow up a big stack is to get in a confrontation with an aggressive opponent who also has a big stack. If you enter a pot with such an opponent, make sure you either have position on him or a very strong hand. Your chip advantage is put to much better use pressuring small and average stacks. Make small bets and raises that could ...


1

This is a bad decision. In turn, certainly, a rap on the table should be taken as a check, but I would never automatically take a dark bet that wasn't unambiguous. If this player had a habit of making ambiguous moves like this to judge his opponent's reaction, you might have a case. But if he acted verbally, clearly, and quickly after the card came, I have ...


1

Action continues. It is substantial action, two players have acted on their hands by betting and calling. If the action would of been less, like a couple of players mucked, maybe a misdeal. With a caveat that it could be ruled differently in different venues.



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