Hot answers tagged

11

Before you bluff an amateur be sure they are willing to make a big lay down. Sounds like you put 435 at risk to win 130. You put him on a 2 pair or a big pair. If you really had QQ, TT, or QT would you over-bet the turn like that? No you would bet like 1/2 the pot and get more value on the river. Yes it looks bluffy. You have no outs. Pair your 7 or 3 is ...


10

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 ...


10

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 ...


9

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 ...


8

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 range,...


8

Running it multiple times does not move EV an inch. It only reduces the variance. I think the example from kiota is spot on (+1). On the river the number of down cards is 44. Even after you see 2 cards the bet was placed before. If you hit on the first then you are less likely to hit on the second. If you miss the first you are more likely to hit on ...


7

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 ...


7

"A hand may be considered and mucked if player is not at his seat" - WSOP rules. This is hand abandonment. "At his seat" is defined as touching or in reach of one's seat. However, this rule only applies in a situation where your hand can be mucked. It is not possible to fold when you are all-in for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is it would ...


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 ...


6

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 ...


6

*Range charts made with https://premiumpokertools.com/equity-calculator Here's my analysis! Assuming your opponent is min-raising about 80ish percent of hands preflop, a reasonable calling range against your small 3-bet size might be this: After the flop, removal effects make villain's range look like this: When you shove 3.5 times the flop, the villain's ...


5

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 ...


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

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, ...


5

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 ...


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 ...


5

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 ...


5

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 ...


5

In all games I've ever played, if a player is all in for less than one big blind, players must still call an amount equal to one big blind and the minimum raise is still to two big blinds as usual. If after action has been closed for the betting round, there is one or fewer players who are not all in, then any surplus bets would be returned to the non-allin ...


5

Here is another way to look at it: Gained if you call and win: 30+50 = 80 Lost if you call and lose: 50 Your Equity = 0.36 EV = Equity(Gained when win) + (1-Equity)(Lost when lose) EV = 0.36(80) + (1-.36)(50) EV = 28.8 + -32 EV = -3.2 Plug in 0.38 for your equity and you will see that its indeed near a break-even call. How did they get that formula? Lets ...


5

EV does not depend on how many times you run it, only variance does. I will try to illustrate it with a simple example: Assume heads-up play. You play all-in on the turn and you have x outs to win the hand. Scenario 1 - Run it once Cards_left = 52 - 4 (deck) - 4 (in your hands) = 44 P[win] = outs / cards_left = x/44 (you have x/44 equity to win the whole ...


5

This is an expert opinion and not expert answer. While were I am at we have been doing the blind ante in larger NLH games and NLH tournaments this question has not come up with me anyway. Yes the all in player is in for the ante. Because if the player has been dealt in before, the player has already posted an ante prior which entitles him to hands until he ...


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 opponents....


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

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.


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 = €1800,...


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 would ...


4

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


4

Your right that ruling was wrong. A raise is at minimum is double the bet, when someone goes all in for something less then a "full raise" it is not technically a raise. There is not really a good common phrase for what it is. What gets confusing for some people is that these *less then full raises do no reopen the possibility for the original bettor to ...


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