blonde poker forum

Lets say you have KK and reraise someone all in pre-flop and they deliberate about calling (so they dont have AA), should you A: try to talk them into calling, B: talk them out of calling or C: keep quiet?

In another situation in Omaha on the turn you have the Nut straight and the Nut flush draw on an unpaired board and move all in do you A: try to talk them into calling, B: talk them out of calling or C: keep quiet?

errr, do everything i can to get them to call

Why would you want to talk them out of calling when your at least a 70/30 fave?

Having said that if I have to listen to another live donk say something along the lines " I didn't want a caller, i always get beat on aces", i might throttle them as favour to mankind.

lol yeah

Whats mick foley got to do with this?

I think what Grier is getting at is are people more likely to do what you tell them to, or do the opposite of what you tell them.

Will imploring your opponent to call actually make them more likely to fold?

Is there a belief among poker players that -

saying 'call' really means 'I hope you fold'

speaking means their hand is strong

and vice versa for both of those situations?

Personally, I base my decision on a whole lot of things that have nothing to do with the above, but is there really some sort of truth to all of this?

Silence is consistent and silence is unreadable, so this is the approach I favour. You may talk someone into calling today and think that's a success, but showing 9 others what you say/do to get x result probably isn't in your longterm best interests if you play at the same place.

I've found that people are more inclined to fold if you don't speak because their own doubts rise to the surface during the silence and if you give them long enough to think they talk themselves into folding. If I wanted a call in isolation in this hand I would talk a lot about both calling and folding.

nice wrestling joke i appreciated it

I think what I really want to hear your opinions on is whether its better to win a mid size pot for no risk (i.e. they fold) or a big pot with an element of risk although the odds are still firmly on your side.

With the KK the pot was smallish 900 (small blind 100, big blind 200 and an early position raise of 600) with me going all in for about 3000. So if they fold I have 3900, if they call I win I have 6300 and they call I lose I have 0.
For the omaha I put in 1500 into a pot of about 2500. So if they fold I have 4000, if they call I win I have 5500 and if they call I lose I have 0.

I do think that you always want a call if you know you def have the best of it (which is what I was working for). I actually tried the old please call me trick to try and make it look like I didn't want a call and it seemed to work although I lost both pots.

i never have this problem so couldnt tell you.

If I have K-K and my oppo doesn't have A-A I want the gamble nomatter what the pot-size. There's a few unique sat situations where I wouldn't, but 99.9% of the time I want it and want it badly.

Actually thinking about this a bit harder, you always want your opponents to make the wrong decision, so if they have pot odds to call you want them to fold and vice versa.

pmsl.

Crazy!

Forget satellites, if you always want a call when you are dominating it's a mistake.

There are plenty of scenarios where picking up the pot uncontested with the best hand is FAR superior to receiving a call.

eg on 300 600 you raise to 2k, oppo makes it 6.5k and you shove for 10k total.

Let's say you have KK and they have AJ, it's far more profitable, ie you win more chips, by them passing here. If I thought that persuading them I have a big pair would make them pass, I would do everything in my power to do so. If they fold, they are making a very big mistake, and this directly correlates to chips being passed your way.

boring maths...in the above bit you net 14885.4 when they call, 17,400 when they fold. Tons of free extra chips, so you want a pass. In lots of situations you would be rooting for a call, but not here and not in many others.


also pmsl.

I got a laugh from king comedy JC himself! I must have been funny! ;D

This is the op's question.

Would I prefer to win a big pot with an element of risk although the odds are still firmly in my favour?

My answer

Absolutely no idea what you're chatting on about JC. It looks like you are putting my answer to this question into a completely different context you've plucked from somewhere where the odds are clearly not firmly on your side. So you see 19.4k as a medium pot but the extra 3.5k that your oppo would call makes it a BIG pot yes? I really don't get it and actually think THAT is pretty crazy.

Forget sats? 5 left with 4 seats paid & well stacked. No, I don't want to tangle with the CL for a big pot when the ss has 1 bb left. Why would you do that? Again pretty crazy thing to say if you ask me.

The phrase in bold stands alone as an absolute and needs no contextualisation. I guess what you are now saying is that you expressed yourself clumsily and meant something like...

"If I have K-K and my oppo doesn't have A-A then in most scenarios clearly I want the call although the size of the pot is an important factor to consider and in some fairly common MTT situations I would prefer a fold. I apologize for my flagrant misuse of numbers and words senor cat, and promise to be more careful in the future. Sorry!"

I agree with that if that's what you are saying.





Sometimes I do wonder if english is your first language :)

The reason I said forget satellites was that you were making reference to them as extreme occasions where you might not want business holding a dominating hand. Very true, but largely irrelevant as there are a host of more common or garden poker  situations where this is the case, one of which I posed.

Now off to bed with no supper for you, before I have to bring out the sock.

(http://library.thinkquest.org/CR0214220/www/images/Mankind.jpg)

(still pmsl rookie...)

JC, I'm afraid my use of the English language is so refined that I would find it difficult to express myself clumsily. In reality your comprehension of words is a little on the clumsy side.


First off this is clumsy comprehension because a statement cannot stand alone as an absolute when it is an answer to a specific question that describes a specific situation. It can only stand alone as an absolute if you take it out of context and stand it alone yourself. Which you did.

The op asks would you take on a +EV gamble whatever the pot size. My answer is yes I would take on a +EV gamble whatever the pot size. For some reason you decide to illustrate a clear -EV situation and try to apply my answer to that instead.

Then in a vein attempt to go FTW you say that I should have said....

"If I have K-K and my oppo doesn't have A-A then in most scenarios clearly I want the call"

when I said....

"If I have K-K and my oppo doesn't have A-A I want the gamble...99.9% of the time"

My superior English skills suggest to me this is exactly the same statement. There is little need for me to qualify that to include -EV situations because the op asked only about +EV situations.
 
So if you read the thread less clumsily and leave my answers in the correct context then you say you agree with me? I know this.

I think rather than just seeing one of my posts and wondering how you can discredit you should tidy your own appreciation of debate before fool-posting. In fact the sock thing was the only worthwhile comment because at least it had humour. Bring out your sock if you will...you still lose internet again.

 rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao rotflmfao

It's the best post i ever read on blonde

 ;pokergods; please respond JC, best of blonde coming up........

lol

I knew that little joke about english would touch a nerve. I apologize to the OP that the thread has been somewhat derailed by pedantry but meh what the hell, sometimes it's fun!
 

"If I have K-K and my oppo doesn't have A-A then in most scenarios clearly I want the call"

when I said....

"If I have K-K and my oppo doesn't have A-A I want the gamble...99.9% of the time"

My superior English skills suggest to me this is exactly the same statement.

Nope, not the same. If you think most = 99.9% then good luck to you. There are some excellent remedial maths courses available if you browse the net.

I tend to ignore spelling and basic comprehension mistakes on the net as

a) usually it's apparent from context what people are saying and

b) it just makes you look like a nit-picking twat if you correct people for grammatical slips.

HOWEVER, I have decided to make an exception in your case as you have trumpeted your "refined" english skills. SO...

First off


English lesson no 1.

vain = futile

vein = the thing that throbs on your head when you attempt to perform basic arithmetic.

I can't really put it down to a typo as the letters are just too far away on the keyboard but I suppose it is possible that your cumbersome ego nudged your typing fingers sufficiently to account for this.

Lesson no 2.

You have one last chance to start differentiating between loose and lose. As pedantic pet poker peeves go, this is one of the most annoying.

Loose = your use of language.

Lose = the verb best used to describe your handle on the plot.


Don't do yourself a disservice! You manage to muddle through superbly well!

As an addendum, I would point out I do think you write some nice stuff sometimes. If you work out what all the words you use mean, I foresee a bright future ahead of you!

:):):)

Rookie,

what are your thoughts regarding the origional post?


Mantis,

sterling work showing JC how bad his english is!

JC FTW!

 ;D

Posted by: Royal Flush
If you get your money in this bad Flush it surprises me you play poker successfully.

JC, I see you as a kind of official representative of Blonde. You are a hero member, a member of the update team, and do valuable work moderating the Child Board. I bet that Child Board moderating is rewarding work? What a good idea when it was set up. It was felt the board would benefit the many potential Blonde Members out there who wanted to get involved but felt intimidated.

JC I made a couple of valid contributions in this thread to pass on my thoughts to fellow members, all of which were positive. The thread was turning into quite an interesting discussion between fellow members. You turn up and your first word is CRAZY!!! as a response to my opinions. You go on to give me what looks like some kind of spelling test in your latest post along with general personal slurs etc...

Now JC, I was wondering how this sort of behaviour fits in with your own personal Blonde-related goals. Blonde's owners must really appreciate your efforts to spread their "happy poker" message to everyone. You stamp on normal happy threads with insults, and your posts are immediately negative and insulting. You are the very person the Child Board was set up because of. And you moderate it. I bet those new members you've encouraged to have more confidence and get involved are well impressed. With a clumsy life strat like this god only knows what your poker's like.

Attention Newbies! Sorry about JC's crazy outbursts. But don't worry. You will see the light if you follow the word of the Mantis from now on. Another thing JC, I've made loads of posts now and you still haven't spotted that Mantis flaming has 0 effect. So why are you still doing it? 

With all these mad leaks going on in your life, like messing up the Blonde message, showing yourself up in front of the Newbies, spoiling a good discussion between members, using a strat against me that's no good etc...your actual poker strat must be pretty beatable imo. Why are you shooting yourself in the foot all the time by using a strat that has no effect on me but is only detrimental to those you are trying to help? Yep, you're one smart cookie alright!

Result: Mantis wins

Oh, and Flush loses.

Already best of blonde!

MANTIS 4 MOOD MOD!!!

Apologies for my tardy(*) response.

*used in the sense of belated...probably...

I didn't realise I would upset you so, please forgive me. I have never thought of myself as the evil tyrannical figure you appear to view me as, stomping on happy threads, laughing maniacally as I crush the aspirations of well meaning but ultimately cat-foddery donks beneath my hefty paws of justice.

I like to think of myself as more of a jovial fellow, who likes to crack a joke here and there, offering up what small pieces of wisdom I have learned from my time playing poker and always striving to better myself.

Now you have framed me as the Idi Amin of the hand analysis board though, I have to admit it has its pull. I can maim, mutilate and mangle indiscriminately, lashing cruel claws out at those foolish enough to cross me. Sounds like fun!

In that vein  (cough), let me just point out that if you set yourself up as the ultimate doyen of poker analysis and resplendent wordsmith-ery, impervious to reproach, don't be surprised if you hear a quiet mewing from the lofty heights of your self appointed pedestal just before you feel two paws shoving you hard in the back and sending you hurtling back to earth with the rest of us mere mortals...

Quick word of advice (even though I know you now have your fingers in your ears, singing "la la la la la lalalalala")

Don't take things so seriously. I've never EVER mocked someone who has asked a genuine poker question, however apparent the answer would seem to me. Blonde is great because everyone gets to have a say, including you. Equally I'm entitled to turn on my BS detector when reading posts and if it starts beeping, then I have to act on it. Can't help myself.

Anyway best of luck to you, it's all good fun. If I meet you at a casino sometime I will happily buy you a drink (or get you a carrot - whichever you prefer) and chat merrily about any subject of your choosing.

laters dude

I don't talk when i'm in a hand. Why?

Great read

To OP i never feel like its a good idea for me to talk during a hand as i worry i'll seem over confident when im strong and vice versa when im weak.

As has already been stated basically to put it in to simple maths for me i would say if i was guna win 75%or more of max pot avail that i could by opp folding when i'm likely to be 70% fav to win then i'm happy to take the pot down and see my opp fold whereas if i'm only going to win something like 50-55% max pot avial by my opp folding than id want him to call me.

 rotflmfao

Hell yeah!

What Bolt said...I only just found this thing but thanks to JC for making my day :)

JC, I'm not upset at all and I don't think you're evil, and I don't take this stuff personally for a second. I do think you set a bad example about what the PHA Board should be used for though. You didn't enter this discussion with positive pearls of wisdom, you entered it negatively by slating me. You have done this numerous times in the past. You reveal in your latest post why you do this. And this is because you see me on a pedestal and you want to push me off it to join the "rest of us". I see things differently to you. I see "the rest of us" as the ones genuinely interested in discussing poker on the pedestal, and you as the isolated one down below interested in using the board to score points.

I don't know how my couple of contributions to this thread before you arrived were either the work of a doyen of poker analysis or bullshit.

You say you are always striving to better yourself so why not forget this agenda of pushing me off the pedestal you have put me on and offer up the pearls of wisdom you have instead? Wouldn't this be a better use of the PHA Board for everyone concerned?

I do....evil genius, our JC. Gotta love 'em.

 I believe a dialectic PHA thread is often the most productive.

Lets have a "wordoff" !!

JC v Mantis

JC won the "humouroff" by a landslide.