Not giving opponents odds to call

corblimey

So I'm reading Harrington 2, and he's talking about not giving your opponent the odds to call when he's drawing to a flush.

If he calls anyway, he's made a mistake, which is what you want no matter how the hand turns out

This seems a slightly peculiar statement to me. "No matter how the hand turns out" implies that no matter if you win or lose, your opponent made a mistake and that's all that's important. If your tournament is over, or you're crippled, or you've doubled him up, that would seem to be immaterial here.

I'm just not sure of the "ha! he's made a mistake" goal here.

BigDragon

corblimey wrote:

So I'm reading Harrington 2, and he's talking about not giving your opponent the odds to call when he's drawing to a flush.

This seems a slightly peculiar statement to me. "No matter how the hand turns out" implies that no matter if you win or lose, your opponent made a mistake and that's all that's important. If your tournament is over, or you're crippled, or you've doubled him up, that would seem to be immaterial here.

I'm just not sure of the "ha! he's made a mistake" goal here.

So you dont want to be ahead when the money goes in...???? You cant win games by waiting for the nuts on the river.

I think thats kinda his point.

Amaru

I think the point Harrington is trying to make is that it's decision's, not results that matter in poker, something which a lot of beginners have trouble getting their head around.

ntlbell

corblimey wrote:

So I'm reading Harrington 2, and he's talking about not giving your opponent the odds to call when he's drawing to a flush.

This seems a slightly peculiar statement to me. "No matter how the hand turns out" implies that no matter if you win or lose, your opponent made a mistake and that's all that's important. If your tournament is over, or you're crippled, or you've doubled him up, that would seem to be immaterial here.

I'm just not sure of the "ha! he's made a mistake" goal here.

The point is that your playing the hand correctly if your opponent makes a mistake by calling when he doesn't have odds to in the long run you'll come up trumph's from making the right descision's

of course you'll be outdrawn sometimes but you shouldn't change the way you play because of it just keep doing the right things win or loose

corblimey

ntlbell wrote:

in the long run you'll come up trumph's from making the right descision's

I guess I was leaning towards that sort of explanation myself. AA will beat 77 77% of the time (or thereabouts). But in the big game tonight, they might get cracked, and tomorrow they might get cracked again. All that's "important" is that if you play AA v 77 100 times, you will probably win 75% of the time? Get your money in while you're ahead and you've done everything right.

ntlbell

corblimey wrote:

I guess I was leaning towards that sort of explanation myself. AA will beat 77 77% of the time (or thereabouts). But in the big game tonight, they might get cracked, and tomorrow they might get cracked again. All that's "important" is that if you play AA v 77 100 times, you will probably win 75% of the time? Get your money in while you're ahead and you've done everything right.

Exaxtly, but it's not just playing AA it's playing it correctly, e.g. if you limp and 4 come into the pot and they get cracked by 56s you made a bad descion by limping, giving a draw odds to call is making a bad descion, so you do everything right all the time and over time you'll win more often than not unless your roryc