Quick Theory Q re completing the small blind

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

Just a quick theory question about completing the small blind:

- you are on the small blind
- you have a healthy stack that isn't in danger of being blinded away in the near future
- a few people before you have paid the blind
- you don't think the big blind will raise

The question is:

Should you always complete the small blind, no matter how bad your cards are? Why?

Ste05

I would, because you're getting lovely odds.

Iago

even if nobody has paid the blind you should call the BB. You're getting 3:1 on your additional investment.

White Knight

fold reluctantly saying "I think i have you beat but ... "

completed last night in fitz double chance with 7 2 and flopped full house. read into it what you may!

padser

Iago wrote:

even if nobody has paid the blind you should call the BB. You're getting 3:1 on your additional investment.

But your out of position. Which means its not realistic to put it as 3:1. Say something like 2 7o the odds against two random cards are about 30% i think. So if you are only getting 2:1 which i think is more realistic if u factor in the chance of a raise, plus the fact ur out of position, means u should fold. But only barely!

ollyk1

Factor in the implied odds for that poorly played limping monkey with his QQ in utg +1 and that beautiful low raggy flop, and how he'll cry all the way home to his Mammy when he is sent out of the tournament by 52o - worth calling even a min raise with for the joy of it!!

De Deraco

provided the BB isn't a maniac always call from the sb.
thats all you play for olly you outdrawing sadist.

bmc

padser wrote:

But your out of position. Which means its not realistic to put it as 3:1. Say something like 2 7o the odds against two random cards are about 30% i think. So if you are only getting 2:1 which i think is more realistic if u factor in the chance of a raise, plus the fact ur out of position, means u should fold. But only barely!

This is a good point.

Also...

You can look at the odds of 27o against AQo and realise that you're never that far behind, but that said, when the flop comes it can be tricky to know that you're ahead with your pair of 2s on a 2TK flop. So the real question is, how often will your 2,7o hit hard enough that you know you can play on with it.

Gholimoli

The answer is no you shouldn’t always complete, and if you do your making –EV moves in the long run.
Don’t be fooled my the false impression that your getting the correct odds to call with any two cards.
Some one said, even if its just you and BB then you should even complete with 72o because of the 3:1 odds your getting and your not that much of an underdog against AQ even !
Those odds are the odds of one hand against another hand, when the hand is played to the river. This is a very important fact that people know but seem to forget.
When you complete with 72 you’re hardly going to play the hand to the river.
The fact that there are more players in the hand shouldn’t really effect your decision that much(it does how ever matter to an extent) .again I use the 72 example and suppose you have a UTG limper ,another early position limper ,a mid position limper and you know the BB is going to call. Is it right to call with 72?
Absolutely not.
Why?
Because in the long run this will loose you money?
How? Well im going to assume that you will only be willing to continue on with your hand after the flop, with two pair or stronger.
Hands like 77x,72x,22x,772 etc.
Ok the problem here is your not going to flop those hands nearly enough to have the correct immediate odds of calling.
What about out implied odds you ask?
Well how much do you think your going to get paid from the UTG or others with a board of 772?

Culchie

Gholimoli wrote:

The answer is no you shouldn’t always complete, and if you do your making –EV moves in the long run.
Don’t be fooled my the false impression that your getting the correct odds to call with any two cards.
Some one said, even if its just you and BB then you should even complete with 72o because of the 3:1 odds your getting and your not that much of an underdog against AQ even !
Those odds are the odds of one hand against another hand, when the hand is played to the river. This is a very important fact that people know but seem to forget.
When you complete with 72 you’re hardly going to play the hand to the river.
The fact that there are more players in the hand shouldn’t really effect your decision that much(it does how ever matter to an extent) .again I use the 72 example and suppose you have a UTG limper ,another early position limper ,a mid position limper and you know the BB is going to call. Is it right to call with 72?
Absolutely not.
Why?
Because in the long run this will loose you money?
How? Well im going to assume that you will only be willing to continue on with your hand after the flop, with two pair or stronger.
Hands like 77x,72x,22x,772 etc.
Ok the problem here is your not going to flop those hands nearly enough to have the correct immediate odds of calling.
What about out implied odds you ask?
Well how much do you think your going to get paid from the UTG or others with a board of 772?

You haven't factored in bluffing. You don't need 7 2 to fall on the flop to dictate whether you are playing the hand or not.
In fact if it does fall, chances are that you will be marked down as having a 'big blind special' and get feck all action anyway.
The answer as always is "it depends".
If you're at a table of weak passive players, and there are 6 limpers, I'm going to make up the blind, .... hell I might even raise and thin the field out a wee bit. Raising with absolute muck can help define the rest of the villans hands.

Especially if the blinds are big, and I have a decent stack...I'm not letting all that money waft under my nose without some sort of cunning plan.

If the flop is one that I feel is raggedy and has missed all the Ace Rag merchants, I'll might play it like I have TPTK or something.

Bluffs are far more believable if you start earlier in the hand, rather than pretending you just hit your miracle card.
I'm making up the small blind just about 90% of the time I reckon, sometimes I have a hand, sometimes I don't.

I do realise I've probably come across as some sick bluffing maniac.:p

It's all true.:D

Gholimoli

Culchie wrote:

You haven't factored in bluffing. You don't need 7 2 to fall on the flop to dictate whether you are playing the hand or not.
In fact if it does fall, chances are that you will be marked down as having a 'big blind special' and get feck all action anyway.
The answer as always is "it depends".
If you're at a table of weak passive players, and there are 6 limpers, I'm going to make up the blind, .... hell I might even raise and thin the field out a wee bit. Raising with absolute muck can help define the rest of the villans hands.

Especially if the blinds are big, and I have a decent stack...I'm not letting all that money waft under my nose without some sort of cunning plan.

If the flop is one that I feel is raggedy and has missed all the Ace Rag merchants, I'll might play it like I have TPTK or something.

Bluffs are far more believable if you start earlier in the hand, rather than pretending you just hit your miracle card.
I'm making up the small blind just about 90% of the time I reckon, sometimes I have a hand, sometimes I don't.

I do realise I've probably come across as some sick bluffing maniac.:p

It's all true.:D

Culchi
This was a theoretical question and the I think the OP question was based on the odds on offer is it correct to complete all the time.
Now based on odds alone I can confidently say that completing 90% of blinds is not good practice.
Obviously everything is situation dependent and if the situation calls for it you can even raise with 72 and the likes but if some one asks you a theoretical question is it right to raise with 72o from SB, what are you going to reply?
As for bluffing again, its theoretically wrong to bluff in to so many opponents as the possibility of one of your opponents hitting the flop is greater as the number of opponent grows. That doesn’t mean you should never do it, it means doing it would require special circumstances.
What you’re referring to is how to play against weak passive players but your hardly going to find your self in that situation 90% of times.

fuzzbox

Gholimoli wrote:

Culchi
This was a theoretical question and the I think the OP question was based on the odds on offer is it correct to complete all the time.
Now based on odds alone I can confidently say that completing 90% of blinds is not good practice.
Obviously everything is situation dependent and if the situation calls for it you can even raise with 72 and the likes but if some one asks you a theoretical question is it right to raise with 72o from SB, what are you going to reply?
As for bluffing again, its theoretically wrong to bluff in to so many opponents as the possibility of one of your opponents hitting the flop is greater as the number of opponent grows. That doesn’t mean you should never do it, it means doing it would require special circumstances.
What you’re referring to is how to play against weak passive players but your hardly going to find your self in that situation 90% of times.

This is not how you should play against weak-passive players.

califano

Shur its not often we get the chance to complete anyway because of raised pots so 90% isnt as frequent as it seems.

Drakar

I know a number of good players have mentioned that they just break even completing the sb (looking at their pokertracker stats).

Culchie

Drakar wrote:

I know a number of good players have mentioned that they just break even completing the sb (looking at their pokertracker stats).

Agreed...one of the reasons why sometimes it's best just not to make up the small blind, but come out fighting, when the blinds are worth winning especially.
BTW, I'm talking Tourneys not cash games.

Drakar

It would be interesting to see some stats on that. I often raise in the sb if no one is in the pot for just that reason. However it must be seen as an attempt to steal quite often.

Culchie

We're going further down the road of 'absolutes' now.

I was just trying to point out that there are other options to just folding to the small blind with a weak hand.

"It depends" is the bottom line

Ste05

Gholimoli wrote:

Now based on odds alone I can confidently say that completing 90% of blinds is not good practice.

Agreed, it should be 100% of the time. :cool: :eek: Even if there's only 2 limpers, you are getting 7:1 Pot odds and savage implied odds. I'm calling here 100% of the time.

But it depends...

Gholimoli

Ste05 wrote:

Agreed, it should be 100% of the time. :cool: :eek: Even if there's only 2 limpers, you are getting 7:1 Pot odds and savage implied odds. I'm calling here 100% of the time.

But it depends...

That will loose money over the long run guaranteed no matter how good you are.
And you don’t have savage implied odds at all.
What do you call implied odds?
The fact that you’re deep and your opponents are deep?
That doesn’t matter! The only reason why would consider stack sizes when talking about implied odds is to make sure that you and your opponent have enough chips for you to get paid when you hit your hand .as I said in the earlier post .if you hit your full house on the flop with 24o or 72o or 92o etc your not going to get paid nearly enough to make up for all those times that you have to fold out hand after flop with these hands.
I agree that you should call with a much wider range but the question was “should you always no matter what cards…” and the answer is a definite no .
Can you tell me how you figured you have savage implied odds to call with any hand?

fuzzbox

Ste05 wrote:

Agreed, it should be 100% of the time. :cool: :eek: Even if there's only 2 limpers, you are getting 7:1 Pot odds and savage implied odds. I'm calling here 100% of the time.

But it depends...

If you are calling with a bag of rubbish in a limped pot, you are more likely to be getting savage REVERSE implied odds.

Consider the case where you have the dreaded 72o, and you complete. And the board comes down 774. If you are played with (by a good player) then how do you like your hand?

califano

fuzzbox wrote:

If you are played with (by a good player) then how do you like your hand?

Id like it every bit as much, whats (by a good player) got to do with it.

Waylander

I agree with Ste, if you are getting 7-1 from small blind you have to call, and I am satisfied that my poker tracker stats back me up here. Yes, you need to hit a strong flop, but you can clean up if you do, if you do not, you fold to any bet on the flop, if you are any way decent post flop this is a winnig tactic in the long run. I am surprised there are people who disagree with this.

Culchie

fuzzbox wrote:

If you are calling with a bag of rubbish in a limped pot, you are more likely to be getting savage REVERSE implied odds.

Consider the case where you have the dreaded 72o, and you complete. And the board comes down 774. If you are played with (by a good player) then how do you like your hand?

That's like saying how do I like my Aces, if two kings fall on the flop.

You have to be able to interpret opponents, flop textures, stack sizes etc etc...

Know when to hold em, know when to fold em etc....

I'd often call a raise from a tight player with Q 8 (for example) who you would actually be 90% sure he has Kings or Aces preflop, if there were enough limpers in it to make the odds attractive, and he had a large stack behind him.

Why? ... Because that particular player will not drop that hand, and you can clean him out with a favourable flop.

I agree that when giving advice to new and inexperienced players, there's a case for folding small blinds when you have muck, so that they stay out of trouble they walk blindly into.

However, moving on from that, if I'm getting 7/1 to make up a SB, I'm taking it with any 2 cards, might even raise if my second hand on my watch is in the second quarter.

jacQues

White Knight wrote:

fold reluctantly saying "I think i have you beat but ... "

completed last night in fitz double chance with 7 2 and flopped full house. read into it what you may!

That's soooo different!

The hammer usually wins!!

jacQues

fuzzbox

rounders123 wrote:

Id like it every bit as much, whats (by a good player) got to do with it.

Because if you are played with by a good player on this flop, in a limped pot, then you are likely to be drawing to 3 outs.

fuzzbox

Culchie wrote:

That's like saying how do I like my Aces, if two kings fall on the flop.

Its nothing of the sort.

You have to be able to interpret opponents, flop textures, stack sizes etc etc...

Know when to hold em, know when to fold em etc....

I'd often call a raise from a tight player with Q 8 (for example) who you would actually be 90% sure he has Kings or Aces preflop, if there were enough limpers in it to make the odds attractive, and he had a large stack behind him.
[/quote]

This is incredibly silly.

Why? ... Because that particular player will not drop that hand, and you can clean him out with a favourable flop.

In a tourney, you almost never get the right implied odds to hit your hand. (with Q8 for example). 67, 78, 56 ... now you can play. Q8 is just a bag of rubbish.

I agree that when giving advice to new and inexperienced players, there's a case for folding small blinds when you have muck, so that they stay out of trouble they walk blindly into.

However, moving on from that, if I'm getting 7/1 to make up a SB, I'm taking it with any 2 cards, might even raise if my second hand on my watch is in the second quarter.

Raising is a great play, calling is an ok play, but you if you routinely play trash hands in the SB in a multi-way pot, then you are more likely to lose money, than make it.

A lot of this has to do with the fact that you are out of position. The other part is that your hand is trash in the first place.

califano

fuzzbox wrote:

Because if you are played with by a good player on this flop, in a limped pot, then you are likely to be drawing to 3 outs.

Oh right. Because good players always have and play a better hand.

fuzzbox

rounders123 wrote:

Oh right. Because good players always have and play a better hand.

Good players dont get involved for a lot of chips in an unraised pot, on a flop of 774 without a better hand.

Do you frequently go for your stack with 88 there?
What about 99 ?
How about TT ?
AJ ?

What hand do you like to go for your stack with against a small blind on a 774 board?

Culchie

fuzzbox wrote:

Its nothing of the sort.



I'd often call a raise from a tight player with Q 8 (for example) who you would actually be 90% sure he has Kings or Aces preflop, if there were enough limpers in it to make the odds attractive, and he had a large stack behind him.

This is incredibly silly.



In a tourney, you almost never get the right implied odds to hit your hand. (with Q8 for example). 67, 78, 56 ... now you can play. Q8 is just a bag of rubbish.



Raising is a great play, calling is an ok play, but you if you routinely play trash hands in the SB in a multi-way pot, then you are more likely to lose money, than make it.

A lot of this has to do with the fact that you are out of position. The other part is that your hand is trash in the first place.[/QUOTE]









lol ...we'll agree to disagree ... the Q 8 was an example, 67, 78, 56 is a monster !

Anyways, it's hard to write about absolutes in a theoritical hand context, as you have to be there.

Just one thing, an example about how the mind can decipher information without you even knowing it.
I'll carry on calling or raising or folding my SB based on my read of the table.

I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was
rdgnieg.The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid Aoccdrnig to
rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the
ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and
lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you
can sitll raed it wouthit a
porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by
istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh?

califano

fuzzbox wrote:

Do you frequently go for your stack with 88 there?
QUOTE]

You better believe it:D
88 is the reason i'll be playing the big one in Drogheda on the 5th!


I see your points though.

Gholimoli

rounders123 wrote:

fuzzbox wrote:

Do you frequently go for your stack with 88 there?
QUOTE]

You better believe it:D
88 is the reason i'll be playing the big one in Drogheda on the 5th!


I see your points though.

your calls with 88 and AQ were simply wrong rounders.
the fact that you won all the hands has nothing to do with it being the wrong move.
you were sitting on a big stack and you took risks that were uncalled for seen as that was a game that had the same prise for top 4 or 5 even.
you could have easily been knocked down to an avarage stack or even worse a small stack .

Gholimoli

Waylander wrote:

I agree with Ste, if you are getting 7-1 from small blind you have to call, and I am satisfied that my poker tracker stats back me up here. Yes, you need to hit a strong flop, but you can clean up if you do, if you do not, you fold to any bet on the flop, if you are any way decent post flop this is a winnig tactic in the long run. I am surprised there are people who disagree with this.

thats the point,if you hit the flop hard with junk you will not easily clean up at all.
how much are you going to get paid when you hit the flop hard with 72?
is the UTG gonna pay you on the flop of 72x or 77x.the answer is no.
so chances are when you do hit the flop hard ,then the flop has missed every one else and hence you will not get paid enough to make up for all thoes times that you miss the flop and have to fold .
this + the fact that in a tourny you should have a balance between conserving chips and gaining extra chips makes this bad play.

I would also have to disagree with the the example Culchie gave about staying a raise with Q8 when you know a raiser has KK.
I may very well consider this in a cash game but deffo not in a tourney.
For example suppose you’re in a STT and mid way through it and you have 1600 of your original 2K left.
Would you call a 400 raise with Q8 knowing your opponent has KK, just so if you do hit the flop you will take his stack? I hope not? the reason why you shouldn’t is simple.
You can’t not get any more chips in a tourney but in a cash game you can.

califano

True Gholimoli i could have played more cautious.
However i correctly had you on a total steal and was right. At the time it hapenned you were saying "You can only call with AA or KK". I didnt like that. It would be an easy game if you could get people to fold a better hand if you knew they would lay down everything except AA or KK.
Musicians case i had already raised so with chips in the pot and figururing him for overcards i chose to race.
BigD's case i figured(wrongly) his re-raise all in a bit desperate(thought he had 99-10-10 and i chose to race) and had him well covered anyway. I was badly proved wrong when i seen his KK but i got lucky.
Everybody elses case i simply outplayed their ass:D !

p.s
i dont want to spend the rest of the day explaining myself. My reasons are my own. I was probably wrong on everything anyway.

Gholimoli

rounders123 wrote:

True Gholimoli i could have played more cautious.
However i correctly had you on a total steal and was right. At the time it hapenned you were saying "You can only call with AA or KK". I didnt like that. It would be an easy game if you could get people to fold a better hand if you knew they would lay down only AA or KK.
Musicians case i had already raised so with chips in the pot and figururing him for overcards i chose to race.
BigD's case i figured(wrongly) his re-raise all in a bit desperate(thought he had 99-10-10 and i chose to race) and had him well covered anyway. I was badly proved wrong when i seen his KK but i got lucky.
Everybody elses case i simply outplayed their ass:D !

p.s
i dont want to spend the rest of the day explaining myself. My reaasons are my own. I was probably wrong on everything anyway.

you dont have to explian your self at all.
the fact remians though even in my case you were wrong to call even if you could have seen my cards.
you have 22K and the average stack in the final table with 8 ppl left was about 11K.
you made it 2400 and i pushed for the whole 11K .
at best you were 50/50.had you won the extra 11K would not really do that much for your chances of getting to the 4 place as you could have esialy folded your way to there.
had you lost though you would have come down to just 11K which was the avarage stack at the time and then you would have been under pressure again becasue you had to compete with the remaning players.
to be honest even with AA or KK i would have just pushed all in.if i got a caller then so be it but i would not be upset if i didnt.
remember the point was to get to 4th place not to win it.
making thoes calls were extra risks that didnt have much reward.

Culchie

Gholimoli wrote:

I would also have to disagree with the the example Culchie gave about staying a raise with Q8 when you know a raiser has KK.
I may very well consider this in a cash game but deffo not in a tourney.
For example suppose you’re in a STT and mid way through it and you have 1600 of your original 2K left.
Would you call a 400 raise with Q8 knowing your opponent has KK, just so if you do hit the flop you will take his stack? I hope not? the reason why you shouldn’t is simple.
You can’t not get any more chips in a tourney but in a cash game you can.

I hate it when people quote things out of context and then apply it to a situation to suit their argument.

Please show me where I said I would call off 25% of my stack calling a KK raise.

Read through my opinions (and that's all they are..opinions) and you'll see that I made continuous references to players, stack sizes, opponents, player styles, amount of blinds, standard of players...even random indicator on whether I'm calling or raising, blah blah, blah.

I am simply offering a defence and some reasons why I don't like folding my SB to a limping table.....especially if the blinds are big.

Gholimoli

Culchie wrote:

I hate it when people quote things out of context and then apply it to a situation to suit their argument.

Please show me where I said I would call off 25% of my stack calling a KK raise.

Read through my opinions (and that's all they are..opinions) and you'll see that I made continuous references to players, stack sizes, opponents, player styles, amount of blinds, standard of players...even random indicator on whether I'm calling or raising, blah blah, blah.

I am simply offering a defence and some reasons why I don't like folding my SB to a limping table.....especially if the blinds are big.

Cluchi,
i understand what your saying and I understood the example you gave about the Q8.
How ever, stack sizes, blind size, opponents, table condition, image on the table, position, etc they are all the things that would make a situation unique. Anything in poker can be correct if the situation calls for it.
How ever this is not what the OP asked.
he asked is it always to correct to complete SB based on the odds your getting with any two cards?
And this is what I was trying to argue, that no it’s not always correct to do so with any two cards.

Ste05

Gholi did you even read the OP, in that situation described I'm calling with any 2 100% of the time.

Log off for a short time and I miss all this, damn.

Fuzzbox, in the 72o and flop of 77x example you gave. I'm loving that situation exactly what are you afraid of 44, or 74??, How on earth could I be drawing to 3 outs?? A decent player does not limp with any hand I'm afraid of, bar possibly 76s, 78s or A7s, and since 3 7's are gone, I'm not even thinking of these.

fuzzbox

Gholimoli wrote:

you dont have to explian your self at all.
the fact remians though even in my case you were wrong to call even if you could have seen my cards.
you have 22K and the average stack in the final table with 8 ppl left was about 11K.
you made it 2400 and i pushed for the whole 11K .
at best you were 50/50.had you won the extra 11K would not really do that much for your chances of getting to the 4 place as you could have esialy folded your way to there.
had you lost though you would have come down to just 11K which was the avarage stack at the time and then you would have been under pressure again becasue you had to compete with the remaning players.
to be honest even with AA or KK i would have just pushed all in.if i got a caller then so be it but i would not be upset if i didnt.
remember the point was to get to 4th place not to win it.
making thoes calls were extra risks that didnt have much reward.

Just to throw an oar in ....

If he knows you have two overcards, (aka he sees your cards), then he should beat you to the pot.

2400 is over 10% of his stack. Folding would put him on 18k or so.

Calling if you have overs gives him

11k + 55% of 22k = 12.1k. For a total of 23.1k.

Clearly calling is far superior to folding.

When it gets hairy is "do you have an overpair".
If you have an overpair ... say 33% of the time (not unreasonable).

Then its
11k + 17% of (33% of 22k) + 55% of (67% of 22k)

which is 11k + 1234 + 8107 = 20341
Which is still superior to folding.

So you have to have an overpair more than 33% (about 40% maybe) of the time in order to want to fold here.

If you could possibly make this move with 77 or 66, then its a big time call.

ntlbell

Gholimoli wrote:

you dont have to explian your self at all.
the fact remians though even in my case you were wrong to call even if you could have seen my cards.
you have 22K and the average stack in the final table with 8 ppl left was about 11K.
you made it 2400 and i pushed for the whole 11K .
at best you were 50/50.had you won the extra 11K would not really do that much for your chances of getting to the 4 place as you could have esialy folded your way to there.
had you lost though you would have come down to just 11K which was the avarage stack at the time and then you would have been under pressure again becasue you had to compete with the remaning players.
to be honest even with AA or KK i would have just pushed all in.if i got a caller then so be it but i would not be upset if i didnt.
remember the point was to get to 4th place not to win it.
making thoes calls were extra risks that didnt have much reward.

I was watching this and I don't think it's that bad of a call (I've made alot worse ). At the time it did look like a fairly obvious steal, if he felt you were on the steal then in his mind it was no where near a 50/50, a chance to knock another player out and if he wins he's practically guarnteed a ticket, he also sent out a big message that he wasn't going to be pushed off his hands easily

He was by far one of the better players playing and I'm sure he knew that himself, so even if he did loose the hand i think he would of outplayed most of the reaming players into a position for the ticket anyway.

If you think only AA/KK will call here you're in for a few suprises

fuzzbox

Ste05 wrote:

Gholi did you even read the OP, in that situation described I'm calling with any 2 100% of the time.

Log off for a short time and I miss all this, damn.

Fuzzbox, in the 72o and flop of 77x example you gave. I'm loving that situation exactly what are you afraid of 44, or 74??, How on earth could I be drawing to 3 outs?? A decent player does not limp with any hand I'm afraid of, bar possibly 76s, 78s or A7s, and since 3 7's are gone, I'm not even thinking of these.

So how do you get paid then, from this good player?
If you obliterate the possibility that somebody might have a 7 with a better kicker than you from your mind, then its easy to shove your chips in and just chalk it up to bad luck, when that good player turns over 79 on the button.

If you can limp in the SB getting 7:1 with any two cards, then why can Mr. Button not limp in with some reasonable hands (like 79 or A7 or 76 or 78), in GOOD position?

Ste05

fuzzbox wrote:

So how do you get paid then, from this good player?
If you obliterate the possibility that somebody might have a 7 with a better kicker than you from your mind, then its easy to shove your chips in and just chalk it up to bad luck, when that good player turns over 79 on the button.

Well I don't think I'd be just shoving my chips in... :eek: . You extract value by playing the player.... I'm not even going to start on this....

EDIT: If he has a better 7, then fair play to him, make a note and move on...

fuzzbox wrote:

If you can limp in the SB getting 7:1 with any two cards, then why can Mr. Button not limp in with some reasonable hands (like 79 or A7 or 76 or 78), in GOOD position?

Because he's not getting 7:1 and there's 2 people to act and either could raise. I think we'll just leave this one there.

P.S. Just to throw the cat amongst the pigeons again. If I'm getting 7:1 on the button I'm also calling with any 2, even risking one of the blinds raising.

califano

Anyway Gholimoli. You were quite a mystical charachter around here before you emerged. I will look forward to say hello to you in Drogheda. Your enjoying yourself here anyway, i can tell.
I have visions of you as that bloke in 'Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom'. The one who plucks out a chaps heart with his fingernails while chanting "Gholi Maw, Gholi Maw, Gholi Maw" before lowerering him into the flames with everyone in the background chanting "Sukaram Sukaram Sukaram Sakaram Ram Ram".

You arent like him are you?:D

Culchie

fuzzbox wrote:

So how do you get paid then, from this good player?
If you obliterate the possibility that somebody might have a 7 with a better kicker than you from your mind, then its easy to shove your chips in and just chalk it up to bad luck, when that good player turns over 79 on the button.

If you can limp in the SB getting 7:1 with any two cards, then why can Mr. Button not limp in with some reasonable hands (like 79 or A7 or 76 or 78), in GOOD position?

That's tough titties then isn't it. There's only four 7's in the pack. hl gg

You're making me scared to play any cards at all now, because the big bad man on the button is waiting to mug me.

fuzzbox

Culchie wrote:

That's tough titties then isn't it. There's only four 7's in the pack. hl gg

Its comments like this that make players lose a LOT of money

You're making me scared to play any cards at all now, because the big bad man on the button is waiting to mug me.

He is. Better to be that big bad man, than to be the victim in the SB.

Culchie

Comments don't lose you any money.

Anyways, wtf was he doing limping in with 79o on the button anyway, he should have been raising with that monster preflop.

fuzzbox

Culchie wrote:

Comments don't lose you any money.

Anyways, wtf was he doing limping in with 79o on the button anyway, he should have been raising with that monster preflop.

He was trapping preflop. No need to raise to scare away his customers.

Culchie

Sure, who'd fall for that one?

GG. NH

Gholimoli

ntlbell wrote:

I was watching this and I don't think it's that bad of a call (I've made alot worse ). At the time it did look like a fairly obvious steal, if he felt you were on the steal then in his mind it was no where near a 50/50, a chance to knock another player out and if he wins he's practically guarnteed a ticket, he also sent out a big message that he wasn't going to be pushed off his hands easily

He was by far one of the better players playing and I'm sure he knew that himself, so even if he did loose the hand i think he would of outplayed most of the reaming players into a position for the ticket anyway.

If you think only AA/KK will call here you're in for a few suprises

im sure we have all made worse calls than this but these calls were up there with them all.
this is a final table with 8 ppl remaining and you need to get to 4th even 5th and you have twice as many chips as any one else .
you dont need to send any messages that your not getting pushed of your hand.
As for him being far better than any one else there, well he made about 4 or 5 calls that strongly suggest other wise.
I’m not saying he is a bad player (to be honest I don’t know much about him).
I’m saying he made very bad calls, now it could have been that he just wanted to win it and didn’t care about the ticket or the prise etc.
But if his intension were to get a ticket then he made bad calls.
He was 22K with ppl remaining and the average of other 7 was 11K.
In order for another player to get near his stack then one player would have to be eliminated which leaves 7.
In order for yet another player to get near his stack then another player has to eliminated which leaves 6 .
Do you get my point now? he didn’t need to play for 11K at all and specially not with 88.

Culchie

Gholimoli wrote:

im sure we have all made worse calls than this but these calls were up there with them all.
this is a final table with 8 ppl remaining and you need to get to 4th even 5th and you have twice as many chips as any one else .
you dont need to send any messages that your not getting pushed of your hand.
As for him being far better than any one else there, well he made about 4 or 5 calls that strongly suggest other wise.
I’m not saying he is a bad player (to be honest I don’t know much about him).
I’m saying he made very bad calls, now it could have been that he just wanted to win it and didn’t care about the ticket or the prise etc.
But if his intension were to get a ticket then he made bad calls.
He was 22K with ppl remaining and the average of other 7 was 11K.
In order for another player to get near his stack then one player would have to be eliminated which leaves 7.
In order for yet another player to get near his stack then another player has to eliminated which leaves 6 .
Do you get my point now? he didn’t need to play for 11K at all and specially not with 88.

what did you have Gholimoli?

Gholimoli

rounders123 wrote:

Anyway Gholimoli. You were quite a mystical charachter around here before you emerged. I will look forward to say hello to you in Drogheda. Your enjoying yourself here anyway, i can tell.
I have visions of you as that bloke in 'Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom'. The one who plucks out a chaps heart with his fingernails while chanting "Gholi Maw, Gholi Maw, Gholi Maw" before lowerering him into the flames with everyone in the background chanting "Sukaram Sukaram Sukaram Sakaram Ram Ram".

You arent like him are you?:D

i cant stop laughing now.
now im picturing my self as that.
"Gholi Maw ,Gholi Maw":D

Gholimoli

Culchie wrote:

what did you have Gholimoli?

JT a monster of a hand .
i was shocked to loose it.