Posted by Johnnymac 10:31 AM
Because I have turned off the old comments, here is Fro's comment to my post below about all-in strategy.

fro () @ 01/05/2005 08:33:
ignoring the main point of the post and focusing on the example given:

I don't get it. Pocket 2's are a slight favorite to A8. 53%. Shouldnt he call when ahead? And isnt it predictable that he is probably up against somethig like A8?

And my response:

Unless the all-in player is severely shortstacked, A8 is likely to be one of the worst (best) hands he can hope for the better to be holding - it's more likely that the all-in hand will not only have overcards (which is all A8 is vs 22) but probably also large connectors or suited cards that will give even more outs than just any two overcards (like A8) vs 22. I don't feel like doing the calculation because the exact number isn't important, but if the number really is 53% in the example, more outs will just move it towards 50/50. If that's the case, then the original point of my post is made - why call with just a 50% chance of knocking him when there is a 100% chance that the blinds will take his money instead?

And back to more on my main point:

I used 22 as an example because it was a hand I had seen immediately preceding the post, but my post really refers to hands worse than that. So while 22 was actually one of the better hands I have seen, and is a slight favorite to unsuited unconnected overcards (A8), a lot of times the caller will call with worse hands than 22 - crap like QT, K4s, 67 - just because it's cheap to call. Quite often these hands end up being dogs because the bettor has at least waited for an Ace or small pair. These are the hands that I'm more dumbfounded by that 22, and quite clearly, the only reason some players are making these calls is because of shoddy "eliminate at any cost" logic.

0 Comment(s):

Post a Comment