Re: straight flush over straight flush, how could i not push?

On Nov 24 2005 9:25 AM, Sir Benjamin Nunn wrote:

> "IvanXDurham" <IvanXDurham.1z0fuy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:IvanXDurham.1z0fuy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > Im with Fell 100% on this one. Anyone remember the hand history he
> > posted where he was in the exact same situation with the 9d with
> > 10d-Jd-Qd-Kd on the board?? His opponent had the Ad (what else) and he
> > was able to lose as cheaply as possible with the 2nd nuts. The fact is,
> > caution should always be the most important thing to consider before
> > salivating over that pot.
>
>
> What else? Start with any two from 44 other cards, then define a reasonable
> range based on the players ability, and the way the hand played out.

Yup. And in this hand there were 4 spades on the board after the turn.
Would the Ace not bet here? How about the Ten? Since there was no bet,
isn't the Ten much more likely?

> I remember reading that thread, and criticising some of the weak-tightness
> of it, and can't help but think that the outcome has maybe influenced
> peoples judgement of this situation.

Perhaps. The fact was that on the Kh Qh Jh Th board, there was NO HAND
that could call a raise (with the 9h) that didn't have me beat. The hand
had also played such that the Ah was a strong possibility.

> The result of one hand is not a guide for how to play in the future. The
> wrong end of a straight flush does not lose to the high end any more often
> than it statistically should, and some of the thoughts on this subject seem
> to be dangerously close to 'rigged' theory.

Oi. Nobody is suggesting it is rigged, just that there when the only hand
that can call you is the one that beats you (and the others fold), then
your bet is a bad one.

> 'Of course, he had the fourth jack', 'what else did he turn over, but the
> one card that could beat me', 'He raised because he obviously spiked his
> one-outer on the river' etc.

Who said that?

> Because these situations are relatively unusual, they are easily remembered.
> But just think how many times you've been paid off with the nut flush, or a
> lower straight, or an under-boat. Holdem is not a game of the nuts, and - in
> the games I play at least - playing scaredy cat sacrifices EV.

Very rarely when it comes to a bet/raise/re-raise all-in/call pattern of
betting. Value bets are one thing. This is not a value bet, because you
will not get a worse hand to call.

> BTN

Fell
--
Visit http://www.fellknight.com for strategy, blog, reviews and more!
(STILL IN BETA MODE)

--- 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com

.