Nah... just open up the fridge and ask him to "hold 'em or fold 'em." So far he's always been correct! Amazing!

KoW cracks open a brewsky

Don't you understand that if Mahatma is indeed intelligent, as you say, and "has to put hero on a big hand" (BTW, you know nothing about hero here, you have very little information to say whether Mahatma has any real reason to put hero on any kind of a big hand, not to mention you know nothing about Hero's ability to make big calls/big folds, etc, etc, etc), can't you see that your reasoning above is very simple, way too simple? Can't you understand that if a bluff here is "incredibly stupid", it might actually be a great spot for a bluff, especially if Hero can rather easily (yes, easily, if you're hero at least), lay down AK here? This is not a 1-2 game.

Please read this whole thread and your own posts again. Do you think Mahatma is not clever enough to be aware of this kind of rather simple 2nd level thinking? Don't you think that he should actually be bluffing here quite often and will be VERY correct to do so?

I think that for the riverdecision for hero, it doesnt matter much that villain is Mahatma (except for the fact he is facing a very good high stakes NL player). It even worked against hero, because he put the fact that Mahatma bluffoverbets river often above what Mahatma was likely to hold on this board with this action. I think for how Mahatma played his hand, and how you'd think he would have played other rivers, it shows how much I would not like to play him.

Also note that a deduction like i made in my post, I don't see myself making it in 30 seconds, yet.

Marnix

From this thread, even the 2+2 lay downers are a minority. Your average short handed player is not laying down AK or a set here. Your average fish is definitely not. The very good players (Kane, Fim, others) are the only ones doing this. Good lags make their money by doing exactly this in exactly this situation and showing down the best hand. The rest is BS and deception, not profit.

Also bear in mind that this analysis is afterwards, in the heat of the moment with 30 sec to make a decision most players aren't laying down top two or a set to a lag overbet, ESPECIALLY at this level and in this game. He knows this.

I think you're not thinking deeply enough...my 5th level thinking (which, ironically, comes to the same conclusion as 2nd level thinking) kicks ass on your 3rd level thinking.

The whole problem with your thinking is exactly this: you're still thinking in "levels". Be it 2nd, 5th, or 4243209th, it doesn't matter. This hand (and the only interesting parts of this thread) is not about this, so your 5th level thinking is not kicking ass against my 3rd level, because I'm not thinking on a 3th level or any nth level (at least I'm trying not to, with regard to this hand). That's the whole point: Mahatma is succesful because he's NOT playing this little "levels" game with you (or his opponents for this matter). You're only playing it with yourself.

oops, i just realized your post was in the wrong thread

Actually, I was making fun of you for this comment:

What needs to be said in this thread has been said. I'm yet to see hands posted where mahatma has done this as a bluff. TWP has posted two examples from VERY similar situations where Mahatma held the mortal nuts (or as good as)...that's three now...I await contrary examples.

last paragraph is amusing. do u realize the implications of what u are saying about his river overbets. lmao.

?

Of course I was aware of that comment when I made my last post, so I don't see how exactly you were making fun of that comment. In the post I was refering to you were on the 2nd level and I was pointing that out. It doesn't mean that being on the 243th level is any better.

My point with regard to levels still stands.

The other two hands posted here shade very little light on such general spots against Mahatma of course. They prove absolutely nothing, and if you think otherswise there's really very little I can do. Please wait to your "contrary examples". this little discussion isn't going anywhere, since I don't think we're even talking the same language here.

Hands that look like this where Mahatma has been bluffing on the river have been posted many times.

Just very quickly, also from last night:

Ultimate Bet No-Limit Hold'em, $100 BB (2 handed) converter

SwiftRaisE ($10899.50)
BB :#A500AF(Mahatma)/ ($37265.50)

Preflop: SwiftRaisE is Button with A, J.
SwiftRaisE raises to $300, BB :#A500AF(Mahatma)/ calls $200.

Flop: ($600) 7, A, 6 (2 players)
Mahatma checks, SwiftRaisE bets $500, Mahatma calls $500.

Turn: ($1600) K (2 players)
Mahatma checks, SwiftRaisE checks.

River: ($1600) T (2 players)
Mahatma bets $4300, SwiftRaisE calls $4300.

Final Pot: $10200

Results in white below:
SwiftRaisE has Ac Jc (one pair, aces).
Mahatma has 8s 7c (one pair, sevens).
Outcome: SwiftRaisE wins $10200.

you can't just say it "felt" like one of his bluffs and then go with that. mahatma actually does try to put his opponents on hands and you should too. your first post saying "you have top two, you should call" essentially doesn't make any sense, it isn't high level poker, and we've already gone over the reasons why that's the case. i put him on a bluff in this situation much much less often than you seem to, and no i don't play the 50-100 but yes i have put in many hours watching the game because i hope to be playing it soon.

el d, sure i think sometimes a call can mean any 2 trying to take it away but i REALLY don't think he does it on this dry a board from out of position.

I addressed that logic in my own post and I think while it's possible, we're just thinking on too many levels here. Because so many people play against him and think "whoa crazy lag i'm calling with top two" while it may be a profitable spot for a bluff if he thinks hero will lay down top two or ::gasp:: a set, he really has no reason to think hero will lay it down often enough for this to be profitable.

furthermore if he had total air, he would have to give hero credit for AK and NOT a set and then HOPE that his 8 outer that he doesn't even have gets there before HOPING that hero will fold... seems like a silly time to make a move like that, to me.

TY. This thread is pointless. If Mahatma often bluff pushes this situation on a similar board where hero clearly has a hand, then it's an easy call with top two.

End of discussion.

edit: to TWP, the example you posted is completely different. No turn action, it wasn't a push, different texture, completely different feel. This actually looks like a bluff

The primary mistake in your analysis throughout this thread is putting Hero on a hand as strong as AK.

I would like to notice that he didnt overbet pot by much cause Hero's stack was much shorter. So actually it was 1.2xpot if remember correctly

You still don't get it. Even when you consider what El Diablo had told you, this could still be just a "close call", or a call-with-a-certain-frequency, or a fold-at-certain-table-dynamics. That's why this thread is far from being pointless (from a theoretic perspective) even if you have some clear evidence that Mahatma can very well bluff at such a spot. Your binary attempts to interpret this situation are very superficial.

Also, when you say "hero clearly has a hand" you demonstrate, again, some very unimaginative thinking.

Of course mahatma can bluff at such a spot. I'm not an idiot.

The question is whether, as an intelligent lag, he would choose do it in this spot, on this board, the way it played out. He has to put villain on a hand here. Seems like a dumb spot to push in with nothing, and he doesn't seem like a stupid player. From what I've seen he picks his spots. Plus, it seems like a great spot to push in a set/straight. This looks like a value bet to me. Which is why I asked for hand histories where he has done this...I've never seen them, but I don't read every thread. If he's done this many times in this situation (and the texture of the board and previous streets is incredibly important here), it means he's capable of and more importantly likely to do such a move, and it's an easy call because of the strength of your hand. WTF is wrong with that?

Are you hero or something? You're really going for the jugular today.

EDIT: P.S. If you were mahatma, WTF would you put the Hero on? With what frequency? Show me your 'imaginative thinking'.

you guys are just flaming each other now. keep it among your PM's and don't ruin this awesome thread please.

OK.

Here is my take.

At the turn Prahlad bets the pot for 2 reasons:

1) Get the Hero to fold a weak pair
2) Find out where the opponent is at.
3) Make the opponent think he's not on a draw

After the opponent called the pot at the turn Prahlad can now put the Hero on a set, AK, or 2 pair. This way he knows if he does hit the river straight, he can go all-in and have a decent expectation of a call. If the Ace hits, even better than the 9.

So I say fold it for these reasons. Mahatma makes some dumb plays but in this situation he got all the info he needed at the turn to take down a major pot. And that's what NL is about, winning big big big pots.

You are like the guy who says "I knew you were bluffing" after the hand is shown. Had the outcome been a bluff or lesser two would you have posted this? Why not before the results were given if you were so sure?


Why not? No limit is all about the read. Online diminishes that dramatically, but in the end most difficult hands come down to the read. Sometimes you know or have a good idea, and more often when playing shorthanded. That's all Diablo was saying about my "simple" answer. I left all that out in my post, because it is obvious and the thread needed a rant.


You missed the point. In the example, putting him on a hand does not matter. If that is not clear, state your case that you can know his hand holdings precisely enough for me to be wrong. I contend AK in that hand exceeds the calling threshold shorthanded vs any highly aggressive player who bluffs the river hard and habitually. Simple after I say it maybe. If you have a read to the contrary so be it, but that caveat is always present in no limit and should not have to be spelled out in every post.


If the above doesn't convince you, at least put pencil to paper and run some hands out. The key point is he has vastly more opportunities to bluff than to bet a monster.


If you assume a random hand at that point and pick a bluff percentage below (betsize/total potsize after call) we get different answers. (Start > Programs > Accessories > Calculator................................Ruh Roh.)


Matt

well i certainly don't want to be "that guy" who bases everything on the results... hmm would it change your mind if you reread the thread and realized i posted before the results? actually i think you may have entirely missed my first couple of posts, but that's irrelevant. i respect what you're trying to say about "it felt like a bluff" but if you do go back and read my post, you'll see why i just don't think it's enough. i guess i've said all i really have to say here though so i won't keep bumping this thread without something new to say.

I retract my first paragraph.

OK, on the one hand, you say Pra could be betting with just about anything for all of those reasons.

Yet, knowing that he could be betting a wide range of hands for a wide range of reasons on the turn, you are only calling with AK or better?

This is the fundamental mistake that you and many others are making here. On the one hand, you guys are saying Pra has some kind of tricky LAG image, while at the same time you are saying that a turn call by his opponent defines his opponent's hand as clearly being AK or better. Nonsensical.