June miscellaneous thread

[AKQJ10]

Summary: Hero turns down a ridiculous five-way deal at the end of a satellite, loses a hand, and then gets invited to the sweet end of the deal as someone else volunteers to be the sucker.

You know, i've heard it said that a big part of your expectation in smaller tournaments comes from people making horrible deals. That really hit home last night.

I played a $150 satellite to this afternoon's Venetian Deepstack. There were ten entrants and two equal prizes of $680 in casino chips. Starting stacks were t2500, so a total of t25k on the table.

A couple of times, the guy to my left had complained that i didn't understand satellite strategy. With six players left, i bet the flop in a 3 SB pot on a three-wheel board and an all-in player, to protect my 2nd nut low. This failed to eliminate the 3rd player (but won me half the chips, with outs to the other half), so obviously i needed a lesson on how to play sats.

So, fast forward. At a point with five players remaining i had t8000, but stakes were t800/t1600, so i only had 5 big bets. Everyone else had around t4000. I mentioned that i felt like we were getting into crapshoot territory and that i'd welcome a deal, but only one that considered my deep stack. They said no, it should be a five-way even split, because we're at the point where it's all about luck rather than skill.

(Facepalm.)

We did not agree to such a deal. The next hand, i opened the button with AsTT6 and got it all in versus a young guy in the big blind with i think exactly t4000. He had A3-something and rivered a flush on a high board. Nice hand, sir.

Now he had t8400 and the rest of us, me included, had t4000. "Now i'll bet you want an even chop!" they chided. I smiled, sheepishly, and said yes, that would be fine. Mostly i just kept out of negotiations now, because their emotions of wanting to teach me a lesson wouldn't be conducive to the outcome i desired.

The deep stack tried to talk everyone into a five-way almost-even chop, except giving him $10 out of the each person's chopped winnings, but one guy vetoed that "out of principle". Everyone said the $10 should go to the dealers. In the end, the deep stack relented, so we each got $272. I tipped $15, he tipped $11 or something, and apparently everyone else changed their mind and concluded the excellent Venetian dealers didn't deserve anything.

As a 2+2 reader you probably noticed immediately that i had a sweet freeroll. Win that pot, i win a $680 entry. Lose that pot, i got the same $272 that they wanted me to agree to anyway.

At the end, the guy to my left said, "I think you might have learned a second lesson after losing that pot." I just smiled, feigned feeling chastened, and agreed that yes, i had.

[AKQJ10]

Today was the day i decided i need to play much less live Vegas LO8 and much more PLOH. Those games can be GOOOOOOOD! (Small sample; i went back in one that was awful.)

[cbt]

Originally Posted by AKQJ10

Today was the day i decided i need to play much less live Vegas LO8 and much more PLOH. Those games can be GOOOOOOOD! (Small sample; i went back in one that was awful.)

solid sample would be playing 5 years 8 hours 7 days a week

[Donk Quixote]

I have A45Q in multiway limped pot, SB guy in his 50s gets out raising chips but then says something about how there's too many people in the pot to bother raising and calls instead.

SB comes out firing on A44 flop, I raise, he insta 3-bets, I want to fold sooooo bad.

[shrewd crude]

hahaha...you da man donk quixote...
what happened?

.^sc

[Donk Quixote]

Originally Posted by shrewd crude

hahaha...you da man donk quixote...
what happened?

.^sc

Aces full, ldo

[UnnaturalDisaster]

I guess I'm running descent so far this month in cash games.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[CtrlAltDel]

Was reading ss2 on 0/8 and Doyle said that,
"two pair is dangerous because there will most likely be a straight possibility on board and in order for no straight to be in order there must be a king,queen, or both on final bored giving value to kings or queens up".

Am i not getting this? A267j. (Sorry,if i was not allowed to quote from books.)

[AKQJ10]

Originally Posted by CtrlAltDel

Was reading ss2 on 0/8 and Doyle said that,
"two pair is dangerous because there will most likely be a straight possibility on board and in order for no straight to be in order there must be a king,queen, or both on final bored giving value to kings or queens up".

Am i not getting this? A267j. (Sorry,if i was not allowed to quote from books.)

Did Doyle write that chapter? I thought someone else did.

You're correct and it's technically wrong, but probably just an imprecise wording of the following: In order for no straight , low, or full house to be in order there must be a king,queen, or both. On A267J, top two has a decent shot at winning half but probably won't scoop. Any ace-high non-low board has a straight possible. (Top two might still win; there are few absolutes in O8, but the possibility of a straight seriously devalues top two).

[CtrlAltDel]

Sorry, Bobby Baldwin wrote. Didn't mean to discredit Doyle. Yea, I miss understood, kings up means no Ace on board. doyyy

[Buzz]

Originally Posted by CtrlAltDel

Am i not getting this?

I don't know if you're getting it or not.

Turns out in my games the most common type of winning high hand is two pairs. In other words, someone wins with two pairs more than someone wins with trips, someone wins with two pairs more than someone wins with a straight, etc.

Despite this, in my games you lose with two pairs more often than you win with two pairs. Thus Doyle is correct when he states "two pair is dangerous."

A267j.

If you mean that to represent a five card board, there clearly is no straight possible and there is also no king and no queen.
Thus you have found a bit of errata that Doyle or the co-author of that section, Bobby Baldwin missed. When I read that section of the book I missed it too. That's the first error of which I am aware that has been identified in the Omaha-8 section of that excellent book.

Good eyes!

It's a very minor error in an otherwise excellent section.

(Sorry,if i was not allowed to quote from books.)

I'm not an attorney and I don't know copyright law. My copy of Doyle's book states "all rights reserved." I think the intent of that is to prevent you from quoting any part of the book without expressed permission from the publisher.

Thus I thought you violated copyright law before I read the "fair use" rule of copyright law (the criticism and comment section).

So I'll let it stand, at least until I hear otherwise from 2+2 administration.

As stated, I'm not an attorney.

Buzz

[GrimIsCool]

Yeah he def meant to write "no low" as well, that's the important concept to grasp in that section. The O8 chapter in SS2 (indeed most of the book) I still consider to be my bible. For the beginner mixed game player it's a great introduction to the fundamentals that you just don't get from barely learning the rules.

[UnnaturalDisaster]

Lost all respect for DurptyDoo...followed me and another guy who were looking to play hu ignoring our request and sitting in for over 30 mins and when I played him he hit and runs me for 2 buy ins lol what a joke you are you weak nit

[Pickled Toad]

God I miss Full Tilt!

In honor of the 1 year anniversary of BF a couple of months ago, I figured I would throw a little bit of money on Cake.

Here is a huge micro pot

http://cakepoker.eu/en/HandHistory?H...bExojFxMHCxcHF

I do not know if Cake hands like this can be converted?

[Captain R]

I'm pretty sure Mark Gregorich actually wrote the O8 SS2 section and Bobby just signed off on it.