mrs. robinson obv

+ 2000

yea, i call. why would anyone try to extract value with trip aces by just open shoving over 10x pot? any history with villian? my reasoning would be he knows you won't call without an ace, but he has a hand that beats a broadway obv w/o an Ace hand (66-TT?) but doesn't want to play a turn or risk getting raised, blahblahblah. i just leveled my own level i think.

either way, yes. call.

OI! I think my, although overlooked contribution, was original, and dare i say it genius. Not part of any herd....

It's hard to disagree with Deeb and a lot of the very intelligent players who posted here, but I'll still argue that calling is a good play. And I'll boil it down to some very simple math:

1. Required Equity: You need to be good 48% of the time to make this call.

2. Villain's Value Range: Against a tight and value-oriented villain range that matches the pre-flop action and hits the flop, including a bunch of a-x and small to middle pocket pairs, you're in big trouble -- you have as little is 35% equity. Please note, this is a very tight range. If we add in K5 and 65s, we get to 41% equity. Let's stick with the very conservative 35% equity figure for this analysis.

3. Villain's Bluffing Range: I think villain is easily bluffing with something outside this scary hand range over 10% of the time. The pre-flop action and bizarre bet sizing leads me to believe he's bluffing, say, 15% of the time. In those cases, let's assume we basically have him totally crushed with our over pair and, for the sake of simplicity, have 100% equity.

4. Therefore, (35% equity) * (85% occurrence) + (100% equity from bluff) * (15% occurrence) = 45% equity, pretty darn close to making this a call. On average, I think we have more hand equity against villain's range, and that villain is bluffing even more often, therefore making this a +EV call.

In the end, this comes down to how often you think villain is bluffing. I realize we have to make some assumptions and don't have many reads yet.. but at this level, with this play, and this wacko line, I feel reasonably confident that villain is bluffing enough here to make this is a +EV call.

I know some people will say "no way villain is bluffing very much with this line!" I agree -- I think he's bluffing only 15% of the time. Given his totally bizarre line and the flop texture, I'm very comfortable saying that 1 out of 6 times this is a bluff. And 1 out of 6 makes it pretty darn close to making this a good call.

OP, out of pure curiosity, could you please post results once you're satisfied with the responses?

I am going to definetly have to go with Deeb on this one.

i agree, but first turn your head, puke out the window, bash your head against the wall, and then fold....

I think a call really depends here.

What did he have?

Summary of Herd Mentality:

Before Deeb:
Call - 8 (80%)
Fold - 2 (20%)

After Deeb:
Call - 3 (20%)
Fold - 12 (80%)

I didn't post that I hated it the first time I opened this thread because quite frankly I just figured it wouldn't matter if I did.

If you don't agree it's a fold, post why because I don't get it.

priceless...well done

I'm gunna go anti-Deeb here and say call.

lol i get the ref...and have missed barry too

I'm gonna go with dweeb here and say fold. All we really know is that villains line is LOL. We still can't really make a good assumption of what that means, though. You would likely need a large amount of experience with calling 13x pot sized donkbet shoves on AAx and KKx rainbow boards w/ a pair to make a good decision, which would take forever.

everytime i see this happen i'll find this thread and post and obviously call the all in everytime

why would u call when this guy is obviously horrible and is going to give u his stack at some point in the near future when you have the nuts?

i can't tell you how many times i've called just because "**** him"!!!!!

I don't think this is a valid argument, as he is almost as likely to give away his stack to another player at the table in the meanwhile. The reason I think it's a fold is because I think calling in general is a -cEV decision in a cubed/freeze spot.

As for the pre/post Deeb replies, is it really that awkward having a majority of the forum agreeing (and changing opinion) with a player of his caliber?

This, and I call and F*** Him and his A rag.

Tempting yes, but this early with so little equity in this hand just let it go. It is almost always a -EV play even if we spite call. Fold

to me, an F U call is not based so much on ranges/equity etc, it is just "F U if you played A rag this badly, i call"

This is why it's always a good idea to read the hand history, formulate your response, post, THEN read the replies of others. Group polarization applies to pretty much everything including internet forums. For instance when I ask someone to look at something at work I'm not sure about I don't ask "What do you think this is? I think it's probably 'X'". I just ask "What do you think this is?" Otherwise they are extremely inclined to agree with me rather than formulating their own opinion. The drawback to this on the 2+2 forums is it makes you look dumb though when OP posts hand results before you post your reply.

For the record, I posted pre-Deeb that I would call out of spite but that the play was surely -EV

I for one have never seen someone do this, or at least I dont recall. Do people ever show up with like 77-JJ here?

lots of underestimating the correlation between spite calls and life ev itt

Is a spitefull call good or bad for life EV? I mean if you call and are right it's gonna make you feel great. But the whole concept of doing things outta pure spite means you are probably spending way too much life in general on tilt.

Edit: I just stoved a reasonable range of "life spite" scenarios and it turns out drunk dialing you ex and calling her a whore is actually +EV. So maybe doing things outta spite isn't all bad.