Do we need a new thread for 'Most absurd poker "thinking" you have read on 2+2'?

I know this is off topic from the thread, but 2p2 is supposed to be a helpful place. Let's simply this. Let's say the deck consists of 5 cards numbered one through five. Each player gets 1 card. Hero is dealt the '1'.

The probability that the villain has the '5' is 25% (1/4).

One card is exposed on the flop. It is a '2'.

The probability that the villain has the '5' is now 33% (1/3).

Do you see that the probabilities can change as more information is known?

BigChips, its a matter of presentation.

"I'm so sure of my mathematical prowess and knowledge of poker that you should just give me your stack now"

* encourages thought
* encourages strategy
* encourages oneupsmanship

"OK, you pick your suit, and I'll bet you $50 that AA beats 98s on the next full board. How about it?"

* encourages gambling
* encourages comraderie

Even better if he wins the first one, because then you might be able to get him going double or nothing the rest of the night. Or until someone tips him off.

Speaking of, does anyone remember when a big 2+2 name (a Skalasnky or Malmuth) posted something like "__ is a better hand than ___, I'll let someone else explain why." and no one agreed with him at all?

I see that side of it too but he was so convinced that the 89 was favored that I thought it was worth a shot to get 800 bucks, haha.

He's the one who initiated the conversation and brought it up. He just started up about 89 suited vs AA when someone raised big pre-flop, everyone folded and the guy who raised showed AA then the guy who I'm talking about said he would call with 89 suited vs AA anyday then went into his deal. I didn't raise my voice, I didn't make him feel stupid I just asked him if he wanted to back up what he was so sure of with some money. Once I said that he pretty much backed off it and started backpedaling a little bit. I hardly ever even say anything to any one at the pokertable but he seemed so convince that I'd actually thought he'd take me up on it and if he wasn't that convinced and was just running his mouth to hear himself talk then he should STFU ! It's a +EV situation for me all around.

A - He shuts up
B - I win 800 bucks

C - next time you move AI PF against him HU he correctly folds his suited connectors. While you're at it it is probably a great move to teach the table about implied v immediate odds, how to calculate and discount outs and odds and other nice topics. Bet they would all be very long term +EV for the rest of the table to now research and learn. But at least you won't have to listen to them "educate" the others at the table with some of the nonsense that goes around.

Personally - the more nonsense that gets spoken at at a table, the more I like it as it generally means the table is very +EV.

To make this really simple I will take an example to the extreme end. There are 2 cards in a deck - a K and a Q. You deal one card to your opponent and none to yourself. Opponent gives off no tells. What is the probability of opponent holding a Q? You will probably correctly guess 50%. Now - turn the second card face up. The card is a K. There are no more cards in this K and Q deck. What is the probability of vil holding a Q now? It is now 100% - vil has to have a Q. Exactly the same principle with a full deck but it becomes more complicated as there are more combinations and you have to weight certain combinations heavier than others due to betting patterns, player profile etc. The problem is that your opponents cards are set but you do not know what the cards are so using simple statistical means you have to try to narrow down their range. If they would play exactly the same line with any two cards, then 2 Q on the board greatly reduces the chance they hold a Q. Now if you have some kind of read on them, then you can weight the chances of them holding a Q lighter or heavier depending on the read but that's a different topic.

Anyways - less strat and more "thinking"

Wait, is this something absurd you heard at the poker table, or do you actually believe this?

Again, I understand and like I said I don't educate players at the table. Enough with everyone trying to be the smartest guy in the room. Yeah I know not to say certain things to people. The only reason why I said something this time is that I really thought I'd get action from him and all I said is "no it's not a favorite" and offer him a bet. I didn't go in to some big explanation of odds all I said is that it wasn't a favorite and offered him a bet that he declined on. If everyone want's to freak out and go ZOMG DON'T TAP THE GLASS then fine but I think there are definitley different levels of it. If he is just spouting off at the mouth and doesn't really believe it's a favorite when push comes to shove then it doesn't matter anyway. If he's not taking the bet I'm guessing he's not calling off the 800 with 89 either when I shove my AA.

Not always true either. I was playing 20-40 at commerce and I was having a conversation with a pretty strong TAG. He was probably one of the stronger regulars (not a great feat at commerce 20-40, I know), and was clearly a winner in the game.

Anyway this guy goes on about how he always leaves if he goes up $1000. Of course, we all know that if the game is good and you're playing well (not tired, drunk, etc.), you should play. Now there are plenty of reasons that are pseudo-logical that I would have accepted for his win limits, but here's what he said (roughly):

"You know there are some things that those books don't teach you. One of them is that is that you can have only so much luck. At about $1000, I know mine will run out, so I stop."

I initially thought that it was a massive level, but the guy was totally serious. And he was a consistent winner. Go figure.

That was an awesome thread -- I wasn't there at the time, but saw a link to it recently.

It was MM. He dug himself in deeper and deeper until you almost felt sorry him. Almost.

(I think he argued that AQo oop was better than JJ ip, with money behind.)

You don't really think at any point he was going to take your bet, do you? I believe you're smarter than that.

I understand it's not a big deal, I'm just thinking of the larger picture here. In this thread are a lot of people looking down on other people for "wrong" thinking. Some people get so upset to the point of tilting off a few racks.

In your example, no matter what, the other person is going to feel publicly shamed. He will not be as comfortable at the table, and there's a good chance he'll tighten up because he's just been shown up in front of a group of strangers. He may even leave. He might not be so eager to return. It's a subtle effect, but this is a game of small edges.

I just feel its short-sighted. Why was his talking bugging you? What about simply saying something like, "Yeah, if I'm going against Aces, 89s is a good hand to have." Everybody feels good, nobody is put on the spot, game continues as normal. Maybe others will think you're not as good at poker as you are. That's even more +EV.

Won a nice pot at Hollywood HRock 5-10 last night when my top and bottom pair held up heads up all-in against an opponent who held a one-card open ended straight-flush draw AND a pair after the flop (Effective stacks to pot ratio was 1.8 to 1 after the flop). When we tabled our hands I said, "wow, what a big hand, you were a pretty big favorite - I lucked out on that one!". Young obnoxious player says loudly and repeatedly that my opponent was "way behind", "was a big underdog" and "made a terrible call because he was not getting 3-to-1 on his money - which is required to put his chips on on a draw". I actually offered to talk him through his errant thinking, if he just piped down and opened his mind. Most whack thing - dealer agrees with young douche that it was a bad call heads up! He continued to spout nonsense over and over until I remembered this thread. Even though he was SUCH a turd and SO loud while spewing nonsense in a confrontational manner with douchie bravado, I changed gears and said..... "ooooh, I just remembered, you are correct... never mind" and put on my headphones.

Result - douche goes on tilt and I do not tap tank.

better than fighting a douchie brick wall of ignorance.

3/6 at Canterbury a few years back.

Drunk kid posts and gets it all in with someone in MP. Loses boat over boat. When asked why he played j8 (or something similar) MP says "i was in the big blind, big blind special." Drunk kid flips and gets escorted out.

I really don't see how he is going to feel shamed. Honestly. I wasn't grilling the guy. I wasn't putting him on the spot either. He put himself on the spot by starting the conversation and making the declaration that 89 suited is favored against AA.

Was he going to take the bet? Yeah, probably not but you should've seen how hard he was vehemently defending his idea. It seemed as if he seriously with every fiber in his body that that 89 suited was really the favorite. I thought that some one with that much conviction behind their words would be willing to back it monetarily also.

It's not really shortsighted at all. If I played with this guy every day 8 hours a day then yeah I can see it being -EV to get him to think differently about something but if it's just random who's popping off his mouth at HG that I don't know from Adam and that I'll probably never see again it really isn't going to matter in the grand scheme of things.


Ussually people that run off at the mouth that don't know what they are talking about annoy not just me but most people. It wasn't even really me he was arguing with I just offered him a bet that's all. There were a couple other people that were really going back and forth with him I just said one thing. I really don't want to hear someone go on and on for an extended period of time at the table about something they are clearly wrong about. "Okay so 89 is a favorite against AA, what now?" I did it really to just end the conversation because it was a truly annoying conversation. If the guy is going to donk his money off to me he's going to do it whether I offer him that bet or not. I really don't think it magically makes him a great player or changes his whole persona.

Trust me I truly understand the whole don't tap on the glass concept but I honestly don't think it fits in this situation. In a super nitty "ZOMG DON'T TAP ON THE GLASS UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES BECAUSE YOU ARE GOING TO LOSE .00000001 % of EV AGAINST THAT GUY" sort of way then yeah sure but in all reality I really don't think this specific example would change anything significantly.

love that guy lol

But they were suited!

Okay, fair enough, you were mostly an observer in that story. It's the other people who were arguing with him that were the problem. You said he was vehemently defending his position, yet you don't see how he felt put on the spot? Maybe not by you, but by somebody.

It's not the 0.000001% equity that concerns me, it's the overall vibe. Not really your situation specifically, but in general. Far more often than not, when someone tries to argue with someone who is misinformed, it's a mood-killer.

But what? Oh, sorry . . .

He said that if you opened from the SB to 4.5bb and your opponent reraised to 13bb in the BB, you'd be better off with AQs than JJ.

The thinking he used to was correct. His assumptions about how ppl play NL hold'em were deemed unrealistic.

If you really want to get into it -- no, he wasn't correct at all. His initial claim was that the AQ had an equity advantage after the three-bet was called; he later shifted to trying to prove that calling the JJ's three-bet was correct, considering pot odds and money behind; then he tried to prove one or the other of those (he kept switching) by showing that there was a strategy that AQ could use to win, provided JJ played a suboptimal counterstrategy and you made simplifying assumptions that happened to obviate some of the advantages of the jacks. And every time someone pointed one of these little details out, his response was "I'll let others elaborate" -- but none did, because no one agreed with him

Definitely worth a read, for any of you who happen to run into it.

This and it's not even close.

It is like when you are playing in a loose game, and someone gets a big hand snapped off and they berate another player. Everyone notices this because it is completely out of line. All of a sudden other loose players who weren't even involved in the hand decide that they better tighten up and not play as many bad cards, because they don't want to get yelled at while playing a game that is supposed to be fun.

It's all about the mood of the table, and keeping it where you want it to be.

thats frickin' awesome.

we need a satire poker book full of the worst poker advice that is commonly given...

Playing 2/5 PLO in some sh*tty casino in oklahoma. I'm in early position and pick up naked aces. The game is passive overall (little raising), except for the BB, who is drunk and raising the pot more than half of the hands. While I don't like naked aces, I'm 90% sure if I call the action will call around to the BB, who will raise the pot, allowing me to isolate and get him all-in with his four random cards for a decent advantage. If I lose, no biggie.

I call, 7(!?) other people call, he bets the pot. I re-pot to 350+, nearly his stack. Everyone folds. He says, "I know you have Aces, but this isn't hold 'em and those suck in this game" and goes all-in. I call. He shows QJ42, with a suited J. Aces hold up, which completely shocks the BB. He rebuys for the minimum, tightens up some, and bitches at me for how badly I 'overplayed' my aces, explaining to me about how "aces are no good in omaha" and letting me know that I just got lucky that time, but really need to 'learn the game' and not treat it like hold 'em.

Yeah, I love live poker...