I agree 100% with this. I also think that Mahatma could be value-betting a worse (or the same) hand, depending on what sorts of "big" calls he has seen Hero make...

ML4L

edit: The chance of a value-bet with a worse hand is the reason that this becomes a tougher question with hands like A2o and KQo, IMO.

edit 2: Let me be the first to introduce 42 as a hand possibility as well...

let me clarify my question. it seems like a lot of you are saying something like: well you have to call here because top two pair is such a strong hand and if you just fold top two pair when P pushes you will get run over. so in other words you are using the hand strength here as a way to control how often we call when P pushes the river. i.e. call with AK or better, that way we call him x% of the time, if we call less than x% P will abuse us.

i know you don't think you are doing this but i'm pretty sure you are. because if we had KQ i don't think you would all say oh easy call P is bluffing. and yet most of you would agree that the vast majority of the time, P has either less than KQ or greater than AK.

it seems to me that this is sort of a game-theoretic approach. i.e. x% is optimal for calling P river push, and so i will call with AK or better to get to that x%. the problem of course is every scenario is different. THIS is the kind of thinking that makes P so successful, not the guys who are saying to fold. because when you think like this you are giving up already. you are not even trying to read him. you are just saying, my hand falls into the x% when i should call, i hope i win. he knows that you do this.

and that's why the x% is not going to work out for you. it's gonna seem like you're getting unlucky but you're not. it is by design that a good chunk of your x% calls will be against the nuts.

This is an incredibly good post.

I figured someone was going to pick up on this logic, so I should have already clarified, but oh well...

To retort, I realize that what I said (and what Matt said) might have come off as, "Dood, you have top two, you have to call." This isn't quite what I meant (and I presume that Matt didn't mean it quite like this as well).

If you have reason to believe that AK is no good here, you fold, metagame be damned... It's that simple.

The argument that I am making is that Mahatma will be bluffing here more often than people think he is. My guess is that, given this particular board, he does not expect a call. Depending on the way the game has been playing (here is where some history would be very helpful), he likely puts his opponent on a decent, but not great, hand. The flop bet probably means almost nothing, and I think that the turn call could mean anything from middle pair up to around AK; a set for Hero has to be discounted because it might raise the turn. A set is also far less probable from a Bayes Theory, starting hand perspective. So, to Mahatma, it is a simple question of, "How often will my opponent fold a middle or top pair type hand to my all-in?" My guess is that, in this spot, he would probably conclude that a river bluff is a good move.

Also, something that many people have not considered is that, if the game has been playing wide-open, Mahatma could easily be value-betting a worse hand here. If he thinks that his opponent can make a big call, he could have a worse two pair, or MAYBE even a bare ace, although I think that this is pushing it. Again, more history/context would be helpful.

Then, of course, he could have a straight or a set.

I think that, when we put it all together, Hero's hand is best often enough to call in this particular spot. If he thinks that Hero will never make a big call, he will make a ton of these bets as bluffs, knowing that he will only get caught by a really big hand. If he thinks that Hero might make a big call, he will probably not be bluffing quite as often, but there is a higher probability of a value-push from a worse hand. I think that either way, it ends up being a call here. So, depending on the history, AK might be the same as KQ here for Hero. Or, it might be drastically different...

I guess to sum it up, people are looking at the situation as, "Mahatma HAS to know that Hero has AK here and that he will probably call, so this is probably a value bet; thus, you should fold." I am looking at it from the perspective that Mahatma thinks that Hero doesn't have enough hand to call an all-in on the river most of the time in this spot given the board and action to this point. I think that there is a very high likelihood that the river push was preordained given the action prior to the river.

I don't even think that this helped to clarify what I was trying to say, but it's a start at least. Again, to a degree, all of this is meaningless without some sort of context.

ML4L

Jason and Gimmedawatch,

Yes I have played 4-6-handed with Prahlad several times. fwiw, I am way ahead of him in hands we have played together. He is very good. I would not play him heads up and would only play him three-handed if a megafish was in the third seat. Also, I do not like playing that high.

My biggest money-winner against him is to flat call his flop bet with a set, then call his all-in huge overbet on the turn. For whatever reason he has a habit tic of doing that. My suspicion is that habit has made him a losing player. Yes, losing.

Matt

really excellent post man. the end especially.

Nice post.

There are definitely hands that he would push with between KQ and AK. Namely, any two pair that hit the ace, possibly a weaker two pair, and possibly a bare ace.

More rant: Prahlad has no fear. Barring a great run of cards, you cannot beat him unless you are willing to stick your chips in. Mortal top two on a barely coordinated board (there is precisely one straight out there) is a through ticket, no questions asked, and especially when calling a giant all in from him. This is not close. I do not care what he actually had. Folding is a several thousand dollar mistake. You cannot win if you do not make those calls.

Disengage brain. Go to arm. All in, and try not to spill your drink.

Matt

Why is Mahatma betting the turn here? If OP is a tight player and I assume he is, then Mahatma can't possibly think that his turn bet has much fold equity--the board is not scary (especially with that inconspicuous turn card) and it has two broadway cards. On the river with that ace maybe you just made top pair or maybe he read you perfect and you made top two, so he takes advantage of his crazy river overbet reputation and gets you to call vs his set.

Two straights: TJQKA and A2345

like i said, precisely two straights.... ;-)

I agree, here's a hand I saw:

Board: K T 9 6 J

Mahatma goes all-in for over 10K
Opponent calls with AQ no flush.
Mahatma has 87 no flush.

First off I don't know this mahatma guy. From reading a few of these threads it seems he does this often. SO if he's bluffing, he has to be bluffing a missed something, the only draw came. So he didn't miss a draw. So the only other conclusion is he's doing it for value. A set of tens or threes seem likely, those beat you. The only hand that you beat is KT. That being said I fold on the river. If the river was a bick, say a 3, then I call river saying maybe QJ. If there's a flush draw on this flop, then I call river bet as well. But since the only hand you beat that I can see is KT, and I know that river looks scary to KT, cause AK and AT beat him now, I doubt he overbets KT like that on that river card.

In conclusion, I fold this river.

River= brick, I call river bet.

If there was a flush draw on flop I call this river bet.

If you fold the river stated, I think rarely you will fold the best hand, and that being vs. KT

i haven't read most of the responses but the first few players seem to advocate a call... to me this is a clear fold. Let's go through the hand:

Mahatma cold calls on a board of KT3 rainbow. This is a draw or this is a good pair or this is a good two pair or this is a set. Possible draws: JQ.

Turn 5 completeing the rainbow. Mahatma bets pot. This is a draw or this is a good pair or this is a good two pair or this is a set. Possible draws: JQ. Now hero calls. Mahatma puts hero on a set or AK.

River: A. Mahatma goes all in. Mahatma puts hero on: a set or AK, hence, two pair or a set. Mahatma thinks: There's no way he will fold two pair or a set against me, I am a crazy lag. I will overbet all in. Possible missed draws: none. Mahatma either has a set or JQ here, at best you are chopping. To me, clear fold.

Mahatma may be a crazy lag but if you can't differentiate between situations in which bluffs make any sense and bluffs don't make any sense, you are the reason Mahatma is a rich man.

Edit: now I have read through more of this thread, and the logic I anticipated that my short post overlooked has been thrown out there: Mahatma might think that hero will go through precisely this logic and bluff on this board because hero will say mahatma expects a call and thus fold.

I don't care. I think that is bad logic on this board. This board has very few draws... It is not a scary board... that's the point.

For someone that pointed out a board when there were four to a higher straight and a flush and Mahatma all in value bet the lower straight, it is a differenty situation. There, the board is so draw heavy that it is a "scary board." Mahatma knows the opponent will value bet HIM all in if he has the higher straight or flush so he says well I might as well let him make a "big call" with a set and get some value from my low straight. On that board, that makes sense. On this board, this makes no sense.

Mahatma is a crazy lag but crazy lags that are smart don't often try to push people off top two or sets, especially when he knows, as Ajo (i forget was it him?) pointed out, people are just playing percentages against him and top two is "usually good."

Are you serious? What about pricing out draws? Seems like that's a good reason to raise from time to time.

that's a given. the board in hand in question is pretty dry, so it would be a bad time to raise a TPTK hand on the turn.

This thread is turning out great many different/interesting opinions. I particularly found AJ's post very thought provoking. please post more guys.

I agree that this would be a bad raise. Just wanted to make sure people reading this looking for general rules to raising don't forget the obvious one, even if it doesn't seem to apply here.

What is your hand range when you raise preflop? When you call his turn? What would a logical person think you could be holding and what would they think you will to do with each hand?

Everyone is advocating a call or fold like we're playing in a vacuum where AK > or < opponent's hand range when we don't even know what Mahatma thinks Hero could be holding or what he tends to do. How often has Hero been opening? What has Hero been doing post-flop? How aggressively has Mahatma been playing? How has Hero adjusted? Could Hero have KQ? KJ? QJ? An even worse K? A stubborn QQ/JJ defending against the unlikely one barrel bluff? Could you have a set? What would you do on the turn w/all of those hands? So, what % of your hand range do you think he'll think you'll fold? Etc. So many questions need answering before I can make any sort of decision as to whether or not a call is profitable (and even then it's a guess) vs. one of the best NL players in the world. As AJo said in his post, if you fall into the trap of thinking AKo is an awesome hand that's better than most others and you should therefore call vs. someone who could be holding anything, you're going to lose a ton of money. You're going to lose just as much vs. thinking opponents if you think they'll never bluff when a bluff looks idiotic. Hand ranges are constantly in flux. Adjust.

This isn't 1knl vs. unthinking automatons. I will be the first to admit that I haven't the slightest idea what the answer is, and I don't think anyone else does, either. Had to be there.

no.

this is not a "nuts or air." mahatma can value bet worse hands. this can easily be a worse set and it isn't even close.

Scary board vs. PF raiser. Hero is likely to have two pair or a set on this board, and yet.. he ain't scared.

5 handed in an aggressive game. Hero should be opening with a broad range. Aggro opponents will call with a wide range to steal, especially if you're doing something exploitable (giving away too much information) on later streets.

It is not so simple. Fit or fold is not a winning strategy vs. smart aggro players.

"Hero is likely to have two pair or a set on this board"

If this is always true, Hero should just send Mahatma a cheque every week and save himself the trouble of playing bad poker.

post the results already! end this debate.

posting results will end a debate only for the most feeble-minded of players.

Results have already been posted.

I think that there is hero worship of Mahatma going on here. I remember a couple of threads recently that I think El Diablo posted of big stakes (around 50/100 I think). In those threads the standard line of thought was:

High stakes the average unknown will have a wider range than at 5/10 and you will get run over like crazy if you fear the nuts. The hands I'm thinking of were where Diablo had KK and was against a UGT preflop raiser who mini reraised. A lower limit player was advocating folding as it is AA. He got torn a new one. Another hand I think Diablo checkraised and called a push with the flush out there. He was up agaist somthing like K7 for a turned 2 pair and his straight was good.

Now it's mahatma and he has the nuts? And he puts hero on exactly AK. Why? Hero doesn't even raise the turn. The average unknown has a wide range and Mahatma has the nuts only here? Maybe Mahatma would have check folded a turned 2 pair? Or if it got checked through he would have check folded when the big fat Ace fell on the river?

What I', reading from ML4L and Matt Flynn is exactly what I learned from those 2 threads I referenced above. It seems like they know what they are talking about.

I don't feel like sifting through to try to find the results since I have read most of posts already. If they have been posted can someone recap for me please?

wtf? my post that you responded to contained the results.