Fucking ouch!

OUCH!

3 clubs on board, i would have folded when he raised after turn.

h@c was just trying to get naz off the his hand. semi-bluffed the turn and won, shit happens, but its profitable for good ol' nazzy to call compadre.

Submitted by : Nazgul

PokerStars Game #3218636770: Hold'em No Limit ($10/$20) - 2005/12/02 - 09:33:02 (ET)
Table 'Sylvia' Seat #6 is the button
Seat 4: H@££INGGOL ($2929 in chips)
Seat 6: Nazgul18 ($2199 in chips)
Seat 7: lenuts ($2118 in chips)
lenuts: posts small blind $10
H@££INGGOL: posts big blind $20
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Nazgul18 ]
Nazgul18: raises $60 to $80
lenuts: folds
H@££INGGOL: calls $60
*** FLOP *** ]
H@££INGGOL: checks
Nazgul18: bets $120
H@££INGGOL: calls $120
*** TURN *** ]
H@££INGGOL: checks
Nazgul18: bets $320
H@££INGGOL: raises $660 to $980
Nazgul18: raises $1019 to $1999 and is all-in
H@££INGGOL: calls $1019
*** RIVER *** ]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
H@££INGGOL: shows ] (a flush, Ace high)
Nazgul18: mucks hand
H@££INGGOL collected $4407 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $4408 | Rake $1
Board ]
Seat 4: H@££INGGOL (big blind) showed ] and won ($4407) with a flush, Ace high
Seat 6: Nazgul18 (button) mucked ]
Seat 7: lenuts (small blind) folded before Flop

he was probably pissed his semi-bluff didnt work and said fuck it. a quick call yes? hopefully you play against him long enough to win ur money back.

-thoughts from a 0.1/0.2 ps player

no he thought for really long as he was figuring out the odds but then thought fuck it

fuck that beat u made a great read on turn no way can he call your push now he must die

I talked to EveryMe about this hand and he made a good point that I am pretty sure is correct.

His call was actually correct...if he folds the hand he would be facing a larger -EV than if he calls the hand. For instance if you play that situation out 10 times for each decision...he would lose 30k for folding every time but if he calls he would win 2 times for 4k pots and would lose 8 times for 4k pots...32k - 8k = 26k and that's less than the 30k he'd lose for folding.

what do you mean? they're talking about the $1000 call he made at the end with 8 outs, there's no way that's the correct call even if naz didn't have the ace

What i'm saying is the position he was in, no matter what decision he made he was going to lose money in the long run. But calling loses him less money in the long run.

is hallengol good?

blunder i think u have to redo your math on this hand

I didn't do the math, EveryMe did, but it seemed fine to me...what's wrong with it? I thought there might be but i couldn't directly point it out

ok it goes like this (I registered a damn account here just to try this to get passed)

if H@ folds there, 10 times, he's losing a $3,338 pot 10 times, wich would be a $33,880 loss
if he calls, he's losing a $4407 pot 8 times, and hitting his flush 2 times, so he's losing 6 x $4407, wich is a $26,442 loss

not only calling he's the right EV wise decision, but if he calls and hits maybe he gets nazgull on tilt, and he's giving action wich is good, makes people give you action too. Everything there says calling is better then folding.

Regarding the rest of the hand I think he played it pretty good, but the focus here was the call/fold.

you are fucking retarded go back to statistics class you grade A turkey

hallinggol has a 19.5% chance to hit 1 out of 5 times he wins this pot (1:4)

2369$ in the pot plus nazgul's 1019$ = 3388$ : 1019$ pot odds (3.33:1)

balance as follows: 1/4 x 3.33/1 = .831

the result of this equation needs to be greater than or equal to one for hallinggol to have had proper pot odds of calling with a retarded 20%er

not only this, but a lot of the time nazgul has two clubs in this situation reducing his outs/potodds substantially

hallinggol is a fucking monkey but you're an even bigger one

(the main logical flaw in your arguement is that when hallinggol folds he does not lose a 3388$ pot, he loses a 2369$ pot)

SAD

wth dude, I never said he has pot odds, HE DOESNT
you should try and re-read what I wrote instead of acting as a retard.

He's stuck at this hand, if he folds this hand he played it with terrible EV, if he calls he makes it a bit better, losing less money.
I guess that's the whole definition of pot commitment? pot commitment != pot odds

no you fucking idiot, according to what i said, on the turn, facing nazgul's 1019$ raise in the long run he will lose money by calling that bet 100000 times in the same spot

i spell it out for you and you still can't get it

quit poker go work at mcdonalds

lol is it? ok so lets do it otherway arround

Hallinggol has $1500 in the pot by the time Naz pushes, so if he folds 10 times, yada yada, he loses $15k
if he calls he will lose $2519 x 8, and win $4404 x 2, make the rest of the calculations.

what is SAD is that you suck and I thought you were decent

LOL THE AMOUNT HALLINGGOL HAS COMMITTED DOES NOT MATTER

THERE IS 2369$ IN THE POT, NAZGUL BETS 1019$ MORE AND HE CALLS WITH TERRIBLE POT ODDS

THERE IS NO SUCH FUCKING THING AS POT COMMITMENT IN POKER, ONLY POT ODDS

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

someone nicer than me please explain this mathematically indepth please (not that i haven't provided enough information for anyone with an IQ above 110 to understand)

Only possible (remote) reason to call is player image. But it's so far from being a correct call. These are not the hands he should be looking to improve his image on in my opinion. It's like justifying calling an allin with 27o preflop because it improves your image.

Rek said it. And that's best case scenario calculations I would think.

he loses money by calling that, agreed, that has nothing to do with what I said. He's also losing money either way, he loses less money on the overrall way he played this hand by calling then folding.
Oh well, I'm done. The only person I'd like to ear saying something about this is asdf2000, I'm hoping he will agree with me or at least show me where I'm wrong, instead of not getting it at all.

Rek do you think that call on the flop is terrible too?

YOU FUCKING IDIOT

IN THE LONG RUN BY FOLDING TO THAT BET HE DOES LOSE MONEY, YES NO FUCKING SHERLOCK SHIT

BUT IN THE LONG RUN BY CALLING THAT BET HE IS LOSING A LITTLE BIT MORE MONEY THAN HE WOULD BY FOLDING

STATISTICS 101, IN THE ONE YEAR I WAS IN UNIVERSITY I NEVER WENT TO A SINGLE CLASS AND FAILED CUZ OF BAD ATTENDENCE AND I STILL KNOW MORE THAN YOU

GO GO GO 101

On December 02 2005 13:47 NeverEndingStory wrote: Rek do you think that call on the flop is terrible too?

I think he was looking to make a play when a club hit, plus he had A high in a 3 handed game which isn't THAT bad. Given the fact he wanted bluff me out of a pot in case a club hit I think that justifies his call on the flop. His play on turn was nice too, but he got caught and it should have ended there.

Take it easy rek or youll get a heartattack :O

On December 02 2005 13:47 NeverEndingStory wrote: Rek do you think that call on the flop is terrible too?

from a simple point of view, yes of course it is terrble

but the 10/20 games are very advanced and strategical. hallinggol is the type of player to call with a bad hand knowing he can outplay his opponent on a later street with aggression. though i certainly don't like doing such a play without a flush draw or a straight draw....

but in this case he tried to outplay an opponent who just so happened to end up outplaying him and then made a donkey call and lucked out

so i can't really say it's bad or good....at this level you can't just say stuff about one hand like that because it all contributes to future hands too

Everyme think about this logically, you said yourself that calling on the turn will lose him money right because he doesnt have the pot odds. How could he possibly lose less money calling and losing extra money than just folding?

He losses money by calling on the turn there is no possible way this can save him money in the long run.

nevermind.

btw, EveryMe

GO THE FUCK BACK TO .5/1........1/2 is OBVIOULSY TOO ADVANCED FOR U

I see thanks for explanation.

Chill out!

everyme, its wrong

if he folds he loses how much he put into the pot, not how much the pot is worth

haha rekrul man, you're going to be scaring the newer posters into not posting for fear of being berated

IF YOU HAVE FIVE POSTS ALL OF WHICH ARE SPEWING UNFOUNDED NONSENSE THEN YOU DESERVE TO BE BERATED

Yeah, you have provided plenty of info. Pretty basic stuff. Only thing I care to ad is I thought being pot committed means you have commited yourself to a pot and have pot odds to call any bet. I would guess the reason rekrul says there is no such thing as pot commitment in poker is b/c you should never let this happen. For example, no one is going to 3-bet leaving themselves w/ 30 to 1 odds for their next decision, they are just giong to go all-in. In a tourney no one should be letting themselves get down to $10 or w/e if blinds are 200/400 w/ 20 antes.

Maybe he convinced himself had he hit the ace he coulda won? halling is one stubborn son of bitch

Mig thanks for pointing it out

Yeah I was wrong

"Hallinggol has $1500 in the pot by the time Naz pushes, so if he folds 10 times, yada yada, he loses $15k
if he calls he will lose $2519 x 8, and win $4404 x 2"

it's wrong because he doesnt win $4404, he wins half of it, that's were I fucked up when I typed that.
well it's still not horrible, he loses $15k if he folds that 10x, he loses $15,748 if he calls it 10x.
I think I'd still call it from time to time because of other factors. (and now I'm not saying it's correct to call money-wise)

Rekrul you're a fucking idiot. Go to FBI or CIA, arent you wasting your life?

Arya I never posted here nor I want to, I just got interested in this hand

On December 02 2005 14:11 RiKD wrote: Yeah, you have provided plenty of info. Pretty basic stuff. Only thing I care to ad is I thought being pot committed means you have commited yourself to a pot and have pot odds to call any bet. I would guess the reason rekrul says there is no such thing as pot commitment in poker is b/c you should never let this happen. For example, no one is going to 3-bet leaving themselves w/ 30 to 1 odds for their next decision, they are just giong to go all-in. In a tourney no one should be letting themselves get down to $10 or w/e if blinds are 200/400 w/ 20 antes.

even so that is still founded on pot odds not some mumbo jumbo called pot commitment,

semantics

On December 02 2005 14:13 EveryMe wrote: Mig thanks for pointing it out Yeah I was wrong "Hallinggol has $1500 in the pot by the time Naz pushes, so if he folds 10 times, yada yada, he loses $15k if he calls he will lose $2519 x 8, and win $4404 x 2" it's wrong because he doesnt win $4404, he wins half of it, that's were I fucked up when I typed that. well it's still not horrible, he loses $15k if he folds that 10x, he loses $15,748 if he calls it 10x. I think I'd still call it from time to time because of other factors. (and now I'm not saying it's correct to call money-wise) Rekrul you're a fucking idiot. Go to FBI or CIA, arent you wasting your life? Arya I never posted here nor I want to, I just got interested in this hand

I GOT UR IP ADDRESS IM GOING TO FRIGGEN HUNT YOU DOWN AND ARREST YOU MONKEY

lol how do you plan on doing that with an IP address?
but I can give you my adress if you want to, get a cab or something when you land here, I dont want you to get lost alone, I'd feel guilty

BTW SAY IT BABY SAY IT

YOU WIN REKRUL

OHHH IT BURNSSSSSsssSssSSsSSS

1/2 woOoOoOHoOoOOOo

On December 02 2005 14:13 Rekrul wrote: Show nested quote + On December 02 2005 14:11 RiKD wrote: Yeah, you have provided plenty of info. Pretty basic stuff. Only thing I care to ad is I thought being pot committed means you have commited yourself to a pot and have pot odds to call any bet. I would guess the reason rekrul says there is no such thing as pot commitment in poker is b/c you should never let this happen. For example, no one is going to 3-bet leaving themselves w/ 30 to 1 odds for their next decision, they are just giong to go all-in. In a tourney no one should be letting themselves get down to $10 or w/e if blinds are 200/400 w/ 20 antes. even so that is still founded on pot odds not some mumbo jumbo called pot commitment, semantics

Of course it is founded in pot odds, I agree with you. I was just trying to explain where the term "pot committment" came from, and why everyme's mumbo jumbo version of pot committment is wrong.

I said I was wrong, it's implicit that everyone else who was stating otherwise were right (yourself included, and all the others) what do you mean with you win? it isnt a competition, wtf have you won? you didnt even made me see my mistake because you're such an idiot, Mig did.

what are you trying to prove when you keep stating I play 1/2 nl,what does that matter to anything here?
90% of this community play lower then that, isnt the point people discussing stuff? and the quality of a player isnt even directly related with the stakes the player plays I'd think

i'm not trying to prove anything

i helped you out and posted clearly why you were wrong (though bad manner)

and you reacted by telling me i was acting retarded when in reality i had solved your mental problem

you are quite uncivil

Rek, u just overreacted
as usual though

no dude, the first time you replied you started by calling me a grade A turkey, and ended up with calling a bigger monkey then hallingal.
That's acting retarded, uncivil at best. And I obviously felt insulted, and didnt stop to think about the hand anymore between the arguing, until I read mig's post

sticks and stones

"and the quality of a player isnt even directly related with the stakes the player plays I'd think"

i wouldn't say 100% directly as there are always exceptions. but it correlates pretty well in general in my opinion.