a scenario under dispute

Hello everyone, I am interested to know what any of you think about this particular scenario I was involved in just now in a multi.

there was about 150 people left out of 560

big blind was 150
9 person full table
there were 3 players involved in this pot, me being one of them
I started hand with 1250 chips
I was big blind for 150 so going into the flop I had 1100 chips
the small blind called, which put him at 1680 going into the flop
the other guy involved in this pot called the blind out of position, he had
5,625 chips going into the flop

I had Q 10 off suit
small blind guy had 2 5 diamonds
and other guy had A 8 diamonds

the flop came 9d7c8d

big stack checks.... small blind bets out 150.... i go all in for 1100....

What would generally do if you were the big stack guy, with my all in in front of you...

as far as other factors go..... I had been playing tight, as I always do... and for the sake of this argument let's say the small blind guy was a neutral style player.

if I was the big stack I would call floor because its a fixed deck.

call floor because it is a fixed deck? what does that mean?

look at hand there are two 8 of diamonds in the deck.

Meaning that the hand is void because he can't have the 8 of diamonds when it also came out on the flop.

When you call "floor!", you are asking for the floor manager/pit boss/ tourney director.

there are 2 8's of diamonds in the deck? what the hell does that mean?

I give up.

oh sorry i didnt read your last post before writing that

ohhh, hahahahah i mis wrote it. DAMNIT

the 7 and the 9's were diamonds

then the big stack should either re-raise all in to isolate or fold, the origional bet of 150 is sure sign of weakness and he knows he has at least 9 outs against you to make the flush. and before you say 2 of his outs are gone because other guy had 2 diamonds you only count on unseen cards and he dosent know the other guy had 2 diamonds.

he is getting 5-1 on his call of your all in. Id be more inclinded to shove here, actully im shoving this as big stack most of the time.

i wasnt going to say that.

So that would lead me to assume they both went allin... Could be wrong here, but I have that poker-gut telling me I'm right.

why would he want to drop 1100 on a flush draw?

the small blind guy called for all his chips, yes

5-1 on his call and flush draw is 3-1 to hit. Simple. plus his ace might be good adding like 2 more outs because we discount.

where do you get 5-1

look at it this way if big stack loses he goes down to 4k in chips which is still 26 big blinds and if he wins he has massive chip stack. Its a simple play in my opinion.

where do you get 5-1 though?

its only 2-1 on his call by pot odds but his relative chip stack is 5-1 on your bet, if this bet was more of his chip stack it would be a fold because of pot odds but because of his chip stack this should be pretty much instant call.

why does having a big chip stack mean you should bet on worse pot odds?

you dont take your chip stack into concideration when you make a call in a game? you dont take how many big blinds you would have left?

if you dont you should, this should be a standard shove vs your range of hands. he can add 2k to his stack or lose 1k and still have plenty of chips to still have fold equity and chip his way up.

why do you think when people try to make a decision they count out the chips for the call then see how much they would have left. You think they do it just to get more TV time?

Pot odds is why , he's getting the right price on his money. If you're talking about the big stack, he's got your post flop shove way covered,, and his draw, being for the nut flush, beats the hell outta your str8 draw. Even worst case, he's still EV'd into the call

Hey Scott what is the dispute you speak of in title? is him calling on a flush draw the dispute you're having? if not please clarify what the dispute is.

Thanks

im guessing he called and won with Ace high or flush.

Yes Storm I am thinking the same thing.

storm... are you saying it was a risk 1 to win 2 situation?

I have no idea what you are trying to ask?

I think your play was fine concidering your stack size, I think the big stacks call if that is what he did was fine. I think other guy that called with the small flush is pretty bad.

is that what you are asking?

it was more like risk 1 to win 1.3

me and a friend are arguing about whether the big stack made a good call. he sees it as a no brainer, i see it as fold is the right move

but i'm open to debate... i just want to see if i'm alone on this stance

reglar, you say pot odds is why he should have called... he didnt have near the right odds for a flush draw... i dont understand

1k from 5k stack is pretty simple call and your range is pretty huge from the Big Blind so he could figure his ace was good also giving him 12 outs. If you run this through your range im guessing he is at least 50% equity.

you are not going to be able to argue a point that he should fold because math wise its the correct play to call/shove.

true he was only getting 2-1 on his call, maybe tiny bit more but because he is only risking 20% of his stack that makes up for the very small difference in pot odds.

I will run it through pokerstove now.

he has 76% equity in the hand vs your range which is random, no brainer call.


even if we put in your hand he still has 68% equity


and even if we add the third hand is he STILL has better equity at 64% with known cards.


now if we hide the hands lets see, against 2 random hands he has 64% equity


if he fold this its a huge huge mistake.


ive been trying to run different things to try to get his equity under 50% but just cant so yea your friend is right. even with pot odds of only 2-1 he has to call vs random hands.

how does having a big stack make you willing to take bigger risks?

what does equity mean in the context of poker?

go here
PokerStove: Poker Software and Analysis



The values generated are all-in equity values. This is not the chance that a hand will win the pot. Rather it is the fraction of the pot that a hand will win on average over many repeated trials, including split pots. The equity for a hand is calculated by dividing the number of "pots" that the hand won by the number outcomes considered. Because two players can split a pot, a player can win fractional pots. Thus, it is possible for a hand to have non-zero equity despite the fact that it cannot win.
equity (%) win (%) / tie (%) Hand 1: 50.3340 % [ 49.39 00.95 ] { 2s2h } Hand 2: 49.6660 % [ 48.72 00.95 ] { random }


In the above example the pair of twos has 50.334% equity. That equity is made up of 49.39% win equity, and .95% tie equity. The tie equity is not the percentage of time that a hand will tie, rather it is the equity attributed to ties. Tie equity is reported instead of % tie because the amount of equity that a tie generates depends on how many players shared the pot. If two players share a pot, half the equity for that pot will given to each player. If three players share a pot, one third of the equity for that pot will be allocated.

yes it means you can "afford" to take those risks.

you say he has to call for 2-1 against "random hands."..... i pushed all in over the top of a raise.... how does that suggest that i have a "random hand"

he has to put me on at least a pair, with an outside chance of a total bluff (which happens to be what i was doing)

the guy only had to risk 1/5 of his chipstack to call your all in.

he still would have had enough of a stack to not have to worry about being shortstacked if he lost your all in.

he was only getting 2-1-ish in pot odds, and with his flush draw and his ace, he figured he had 12 outs to outdraw you.

the range of hands he could put you on since you were in BB made him think he had a better shot of winning the hand anyway.

it is a no brainer call vs. your possible range of hands.