High stakes poker season 7 is a disgrace.

[NeverTilt]

It has absolutely nothing to do with some form of "feel-good factor". If calling loses me money over the long term then I'll avoid calling.

You are obviously not going to alter your viewpoint on this. No matter how many successful and respectable players/members tell you otherwise.

I specifically said "it's situational based on many factors". Obviously, calling that long-term will probably lose you money.

Who said "everytime?" Nobody said every fold they make is a good one, LOL. Just that you can make a good fold with the best hand.

This x1000. It's pretty much why I had given up on this discussion. Was going to post as much, but decided it was a waste of my time. Still is, I suppose.

You obviously knew what I meant with "everytime". Like I said, if folding in that situation is a good fold, then what would calling be? A bad-call? LOL. No, I think that would be called a hero-call.

I'm always trying to improve my game, and when I fold the best hand in a given situation, I always think what I could have done to make a better read. I don't simply say, "good fold". I understand that there are situations where you just can't call with the best hand. But, I would chalk that up to not having enough information, or having the wrong information. Not, "good fold".

You could not be more wrong. He defined "bad fold" and you simply responded with, "no, that's not true." He quantified his use of the term, you can't just say that's not correct. What you can do is give your definition, which you did, and they are different. But he isn't wrong. Hence, you two were talking past each other.

I think this is, "I have more posts than you and have been a member longer, so I will go against common language and say folding the best hand is a good fold".

 

[duggs]

I specifically said "it's situational based on many factors". Obviously, calling that long-term will probably lose you money.

You obviously knew what I meant with "everytime". Like I said, if folding in that situation is a good fold, then what would calling be? A bad-call? LOL. No, I think that would be called a hero-call.

I'm always trying to improve my game, and when I fold the best hand in a given situation, I always think what I could have done to make a better read. I don't simply say, "good fold". I understand that there are situations where you just can't call with the best hand. But, I would chalk that up to not having enough information, or having the wrong information. Not, "good fold".

I think this is, "I have more posts than you and have been a member longer, so I will go against common language and say folding the best hand is a good fold".

Yes, A call that loses you money long term is considered a bad call.
you are being results orientated, just because he had one of many possible hands at that given time didnt mean you played it wrong by folding, no more than running KK into AA for 10bb is a "Bad Shove"

 

[dmorris68]

Yes, A call that loses you money long term is considered a bad call.
you are being results orientated, just because he had one of many possible hands at that given time didnt mean you played it wrong by folding, no more than running KK into AA for 10bb is a "Bad Shove"

+1

Another example of the same line of thinking would be folding 72o UTG, and then seeing the flop come 777 or 772. Was that a bad fold? Of course not. But by his definition it would seem to be. We can no more see the villain's cards as we can the flop cards to come. We know 72o is junk often enough that it's never a bad idea to fold it pre, even if we would have hit with it. Likewise if villains range has us crushed and his action says we're most likely behind, folding the best hand is still a good fold.

 

[NeverTilt]

+1

Another example of the same line of thinking would be folding 72o UTG, and then seeing the flop come 777 or 772. Was that a bad fold? Of course not. But by his definition it would seem to be. We can no more see the villain's cards as we can the flop cards to come. We know 72o is junk often enough that it's never a bad idea to fold it pre, even if we would have hit with it. Likewise if villains range has us crushed and his action says we're most likely behind, folding the best hand is still a good fold.

LOL. Such bad analogies. Folding 72o UTG is obviously totally different than folding the best hand to a bluff. I hope I don't need to explain why.

If you're a decent player, you CAN SEE the villain's cards, or at least have an idea, but noone ever knows what's coming on the board. (Another horrible analogy)

You're comparing two entirely different things, to my amazement. You fold 72o UTG in most situations obviously because you're statistically not favored to win the hand and you have horrible position. You call an allin bluff because the situation makes you believe that you already statistically won the hand.

Sigh... You online players relying on your HUDs to make your reads while you play 10 tables. Decent live players pay attention to details of their opponents while playing one table, so there is no such thing as "good folding" the best hand. It's called, "bad folding because I wasn't paying attention or I got outplayed!" LOL

 

[ScottishMatt]

The analogy is adequate enough to illuminate the issue with your thought process. You are results oriented. It's the exact same thing, applied in a different context. The fact that you willingly take that approach in one context, but blatantly oppose the same thought process in another, makes me think you can identify and acknowledge it as a fault but you still decide to employ it. You seem to be a "live elitist" who prefers to prioritise and make his decisions off of secondary factors. All because you would rather have a moment of glory and be able to say "ohhhmagawd I haz 1337 reading skillz" while you pick off a bluff. Even if doing so means you lose plenty of money over the long term.

The argument has been presented to you numerous times now and you continue to debate the wrong side. You appear to be totally aware of this flaw in your thinking but refuse to remove it from your approach to the game. Unfortunately there is no way for us to help you become a better player if you wilfully ignore advice you know to be correct.

(despite what you may think we are engaging you because it will help you become a better player if you can see things from a non results oriented angle)


I'll leave it you guys if you want to try and help this poor soul any more. Good luck.

 

[duggs]

LOL. Such bad analogies. Folding 72o UTG is obviously totally different than folding the best hand to a bluff. I hope I don't need to explain why.

If you're a decent player, you CAN SEE the villain's cards, or at least have an idea, but noone ever knows what's coming on the board. (Another horrible analogy)

You're comparing two entirely different things, to my amazement. You fold 72o UTG in most situations obviously because you're statistically not favored to win the hand and you have horrible position. You call an allin bluff because the situation makes you believe that you already statistically won the hand.

Sigh... You online players relying on your HUDs to make your reads while you play 10 tables. Decent live players pay attention to details of their opponents while playing one table, so there is no such thing as "good folding" the best hand. It's called, "bad folding because I wasn't paying attention or I got outplayed!" LOL

I noticed you conveniently ignored my post, let me give you an extremely simple example. you have JJ in the Big Blind. I am in the small blind, and am angry. and shove without looking at my cards. you call, i flip over KK, did you make a bad fold? no? yes?

of course not, you are a 77% favourite v a 100% range and its a super easy call.

another example, we are HU on the river with $2000 each and $1000 in the pot. lets also assume that im not a huge tell box and you cant tell if im bluffing or value betting, The board is QdJdTd2h2c and you believe my range is (22, TT, JJ, QQ AKdd) and you know i will bluff with exactly 97hh. you hand is AKcc is this a bad fold if I jam and you fold and i flip over 97hh? no because against my range you have a whopping 8.3% equity and you need 40% equity to make a call that is breakeven.

do you see the fallacies in your logic

 

[NeverTilt]

I'm a "poor soul" cuz I don't think folding the best hand is a good fold. LMAO! Good comeback. Well, you guys are obviously super-pros. Continue to fold the best hands while you multi-table using your HUDs without paying any attention to intricate details. They're all good folds, don't worry about it.

I, on the other hand, know that poker is a game of information. And improving my reads so that I obtain the correct information to make calls with the best hand is what I strive for. What you guys call "good-fold", I call "can't call until I get more info". I rarely make hero-calls, but I'm always trying to improve my game. With live play, there is a whole new dimension to the game: no HUD, one table, real humans. LOL.

Peace out, and good luck at the tables. And don't worry about me. This "poor soul" makes decent side money playing live poker in the weekends making real "good folds" like folding T2P to a set, or lower boat to a higher boat.

 

[duggs]

*can't point out flaws in my argument
*blames it on HUD
*doesnt understand that poker should be range v range rather than hand v hand

 

[Ranny]

What seems to be missing here, is the vast majority of the time you won't know whether it was a good or bad fold. You don't see their cards and if they show its most likely a bluff or the nuts.

Its the marginal hands which are important.

Folding the winning hand is never a good fold but also with information available its rarely bad either. Poker will always be percentages and ranges.


Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk 4

 

[S3mper]

Folding the best hand CAN be a good fold not limited to the reasons of losing "X" % of the time and winning "x" % of the time but because there will be better spots.. Poker is about timing (of course math instincts reads and all this too) but timing is huge.

If I tell you that your behind making this call 80% of the time but this might be one of the 20% of the times and you feel like its one of those 20% of the times and you fold.. the fold is NOT bad because 30 minutes later your in a situation where I can tell you your ahead 80% of the time and down only 20%.. Timing

On the other hand I disagree that making a call that is losing in the long run is a bad call here is an example why:

Sorry for full video couldn't find a shorter version skip to 13:40

Okay, so this is a call that's a losing call in the long run but making the call doesn't make it a bad call because of the situation loose cannons thinking was probably "why would Phil bet so much in a spot where I can't call without the nuts" Loose cannons are usually more scared an easy to run over because 1.) they are amateurs 2.) cant reload so this loose cannon realizes this and is able to call even though in the long run its a bad call..

Sooo, IMO you can make a fold it be wrong and be a good fold but you can make a call it be right but a losing call in the long run and it be a good call

Pretty contradicting right? ^^^ Don't know if any of this make sense or not it did in my head but typing it im not sure lol

 

[NeverTilt]

I noticed you conveniently ignored my post,

Dude, I read the 1st sentence of that post. And, you repeated (almost verbatim) my post you quoted. I mean, what else do you want me to say? LMAO! Like...seriously?

*can't point out flaws in my argument
*blames it on HUD
*doesnt understand that poker should be range v range rather than hand v hand

Your arguments are invalid because you have no idea what I'm talking about. Reread my posts carefully, and you might actually understand what my point is. Or you can keep posting that your arguments are so awesome that no one can reply. Go-pro!

What the hell are you talking about "blames it on HUD"? I obviously don't play online which means I never used a HUD or played someone using a HUD. LOL! Maybe I have to spell it out: HUD + MT + not able to see players = worse reads where you can't call many bluffs = some online players saying their best hand folds are "good folds".

What seems to be missing here, is the vast majority of the time you won't know whether it was a good or bad fold. You don't see their cards and if they show its most likely a bluff or the nuts.

Its the marginal hands which are important.

Folding the winning hand is never a good fold but also with information available its rarely bad either. Poker will always be percentages and ranges.


Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk 4

Nailed it. The only difference is that I think folding the winning hand is always a bad fold. Maybe with the info you obtained, the best option you had was to fold. But, that doesn't make it a good fold. Hell, I make bad folds many times during a session. I admit to being outplayed and not skilled enough to make some of those calls. But, you just need to improve your reads on that player and obtain more info so you are able to make the correct calls in the future.

 

[NeverTilt]

Okay, so this is a call that's a losing call in the long run but making the call doesn't make it a bad call because of the situation loose cannons thinking was probably "why would Phil bet so much in a spot where I can't call without the nuts" Loose cannons are usually more scared an easy to run over because 1.) they are amateurs 2.) cant reload so this loose cannon realizes this and is able to call even though in the long run its a bad call..

It's a losing call in the long run if you call everytime. But, obviously, no one is calling that everytime, and he was fairly confident he had Phil beat. We don't know because we haven't seen every hand played, but maybe he got a few clues and reads on Phil that precipitated to his call. That's exactly my point. It seems a lot of online players over-rely on their HUDs while MT, and they don't know what live poker is, where your reads are occasionally good enough to make hero-calls (especially if you have a great memory). The cop-out is they make "good folds".

 

[duggs]

I noticed you conveniently ignored my post, let me give you an extremely simple example. you have JJ in the Big Blind. I am in the small blind, and am angry. and shove without looking at my cards. you call, i flip over KK, did you make a bad fold? no? yes?

of course not, you are a 77% favourite v a 100% range and its a super easy call.

another example, we are HU on the river with $2000 each and $1000 in the pot. lets also assume that im not a huge tell box and you cant tell if im bluffing or value betting, The board is QdJdTd2h2c and you believe my range is (22, TT, JJ, QQ AKdd) and you know i will bluff with exactly 97hh. you hand is AKcc is this a bad fold if I jam and you fold and i flip over 97hh? no because against my range you have a whopping 8.3% equity and you need 40% equity to make a call that is breakeven.

do you see the fallacies in your logic

Answer these questions then

 

[NeverTilt]

Answer these questions then

Dude, u need to get over it. LOL! Quoting me saying "calling everytime long-term is bad" and then giving your pointless hypothetical situations backing up my post is LMAO. Then, insisting that i reply to your hypothetical situation that backs up my post is like "is this guy serious or trolling?"

 

[Cafeman]

NeverTilt, it's about ranges and not specific holdings. I guess you disagree, but you're wrong. Try to carefully read what's being said, and the penny might drop!

EDIT: it's OK to be wrong, I'm wrong all the time, but I am improving and learning all the time too... it's all good.

 

[Thinker_145]

Yea, I remember when Phil Laak folded that full house against Johnny Chan. I mean how can anyone fold a full house? Here it is:

Phil Laak great fold against Johnny Chan - YouTube

You wonder how these 'pros' make the folds they make. Everyone on this forum isn't folding a full boat there. We're all losing at least another 30k in Phils position there.

They're pro's because they've earned it. We're watching single hands out of millions they've played. For every bad call/fold we see them make, they've easily made great calls/fold x10.

Phil laak very frequently lays down the best hands as well infact he is the one who laid down AA in the season 7 of high stakes when he was the best. Heck he didnt even take time just insta folded AA just like he insta folded the full house here.

There is also another factor that jhony chan is a very tight player and its unlikely he would re-raise here with trip aces.

 

[Thinker_145]

Let me get one thing clear here. People who say "but have you made millions in poker" are ****ing idiots who perhaps worship these players and not even worth having an argument with.

The "pro" players have dedicated their lives to playing poker, I have not yet. The pros have accumulated countless hours of playing poker, I have not. The pros have taken more risk than me, I have not yet "invested" any serious money in poker.

Now I'll understand that sort of reaction if someone who has lost a fortune in poker was to come and criticize the pros but to call out someone who doesnt take poker nearly that seriously as inferior is just ridiculous.

Tom dwan would never fold any of these hands and yet he is a very successful poker player. I shouldnt even need to give this justification but so be it.

 

[HooDooKoo]

Let me get one thing clear here. People who say "but have you made millions in poker" are ****ing idiots who perhaps worship these players and not even worth having an argument with.

The "pro" players have dedicated their lives to playing poker, I have not yet. The pros have accumulated countless hours of playing poker, I have not. The pros have taken more risk than me, I have not yet "invested" any serious money in poker.

Now I'll understand that sort of reaction if someone who has lost a fortune in poker was to come and criticize the pros but to call out someone who doesnt take poker nearly that seriously as inferior is just ridiculous.

Tom dwan would never fold any of these hands and yet he is a very successful poker player. I shouldnt even need to give this justification but so be it.

So very clueless ...

-HooDooKoo

 

[Thinker_145]

Don't know about "there" but don't be so quick to say none of us can fold a FH. Zeebo's Theorem aside, I've done it on a double paired board when I have the small side and villain's range and actions made it clear he had the over boat. I'm pretty sure others here have done so as well, I know I've seen it done.

Folding a FH on a board with 2 pairs is not the same thing as folding a FH with just one pair on the board. I dont think I'll ever fold the latter in cash games because I simply dont think its a profitable thing to do.

thats what makes them pros they can get off big hands. sometimes youll fold the best but if you feel your behind its a good fold not like online when over pairs go all in for all there chip. i dont like risking my whole chip stack on one pair. and if you limp in with those hands and the board is ugly sometimes you just need to say goodbye. ive tried and trap with those now and again sometimes it backfires where im folding them

I can and do fold big hands why are you assuming that only pros can fold big hands? However I dont get to see my opponents cards so I dont know whether I make good laydowns most of the time or not.

And the problem with the situation you are talking about is that online atleast with micro-stakes people do go all-in with top pair. I have doubled up plenty of times calling an all-in with an over pair or even having top pair/top kicker.

And then there are players making absolutely insane over-bet bluffs. You basically have to decide what is and isnt profitable play in the long run.

 

[S3mper]

Let me get one thing clear here. People who say "but have you made millions in poker" are ****ing idiots who perhaps worship these players and not even worth having an argument with.

The "pro" players have dedicated their lives to playing poker, I have not yet. The pros have accumulated countless hours of playing poker, I have not. The pros have taken more risk than me, I have not yet "invested" any serious money in poker.

Now I'll understand that sort of reaction if someone who has lost a fortune in poker was to come and criticize the pros but to call out someone who doesnt take poker nearly that seriously as inferior is just ridiculous.

Tom dwan would never fold any of these hands and yet he is a very successful poker player. I shouldnt even need to give this justification but so be it.

Soo your saying its different that they made millions of dollars and you haven't because they practice and you do not? Well I'd recommend you start practicing, if you aren't as good at poker as these players I don't care if you never played it before or play it every second of your life you are an inferior poker player lol

Also, yes Tom Dwan does play weak/marginial hands but there is a big difference 1.) he knows how to play them 2.) he probably isn't playing them at 10NL and he may fold who knows..

I must not be an inferior QB compared to Tom Brady, Ben Roethlisberger, Aaron Rodgers cause I didn't practice much in the Qb spot 0.o

 

[ScottishMatt]

Folding a FH on a board with 2 pairs is not the same thing as folding a FH with just one pair on the board. I dont think I'll ever fold the latter in cash games because I simply dont think its a profitable thing to do.

I can and do fold big hands why are you assuming that only pros can fold big hands? However I dont get to see my opponents cards so I dont know whether I make good laydowns most of the time or not.

And the problem with the situation you are talking about is that online atleast with micro-stakes people do go all-in with top pair. I have doubled up plenty of times calling an all-in with an over pair or even having top pair/top kicker.

And then there are players making absolutely insane over-bet bluffs. You basically have to decide what is and isnt profitable play in the long run.

I'm confused.

The only hand you should never fold in poker is the nuts. I'd happily fold 9s8s on Ts2cJsQsKs if a nit 3Bet shoves the river for 250BB. You say you can and do fold big hands, but you appear to have the attitude that if we have a certain hand strength we should always be doing x and never y. Our actual hand strength is irrelevant, what is relevant is our relative hand strength. If the action informs us we are most likely beat then we should fold. The same thing is true for calling. Against maniacs our relative hand strength goes up by such a large percentage that we can profitably call down much lighter.



And how can you say what Tom Dwan would do in a particular situation?

 

[HooDooKoo]

And how can you say what Tom Dwan would do in a particular situation?

Because he/she, like many others, have made the determination that Dwan is a skill-less maniac and he just three-barrels air every hand.

I'd love to watch the amateurs that malign Dwan's play as they sit down with him (at a limit of their choosing) and proceed to lose their entire rolls in two hours. Those people, though, would just chalk their losses up to bad luck --- because they are beyond learning. Thinker_145 has been placed in that box until he/she proves otherwise.

Good luck.

-HooDooKoo

 

[Izandurrrrrr]

Dwan just lost over 4 million in 1 session, probably by not folding the worst hand lol. Maybe that is why they made those folds hahahaha