What is the odds of loosing with four of a kind against one other player ?-..,.
Without even knowing exactly what happened, I can tell you that checking that flop is a significant leak.I held 88
flop 889 I check like i am supposed to here I think
Without even knowing exactly what happened, I can tell you that checking that flop is a significant leak.
Without even knowing exactly what happened, I can tell you that checking that flop is a significant leak.
Quads don't come around that often, but flopping monsters is not a rare occurrence. When the preflop action, as he described it, had "lots of action" then the idea of slowplaying the nuts on the flop in (what must be) a big pot is really bad.I'm not sure checking quads could be called a "significant" leak, since it happens so few times anyway. I understand some of your reasoning, but its silly to just throw out that comment to someone who might not understand the game as well as you do without any backing or reasoning... as well as no understanding to the situation leading up to that hand.
Quads don't come around that often, but flopping monsters is not a rare occurrence. When the preflop action, as he described it, had "lots of action" then the idea of slowplaying the nuts on the flop in (what must be) a big pot is really bad.
For slowplaying to be right, the circumstances must be extraordinary. It's something that should be done very rarely. From the way he phrased it, it's clear to me that he thought of it as the default play, but even if specifically he doesn't, there's a ton of people who can't help themselves but to check when they flop monsters. And that IS a significant leak, no doubt. No matter what the situation is leading up to that hand.
As an aside, I've posted about this many times before, and with time I've become lazy and just post one-liners when I spot something that strikes me as a very basic beginner's mistake. I understand - and agree - that including reasoning makes the post more worthwhile, but I've noticed that I don't really have the energy to repeat the longer explanation posts unless specifically asked for it (like here).
I make one-line posts in two situations; one is where I simply don't have time to post more at that precise moment, and the other is where I find the reasoning to be standard and/or obvious. My previous post was the latter.
No, I don't think I am. I'm possibly contradicting what you thought I meant.You contradict yourself
Well, yes, but... I think you may have misunderstood me. I don't mean that slowplaying is something you should do "rarely" for the sake of doing it not often. Slowplaying should be done rarely because the conditions in which it is correct occurs so rarely. Having a monster is only one condition that needs to be met. The pot also needs to be small, your opponents need to be likely to fold if you bet, AND they need to have some reasonable chance to improve if you check. As in, you don't slowplay rarely just to make it a rare occurence, you slowplay rarely because the appropriate situation in which to slowplay presents itself so very rarely.You say slowplaying should be done very rarely...well quads are pretty rare.
Ah, yes. This I agree with completely. In fact, if he somehow manages to NOT get his whole stack in on this board, THAT shows a VERY significant leak.I would say even if he bets out on this hand the outcome probably doesnt differ that much...although I agree with you as I now am aware that there was "lots" of preflop action, betting out is definitely the better move. I just think he's still ending up broke however he plays this hand post flop.
Not at all. I'm not one to get easily pissed off, and as I said, I don't mind adding reasoning to my opinions if someone asks for it. Often, I don't need to explain myself, but when I do, I'm happy that someone calls me on it. Never be afraid to request that someone explains why they think something.Thanks for you insight though, hope I didn't piss you off for asking for an explanation.