Split pot = bad beat? Or am I being entitled?

[PoKeRFoRNiA]

My friend talks about a hand where he played his hand perfectly and got bad beated. I told him happens to everyone. UTG raises 3x the blind, but since this is live and he got a strong read that cutoff is going to shove, so instead of 3betting with Aces, he flat called. And as proper read, cutoff jams all in for 15 bb. Utg calls. My friend jams for 90bb. This is early stage of the tourament. Utg decides to call AK. So its AA vs AK vs 88. Board came out AKQ, Turn is J, then river is T. So board is the absolute nuts and everyone takes their chips back. My friend was frustrated and pissed. Considers this a bad beat. I told him bad beat means losing. At least u didnt lose. But he says this is a bad beat. What is your take on split pot? Can it be considered bad beat? Bcz to me, as long as u didnt lose, its not a bad beat. Maybe frustrating but it can be lot worse.

 

[BelFish]

In the tracker, the green line would be lower than the yellow one. You can consider this as an EV shortfall, but not as big as it would be if he lost...

 

[ph_il]

its not a bad beat because he won the hand. just like the two 2 other people who, also, won the hand.

 

[georgi krastev]

Although the chances of splitting the pot are minimal, he still hasn't lost; so, ain't has to be bad beat... (imo)

I think that's a bad beat:

CardsChat Poker Hands Converter

Convert your hand history into forum code, plain text or relive your hand and create animated replays

www.cardschat.com

This too:

CardsChat Poker Hands Converter

Convert your hand history into forum code, plain text or relive your hand and create animated replays

www.cardschat.com

 

[PoKeRFoRNiA]

I guess he felt entitled to win. I told him it sucks but it can be way worse. And everyone who has played poker regularly can attest worse beats. I can go to bad beat vent section and those threada can shit on this hand. So my friend calling this a bad beat, pretty exaggerated imo. But i decided to ask here just to confirm.

 

[MK_]

....yeah a bad beat is losing the hand, he lost nothing😎👍

 

[thedarkman]

Although the chances of splitting the pot are minimal, he still hasn't lost; so, ain't has to be bad beat... (imo)

I think that's a bad beat:

CardsChat Poker Hands Converter

Convert your hand history into forum code, plain text or relive your hand and create animated replays

www.cardschat.com

This too:

CardsChat Poker Hands Converter

Convert your hand history into forum code, plain text or relive your hand and create animated replays

www.cardschat.com

View attachment 338492
View attachment 338493

Ha ha, classic, the first one. The other one illustrates that when you lose with aces you lose big, even when you are playing for nanostakes.

 

[BelFish]

I believe that a bad beat can only happen post-flop. And preflop, there is always at least 15% probability to lose. And in this hand, the chances of winning in general are only 70%, which means that in about 30% of cases it would be the same or worse. If the probability of not winning is so high, then it cannot be considered a bad beat!

 

[fundiver199]

I consider it a bad beat, if a hand, which was a huge favourite to win, only ends up chopping. Of course chopping is better than losing, but its still unlucky, if you were a 15:1 favourite to win.

 

[Ace of Spad3s]

I consider it a bad beat, if a hand, which was a huge favourite to win, only ends up chopping. Of course chopping is better than losing, but its still unlucky, if you were a 15:1 favourite to win.

Unlucky, yes. But it's not a bad beat, as per obvious, you haven't been beaten here. It's a bummer because the rake means you drop a few BB in cash games, or you miss the big pot here to increase stacksize if you'd won in tournaments...

 

[fundiver199]

Unlucky, yes. But it's not a bad beat, as per obvious, you haven't been beaten here. It's a bummer because the rake means you drop a few BB in cash games, or you miss the big pot here to increase stacksize if you'd won in tournaments...

It seems like, I am in the minority here, since Wikipedia does in fact define a bad beat as "losing with what appear to be strong cards". Emotionally though the situation is very similar to a true bad beat. Or to a situation where you lose a preflop all-in to the same hand, because the opponent makes a flush

Bad beat - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Andyreas]

It seems like, I am in the minority here, since Wikipedia does in fact define a bad beat as "losing with what appear to be strong cards". Emotionally though the situation is very similar to a true bad beat. Or to a situation where you lose a preflop all-in to the same hand, because the opponent makes a flush

Bad beat - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I agree to your thinking but also decided not to post after looking up the definition. 😅

But since you posted, I have to show my support to your opinion. 🤓

 

[spunka]

is it a bad beat, did anyone got beating ?
Unlucky yes .....

 

[ph_il]

It seems like, I am in the minority here, since Wikipedia does in fact define a bad beat as "losing with what appear to be strong cards". Emotionally though the situation is very similar to a true bad beat. Or to a situation where you lose a preflop all-in to the same hand, because the opponent makes a flush

I see where you're coming from, but the key word is 'losing' since no one, technically, lost the hand. emotionally, it's similar to a bad beat, like your pair vs pair example. except, in your example, a hand clearly won and the other hand clearly lost. in op's post, no hand lost and all hands won.

I agree that aa lost out on a really big pot. they lost out on a ton of value, on a chance for a deep run (if it's an mtt), but winning / losing hands in poker isn't based on how big the pot is.

would a board of 23456r have the same reaction?

 

[Luvepoker]

I don't think I would call this a bad beat since he did not lose but it was a thought non win for sure. While I understand for sure how he feels about not winning the hand he was supposed to lose 3 in ten times, A split pot over a loss I would take any time even if it did not feel o great in the moment.

 

[fundiver199]

While I understand for sure how he feels about not winning the hand he was supposed to lose 3 in ten times.

That was only for the main pot though. Supposedly there was also a large side pot, and in that one AA had around 93% chance to beat AKo.

 

[christovam]

It's not a bad play if you think about the cards the others had, as AK was unlikely to fold.

But if we think about card range, it is not a good play to call with AA, as the flop can make the game worse if we leave it cheap for others to see.

I always raise with AA.

 

[Luvepoker]

That was only for the main pot though. Supposedly there was also a large side pot, and in that one AA had around 93% chance to beat AKo.

That is why i have so much respect for your responses. I had not been thinking that way. Your correct.

 

[fundiver199]

I agree that aa lost out on a really big pot. they lost out on a ton of value, on a chance for a deep run (if it's an mtt), but winning / losing hands in poker isn't based on how big the pot is.

If we go with the strict definition, that a bad beat means losing with good cards, then you are obviously right. However chopping a massive pot, which you were a huge favourite to win, hurts your EV way more than losing a small pot. Lets say in this example, that later in the MTT the hero had AA again and got it in against AK. But this time hero started the hand with 49BB, and the opponent with only 2BB. Then losing the hand dont really matter, and most people wont have a big emotional reaction to the situation, even though its technically a "bad beat".

 

[Matt_Burns88]

I agree with @fundiver199 . Of course, this is a matter of opinion and definition, but I do find it intriguing that in a game absolutely crammed full of nuance that so many people view this as a yes/no question.

 

[Pokerpoet2]

I'm sorry to disagree with some people but to me BEAT! means you lost, this was a chopped-pot no one actually lost, so yes the other two players were lucky not to have gone out because pre-flop they were under dogs to the pocket Aces, but in this case it was a lucky suck-out by those two players who survived to play on, not a bad beat as everyone got to play on.
A bad beat to me would have been A/A getting crushed with a Flop of A,K,K, and the final King hitting on the River! And yes I have seen this happen in live games.

 

[ph_il]

If we go with the strict definition, that a bad beat means losing with good cards, then you are obviously right. However chopping a massive pot, which you were a huge favourite to win, hurts your EV way more than losing a small pot. Lets say in this example, that later in the MTT the hero had AA again and got it in against AK. But this time hero started the hand with 49BB, and the opponent with only 2BB. Then losing the hand dont really matter, and most people wont have a big emotional reaction to the situation, even though its technically a "bad beat".

i completely see where you're coming from and I think it's just one of those situations where it's going to depend on a person's opinion, thoughts, and feelings on the subject.

I don't think I'm right with my opinion, nor do I think you or any one else, who disagrees, is wrong. it's just one of those grey areas. like is losing as a 90% equity favorite, on the river, a bad beat? I don't think so, but others might disagree.

 

[MK_]

...I view it as a yes or no question because it is, nothing was lost, no harm, no foul, everybody wins😅.. I'm starting to think the original question was on point with the word entitled. Total waste of time worrying about this hand, poker is a mental game, you aren't going to win a lot of hands you think you should win, move on to the next hand👍