Freaking poker...

[Toasthead]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: chuckywang

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: chuckywang

Originally posted by: JS80
nuts on the flop = quad 4s (AA hole cards)
second nuts = Aces full 2 (A2 hole cards)

you suck at pokar.

Sorry, but A2 = nuts

If I had A2 with a board of AA2, then nobody else could have AA (only four A's in the deck). Therefore, A2 is the nuts.

You said you were dealt pocket deuces...

Or did this deck have five Aces?

Board: AA2AA
Your hole: A2

= 5 Aces

Give him a break. Its hard to keep tracks of stories when you are making them up on the fly

 

[dullard]

The important part of poker is to count the number of combinations that COULD exist that can beat your hand. For simplicity sakes, lets look at just one opponent left.

You have 2, 2. The board has A, A, 2. Thus, there are 47 known cards that your opponent could have.

If you pretend that 2, 2 is the 2nd nuts, you are only really considering one hand beating your hand. Lets look at just the A, A combination of your opponent. He has a 1/47 * 1/46 = 0.05% chance of beating you. Or lets look at just the A, 2 combination of your opponent. He has a 2/47 * 1/46 = 0.09% chance of beating you.

However, in reality, you have to include BOTH of the higher hands. Your opponent has a (1/47 * 1/46) + (2/47 + 1/46) = 0.14% chance of beating you. See how if you consider TWO higher hands, you get the actually important statistic. Your chances of winning drops. This is the real statistic you need to bet on. Thus, the pocket deuces is 3rd nuts. If you only consider one of the two nut hands, you are overestimating your chances of winning.

 

[DrPizza]

It's funny... everyone's claiming the OP is terrible at poker. Those people recommended a different course of action. Ironically, I had a similar hand, used the different course of action, and ended up losing.

Suppose for a moment that the OP had gone all in on the flop and scared everyone away except one person. That person held a 5,6 and was hoping beyond hope to pick up two cards to complete a straight... so they stayed in. Then, they won with AAAA6.

****** happens in poker. With the 22, and that flop, how many times would the OP have won with the full house vs. having what happened to him happen again? Since everyone was staying in with weak hands, it seems that most of the time, he'd simply be increasing his pot slowly, rather than taking a small pot (or in this case, getting boned.)

 

[PinmasterJay]

Originally posted by: dullard
The important part of poker is to count the number of combinations that COULD exist that can beat your hand. For simplicity sakes, lets look at just one opponent left.

You have 2, 2. The board has A, A, 2. Thus, there are 47 known cards that your opponent could have.

If you pretend that 2, 2 is the 2nd nuts, you are only really considering one hand beating your hand. Lets look at just the A, A combination of your opponent. He has a 1/47 * 1/46 = 0.05% chance of beating you. Or lets look at just the A, 2 combination of your opponent. He has a 2/47 * 1/46 = 0.09% chance of beating you.

However, in reality, you have to include BOTH of the higher hands. Your opponent has a (1/47 * 1/46) + (2/47 + 1/46) = 0.14% chance of beating you. See how if you consider TWO higher hands, you get the actually important statistic. Your chances of winning drops. This is the real statistic you need to bet on. Thus, the pocket deuces is 3rd nuts. If you only consider one of the two nut hands, you are overestimating your chances of winning.

I think we are all in agreement about this, it still comes down to how you define 3rd nuts...for example, what is 2nd nuts if you call it 3rd nuts? There is no second?

You can call it whatever you want, you still have to understand that if you call it second nuts you have to know that more than just one hand beats you, for example 3 sets of hands in this example do.

 

[Garet Jax]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
It's funny... everyone's claiming the OP is terrible at poker. Those people recommended a different course of action. Ironically, I had a similar hand, used the different course of action, and ended up losing.

Suppose for a moment that the OP had gone all in on the flop and scared everyone away except one person. That person held a 5,6 and was hoping beyond hope to pick up two cards to complete a straight... so they stayed in. Then, they won with AAAA6.

****** happens in poker. With the 22, and that flop, how many times would the OP have won with the full house vs. having what happened to him happen again? Since everyone was staying in with weak hands, it seems that most of the time, he'd simply be increasing his pot slowly, rather than taking a small pot (or in this case, getting boned.)

Whether you win or lose doesn't make your play right. If the OP could get some donkey to call an all in bet holding 56 with AA2 on the board, then he played his hand perfectly.

I put a guy all-in pre-flop this weekend - I was holding AA he was holding JJ, he pulled a J on the river. My play was perfect, but he still won. All money was in when I had the best hand (this is the best I can do in poker) and he stil won. I made no mistakes on that hand.

An all-in bet post flop would be the wrong bet because there was no way to know whether or not the other players were holding better hands since there was no action pre-flop.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: PinmasterJay
I think we are all in agreement about this, it still comes down to how you define 3rd nuts...for example, what is 2nd nuts if you call it 3rd nuts? There is no second?

You can call it whatever you want, you still have to understand that if you call it second nuts you have to know that more than just one hand beats you, for example 3 sets of hands in this example do.

There is no clear cut definition, thus the problem here.

The important question is "how many possible hands can beat me?". The answer is 2 (or 3 if you want to call the two different A, 2 possibilities). The answer is never 1. Thus, while there is no clear definition of "2nd nuts", we might as well use the definition that best answers that question.

In this case, AA or A2 would be the nuts. There is no 2nd nuts. And the original poster had the 3rd best hand.

 

[PinmasterJay]

Originally posted by: dullard
There is no clear cut definition, thus the problem here.

:thumbsup: I agree, thats what I was trying to get at before

 

[Garet Jax]

Here is why I would not have raised pre-flop with the situation the OP described (right or wrong)

From my experience, if there are a number of limpers into a hand, a raise by one of the blinds will hardly ever chase everyone out.

Even more the people (or person) who stay will almost always have a better position then you and will likely hold two over cards (maybe even an over pair).

Every card that flops will have an over pair potential to you and it will cost a lot to determine if a remaining player has hit that overcard.

Under these circumstances, the only situation where your hand becomes valuable is when you hit your set.

It is unlikely to get 8 callers which you would need to match your odds of hitting a set on the flop.

So I believe that the situation the OP described pre-flop would cost more than it would yield if he were to have raised.

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: Garet Jax
Here is why I would not have raised pre-flop with the situation the OP described (right or wrong)

From my experience, if there are a number of limpers into a hand, a raise by one of the blinds will hardly ever chase everyone out.

Even more the people (or person) who stay will almost always have a better position then you and will likely hold two over cards (maybe even an over pair).

Every card that flops will have an over pair potential to you and it will cost a lot to determine if a remaining player has hit that overcard.

Under these circumstances, the only situation where your hand becomes valuable is when you hit your set.

It is unlikely to get 8 callers which you would need to match your odds of hitting a set on the flop.

So I believe that the situation the OP described pre-flop would cost more than it would yield if he were to have raised.

I tend to agree with this line of thinking, especially if we are talking limit poker. However, I'm not sure you really need 8 callers to make putting money in the pot profitable with a low pair. Generally, hitting your set with a low pair has huge implied odds. It's the hardest hand for anyone at the table to see coming. Personally, I'm glad to call 1 bet in the BB with 1 raiser and 3 callers. Besides, you?re getting near 5 to 1 on your money with huge implied odds and little chance to get sucked in post flop.

 

[Kev]

I once lost with a straight flush to a higher straight flush. Boo fvcking hoo.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: sniperruff
you suck at hold em.

QFT.

two aces come out. and you have a low end full house. anyone who stayed in could have had an ace in their hand, which possibly could have been good for you, ...

But when another Ace came out, you should have CHECKED, and seen if anyone bet, and checked to the end. Any raise, you should have folded (unless you know the guys is a bluffer).

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: chuckywang

Originally posted by: JS80
nuts on the flop = quad 4s (AA hole cards)
second nuts = Aces full 2 (A2 hole cards)

you suck at pokar.

Sorry, but A2 = nuts

NOPE :thumbsdown:

AA = nuts on the flop

 

[PinmasterJay]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: chuckywang

Originally posted by: JS80
nuts on the flop = quad 4s (AA hole cards)
second nuts = Aces full 2 (A2 hole cards)

you suck at pokar.

Sorry, but A2 = nuts

NOPE :thumbsdown:

AA = nuts on the flop

This has already been discussed...Read the thread...:thumbsdown:

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Shens, too many aces

1 in your hand
2 on the flop
1 on the river
1 on the turn

=5

*edit*

My mistake you didn't have an A in your hand, you had pocket 2's

You should have folded after the AA2 flop, you were done. Hanging on to see two more A's was not wize

 

[IAteYourMother]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
Shens, too many aces

1 in your hand
2 on the flop
1 on the river
1 on the turn

=5

are you retarded?

 

[Garet Jax]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
Shens, too many aces

1 in your hand
2 on the flop
1 on the river
1 on the turn

=5

You suck at the comprehension.

He was holding 22.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
Shens, too many aces

1 in your hand
2 on the flop
1 on the river
1 on the turn

=5

are you retarded?

Yep, almost as much as the OP for staying past the flop

 

[Garet Jax]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
Shens, too many aces

1 in your hand
2 on the flop
1 on the river
1 on the turn

=5

are you retarded?

Yep, almost as much as the OP for staying past the flop

He was BB and was facing no raise. It cost him nothing to stay and he could very possibly have had the best pre-flop hand.

After the flop there were only two hands that could have him beaten AA and A2 and it is impossible for more than one person to have such a hand. He is still most likely way ahead of all people he is against.

He has no choice but to bet that hand post flop.

Anyone who called his post flop bet is either an idiot or is ahead of him post turn. So he wants to get to showdown for free.

Post river, he is guaranteed to have the worst hand and should fold to any bet.

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
Shens, too many aces

1 in your hand
2 on the flop
1 on the river
1 on the turn

=5

*edit*

My mistake you didn't have an A in your hand, you had pocket 2's

You should have folded after the AA2 flop, you were done. Hanging on to see two more A's was not wize

So you correct one mistake and advocate another.

 

[PinmasterJay]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy

*edit*

My mistake you didn't have an A in your hand, you had pocket 2's

You should have folded after the AA2 flop, you were done. Hanging on to see two more A's was not wize

:roll: Yeah because he knew that his boat flop would be ruined by running aces

 

[mpitts]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: mpitts

Originally posted by: pray4mojo

Originally posted by: chuckywang
Well, I was dealt pocket deuces in the big blind and everybody else limped in, so I checked to see a free flop.

mistake

You are gonna have a tough time convicing me that raising with 22 out of the big blind against multiple limpers is a long-term profitable move.

Just about every flop misses your hand and you are out of position for the entire hand as well. I understand the want to isolate, but with a hand like 22 - 66 you want as many people in the hand so you have a higher probability of getting paid off if you do hit your hand. If the flop misses you, you can easily dump it.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE sell your bike and your skateboard and whatever you can steal from your parents and play poker with me. You might be the least poker savvy person in this thread and Chucky knows NOTHING! You know even less.

With 2-2 you want everyone OUT of the hand. Every person at the table is going to have two overcards compared to deuces. That makes a one-on-one hand a race, a 50/50 shot to see if they match one of their overcards to win or if the deuces hold up. It's a wash. But with 4 or more in to see the flop the odds of the deuces winning drops to almost nothing. The odds are that at least one of those players will catch a piece of the flop and get a bigger pair. Pocket deuces are a CRAPPY HAND! They suck. The odds of any single player without a pair preflop flopping a pair is about 42%. In a 5 person showdown 2 and possibly 3 are going to flop a pair and they will ALL BEAT DEUCES.

A bet at that pot before the flop or at any point would have taken it down. Instead OP was a pansy that was afraid to bet and paid for it. Any decent player in the last seat would have won that pot. When facing such obvious weakness as players limping in hoping to see a cheap flop the only strategy that pays off in the long run is to bully them out. You are going to lose big, early, often and consistently if you go into a full table race with a small pair. It's a guaranteed way to go broke.

We can play at whatever site you'd like, whenever you want.

I embrace it.

 

[KLin]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
It's funny... everyone's claiming the OP is terrible at poker. Those people recommended a different course of action. Ironically, I had a similar hand, used the different course of action, and ended up losing.

Suppose for a moment that the OP had gone all in on the flop and scared everyone away except one person. That person held a 5,6 and was hoping beyond hope to pick up two cards to complete a straight... so they stayed in. Then, they won with AAAA6.

****** happens in poker. With the 22, and that flop, how many times would the OP have won with the full house vs. having what happened to him happen again? Since everyone was staying in with weak hands, it seems that most of the time, he'd simply be increasing his pot slowly, rather than taking a small pot (or in this case, getting boned.)

Wouldn't that have been a split pot?

 

[DayLaPaul]

AAAA6 > AAAA2

 

[KK]

I like how every poker thread turn into a flame thread with idiots pounding their chest claiming that they are poker gods.

If y'all are so good why aren't you selling books or on tv. :roll:

 

[Izzo]

edit: my mistake