One concept that can be hard to grasp for new players is that even if you are almost 100% sure you have the best hand (but not the nuts) you have to think about what your opponent can call with if you re-raise all-in when faced by a big bet on the river.
Sometimes a good full house is just a call in certain situations, especially if both players have a big stack left.
Just about every player that stays in until the river thinks they have the nuts so all ins on the river I just a way of people playing here. It’s a game of chance also so it’s justified going or calling an all in except for pre flop which is ridiculously high on Replay Poker.
1.5x pot on the river is a big bet. Raising would cause his opponent to play perfectly, folding worse hands (bluffs, two pairs) while better hands will call. In situations like that, raising instead of calling adds no upside and risks more chips.
That’s the beauty of poker. Making decisions with only part of the information and trying to figure out which story being told is the truth. But dang it is frustrating went you have the second nuts and go all in and they snap call with the nuts. (@Litenin does that all the time in omaha to me lol)
Its a good hand to demonstrate an understanding of risk/reward and decision making! Value betting and hence raising for value or value owning oneself! Taking a little time to think rather than snap decisions like Rob Young.
I love watching Rob Youngs reaction with mouth wide open, looking at the showdown and chips on the table - in shock!
Tom Dwan poses a question, alluding to his decision to shove or call. Rob Young just instantly answers “OFC you shove!” Like there is no need to make a decision.
I figured Polk can almost never have KK, and he basically agrees he is basically always 4betting so almost never has KK. Its surprising the solver says Polk can have KK 50%.
On RP shoving against a bad calling station maniac player is prob profitable, but its still risky. Against most players is risky and massively losing chips.
I remember raising all in on the river with FH Vs quads and thinking: “Why should I be surprised? And how many worse hands can call me?”
I guess that just as position goes up in value the deeper you are, it is also more important to be able to have strong sets post-flop so a good hand reader can’t exclude them with 90% certainty. It’s also a total catastrophe to run into AA with KK 1000BB deep.
If someone plays a lot of PLO they can easily be too afraid to value-bet thin or re-raising all in without the nuts when they come back to NHL since most players almost never call without the nuts, or the best full house if the board is paired in PLO. That opens up some bluffing opportunities of course and at higher stakes, you often have to call a lot more against aggressive opponents.
The really difficult question is if even the lowest full house with pocket 2:s can call a re-raise all-in this deep (if you’re not up against some crazy bluffer). Most people almost never fold a full house.
This is a tough one because I know that I tend to just call more often than not and consequently miss out on a value bet. However, in this case I would only call since you are right that the only hand that will call your all-in raise is the one that can beat you.
On the turn Tom Dwan knows very well that he has the best hand. If Polk had KK he would have made the 4bet preflop. The question is what does Polk can have? It’s either a set of 6s or some draw. Pocket deuces aren’t so likely, but not impossible because they are playing quite deep.
The river doesn’t complete a draw. So what does Polk have?Quads or nothing. Raising here doesn’t serve any purpose, because Polk only call the absolute nuts. It doesn’t make sense to go all-in here. Difficult to tell why Dwan takes too much time thinking about this hand.
I can see nowadays that players call ATC , it’s worse than before , and in a miraculous way they hit their garbage hand on the board and win . Most of the times when I go all in I have the best or better hand , but after the cards have been dealt , I get sucked out . They have 30% equity but they win most of the times . Lol the worst part is that this happens not early but late in a tourney . So you invest 1 , 2 ,3 or more hours and you get your bad beat or unlucky hand later
I would want to avoid shoves , try to win the pot without shoving , With an almost all in bet , showing yo him that I have most probably the best hand so as for him to fold , but the others play with RNG , they shove having good odds their garbage hand , 105o or whatever lol , and win lol.
The players that shove “ all in” are trying to eliminate players this increasing their odds of winning or have nothing to lose but free chips. That is the reality and the trend now on Replay. It’s actually sickening and has reduced my play dramatically besides other reasons.
First of all, thank you for the interesting article with the additional resource attached. On my own behalf, I would like to add that in this kind of analysis it really irritates me when they use the phrases “there will NEVER be a bet of this size from 22”, etc. This is poker! Everything that “will never happen” is fixed by the rules, the rest in this game is a probability that is never equal to 0! NEVER! With these “will never bet like this” we seem to cut off the bluff completely, but this does not happen in any tournament, not for 1 dollar, not for a million. On an A A K flop there will NEVER be a bet of 54o? Yes, it will only bring losses, but it takes place like any other combination of cards - this is poker, this is exactly what we play it for - psychological dominance over an opponent. If every time I entered with pocket KK/QQ, I saw an A on the flop and gave up on the first bet - what kind of victories and deepruns would we be talking about? I agree that in poker you always need to think about your opponent’s hand, how he played each “street” and what actions he took, but the fact is that 1 time out of 100 we will have the nuts, and 99 times we can easily come up with the opponent’s hand, which beats us - this is why I am critical of such “overthinkng”, we will not get a huge number of chips.
I think it was a polarize spot. AA, KK, diamonds or JJ, TT or worst for Polk. Dwan its a really good player, he knows what it is, he is a really good bluffer so he knows. But never the less the oponent could have AA or Kings easy. So its really hard continue with such a Big bets and an all in in the river. In the river with the diamonds draw miss it was really good for Dwan for have a bluff catcher like QQ with no diamonds. When he shove at river he is totally polarize, but the question is… why he shove? If he have AA or Kings without a diamond he can’t shove becouse oponent diamonds draw miss so is a sure fold. If he have diamonds and miss he can prentend AA or KK and shove a bluff or big bet continuation, the oponent (Dwan) is calling all the way so he have something, like QQ, JJ, TT or diamonds, so its a really hard pro spot. In the turn i would surely think im facing AA or KK against my QQ and in the river well i don’t know, we are talking about Millions$ i can’t really put my self in that spot.
Hi @gloe1m and welcome to the forum. I Don’t know what stakes you were playing but if you cant afford to loose millions, I suggest play a bit lower stakes. GL at the tables & hope you always have fun !!