Sarah - I appreciate a good story as much as the next guy but this one reads like Harold and Kumar Play Poker with Snoop Dogg. Sure its possible to make that movie but not plausible that it gets funded (and even less plausible that it gets screened anywhere if it was).
Again, without getting too far into it:
- Player B (22) erratic (I’ll translate to loose aggressive) - Raises from UTG+1 - plausible but unlikely with 22. Given just the stack sizes shown, he has to know that if C has any hand at all, he’s shoving and would have to call with his 22. By the open bet and stack sizes you show, we are in shove/fold territory here.
** added on edit - if we are in fact near shove/fold territory, do you really think 2’s are the hand to lead out with? Its a horrible play and yet it may be the only “plausible” one described **
-
Player C (33) as a tight passive who hasn’t seen a hand in 20 hands and can barely make the call here just flat calls? That is not a tight play at all. If he’s tight, he folds. If he’s looking for any hand to get his chips in, he shoves. Getting this player in the pot in this manner requires him to make the worst possible play available to him.
-
Player A (KK) - you are telling me this guy is flat calling the erratic LAG player and the tight passive who is almost all-in anyway with pocket K’s from the button? Seriously? He wants to get his stack back and has one of the top hands but isn’t getting more chips in the middle against a LAG? If everything you said happened exactly as written up to this point, the play from the button would be to isolate player C and just play for that stack by shoving all-in here and almost certainly folding out player B (22). KK 100% is not flat calling this setup. Just not happening, period.
** added on edit - KK can take a big chunk out of 22’s stack by folding him out of the hand and then likely come out of the hand with a chip advantage to work with. KK doesn’t want any chance of pricing the SB or BB in here either so he just cant flat-call in this situation.
That is just pre-flop and already we are off the rails. Even if it did get to the flop as you said, the actions there are even worse than the ones already taken, and that’s not an easy bar to hurdle.
I am sticking to my guns on this one. The story you wrote, while possible, isn’t plausible as a rational poker hand played by people with even a modicum of talent or sobriety. In order for your story to play out, literally every single step of the way has to be played in the worst way possible. I can’t give a rating of “plausible” when the only thing missing is the alien abduction of player V and then player Z realizing that love was right there beside him all along as he stares at Katherine Heigl, who happens to be the dealer 
You who have no faith. Dare I say, “Reefer Madness.” It was written, funded, screened, and implausibly met success and enduring fame. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNzac0vnJCM What kinda joint is this anyway?
Scratch
Scratch - wasn’t that a government propaganda film meant to scare people away from smoking pot? If I’m recalling correctly, I have all the faith in the world that the government will find new and stupid ways to waste money by doing something like this 
I envision the poker hand that is mentioned in this thread to be a great candidate subject for the government to waste its time. “Donks Go Wild” should be the title and the cast laden with Replay Poker stars. I also think it should be a musical.
Scratch
1 Like
[quote=“1Warlock, post:41, topic:6487”]
The story you wrote, while possible, isn’t plausible as a rational poker hand played by people with even a modicum of talent or sobriety. In order for your story to play out, literally every single step of the way has to be played in the worst way possible.
[/quote]I guess Warlock you forget playing in all those “low” MTTs, I saw almost the same hand except the str flu, earlier today…( JJ vs 33 vs 22 ) trust me , with some of the ppl I see day-in/day-out… they will make those plays…
We didn’t mention things like Bubbles, Rebuys, or the last 40 hands we didn’t see played by those people… buy ohh well I gave it a shot, I think its more than plausible.
1 Like
I’ll give it to you Sarah because we’ve both seen worse. Can we compromise at “plausible but fugly”?
ok, fugly… but if even 1 of 12 has doubt, then you must aquit… I’ll convince 2 ppl.
1 Like
Sarah - after last night I am convinced you are right on this one. While the hand requires horrible play to make it happen, it is not only plausible but probably happened almost exactly like that a few times in just the past 24 hours here. In fact, there was probably a guy with 9/10 of clubs who called off his stack looking for a gut-shot straight at showdown with the other 3 mentioned.
Oh my word I did not remember just how nuts the play can get. Pot odds be damned, its possible to suck out and therefore I call. For many players the choice to call is binary, based on possible and impossible. 2 outs or 18 outs is the exact same thing to them.
Warlock,
This sentence, by a very large margin, is the single most accurate description of the play in most of the games. It cannot be said better than this. And kudos to SunGuru for his accuracy on the single greatest general sentence ever uttered as well (called “general” because it covers oh so many subjects). The two of you and your clear visions of magnificence within days of each other, offer a great awakening for all of us!!! It is just so exciting!
Scratch
1 Like
Do answers have to be posted on facebook to win or can they be posted here?
Winners have already been selected.
1 Like
@Warlock ,
So give that 250k, to a random n00b… 
Its like the the other day, 3 ppl to showdown in PLO, not 1 of them hit the flop or had a pair in thier hand… it was truly bizzare, but I watched it happen… in any MTT you’re gonna have to bluff / sloplay , some of the time … disguising it properly, is the key… If you’re too predictable, you’ll just end us as dinner on someone else’s plate.
Sorry Warlock, there are rarely 3 competent players at a Replay table so that makes your set of requirements implausible to start with.