Pot control with bottom set...

Villain is a solid TAgg. Thoughts on the hand? The only hand I think he might value bet on this river that I beat is AK, and I'm not even sure he'd raise that out of the blinds.. maybe 50/50 on that? Who knows..

I considered mucking on the river...

edit: also important to note is he probably puts me on a small pair preflop since I'm a tightie...

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $4 BB (6 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)

Hero ($415.90)
MP ($74)
CO ($290.50)
Button ($398.95)
SB ($135.30)
BB ($472.45)

Preflop: Hero is UTG with 5, 5.
Hero calls $4, 3 folds, SB completes, BB raises to $16, Hero calls $12, SB folds.

Flop: ($36) 5, A, K (2 players)
BB bets $20, Hero calls $20.

Turn: ($76) J (2 players)
BB bets $55, Hero calls $55.

River: ($186) 3 (2 players)
BB bets $125, Hero calls $125.

Final Pot: $436

y no raise pf?

y no raise on flop? hoping for turn raise but scare-card hit?

Originally Posted by Genitruc

y no raise on flop? hoping for turn raise but scare-card hit?

hes worried about AA and KK

Originally Posted by apunisher

y no raise pf?

There are some donkish short stacks on my left (MP and SB most notably) and I felt open limping was the best pf play despite it being pretty standard to open any PP in 6-handed games.

Originally Posted by Genitruc

y no raise on flop? hoping for turn raise but scare-card hit?

I think this guy's raising range out of the blinds is very tight.

so y get bled if u r beat? He will push to a reraise on flop w AA/KK right?

If you think his range for pushing is AA/KK then folding to a flop push is easier than calling a decent bet on turn and river when u r beat...?

I want to get to showdown and I want 2nd best hands putting the most money in as possible. I don't think he stacks off with worse hands here given how scary an AKx board is to me when he raises out of the blinds. I think he might raise AK out of the blinds here and he might stack off with it and might find a fold somewhere, putting me exactly on 55. I felt my line gave me the chance to win the most when I was ahead, and lose the least when I was behind while still getting to showdown.

This hand was played really badly imo. I would've gotten all-in or at least a big raise on the turn at the latest.

Can we get some more background on the villain? Do you have numbers on the guy, and what he has raised with in the BB before? I know people tighten up their raising requirements in the BB, but it is 6 max. I would think you could be looking at AQs, AQo, AKs, AKo, and that's just for starters. How tight is the guy really?

I'm just losing my stack if I got outflopped here. I do not play at these stakes, so take that fwiw. I never assume I got outflopped when I flop a set and there is no flush or straight on board yet. I always play like I have the best hand no matter what in that case.

Originally Posted by lonnie

This hand was played really badly imo. I would've gotten all-in or at least a big raise on the turn at the latest.

Can we get some more background on the villain? Do you have numbers on the guy, and what he has raised with in the BB before? I know people tighten up their raising requirements in the BB, but it is 6 max. I would think you could be looking at AQs, AQo, AKs, AKo, and that's just for starters. How tight is the guy really?

I'm just losing my stack if I got outflopped here. I do not play at these stakes, so take that fwiw. I never assume I got outflopped when I flop a set and there is no flush or straight on board yet. I always play like I have the best hand no matter what in that case.

I know there are only 6 players in the hand, but it was at a full ring (9 handed on stars) game with 1 or 2 open seats and 1 or 2 players sitting out. I know technically that shouldn't make a difference, but this guy is a solid multitabler and I don't know if he made the adjustment. Also my stats on him are somewhat old and from shorthanded games, but he's solid. I need to make assumptions on this guy given that I don't know what he's raising out of the blinds. Also worthy to note is that I'm a tight UTG limper here, so perhaps that tightens his range as opposed to if I were a loose-passive donkey.

Also, I've never said that he -can't- have AK/AQ here, but we have to determine how to best play the hand against his range. No point in blowing him off all hands that beat me and getting stacked by KK/AA. This was my thought process during the hand: It's unlikely he raises AQ out of the blinds, and highly unlikely anything worse. AK maybe. Given the river bet, there's no way he has AQ, the only hand I beat is AK. It's also a possibility on the turn that he's on JJ, was making a c-bet on the flop, and turned his '2 outer'. If he's airballed the board by the turn (only QQ or junk would fit this profile, and I don't think this player raises junk out of the blinds here, like, ever) then I think he gives up.

Anyway........

So basically by the turn we have his likely holdings as AA/KK, QQ/JJ, AK, AQ, in that order? (I'm not sure I read your description correctly, should QQ and AQ still be in there after his turn bet? No matter what I think my following question is valid.)

My question, then, is "why do we want to get to showdown against this range"? Out of the hands in his range we beat only the two least likely, and QQ if we include it. If we are ahead we aren't getting paid because we never raise (and even if we did raise he'd find a fold with all hands except maybe AK). I'm not doing the maths but showing down here sounds like a losing proposition to me.

I believe a flop raise or a turn fold is in order.

I've taken a vacation from FTR for awhile. Is the "in" thing to fold sets these days when only oversets can beat you? I've made a lot of money with flopped sets and I've paid a few hands off along the way. But one thing I have never done is folded in a spot like this or played passively when meeting resistance.

Sometimes you can overthink these things. This particular hand, I stick my stack in on the turn. When you make the $125 call on the river, not only does the overset beat you but the hearts are there also. Things just get more and more complicated everytime you peel off another one.

vnh

even if he has AK he won't call a raise


Its very similar to the hand discussed in this thread.

http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...oker-37715.htm

Originally Posted by Lukie

I felt my line gave me the chance to win the most when I was ahead, and lose the least when I was behind while still getting to showdown.

While this might be true, I think you will lose more while behind than you will win while ahead by going to showdown.

A new question: if you think this guy is capable of putting you on 55 and folding AK at some point here, should you really hunt that set against him in the first place? If he might not stack off with top two, what will he stack off with that he raised in the blinds?

I'm gonna make a restatement: I think a raise or a fold at some point is in order here.

On the river I think fold>call>raise. After the river bet we have his range at AA/KK/JJ/AK, right? A raise is just stupid because it can only lose you money because he folds AK (except AhKh of course) and pushes/calls the rest. Pot odds says he has to have AK about 30% of the time here to make the call, right? From your description it sounds like he doesn't. So I think a fold very well might be our best option here.

Renton: I think this hand differs a lot from your thread in that the likelyhood of him having air on the river is big enough (I presume?) to make the call.

So the only hand you'd ever limp/call with is a lower pp right? If he is as solid (and perceptive) as you say, that means he'll have you beat like 100% of the time on the river to value bet there. AK would check or block bet there given his read on you.

More i think bout it more i think this is an awesome hand for discussion.

hand played passively :

assuming he has ak/aa/kk/jj at a frequency of 40%/20%/20%/20% (we can argue that that's too generous for ak but there are simply more combos of it...) we are winning 218$ x .4 and losing 218$ x .6... 87.2$ - 130.8$ = net loss f 43.60$

hand played aggressively on flop :

we raise to 90ish (making pot 140 giving him 2-1 on his money... we could maybe get away w a smaller raise) and assuming he pushes aa/kk (we fold) and folds jj... tricky part is does HE get passive here w ak (u seem to say he ll fold so I'll assume we take down pot right away but maybe we could extract more value out of ak than you are assuming lukie).

assuming he folds jj/ak (60% of hands) we win 56$ uncontested. assuming he pushes aa/kk and we fold, we lose 126$ 40% of time = 33.6$ - 50.6 = net loss of 17$

this calculation as a whole seems balanced to me in that

1 : it probably exaggerates the frequency of jj in this situation (and uses the benefit of hindsight w your river read)

but

2 : it is very conservative in the amount of money we extract from ak (the aggressive flop line is potentially much more profitable if we are ever extracting money on later streets from ak. i discounted this possibility since your read seemed so strong).

obviously the stooopied thing about these calculations is that the assumptions are somewhat arbitrary. Assuming he has aa/kk/jj w the same frequency bugs me... but don't see how u can get around it. And if we are assuming that jj is part of his range, qq must also be part of his range for flop action (which imo is the crucial decision for this hand).

Let me know if this seems way out of line as a calculation... just seems like the flop raise is more profitable... or should i say less costly

Against a good player I think this is a fine play. Given that his range is AA, KK, AK, QQ, AQs ish for raising out of the BB and its pretty easy to eliminate QQ and AQ, that leaves 2 hands that beat you and 1 hand that you beat. I think a calldown is perfectly acceptable.

EDIT: on the other hand, if he hasnt proved to me that he is definately a solid, tight player I cannot get all my chips into that pot fast enough.

If we're beat 2/3 times why do we want to bleed all the way to the river as opposed to reraising and folding to a push on flop?

standard on stars

I'm really tired so I'll probably wait to add a few more points til tomorrow, but I think it's important to note how much I've under-rep'd my hand by the river.

edit: edited out results for the time being as I don't want them to bias any future posts

Lukie:

sorry, but you definitely lost value on this hand. Hell, even a minimum raise on the flop would dramatically build this pot.

His bets say to me here "I have an Ax, maybe even AK. I think I outkick you, so I'm gonna valuebet." However, if I'm him, I'm not gonna get scared by you popping me back to $45 on the flop.

If I'm a donk, I'm going to be totally ok with you popping bets at me that are 1-2 to 2/3s the size of the pot unitl eventually I lose everything.

However, if I'm not a donk, then I'm going to raise you on the turn anyway.

Either way, Lukie will usually get more money by raising on the flop.

I really think he had AA/KK

AK is more likley than AA and KK combined, I think it's correct to repop him on the flop and re-evaluate from there.

sorry, but you definitely lost value on this hand. Hell, even a minimum raise on the flop would dramatically build this pot.

if by lost value, you mean saved half my stack, I agree.

His bets say to me here "I have an Ax, maybe even AK. I think I outkick you, so I'm gonna valuebet." However, if I'm him, I'm not gonna get scared by you popping me back to $45 on the flop.

Ax? Tight full ring players don't raise a whole lot of unpaired aces out of the BB into tight UTG limpers. They just don't. Err scratch that. They don't raise out of the blinds very much at all. The most likely Ax hand he could have is far and away AK imo.

If I'm a donk, I'm going to be totally ok with you popping bets at me that are 1-2 to 2/3s the size of the pot unitl eventually I lose everything.

if you're a donk, I highly encourage you to sit at any of my games. I basically always 8-table NL ring on stars. Join the fun.

However, if I'm not a donk, then I'm going to raise you on the turn anyway.

I didn't give him the chance to raise. I'm probably misinterpreting what you're saying.

Either way, Lukie will usually get more money by raising on the flop.

You know, most of the time, I'm a huge supporter of playing sets agressively, building the pot, etc. In this particular hand though, I don't agree with it.

Originally Posted by TalentedTom

AK is more likley than AA and KK combined, I think it's correct to repop him on the flop and re-evaluate from there.

Why is AK necessarily more likely then AA and KK combined if he isn't always raising AK out of the blinds? By the time we get to the river, AA/KK is more likely then AK, and that I'm sure of.

Originally Posted by nutsinho

I really think he had AA/KK

Lukie, your analysis of this hand is extremely skewed by the results imo.

So this was a case of...Man, I know he has a higher set but I am just not sure-enough to fold my set. @#$&*(* he had what I thought he did. Bugger.

Originally Posted by lonnie

Lukie, your analysis of this hand is extremely skewed by the results imo.

I disagree, Lukie wouldn't have played the hand in this manner if the same thoughts hadn't been going through his head while the hand was being played. If he's played with this opponent before and knows he's that much of a nit that he has an overset here more often than not, I think he played the hand fine.

Originally Posted by lonnie

Lukie, your analysis of this hand is extremely skewed by the results imo.

Your entire understanding of the game seems to be based on overused cliches seen only on FTR. Perhaps when you graduate from the NL25/NL50 games and open up your mind, that will change.

By the way, how's the wife doing?

Ouchers

Your entire understanding of the game seems to be based on overused cliches seen only on FTR. Perhaps when you graduate from the NL25/NL50 games and open up your mind, that will change.

I play 25, 50 and 100 NL, as well as anywhere from 1/2 - 3/6 LHE. I play for recreation, not for income. A good deal of my understanding of poker came from FTR initially. I've been dealing live poker for the last 1.5 years where I've managed to learn a good deal more. You don't really know me, so let's just stick to the hand in the thread.

hu grudge match between lukie and lonnie, it can start as soon as gabe is done taking all of exsentrik's bankroll

Nah, I'm not a very good HU player, haven't done it much except for tournaments. Go stir someone else's pot catdog.

Originally Posted by lonnie

Lukie, your analysis of this hand is extremely skewed by the results imo.

lonnie i agree 100%

get the money in on the flop you nit, ITS SIX HANDED

Originally Posted by gabe

Originally Posted by lonnie

Lukie, your analysis of this hand is extremely skewed by the results imo.

lonnie i agree 100%

get the money in on the flop you nit, ITS SIX HANDED

against a guy who I think is very nitty out of the blinds, whom I also think is still locked in full ring mode? When there's a good chance he knows what I have?

I disagree.

no way

that type of thinking is the reason you are still happy playing 1/2 with some shots at 2/4...man up, get aggro and stop being so god damn scared

I have to admit FWIW that hero did save half his stack.

"i folded AA preflop, but i would have lost to rivered flush, so i saved my entire stack"

that argument doesnt work

Originally Posted by gabe

no way

that type of thinking is the reason you are still happy playing 1/2 with some shots at 2/4...man up, get aggro and stop being so god damn scared

think about what you are saying, then read through the thread

btw 8-tabling 2/4 isn't exactly chump change either...

I'm the only chump here.

Get over it.

fold on the flop

lukie said villain was a solid tagg, and the villain is also probably aware that lukie is tight and slightly nitty...lukie would never call a $125 bet on the river here from this player with a hand that AK beats after this specific preceding action, so his bet makes very little sense unless he has AA/KK. I would expect to see an intricate bluff with QQ here more often than 3 largely escalating barrels tossed out by an AK.

No. Your analysis of this hand, Lukie, is really based on the fact that you lost.

If you raise at any point here, you might, MIGHT be able to get away with it. I still highly doubt it.

Set over set will own the underset all day. You may have saved half your stack here if you lost today, but you'll have missed out on doubling up at least 5 or 6 times versus other opponents, so yes: you lost value.

5 stacks - 1/2 saved stack = 4.5 stacks of lost value.

Villian will have something that is NOT AA or KK MUCH more than he'll have those two. AK is what was running through my mind THE ENTIRE time. I don't see why you think he wouldn't raise AK out of the blinds six handed with only you in front of him. That makes no sense whatsoever.

Originally Posted by nutsinho

lukie said villain was a solid tagg, and the villain is also probably aware that lukie is tight and slightly nitty...lukie would never call a $125 bet on the river here from this player with a hand that AK beats after this specific preceding action, so his bet makes very little sense unless he has AA/KK. I would expect to see an intricate bluff with QQ here more often than 3 largely escalating barrels tossed out by an AK.

This is a classic example of the post in somebody's sig that says to the effect of "to be good at poker requires you to be one step ahead of your opponent. Two steps may be detrimental." You are thinking about this too much.

You can talk yourself in circles all day long, but the fact is that more often than not at this level, you have the other person beat.

Originally Posted by ensign_lee

No. Your analysis of this hand, Lukie, is really based on the fact that you lost.

I assure you that it's not. I was thinking the same thing during the hand, and even considered pitching it on the river. For what it's worth, I think I've gotten stacked in basically every set under set I've ever encountered. I also tend to make loose river calls, despite what people say about me being nitty.

If you raise at any point here, you might, MIGHT be able to get away with it. I still highly doubt it.

As agressive of a player as I am, I disagree. I think raising at any point allows him to pitch all worse hands (save for -maybe- AK) while not letting me get to showdown without putting my stack in if I'm beat.

Set over set will own the underset all day. You may have saved half your stack here if you lost today, but you'll have missed out on doubling up at least 5 or 6 times versus other opponents, so yes: you lost value.

I think this was played in a way that will maximize value against worst hands. The only hand that I possibly missed value from is AK, and even against that, I think it's likely that I got the max out of that.

5 stacks - 1/2 saved stack = 4.5 stacks of lost value.

overly simplistic and flawed. This assumes that I'm good here 5/6 of the time, and that I win a stack every time I'm good here. Against this opponent (I don't know why you mention other opponents, as a large part of why I didn't want to play for stacks is my assumption about this player's blind play) I'm not good here 5/6 of the time, and it's not even close. I also don't win stacks when I'm good here, again, save for possibly against AK.

Villian will have something that is NOT AA or KK MUCH more than he'll have those two. AK is what was running through my mind THE ENTIRE time. I don't see why you think he wouldn't raise AK out of the blinds six handed with only you in front of him. That makes no sense whatsoever.

So you think that by the river, villain is going to have AA/KK less then he has something else?? AK may have been what was running through your mind the entire time, but not mine. I can't tell you with what frequency he was raising out of the blinds, and my PAHUD stats on this guy were outdated and from different games. He was something like 20/10ish, but I can tell you with certainty that he was playing nittier then that. I also hadn't recalled him raising out of the blinds, but I also 8-table so I don't know how much credibility goes into that read. Like I said before, I've gotten stacked in virtually every set under set I've ever encountered, but I still feel like stacking off in this spot against this guy given this action is a mistake.

As far as not raising AK out of the blinds, a lot of full ring nits complete/check down AK in the blinds. I know it is technically 6-handed, but like I said before it was at a full ring table with some players sitting out at the table. And this guy is a tight multitabler whom I don't think made the adjustment.

i like lukie's line. i think it is important that it was actually a 9 max table that happened to have only 6 in the hand at the time. villains range, especially if nitty, is probably pretty much aa/kk/qq/ak/aq. There's no way he keeps betting like this with aq/qq or worse imo. if he has ak, and lukie starts raising him, I think he spooks out before he puts in more than half a stack anyway.

and ensign, just to nitpick, he did get in half a stack here, so even if 5/6 times he loses value, 5/6 times he loses half a stack of value, not a whole stack of value. and, the more of his stack he gets in, especially when driven by him raising, the more often he's going to see aa/kk, and the less often he's going to see ak.

I guess you should bluff & steal a lot against this type of player.

Originally Posted by johnny_fish

I guess you should bluff & steal a lot against this type of player.

By the impression I get through this thread, I agree. I'll restate one of my questions from earlier in the thread: if we think this guy is capable of dumping AK on an AK5 board, should we even play 55 against him?

One point I can see coming here is that we can often take the pot away from this guy without improving, was that in your mind before the flop came?

Originally Posted by HalvSame

Originally Posted by johnny_fish

I guess you should bluff & steal a lot against this type of player.

By the impression I get through this thread, I agree. I'll restate one of my questions from earlier in the thread: if we think this guy is capable of dumping AK on an AK5 board, should we even play 55 against him?

This is a very good question. I'm not really sure if he can get off AK here. My hunch is that he practices some pot control and becomes a bit more passive somewhere in this hand. It's also likely he'll flop an overpair if I flop a set, where his hand is less transparent. By Lukie's fuzzy math standards, we have to net an average of $120 in this hand to call preflop, and being in position with this guy's range, I think I can manage that. Probably close though, but I have no idea.

To take your idea one step further, why am I playing 55 at all when I think it's -EV to raise since there are multiple short stacks at the table, but we're questioning whether it is +EV to call a raise from a fellow big stacked player that we have position on and who's range we have defined very narrowly?

One point I can see coming here is that we can often take the pot away from this guy without improving, was that in your mind before the flop came?

No, the exact oppsite actually. I think a lot of the hands he is raising here are big pairs which I have no interest in getting tangled up with unimproved.

if you moved from stars ring games we wouldnt need to have this thread about set over set.

I agree with lukie to the point that you can get away from sets at times in very nitty games. What bothers me however is that Lukie is still prepared to play ring games on a site where he actually has to consider this a possibility at these stakes.
I folded set over set once with a solid read against a rock and have lost not many stacks otherwise wit hste over set. If you were playing in a ifsh tank youd be winning more and not having to think so much.
Yes, we all want to be a great player with top skills but why play at a site where u cant pwn like you could at others and build a large br? This mindset baffles me.
As played, go with ur read. Call down i guess.

Originally Posted by Miffed22001

if you moved from stars ring games we wouldnt need to have this thread about set over set.

I agree with lukie to the point that you can get away from sets at times in very nitty games. What bothers me however is that Lukie is still prepared to play ring games on a site where he actually has to consider this a possibility at these stakes.
I folded set over set once with a solid read against a rock and have lost not many stacks otherwise wit hste over set. If you were playing in a ifsh tank youd be winning more and not having to think so much.
Yes, we all want to be a great player with top skills but why play at a site where u cant pwn like you could at others and build a large br? This mindset baffles me.
As played, go with ur read. Call down i guess.

Heh, I actually just made a party account the other day. I really don't like playing on the site just because I hate the software, but I'm going to do my best to try to get used to it. I agree 100% with what you are saying, it's just I have a more enjoyable experience on stars if that means anything. I guess I also have a certain comfort level on it too, which should be the case after so many hands there. FWIW, I was 12-tabling the NL25 game on party the other day, and I never remember that game on stars being so incredibly bad... (not saying it was good, but it wasn't nearly this bad)

I also came across a player that goes by the name of RypTide11.

Originally Posted by Lukie

I also came across a player that goes by the name of RypTide11.

LOL

I can understand the software issue, its the same reason i play a lot still on prima and not party.

Lukie has read on opponent. Lukie follows read on opponent. GG Lukie.

Sure aggression is important, but what about trusting your reads and following your gut feeling? There are times when you need to slow down. There are times when it may be correct to play a hand passively. Call Lukie a nit for the way he played this hand, but you know this hand is an exception. You know he doesn't habitually play bottom set this slowly. In this particular instance he felt there was a strong enough chance that he might behind that he decided to play it safe. I see nothing wrong with that.


I posted this hand awhile ago, and while somewhat different, it's basically the same situation. I played it passively based upon a read. The results really aren't important.

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $2 BB (5 handed) converter

UTG ($355.70)
MP ($155.75)
Hero ($290.65)
SB ($195)
BB ($52.25)

Preflop: Hero is Button with 4, 4.
UTG raises to $8, Hero calls $8

Flop: ($19) K, A, 4 (2 players)
UTG bets $12, Hero calls $12.

Turn: ($43) K (2 players)
UTG bets $30, Hero calls $30.

River: ($103) 2 (2 players)
UTG bets $75, Hero calls $75

Final Pot: $253

Results in black below:
UTG shows [Ah Ad] and wins ($253.00) with a full house, Aces full of Kings
Hero mucks

I think hero lost value here by living in fear of the nuts. As played a call down is fine, but pumping it up pre-flop might have determined whether you were up against AA/KK. These hands would probably have reraised and priced you out of your set. AK is less likely to reraise, in which case you can probably get more money in post-flop. The fact there are short-stacks to my left who may push on me doesnt normally deter me from my usual pre-flop strategy.

I also hate party software, but micro-stakes ring at prima is full of nits. Ladbrokes is same software, much looser.

YOU GUYS ARE MISSING THE POINT

He didn't call it down because he was afraid of better hands. He called it down because HE KNEW ONLY BETTER HANDS WOULD CALL A RAISE.

Given the action (we limped/called pf), and our opponent, and our nit image, villain would very likely have folded Aces Up to a raise at almost any point in this hand. We maybe missed a little value on the flop, but turn and river we wouldn't have got calls from better hands if we'd raised.

Originally Posted by Renton

YOU GUYS ARE MISSING THE POINT

He didn't call it down because he was afraid of better hands. He called it down because HE KNEW ONLY BETTER HANDS WOULD CALL A RAISE.

Given the action (we limped/called pf), and our opponent, and our nit image, villain would very likely have folded Aces Up to a raise at almost any point in this hand. We maybe missed a little value on the flop, but turn and river we wouldn't have got calls from better hands if we'd raised.

they are!

i thinks theres mopre here than just the hand.

btw, small stakes on prima are not full of nits. No where near.
100nl has a few decent mutitablers but nothing special.

you will probably go broke within a month if you keep playing set over set like this!

Wow Lukie this seems tough. With your reads and all I'd say the best line here is to raise the flop and fold to a push. You're pretty much giving away the fact that you have at least AK, or a set to this guy if you raise the flop. I think it's really important to lose the least here if your read is correct. I know it seems tight with a set but idk what else you can do. But without a read I'd try to get it all in somehow.

Originally Posted by ensign_lee

Set over set will own the underset all day. You may have saved half your stack here if you lost today, but you'll have missed out on doubling up at least 5 or 6 times versus other opponents, so yes: you lost value.

5 stacks - 1/2 saved stack = 4.5 stacks of lost value.

What the hell? He doesn't lose 1 stack worth of value if he plays for half his stack here and he's good.

Originally Posted by mcatdog

Originally Posted by ensign_lee

Set over set will own the underset all day. You may have saved half your stack here if you lost today, but you'll have missed out on doubling up at least 5 or 6 times versus other opponents, so yes: you lost value.

5 stacks - 1/2 saved stack = 4.5 stacks of lost value.

What the hell? He doesn't lose 1 stack worth of value if he plays for half his stack here and he's good.

I was going to see if anyone else picked up on that.