You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
folding AA
screwy27
Member Posts: 113
anyone ever folded AA before?
sat in a tourney just made the money but about 15 hands getting the usual cr ap cards 73 82 94 etc then AA someone goes all in 15k and another 12k I fold(21k) they turn KK 1010 flop comes 7 9 j turn 3 river k ,ive learnt from the past and sussing it out now.
sat in a tourney just made the money but about 15 hands getting the usual cr ap cards 73 82 94 etc then AA someone goes all in 15k and another 12k I fold(21k) they turn KK 1010 flop comes 7 9 j turn 3 river k ,ive learnt from the past and sussing it out now.
Comments
If you lose, ah well that's unlucky. If you don't wanna get it in as an 80% favourite, what do you want?
Firstly, it depends on the buy in
Secondly, its what the money means to the player. Not what it means to you, or your sister, or your sisters pet giraffe.
And a double up from say 35 to 75 chips when the binds are 300/600 will most often mean squat to your cash position.
So what then if there were 3 players all-in and you're covered, or 4? There are times when risk/reward gets skewed (not saying this is one of them!).
Just because he hit the king doesn't make it a good fold. In fact, it's just a consolation against your mistake.
Whats up mate, see your own sharkscope graph? loller
Granted in your scenario if we can double from 35 chips to 70 chips when the blinds are 300/600 then that is meaningless, so if we KNOW someone has already bust on the stone bubble as it's hand for hand, then yes we can fold, cos we're basically out anyway.
But how often is that gonna happen that we're that short lol. If we even have 2xBB then it's 100% worth trying to treble up, get ourselves back to 7-8xBB (if we pick up the blinds too if the shoves dont come from the blinds) and giving ourselves a chance to win.
Usually 1 win is better than 20 min cashes.
In that it can, in very rare occasions, be logical to fold AA in an MTT.
But yes, of course 99.999% of the time its a ship and high five the mouse thats been eating your cereal!
And for the record my scope is locked as it is always beneficial to keep the information villain has to a minimum in whatever way possible. Not that I expect you to understand that.
My most amusing DYM hand ever was when I was down to 5 chips if I folded in the small blind. the first 2 to act were probably not the most savvy players and both went all in. I passed and one got knocked out! My 5 chips were worth just the same as the guy sitting on 8000.
Don't actually see how there are any particular benefits in blocking your stats but understand your view on it I guess.
1) It is probably because having winning MTT results isn't always a result of being a good player
2) They know you're good, but good how? Are you 'good' cos you're a nit that just sits there waiting for the nuts, or because you are loose aggro and have a very good postflop game or lots of other permutations.
Look at some of the top players on Sky... TommyD, MattBates, etc. they don't seem to be being held back by the fact people can see their stats
What games they specialise in, what stakes they usually play, how successful they are, how many games they have lost in a row, are they losing lots and moving up in buy ins. All that is information that can help to draw a picture of that player.
We can take a lot from that.
Do they understand heads up concepts?
Are they on tilt?
Are they likely to have understanding of poker related maths?
To name but a few
The biggest tool of Sharkscope, is to avoid winning players. You can look though the heads up games ready to go, and just avoid winning players. Now, tell me that isnt something a good heads up SNG player would want to hide....
As poker is a game of incomplete information, and applying the information you have more successfully than the information villain has, it makes perfect sense to withold any information you can.
With regards your comment about specific players, whom for the record I have not heard of.
That point you have made holds no basis for conculsions, they may win more, less or the same if they were to hide their data. But as we are unable to prove or disprove such a theory, drawing the conclusion that keeping their stats in the public realm has no impact on their results is not scientifically sound.