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.
Silly Calls.
HAYSIE
Member Posts: 36,742
Everyone get browned off by silly calls, but only when they hit.
It is not my intention to be moaning about bad beats.
However I was particularly galled by one last night.
It was a predictable hand.
The big blind had been missing for ages, and as he could just cover the bb so there was a head prize at stake.
There was a min raise, and two calls before it got to me in the sb.
I naturally shoved with AQ.
This is followed by two folds and a call from the button.
Now I could have understood a shove from the button with Q 10, but not a call.
A 10 on the flop means its a taxi for Abdul.
As I said this is not a bad beat moan.
When I was sitting in the taxi, a thought crossed my mind.
What if we could change the rules.
What if the rule was if all the chips were in pre flop, and one player was so far in front you don't run the cards, the in front player takes the pot.
So if you were say 70/30 in front, or better you take the chips.
You wouldn't get so many silly calls then.
I know the argument is that in the example above the AQ wins 7 times out of 10, but that is little compensation at the time.
People that make silly calls when they are so far behind just lose the pot, sounds like a good rule to me, and there wouldn't be so many.
This would obviously only apply to a call, not a shove.
It is not my intention to be moaning about bad beats.
However I was particularly galled by one last night.
It was a predictable hand.
The big blind had been missing for ages, and as he could just cover the bb so there was a head prize at stake.
There was a min raise, and two calls before it got to me in the sb.
I naturally shoved with AQ.
This is followed by two folds and a call from the button.
Now I could have understood a shove from the button with Q 10, but not a call.
A 10 on the flop means its a taxi for Abdul.
As I said this is not a bad beat moan.
When I was sitting in the taxi, a thought crossed my mind.
What if we could change the rules.
What if the rule was if all the chips were in pre flop, and one player was so far in front you don't run the cards, the in front player takes the pot.
So if you were say 70/30 in front, or better you take the chips.
You wouldn't get so many silly calls then.
I know the argument is that in the example above the AQ wins 7 times out of 10, but that is little compensation at the time.
People that make silly calls when they are so far behind just lose the pot, sounds like a good rule to me, and there wouldn't be so many.
This would obviously only apply to a call, not a shove.
Comments
This can cause short-term pain, but definite long-term reward. Much like the guy who 3-bet shoved me with c.18 players left in the Main last night. With 8 9. Who got there. Good luck to him-hope he continues making the same play
The suggestion was a bit tongue in cheek, but if the object of the game is to get your chips in when in front...………………………………...…….
as we both really enjoy the SPTs , but Madrid is on my bucket list so delighted to have qualified.
I do highly recommend Dara's book Poker Satellite Strategy to anyone that likes Satellites, and poker study.
Otherwise I would be pointing out that in the above example that the calling hand loses 74 times out of 100, and calling with 6 4 off would give you a better chance of winning.
I think that most people get frustrated over silly calls, get over them when they hit, and carry on.
The point I was making is that if there was a rule in place that stopped players calling with really silly hands, in that if they were so far behind they just lose the pot, I for one would be happy, and I am sure it would happen less.
I know this will never happen, which is why I made it clear that it was a tongue in cheek observation.
However I am surprised that anyone would suggest that calling with a hand that wins 26% of the time, is by any means a good move.
You say the call is bad because he happened to have 26% equity vs your exact hand. But with two potential bounties to win, a lot of dead blinds out there and okay equity vs your shoving range the call can't ever be that bad. It certainly doesn't seem nearly bad enough to warrant a forum post. You didn't say how deep you were but if it was an amount big enough to make the call shocking I'm sure you'd have mentioned it.
It may be a case the call was -chip ev but became +£ ev because of the bounties. Yes, I'm suggesting it might have, by some means, been a good move. Consider how well it does vs your shoving range, the pot odds and the value of the bounties when analysing whether or not you think the play is good. The fact you held Ace Queen exactly this time is not relevant.
If you disregard the exact hands, and the Q 10 is prepared to get them all in, considering the bounties, isn't it a shove from the button, rather than a call?
I was making a general point about sh1t hands rather than these two specific hands.
"On the chip front we had similar stacks.
If you disregard the exact hands, and the Q 10 is prepared to get them all in, considering the bounties, isn't it a shove from the button, rather than a call?
I was making a general point about sh1t hands rather than these two specific hands."
You could definitely make a case for it. I think I prefer call. With only one player left behind most the time we are going to get to see a flop in position with a hand that's is going to be quite easy to play. The original opener is still uncapped and the flatter can have a lot of hands that dominate us. If we shove and get called we are dominated fairly often. It just isn't strong enough to shove, especially when villain's are going to be incentivised to call off quite liberally for the two bounties. We have a trivial fold when you shove and one of the other's call. When the opener and flatter both fold we just need to approximate what your range looks like and decide whether or not calling at this point is profitable. I can see why you'd argue if you were going to call off anyway you might as well be the aggressor, but we are only considering calling because of the very specific way the hand has played out. Reasonable logic has been applied at both decision points. It matters how you get your chips in.
I would rather shove something stronger like KQ, that does better vs a calling range, or something that doesn't play well postflop that benefits from just running it's equity like A9o, 66.
Just to be clear my original suggestion was regarding a way of generally discouraging stupid calls, with silly hands.
Getting knocked out of a tourney by someone making a silly call, is annoying for everyone.
The chatbox often lights up with a selection of swear words when this occurs.
The hand I described had just happened, and I did think it was a bad call, but I could have used much worse and much more appropriate examples, when making this point.
I don't claim to be a good player, or in a position to offer any poker advice to anyone, but my feelings on this hand are as follows.
I was slightly wrong in my earlier description, where I said that there were some min raises, as they had bet more than the bb.
After thinking back the bb was 500, but the player in the bb was missing, and only had 400 chips left. So the bets were limps for 500 chips and not min raises.
So there were two limps in early position, followed by a further limp on the button, before it got to me in the sb.
The head prize in the bb being the obvious incentive for getting involved.
Head prizes seem to encourage the maddest of play.
The button and I had similar stacks.
I would have a different view if the button had 6 or 7 times my stack.
Now when it gets to the button after 2 limps, if you are prepared to get them in shouldn't you get them in first?
If not shouldn't you at least raise?
Raising might win the pot, but limping seems weak.
Had I folded he was limping into a pot with 3 other players.
I was the only player behind the button as the bb was missing.
Maybe I am wrong but it would seem much more sense to me than limping, and then calling a shove.