@Essexphil said PS-you keep referring to a "clique" on here. Most people do not know each other-the only common thread is a love of poker.
You said in a previous post that you were warned by a friend before joining Sky that a clique existed? Clearly, they dont need to know each other, the connection is this forum. Im not even sure i used the word clique, i preferred tea club... until you mentioned it!
If i say something they feel is wrong, or that they can twist to fit, they are right there in numbers commenting. But If a clique member writes something that is absolutely wrong, or have misinterpreted incorrectly, absolutely no-one comments.
I think we can safely say at times they have shown the ability to disagree just because it was me who said it. I think you can see, you also suggested AA was a fold in many situations with Misty.... but it was only me that got the capital letter 'you are wrong' post. If i hadnt commented at all, you certainly was never going to get a post like that, be honest!
Once the clique have seen anyone expresing an opinion with how online poker works, they wont let you comment on absolutely anything and be impartial.....
I remember when the "New Kids on the Block" started playing low cards as if they were picture cards and winning..... ever the outcry it's rigged. Poker Players evolve
I am just not a good enough player to fold queens never mind aces.
Although I did say when we discussed this prior to you starting this thread, that I thought that if you applied the same logic you used to fold the queens, then you would surely fold the aces as well.
I also think that it is impossible to provide a definitive answer without knowing the stack sizes of the bottom four players. If they were really short it might have changed my mind.
I respect the opinion of @StayOrGo, who has provided the most comprehensive answer so far. The starting stack size was 2,000 chips. So based on the 70% rule that he quoted, the aces were a fold.
The stacks of the bottom 4 are critical, to making the correct decision.
........ and this was one of the reasons for Calling the SHOVE. The bottom 4 were all between 4500 and 5000 chips, so around 4 bb's. There were smaller stacks a bit earlier with 20 players left, but they had either been KO'd, or like @memfno, had already managed to DUp.
Following the A-Aces hand, I was in 17th (last) but did manage to DUp myself to 5600 chips, but I was still only 15th...... and eventually went out a couple of Orbits later in 17th with A-Ks v @TommyD's 9-9's.
So it was extremely doubtful I would have been able to FOLD to a seat, even if I'd FOLDED the A-Aces
I am just not a good enough player to fold queens never mind aces.
Although I did say when we discussed this prior to you starting this thread, that I thought that if you applied the same logic you used to fold the queens, then you would surely fold the aces as well.
I also think that it is impossible to provide a definitive answer without knowing the stack sizes of the bottom four players. If they were really short it might have changed my mind.
I respect the opinion of @StayOrGo, who has provided the most comprehensive answer so far. The starting stack size was 2,000 chips. So based on the 70% rule that he quoted, the aces were a fold.
The stacks of the bottom 4 are critical, to making the correct decision.
........ and this was one of the reasons for Calling the SHOVE. The bottom 4 were all between 4500 and 5000 chips, so around 4 bb's. They were smaller stacks a bit earlier with 20 players left, but they had either been KO'd, or like @memfno, had already managed to DUp.
Following the A-Aces hand, I was in 17th (last) but did manage to DUp myself to 5600 chips, but I was still only 15th...... and eventually went out a couple of Orbits later in 17th with A-Ks v @TommyD's 9-9's.
So it was extremely doubtful I would have been able to FOLD to a seat, even if I'd FOLDED the A-Aces
I admit that I would have been in the wrong, on both hands.
Are you sure about the stack sizes? Flop2hard is in the queens hand, and was on the sb next hand which left him with 3,640 chips. The aces were 10 hands later. You said there were 18 left when you folded the queens, and 17 left when you played the aces. Therefore only one had busted. So 20 players didnt come into it. Memfno hadnt already doubled up, as he had exactly the same stack in both hands. I was just making the point that the reasons you gave for folding the queens also applied to the aces.
I cant help wondering if the outcome would have been different, had you played the queens. When you were down to 5,600 chips, you would have been glad of a pair of queens.
I am just not a good enough player to fold queens never mind aces.
Although I did say when we discussed this prior to you starting this thread, that I thought that if you applied the same logic you used to fold the queens, then you would surely fold the aces as well.
I also think that it is impossible to provide a definitive answer without knowing the stack sizes of the bottom four players. If they were really short it might have changed my mind.
I respect the opinion of @StayOrGo, who has provided the most comprehensive answer so far. The starting stack size was 2,000 chips. So based on the 70% rule that he quoted, the aces were a fold.
The stacks of the bottom 4 are critical, to making the correct decision.
........ and this was one of the reasons for Calling the SHOVE. The bottom 4 were all between 4500 and 5000 chips, so around 4 bb's. They were smaller stacks a bit earlier with 20 players left, but they had either been KO'd, or like @memfno, had already managed to DUp.
Following the A-Aces hand, I was in 17th (last) but did manage to DUp myself to 5600 chips, but I was still only 15th...... and eventually went out a couple of Orbits later in 17th with A-Ks v @TommyD's 9-9's.
So it was extremely doubtful I would have been able to FOLD to a seat, even if I'd FOLDED the A-Aces
I admit that I would have been in the wrong, on both hands.
Are you sure about the stack sizes?
Flop2hard is in the queens hand, and was on the sb next hand which left him with 3,640 chips. The aces were 10 hands later. You said there were 18 left when you folded the queens, and 17 left when you played the aces. Therefore only one had busted. So 20 players didnt come into it. Memfno hadnt already doubled up, as he had exactly the same stack in both hands. I was just making the point that the reasons you gave for folding the queens also applied to the aces.
I cant help wondering if the outcome would have been different, had you played the queens. When you were down to 5,600 chips, you would have been glad of a pair of queens.
YES .....the stack sizes were around that (give or take 100 or so chips)
I mentioned the 20 players 'coz that's when there were some smaller stacks
memfno KO'd Spideryd in 20th/19th and went up to 6350chips
Flop2Hard had Stolen Blinds with SHOVES to get up to 7240chips
The two scenarios are entirely different, such is the fluidity and nuances of Satellites, which is why we love playing the Game ........ MOST of the time
I am just not a good enough player to fold queens never mind aces.
Although I did say when we discussed this prior to you starting this thread, that I thought that if you applied the same logic you used to fold the queens, then you would surely fold the aces as well.
I also think that it is impossible to provide a definitive answer without knowing the stack sizes of the bottom four players. If they were really short it might have changed my mind.
I respect the opinion of @StayOrGo, who has provided the most comprehensive answer so far. The starting stack size was 2,000 chips. So based on the 70% rule that he quoted, the aces were a fold.
The stacks of the bottom 4 are critical, to making the correct decision.
........ and this was one of the reasons for Calling the SHOVE. The bottom 4 were all between 4500 and 5000 chips, so around 4 bb's. They were smaller stacks a bit earlier with 20 players left, but they had either been KO'd, or like @memfno, had already managed to DUp.
Following the A-Aces hand, I was in 17th (last) but did manage to DUp myself to 5600 chips, but I was still only 15th...... and eventually went out a couple of Orbits later in 17th with A-Ks v @TommyD's 9-9's.
So it was extremely doubtful I would have been able to FOLD to a seat, even if I'd FOLDED the A-Aces
I admit that I would have been in the wrong, on both hands.
Are you sure about the stack sizes?
Flop2hard is in the queens hand, and was on the sb next hand which left him with 3,640 chips. The aces were 10 hands later. You said there were 18 left when you folded the queens, and 17 left when you played the aces. Therefore only one had busted. So 20 players didnt come into it. Memfno hadnt already doubled up, as he had exactly the same stack in both hands. I was just making the point that the reasons you gave for folding the queens also applied to the aces.
I cant help wondering if the outcome would have been different, had you played the queens. When you were down to 5,600 chips, you would have been glad of a pair of queens.
YES .....the stack sizes were around that (give or take 100 or so chips)
I mentioned the 20 players 'coz that's when there were some smaller stacks
And irrelevant when discussing what happened between the queens, and the aces.
memfno KO'd Spideryd in 20th/19th and went up to 6350chips
That happened before the queens. In both hands he had 6,350 chips. And irrelevant when discussing what happened between the queens, and the aces.
Flop2Hard had Stolen Blinds with SHOVES to get up to 7240chips
The two scenarios are entirely different, such is the fluidity and nuances of Satellites, which is why we love playing the Game ........ MOST of the time
GOOD LUCK for the rest of UKOPS evry1
Dara says "in general" if you have more people below you that would get a seat, than those above, you want to start to seriously slow down. So you have 4 above and 10 below. Also he uses a 70% rule, which is, have you got to 70% of the "target."
The "target" being 10K if it is a 1 in 5 sat with no overlay and a 2K starting stack,
The two scenarios are entirely different, such is the fluidity and nuances of Satellites, which is why we love playing the Game ........ MOST of the time
GOOD LUCK for the rest of UKOPS evry1
If you could turn the clock back, would you play the queens?
The two scenarios are entirely different, such is the fluidity and nuances of Satellites, which is why we love playing the Game ........ MOST of the time
GOOD LUCK for the rest of UKOPS evry1
If you could turn the clock back, would you play the queens?
NOPE .......
and before you ask .....
I would play the A-Aces again too. The situation had changed .....and it was my BB and I already had 1200chips invested.
@TheWaddy I'll agree with you on some stuff but online poker IS NOT rigged. 100%.
It’s fair that you agree on some things and you don’t on others….and that it can be discussed without the need for anything but a poker discussion…This is normal behaviour, so I’m grateful for that!
The two scenarios are entirely different, such is the fluidity and nuances of Satellites, which is why we love playing the Game ........ MOST of the time
GOOD LUCK for the rest of UKOPS evry1
If you could turn the clock back, would you play the queens?
NOPE .......
and before you ask .....
I would play the A-Aces again too. The situation had changed .....and it was my BB and I already had 1200chips invested.
So just to clarify. You played and lost. If you were given another opportunity, you would play to lose all over again.
There are two ways you could alter the outcome. 1 Play the Queens. 2 Fold the Aces.
One thing that is not clear in the @StayOrGo answer is the definition of "slowing down". Does it mean you should be folding everything, or maybe raising, or shoving, in position in an attempt to maintain your stack size.
It is clear from the small number of players that have expressed their opinions so far, that I am in the minority, that would have played the queens. Although I cant help thinking that folding everything and diminishing your stack size, at the blind levels in play, is somewhat risky. As is the raising or shoving in position to nick some blinds, and to maintain your stack size. I assume that there was plenty of shoving going on at this stage. I cant help thinking that playing the 3rd best starting hard is a less risky option. Where winning the pot eliminates one more player, and increases your stack size to almost 17,000, at much lower blind levels than when you get to the aces hand. I believe this is borne out by the improvement that all the bottom 4 players made, and the stack sizes that you quote. Losing with the queens would have left you with 5 bigs.
Comments
PS-you keep referring to a "clique" on here. Most people do not know each other-the only common thread is a love of poker.
You said in a previous post that you were warned by a friend before joining Sky that a clique existed? Clearly, they dont need to know each other, the connection is this forum. Im not even sure i used the word clique, i preferred tea club... until you mentioned it!
If i say something they feel is wrong, or that they can twist to fit, they are right there in numbers commenting. But If a clique member writes something that is absolutely wrong, or have misinterpreted incorrectly, absolutely no-one comments.
I think we can safely say at times they have shown the ability to disagree just because it was me who said it. I think you can see, you also suggested AA was a fold in many situations with Misty.... but it was only me that got the capital letter 'you are wrong' post. If i hadnt commented at all, you certainly was never going to get a post like that, be honest!
Once the clique have seen anyone expresing an opinion with how online poker works, they wont let you comment on absolutely anything and be impartial.....
I remember when the "New Kids on the Block" started playing low cards as if they were picture cards and winning..... ever the outcry it's rigged. Poker Players evolve
Following the A-Aces hand, I was in 17th (last) but did manage to DUp myself to 5600 chips, but I was still only 15th...... and eventually went out a couple of Orbits later in 17th with A-Ks v @TommyD's 9-9's.
So it was extremely doubtful I would have been able to FOLD to a seat, even if I'd FOLDED the A-Aces
Are you sure about the stack sizes?
Flop2hard is in the queens hand, and was on the sb next hand which left him with 3,640 chips.
The aces were 10 hands later.
You said there were 18 left when you folded the queens, and 17 left when you played the aces.
Therefore only one had busted.
So 20 players didnt come into it.
Memfno hadnt already doubled up, as he had exactly the same stack in both hands.
I was just making the point that the reasons you gave for folding the queens also applied to the aces.
I cant help wondering if the outcome would have been different, had you played the queens.
When you were down to 5,600 chips, you would have been glad of a pair of queens.
@HAYSIE just wrote;
I admit that I would have been in the wrong,
2 days ago he wrote to me & said...
"You were right".
I need some therapy.
I mentioned the 20 players 'coz that's when there were some smaller stacks
memfno KO'd Spideryd in 20th/19th and went up to 6350chips
Flop2Hard had Stolen Blinds with SHOVES to get up to 7240chips
which is why we love playing the Game ........ MOST of the time
GOOD LUCK for the rest of UKOPS evry1
Dara says "in general" if you have more people below you that would get a seat, than those above, you want to start to seriously slow down. So you have 4 above and 10 below. Also he uses a 70% rule, which is, have you got to 70% of the "target."
The "target" being 10K if it is a 1 in 5 sat with no overlay and a 2K starting stack,
Cheers Graham @StayOrGo
Really good insight into Satellite play.
and before you ask .....
I would play the A-Aces again too. The situation had changed .....and it was my BB and I already had 1200chips invested.
You played and lost.
If you were given another opportunity, you would play to lose all over again.
There are two ways you could alter the outcome.
1 Play the Queens.
2 Fold the Aces.
One thing that is not clear in the @StayOrGo answer is the definition of "slowing down".
Does it mean you should be folding everything, or maybe raising, or shoving, in position in an attempt to maintain your stack size.
It is clear from the small number of players that have expressed their opinions so far, that I am in the minority, that would have played the queens.
Although I cant help thinking that folding everything and diminishing your stack size, at the blind levels in play, is somewhat risky.
As is the raising or shoving in position to nick some blinds, and to maintain your stack size.
I assume that there was plenty of shoving going on at this stage.
I cant help thinking that playing the 3rd best starting hard is a less risky option.
Where winning the pot eliminates one more player, and increases your stack size to almost 17,000, at much lower blind levels than when you get to the aces hand.
I believe this is borne out by the improvement that all the bottom 4 players made, and the stack sizes that you quote.
Losing with the queens would have left you with 5 bigs.