calling an all-in on a monotone flop with AA and a flush draw

[luckystraights]

Stuck in a game with a lunatic, who just got busted out, going all-in constantly forcing me to fold everything, JJ and AK included as it was too early to gamble, but then I find myself in this predicament with AA and a nut flush draw, when he re-raises me I expect him to have the flush, but I had the nut flush draw and couldn't drop it here.

I'm assuming I was wrong to chase and should have dropped to his re-raise, but I have recently seen him go all-in with top pair and even an under pair, as the lunatic I mentioned stirred the table up quite a bit, any thoughts on this ?

http://www.pokerhand.org/?1847863

Thanks again

[luckystraights]

This makes two games I've lost in similar fashion tonight, I think the bad play I witnessed in each, put me on tilt a little and when I had such a good hand, I wanted to fight with them rather then wait for a better spot.

Pokerstove puts me at a almost a 70 : 30 underdog against his flush, so if I was sure he had the flush I should have folded without hesitation, what persuaded me was probably his reckless play I've observed around the table, going all-in with mediocre holdings and calling huge raises with J9o style hands, although not against me... which lead me to doubt that he may have the flush and he may only have top pair, AK maybe, so I called because I had the ace of spades to back me up in case he hit two pair or did have the flush.

[Martini]

Stuck in a game with a lunatic, who just got busted out, going all-in constantly forcing me to fold everything, JJ and AK included as it was too early to gamble, but then I find myself in this predicament with AA and a nut flush draw, when he re-raises me I expect him to have the flush, but I had the nut flush draw and couldn't drop it here.

I'm assuming I was wrong to chase and should have dropped to his re-raise, but I have recently seen him go all-in with top pair and even an under pair, as the lunatic I mentioned stirred the table up quite a bit, any thoughts on this ?

http://www.pokerhand.org/?1847863

Thanks again

From what you describe, your opponent was running over the table with sheer aggression and showing bluffs. No idea of what hand selection he was showing of if he would back down out of hands. But if he was showing down crap then you need to account for that. Running PokerStove against his actual hand is pointless. If you KNEW he had 4s7s then you'd have to fold because. The thing is that you don't that at the time and you have to run your hand against his *range* of hands that he could have including a single spade, AK, two pair, underpair, etc. I'm sure that you are a clear favorite against his total range. Scary board for sure but if the book on him is making people fold when he had nothing then you just have to pick your spot and figure he is going to NOT hvae it more often than he does have it.

[luckystraights]

Just to clarify the issue.

The lunatic I mentioned got busted out by the guy I face here. My opponent had begun to call the lunatics huge raises with a couple of high cards, or Ax and had started to make big bets himself.

I didn't have any information on how he would play against me as I wasn't in a pot with him until this hand, but against other players including the lunatic I mentioned he had become really aggressive and going all-in when he hit the flop, even with less then TP.

[TwoToGo-Grave]

Flopping a flush draw with pocket aces is a monster flop and monster hand, as you have a ton of outs even if you are beat.  Therefore, you really need to get your chips in there and be aggressive about it.  I don't see anything with your play here.  It sounds like you just got unlucky and nothing more.

[luckystraights]

Flopping a flush draw with pocket aces is a monster flop and monster hand, as you have a ton of outs even if you are beat.  Therefore, you really need to get your chips in there and be aggressive about it.  I don't see anything with your play here.  It sounds like you just got unlucky and nothing more.

Well I certainly feel better about it now, I thought it was a bad move immediately afterwards

[Martini]

You should feel bad about making bad reads. You should feel bad about not assigning the correct range to your opponents hand. You should feel bad about not knowing your equity in the pot. You should feel bad if you don't know the pot odds. You should not feel bad JUST because you were behind in the hand. That's results oriented thinking.

Even if a Ts peeled off on the River to give you a Royal Flush, you should feel the same way about the hand in terms of your decision on the flop.

[NotFadeAway]

I like your play here to be sure, but there's one thing in the post that I disagree with strongly.  You mentioned that you were folding AK and JJ against this maniac because it was 'too early to gamble."  I hope you don't mean preflop or on a strong flop (for your hand), as against a guy like this, don't fold monsters preflop. You need to attack the weak players when you have the good.  As for the comment about it being too early to gamble, while it's true that you don't want to gamble early in a sng, this is not really a true 'gamble.'  Passing up a preflop all in against a maniac when you have jacks is more of a gamble than calling, as you are taking a huge risk that you can make up not just the cEV (expected value in chips), but the $EV (expected value in money) as well.  Passing up +cEV gambles early usually is +$EV, but I really don't think so when you have someone's range crushed this badly.
However, on the aces hand you played it extremely well, but just got unlucky against a moron.  He likely would have done the same thing with second pair or a gutshot, so don't worry about the fact that you were behind when you got all in.

[luckystraights]

I like your play here to be sure, but there's one thing in the post that I disagree with strongly.  You mentioned that you were folding AK and JJ against this maniac because it was 'too early to gamble."  I hope you don't mean preflop or on a strong flop (for your hand), as against a guy like this, don't fold monsters preflop. You need to attack the weak players when you have the good.  As for the comment about it being too early to gamble, while it's true that you don't want to gamble early in a sng, this is not really a true 'gamble.'  Passing up a preflop all in against a maniac when you have jacks is more of a gamble than calling, as you are taking a huge risk that you can make up not just the cEV (expected value in chips), but the $EV (expected value in money) as well.  Passing up +cEV gambles early usually is +$EV, but I really don't think so when you have someone's range crushed this badly.
However, on the aces hand you played it extremely well, but just got unlucky against a moron.  He likely would have done the same thing with second pair or a gutshot, so don't worry about the fact that you were behind when you got all in.

I folded with AK, as it was in the first or second level, and I had to put my tournament on it so early, I didn't want to go broke without even a pair.

I would have re-raised with J's against the lunatic, but he made a huge raise and then got 3 callers, I didn't want to invest that many chips with jacks so early and a re-raise would have committed virtually all my chips.

I thought the play was wrong actually, but this guys range was wide and reckless so I guess against this player it was okay to make the call.

Thanks

[Dr. Neau]

Stuck in a game with a lunatic, who just got busted out, going all-in constantly forcing me to fold everything, JJ and AK included as it was too early to gamble...

Either stop playing $1 sit-and-gos or start gambling.

[Detroitdad]

Stuck in a game with a lunatic, who just got busted out, going all-in constantly forcing me to fold everything, JJ and AK included as it was too early to gamble...

Either stop playing $1 sit-and-gos or start gambling.

Yes, yes, yes, and............well, yes.............no offense Lucky but all your posts are starting to sound the same to me. I don't read most of them anymore. Sorry if this offends anyone, I think I will just start marking these as "read".

Good Lucky, hope your game improves and you find the assistance that you need here. If you want something from me specificaly then just PM me. I can't read anymore of these though.

B

[Dr. Neau]

And to pile on.

I completely disagree with anyone who says don't move up to $5 sit and gos until you've mastered the $1 sit and go.

That's like saying don't play chess until you've mastered predicting coin flips.

[Martini]

And to pile on.

I completely disagree with anyone who says don't move up to $5 sit and gos until you've mastered the $1 sit and go.

That's like saying don't play chess until you've mastered predicting coin flips.

Would you say that $5 SnG tourneys are more or less beatable in the long run than $1 SnGs? Also, Chris Ferguson (among others) would advocate playing at $1 tourneys until one's bankroll can afford $5 tourneys.

[Detroitdad]

And to pile on.

I completely disagree with anyone who says don't move up to $5 sit and gos until you've mastered the $1 sit and go.

That's like saying don't play chess until you've mastered predicting coin flips.

Would you say that $5 SnG tourneys are more or less beatable in the long run than $1 SnGs? Also, Chris Ferguson (among others) would advocate playing at $1 tourneys until one's bankroll can afford $5 tourneys.

I don't think DR. N is necessarily talking bankroll here. I think he is talking mastering the skill level. I have to agree with him. Of course with Lucky, the talk is all bank roll so he should probably stick with the 1 s SnG's until the bankroll covers the 5.

[maryfield]

And to pile on.

I completely disagree with anyone who says don't move up to $5 sit and gos until you've mastered the $1 sit and go.

That's like saying don't play chess until you've mastered predicting coin flips.

Caveat - I've never played $1 or $5 SNGs. But I think that the benefit in general of beating a level before you move up (apart from building your 'roll) is that you are exposed to styles of play that develop your skills. I think of it as building your experience-bankroll. As you go up in limits you are going to encounter a wide variety of playing styles and the more styles that you have played and been successful against the better equipped you will be.

As an aside, there was an anecdote told on one of the poker podcasts to which I listen of a hand in which there were 5 people still in when the river completed a broadway straight on the board, with no more than two of any one suit. One of the players went all-in, and two of the 5 folded. One of the two that folded made the final table of a Hold 'Em bracelet event in this years World Series. My point being that you encounter idiotic play at all levels (anyone remember Chad Brown checking behind with quads on board and an A in his hand when HU against Kristy Gazes at last year's HU Championships?)

[luckystraights]

I did move up, by re-adding.

Maybe it was just a stressing time anyway, but having $200 kicking its heels just added more pressure on me, so I removed it, and purchased some  poker books instead.

I hate the $1 Sit-N-Go's, and will probably hate the $5 and $10 Sit-N-Go's, if I was working full time, and could afford it I'll deposit a $1,000 or more and move up to much higher limits, but I'm not, so that ain't an option.

If I loose it all because I'm out played, it will be worth it, but I doubt I will.

A lot or recent losses have come from running unlucky, but too many in between have likely also come from tilting due to the very bad play I witness on a daily basis. I've got a goal in mind to move up to the $5 Sit-N-Go's and I'm working towards that.

I think there is a few things I can pick up from the $1 Sit-N-Go's, most importantly is to not let very bad play affect my own game, and also to recognize when I should adjust my early stage play to profit from  the very weak players at my table, but from a strategy, game improvement, and experience point of view I don't think there is worth left if these tournaments for me anymore.

Fair to say I've posted enough from the $1 Sit-N-Go's.

Thanks.

[Martini]

And to pile on.

I completely disagree with anyone who says don't move up to $5 sit and gos until you've mastered the $1 sit and go.

That's like saying don't play chess until you've mastered predicting coin flips.

Would you say that $5 SnG tourneys are more or less beatable in the long run than $1 SnGs? Also, Chris Ferguson (among others) would advocate playing at $1 tourneys until one's bankroll can afford $5 tourneys.

I don't think DR. N is necessarily talking bankroll here. I think he is talking mastering the skill level. I have to agree with him. Of course with Lucky, the talk is all bank roll so he should probably stick with the 1 s SnG's until the bankroll covers the 5.

Excellent point for discussion. I've broken this topic out into its own thread:
http://forums.homepokertourney.com/index.php/topic,13335.0.html

[Dr. Neau]

And to pile on.

I completely disagree with anyone who says don't move up to $5 sit and gos until you've mastered the $1 sit and go.

That's like saying don't play chess until you've mastered predicting coin flips.

Would you say that $5 SnG tourneys are more or less beatable in the long run than $1 SnGs? Also, Chris Ferguson (among others) would advocate playing at $1 tourneys until one's bankroll can afford $5 tourneys.

Well, if Ferguson says so, stop the discussion... 

One's bankroll can afford $5 sit and gos if one deposits $25 into Pokerstars.

I see absolutely no use muddling around with donkeys at the $1 level...unless your goal is to make $1,000,000 by playing $1 sit and gos exclusively.

All of lucky's questions are about how to handle situations in hands...NONE of his questions are about managing bankroll.

My point is that bluffs and good play make very little difference at the $1 level (or the $0.01/$0.02 cash game level) because most people playing these do not take them seriously as the money is too low.