He gives 3 examples where the Hero is faced with a large raise after making a bet with AK. In the first example, the opponent has a medium sized stack that is smaller than our Hero. In the second example, the opponent has a larger stack than the Hero. In the 3rd example the opponent is short stacked. Without relating the whole chapter, which may be illegal anyway, I would like to say that although I am in complete agreement with his all-in move in example 3 and also in agreement with his call in example 2, I am in complete disagreement with his fold in example 1.
The action goes something like this. Blinds are 150/300 with 50 antes making the starting pot 900. Hero is 2nd to act with 37,000. Hero raises to 1,200. It is folded around to cutoff with 11,200 who raises to 5,000. There is now 7,100 in the pot and it costs you 3,800 to call.
Immediately he says that calling is the worst option here then reasons that you have 2 options, fold or all-in. He opts for folding. My question is, using the same logic that he uses in example 2, why would calling not be the best option? He reasons that in example 2, where you would need to call the same raise, the call is justified because even if you aren't getting the immediate odds you need to flop a pair, you are getting implied odds because it will be very difficult for the large stack to get away from this hand.
My question is, wouldn't that be more so the case in example one? Call and take a flop knowing that you have great implied odds here because the raiser is pot committed and would find it even more difficult to get away from this hand than the raiser in example 2 with a bigger stack. Is anybody in agreement with me here?
I'm not saying that I would definitely call and that calling is definitely better than pushing or folding. However, I don't believe that is the worst option by far and that this particular play deserves some consideration and may even be the one I'm most likely to opt for.Statistics: Posted by MTPaid — Thu Jul 13, 2006 10:21 pm
]]>