Re: [ba-poker] You've got to know when to fold 'em

[Michael Hunter <michael.hunter1(deleted the rest)>]

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 17:36:57 -0800 (PST)
kubey(deleted the rest) (Ken Kubey) wrote:

> > I wonder what people think about something like Axs for small x.  I
> > play these under certain game conditions and regularly throw away a
> > flopped ace in the face of aggression.  That doesn't seem any harder
> > to me then ditching a bad flush.
> 
> You are comparing ditching top pair no-kicker to ditching a flush?
> I find quite easy to fold one pair or even two pair in no-limit
> if I face a huge raise.  Folding a flush with only 3 of the suit 
> on the board is another matter.  For me at least.

Yea I am because the underlieing concept is that same.  Poker is about
_relative_ hand value.  People recognize domination issues and tend to
fold when they are dominated more because 1 pair with a weak kicker
isn't such a pretty hand.  But a flush.  Now that is a pretty hand! But
in reality its only as pretty as you opponent tells you it is. Just like
the ace.  Do you not play pairs other then aces in PLO because you are
afraid of not having the top boat?  How about suited rundowns which
could create non nut flushes?  Of course not.  But you are aware that
there are times they need to be folded even after they are made.  But
that is easier because we have higher standards in Omaha then we do in
HE. And because our individual standards from Omaha were created after
we had already learned a little bit about poker so we had less reason to
think of any absolute hand as "pretty".

I believe in the capped games (esp. the party ones) that this
flopped non nut flush fold isn't really a question most of the time.  By
the time you might have figured out you are beat you are all in or
getting such a good price you should call.

                       mph

-- 
Michael Hunter | http://public.2idi.com/=mphunter