Preflop: Hero is BB with K :dance:, K :siren:.
UTG calls t20, 4 folds, CO calls t20, 1 fold, SB completes, Hero raises to t80, UTG calls t60, CO raises to t200, SB folds, Hero raises to t500, UTG calls t420, CO raises to t1680, Hero calls t1000 (All-In), UTG calls t1000 (All-In).
93 is a hand that’s become a minor internet legend, so UTG may have bought into the hype. By the time it got back to him the third time he may have felt like he was too invested to fold. And he got stupid lucky, as dumbasses often do.
And since all the chips were even, it looks like this was the first hand of the tournament, right? There are people who go all-in on their first hand with almost anything, hoping to double up or get out and try another. Stupid strategy, but it seems fairly common.
Yeah, it was the first hand. I am not really questioning my play (although folks may comment uponit if they like). Ijustthought the all-in with the 93s might have been fishy, like he/she was working with CO to try and get a lot of chips.
What, have you been living under a rock for the last two years? How can you not know of the power of 93, the Mighty SIK?
Following that inauspicious beginning, Sikulu started playing the 93os strong and it seemed to hit a lot, taking down some big pots. He’d post the hand histories in the PR forum, then other people would play it and win and post the hand history, and it not only snowballed, it avalanched. It got to be huge and sort of ridiculous, and PR and its members had such fun with it that PR even had a SIK bonus weekend. Play a tournament and show down the SIK to win a pot and PR paid out a $50 bonus.
Technically a suited 93 is “BIG SIK,” which is actually a little weaker than the SIK proper. Still, you really should have known better than to go up against it with a holding as weak as pocket KK.
You didn’t mention the entry fee. Odds are if this was a freeroll or something relatively cheap (or a rebuy tourney), you will get at least one chucklehead who goes all in early to double up or save time to play in another one.
You played it right, and if anything, you should 93o guy to your friends list (if PStars had a friends list that is).
Yup. I was playing a player points freeroll last week and some idiot at my table went all in on almost every hand, with the “call me I have to leave” routine. So he’d be sitting there all in with 82os against an actual hand and catch two pair on the flop. From a 1500 starting stack he accumulated over 7500 in about 6 minutes. I hate that shit, and I especially hate it when they do that “I have to leave” business. Forst off, if you actually have to leave, why did you sign up for the tourney? And second, if you actually have to leave then sit the hell out and if you don’t actually have to leave then shut the fuck up. He finally got busted out over the course of a couple of hands, both lost to the same player, who was sitting one seat to my left. Imagine my joy at being one seat in front of a 15,000 chip stack 10 minutes in.
Sam Stone: I had considered that, except the person didn’t just go all in, but basically followed the betting, so I don’t think that is the case. Of course it is possible.
Tommy Tutone: It was a $6, 45 player SnG. So your thinking may be correct. Play the first hand no matter what and hope to catch something. If not, on to the next tournament.
Otto: Neat story. I don’t really read poker message boards or follow it . Watch it on TV and play online is about all I do (I have browsed some books at Border’s, too). The “I have to go” is BS. Just leave if you really have to go. One time I was in the middle of a tourney (cheap .99 cent one at Pokertropolis) about halfway through and was sitting pretty well. My friend called, had a problem with her car and needed a ride to work. So I just left. I did say I have to go, but I didn’t do any all-in nonsense,I just said “I have to go” and left.
NurseCarmen it’s all pretty simple. Let me try to explain:
I was playing in 45 player $6 and 0.50 Sit-n-Go tournament. It was the intial hand and blinds were 10 and 20 (we all had 1500 to start). I was sitting in the big blind when I got Cowboys in my pocket. The player under the gun called the twenty, four players then folded, the cutoff called, the button folded, the small blind called for half price and I raised the pot with my PP. The player after me called, but the cutoff man re-raised to $200, whcih was a little less than the pot. The small blind, hoping for a cheap flop, realized that wasn’t going to happen and got out of the way. With my superior hand, I re-re-raised to $500. UTG called the $420, which by itself is a little strange, IMO to just be calling such a large raise/re-raise. The next to act went all-in and I quickly called as did the UTG. Our cards are turned over revealing the CO with Mrs. Slick suited with hearts, not really an all-in hand in IMO, but if you are agressive early in a tournament, with a a good sized pot, I can see it. But the other guy had 93 of spades. A bad hand, of course, so why would you be going all-in with such a hand? We will never know the real answer, but it was a bad play that when the flop came up rags for me but struck gold for the 93 with the two pair. Well you can imagine the sick feeling in my stomach. Rags on the turn and river and I am out of the tournament. A pretty bad beat for certain and one that would make anyone question why the poker gods would honor such a play.
Gangster Octopus is playing a popular version of poker called ‘No-limit Texas Hold’em’ on the Internet.
Right at the start of play he picks up a pair of Kings, which is the second best starting hand.
There is some wild betting, and eventually three players have gambled all their money to win the hand.
Despite having the best start, Gangster loses to a very poor starting hand. He wonders if e.g. there was collusion between the player and the Internet site (who could have known which cards the computer was going to reveal).
Other posters express the opinion that there are a lot of wild players on the Internet, and this particular weak hand is considered ‘lucky’ to play.
Actually I was wondering if there might be some collusion between the winning hand and the other player in the hand, possibly trying to shift all the chips to one player or the other. Although looking at the betting more closely this doesn’t seem likely.
If it was collusion or chip dumping then they’re even dumber than advertised. Try for a chip dump when there’s a third player actively competing for the pot? Madness.