I hear talk of bad beats and suckouts

[ibew481indy]

the only true bad beat is if you have the highest hand preflop and you lose to a lesser hand...the only true about a suckout is if you have the better hand preflop and you lose all your money/chips to a lesser hand...now if you have an ace/ace in your hand and you get beat bye a 9/3 that's not a bad beat that is a terrible player.....if you have ace/ace and you get beat bye a queen /queen that is a bad beat...at least that is my take on it................

[stepgen]

Originally Posted by ibew481indy

now if you have an ace/ace in your hand and you get beat bye a 9/3 that's not a bad beat that is a terrible player....

not true. it depends how you play your AA. the person with the AA may be the terrible player if he lets the other in cheap on the big blind say and then is not capable of laying them down on layinng them on a 99x or 33x flop after seeing and further resistance to bets

[arjonius]

It's not even necessary for anyone to play badly. You can raise properly with AA and to someone with rags who was all in from one of the blinds, or close enough to all in to be pot-committed.

Also, why is it only a bad beat if you have the best hand pre-flop? Mathematically, it's often lower odds to re-suck since there are fewer cards to come. So if you drew out on the flop or turn, it could be argued that the re-suck is a worse bad beat.

[hope2winbig]

I honestly don't even pay attention to the 'bad beat' or 'suck out' terminology because everyone has their own interpretation of what they mean, and since I have never even read a book about poker I also don't know the true definition of either. When a scenerio such as me starting with AA and another player winning with 9-3 suited because they pulled a flush then I just call it plain 'bad luck', especially if I raised big preflop and/or went allin to begin with!

[stepgen]

Originally Posted by hope2winbig

I honestly don't even pay attention to the 'bad beat' or 'suck out' terminology because everyone has their own interpretation of what they mean, and since I have never even read a book about poker I also don't know the true definition of either. When a scenerio such as me starting with AA and another player winning with 9-3 suited because they pulled a flush then I just call it plain 'bad luck', especially if I raised big preflop and/or went allin to begin with!

to me a bad beat is a 4 outer or less loss on the turn or the river

[cyaatthetables]

came out way a head on this one but was far from favorite preflop.

[decker]

If you play well, you will always be plagued by bad beats. The object is to have your money in with the best hand, and if you accomplish this, you'll be swearing at the donks a lot!

[arjonius]

decker makes a significant point. It might be natural to think bad beats should even out somehow, but that's not so. You want to take a lot more than you give out.

[prueba1__1]

Originally Posted by ibew481indy

now if you have an ace/ace in your hand and you get beat bye a 9/3 that's not a bad beat that is a terrible player.

I am not totally agree with this. If your ace/ace lose against 9/3 in the preflop that's a bad beats because the statistical study says that you will win 87%, then it is a bad beats.
But if you lose with ace/ace against 9/3 in flop,turn, river then you are not so skillful.
At least thats my opinion.

[0maxpower0]

LOL cya. Thats the definition of a bad beat. Tough to misplay aces when you go all in with them preflop and get called by a far inferior hand... even if you bet smaller on flop and he calls, hes going to be in no matter what most likely... sigh, its like bad beats dont even exist anymore really... ive seen it a thousand times ya know... its just part of the game. short of runner runner quads or straight flushes... it all just comes out in the wash

-0max