The official poker thread

[Emory889 353]

I rather inadvertantly started a poker conversation in the Banned thread. I figured rather than hijacking a very entertaining thread we could have a poker thread instead.

 

I would definitely like to continue that Hellmuth discussion with you Killing.

[Emory889 353]

I rather inadvertantly started a poker conversation in the Banned thread. I figured rather than hijacking a very entertaining thread we could have a poker thread instead.

 

I would definitely like to continue that Hellmuth discussion with you Killing.

[Live or Die Magic 383]

Oh....wait....nevermind.

 

I thought this was a poke her thread.

 

 

My bad.

[Emory889 353]

This is a family forum. Get your mind out of the gutter.

[KillingInTheNameOf 63]

Good idea, I'll be happy to discuss it further, I'll move all relevant posts to this thread, & respond to your last post.

 

 

quote:

Originally posted by emory889:

He didn't play that hand poorly though other than basically announcing he had ace king. The other guy hit the flop and Phil threw it away. How did he play it wrong?

 

Not to turn this into a poker forum, but since you asked...

 

For starters, his 3-bet pre-flop doesn't account for being out-of-position post flop. Then as you said, he makes his hand or at least a very tight range so transparent he could turn his cards face up. The fact the other guy hit the flop is completely irrelevant. He calls to steal & Phil invited it because he knows Phil is 2-1 to miss the flop w/a hand like AK.

 

If Phil keeps his mouth shut, reps a full 3-bet range, and makes a standard oop 3-bet, opponent can't call because he doesn't have the implied odds to do so, doesn't have pot odds to do so because he doesn't know what cards he could rep to steal.

 

3-betting pre and then checking the flop is beyond weak/passive. This is an auto continuation bet situation. Extreme strength followed by extreme weakness? He's certainly not reppin an overpair. Again, transparent.

 

If Phil intended to play that tight post flop, the line here is call pre-flop, and check-raise top pair post flop. Phil gave him 2-1 on a call and made the guy a 2-1 fav. -EV for Phil.

 

Even if the guy had the AQ Phil put him on, he played it perfectly for his opponent all the way down the line.

 

Standard, zomg, I had the pre-flop nuts AK, and can't believe I got sucked out on logic! Phil likes to think everybody else should be playing cards or abc while he plays poker and when they don't oblige he blows a gasket. I give the guy credit for being a great reader of players and situations, his technical skill is pretty marginal. Which is why he's a great tournament player & weak cash game player.

[KillingInTheNameOf 63]

quote:

Originally posted by ThisIsTheYear:

If you can pull off a check-raise post-flop on a complete bluff, then good for you, but part of being excellent tournament player is your ability to read the situation, as you said, which is why Phil, Doyle, and Chan own the most bracelets, they play a similar game.

 

C-bet is vastly different than a c/r both in terms of play and EV. As an aside, these 3 play vastly different styles.

 

quote:

Achieving a poker bluff may give you that "sick" satisfaction that everyone craves for, but those who get enamored with bluffs typically don't so well. This applies mostly to tournaments though since high stakes is an entirely different monster.

 

A C-bet is beyond standard here and would never be confused with a sick or elaborate bluff. 3-bet reps a range that would never check this flop, which is why a c-bet is so standard.

 

As I said previously, if you aren't c-betting post, you call pf, & c/r when you hit. You don't establish the lead, bloat the pot, and then surrender both when you miss. In terms of EV, this is standard, basic, elementary poker.

 

quote:

In any case, a check on a post-flop can also be seen as a sign of strength, since more often than not a person who does this is trying to lure his/her opponent into a trap.

 

Again, not following a 3-bet oop for a laundry list of reasons.

 

quote:

Phil's chip stack was also inferior compared to his opponent. If he had chosen to raise post-flop, he may have had to raise substantially to scare Dragomir away, then again, over betting the pot is also seen as a sign of weakness, so either way, he never really stood a chance.

 

If he had "bet", his stack size actually makes his c-bet stronger because his opponent would be committed to pot on the turn or would be forced to make a -EV raise on the flop or bet on the latter streets to steal the pot with his range.

 

If Hellmuth c-bets behind that 3-bet, he's reppin a range of T's-A's, AK. A pair of T's has about 20% equity vs. that range. Calling that bet would have been the first donkish thing that guy did in the entire hand even after pairing on the flop.

 

quote:

Could Phil have played this hand better? Possibly, but then again chatting away like he did could have also intimidated Dragomir into folding his hand, so it's a moot point.

 

I could potentially give Phil credit for one thing in this entire hand. He recognized he made his hand transparent and gave up on it.

[Emory889 353]

Moved from other thread.

 

quote:

Originally posted by ThisIsTheYear:

quote:

C-bet is vastly different than a c/r both in terms of play and EV. As an aside, these 3 play vastly different styles.

 

Actually, on a poker after dark interview around three and a half months ago, they interviewed both Hellmuth and Chan after Chan was eliminated. Johnny stated that they played a similar game, and Phil agreed. I'll say this, Doyle is a wild card, the man's poker IQ is off the charts.

 

By the way, how has Dane Cook eluded this list?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zy4zgCsgqyo

 

That's pretty acurate. I very rarely see Chan bluff a big pot. He usually has the goods when he is in a hand....especially in tournaments.

 

Killing, I agree with you that its an almost automatic play to make a continuation bet after a preflop reraise...especially with a hand like ace king. There were a few factors involved though. For starters, Hellmuth couldn't keep his trap shut and basically announced he had ace king preflop (which was really dumb). Secondly, Hellmuth is notorious for checking big hands (which is why he gets sucked out on so much thus leading to more tirades). I am actually kind of surprised that Hellmuth didn't check in the dark because he usually does that when he is out of position. Third, I don't think a continuation bet would have worked in this instance. Hellmuth almost never reraises with a mediocre hand and he clearly put the other guy on a premium hand (that definitely wasn't an act). Therefore, the other guy could immediately rule out ace 10 or any middle pair. A pair of 10s wasn't a strong hand but I probably would have called a continuation bet on the flop and see how Hellmuth reacted on the turn. If he bets again on the turn then I muck it. You are definitely right, he was calling on the flop with every intention of robbing Hellmuth but that flop was almost as good as he could have hoped for without pair his second card. Finally, it was a tournament and Hellmuth was short stacked. He didn't want to risk a good portion of his remaining chip stack on a continuation bet when he put the other guy on a strong hand. His read was wrong on this occasion but I have to give him credit for usually being pretty accurate on his reads.

 

I can't stand Hellmuth (and I've seen him make some really crappy decisions) but I still think he made the correct play. However, he really should learn to shut the hell up until after the hand is over. He might as well have turned his cards face up.

 

This is a really entertaining thread and I don't want to hijack it. I think I will start a poker thread for anyone that wants to talk about the subject.

[KillingInTheNameOf 63]

Doyle & Chan play classic power poker. Hellmuth, classic small ball. In fact, Doyle invented PP, & Hellmuth invented SB.

 

On the hand...

 

Hellmuth is in an inferior chip position, but he's not "short stacked". I would estimate his stack at 1.25M. SS'd would be 10-20bb's, with the big blind at 25k.

 

As you agree, the biggest mistake Phil makes in this hand is defining it. Everything beyond that is less relevant because it changes the dynamics of the hand.

 

But, w/o a doubt, if Phil doesn't want to get deeply involved in a hand with an unimproved AK, he shouldn't 3-bet. Plain and simple.

 

You give up a lot of equity when you flat with AK pf, but you can compensate for that post flop by extracting value when you hit because the strength of your hand is disguised.

 

He also sizes his 3-bet poorly. I realize he's either attempting to induce a fold &/or freeze villain to prevent him from 4-bet shoving...but it's impossible to bloat the pot & achieve pot control. Which is why he has to play it strong or play it passively. There is no correct in between play.

 

A larger re-raise effectively forces his opponent to commit to the hand or fold. I realize Phil doesn't want him to commit to the pot, but pot control goes out the window when you 3-bet. Thinking he could finesse his opponent off his hand here is what gets him into trouble.

 

On that point, yes, Phil slow plays, and plays big hands more passively than most. That's the metagame he sets up by splashing around in so many pots. But, the 3-bet effectively kills that. You aren't trapping anybody after 3-betting.

 

Just for arguments sake, let's say Phil is attempting to trap post flop w/an overpair here. His opponent bets 300k into this pot & Phil c/r shoves. His opponents "bluff" only has to succeed like 35% of the time here to be profitable. Phil might extract some added value from him, but he's still making a +EV bet. Not to mention the fact Phil would be pricing in any draw to call and be between 33-40% to lose the hand if he took such a line with K's.

 

Now, let's flip that around and apply it to a c-bet. Phil keeps the lead and follows his 3-bet with a c-bet of 300k. His opponent only has to fold 35% of the time to make that profitable. Given the % of Phils stack that is in the pot, that is not only a +EV bet, it's a ++TEV (tournament EV) bet.

 

That's a no brainer when an unpaired hand misses the flop 66% of the time, the flop is T high, you're reppin all over pairs, & you have your opponent on AQ.

 

On top of that...If villain calls. Phil still has nearly 25% equity in the hand with the 2 over cards. In other words, if the c-bet isn't effective, Phil will freeze his opponent, and still has a 25% chance to improve & win the pot.

[KillingInTheNameOf 63]

I posted a link to the youtube with a simple word, Analysis?

 

Doubt I'll get much feedback cuz most players think donkaments are beneath them, but Bruce is a sic, sic player in almost every game...

 

quote:

Phil is an idiot. He virtually announced he had AK by re-raising and saying "I think you have AQ." If Phil had one of the other three hands he could come over the top of AQ with (AA-QQ), he's not talking. When the board blanked and he checked, the door was wide open.