Phil Ivey vs. Jman 300/600

[raptor517]

im not really sure where to fit this in, but i kinda skimmed and saw lots of ppl talking about a stop loss. every time i have lost a lot playing HU, its been to the
same person after i got stuck a buyin or 2. i always tell myself that i dont ever tilt, and im always playing A game and playing great poker, but its just not the case.

im not even really sure what it is or whate causes it, but i know it happpens. something in my game goes off in a v v bad way. it may very well be that im playing too tight, and getting pushed off hands. i can turn into a gigantic turtle if im running bad, and then randomly ill probably do some obvious bluff and get looked up by 4th pair and get mad at how bad his call is etc etc, then reload and proceed to lose more money in my anger. its not even anger though because i honestly feel while im playing or when looking at hands later that none of the plays are really even that bad in a vacuum, but in the context of whats happening, are probably pretty bad.

there are so many dynamics in a HU battle when you are stuck. when the opponent is playing with confidence, they will bluff with better frequencies, play hands stronger, and basically put lots of pressure on you, and you will inevitably make a mistake, or subconsciously play a hand differently than you would if you were winning. it happens to everyone and i dont think anyone could possibly give me a good enough argument that it doesnt happen to them. it does.

another thing to consider, is when you get stuck a lot, a lot of players wont allow you to get it back. if ur stuck say 5 buyins at 25-50, and the guy is sitting on 30k, but u keep reloading to 5, hes comfortable with that, but if you double up to get 10k vs 25k, u will sometimes get quit on. this infuriates me to no end when im stuck, and its another reason to put in a stop loss, because some ppl just wont let u get it back once u hit a certain point. i dno i havent slept in a long time cuz i been traveling, so i hope i didnt ramble too much. just wanted to get the jumbles out of my head.

[mustmuck]

[ QUOTE ]
I have to agree with this. Certain metagame issues come into play that make it harder to win in a HU match after you started off losing. I feel them when I play, hard to explain though. One that I can explain is pretty simple. When you start off losing, even if you're not on tilt, your opponent will likely suspect that you are tilting. This will make it more difficult to bluff profitably because your opponent can justify light calls with, 'he's probably on tilt'. You could counter by saying that it is not bad for us that our opponent is calling lighter, but I think that a situation in which we can profitably bluff frequently is better. If you adjust perfectly by value betting thinner and bluffing less I guess you'd be ok, but I think that strategy is much more difficult to play well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Somebody made a not terribly well phrased post in MSNL a while ago about when it would be better "not to be a better player" or something along those lines. What he actually meant was that he was a nit, but he liked being able to use his image to make the odd bluff. After showing down a weak hand in a certain spot, people would start looking him up more often which he didn't like (even though he was a nit!).

In reality he just wasn't adjusting to his new image. I think this is fair enough, as you have a lot more experience with how players play against your usual image than you do with how players play against some other image.

I agree with pretty much what exactly you said DLizzle, except that I do think that a situation in which we could value bet much thinner would theoretically be much more profitable than one in which we could make more bluffs. This of course assumes that we adjust perfectly, which I suspect is more difficult than most people think.

[illegit]

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, I'm not claiming what I say is 100% truth. It's what I believe, it's obviously what Ivey believes, and I know some others that agree with me.


[/ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] why is it obviously what Ivey believes? What if he just believes he plays worse when he's losing? Cause, again, that's all you're saying. I'm not necessarilly disagreeing with what you're saying, just noting it's all another way of phrasing "I play worse when i lose" or "my opponents play better against me when i'm losing". There is no other mystical, indescribable force at work. If there's a metagame consideration, and you don't factor it in as well as your opponent does, then that is him playing better, and you playing worse. If he's calling you lighter cause he thinks you're on tilt and bluffing more often and you really ARE bluffing more often than usual, then that's him outplaing you. You playing worse. Him playing better. That's what is occuring.

[Taylor Caby]

You're right. Thanks for clearing that up for us.

tc

[Avatar of Wine]

[ QUOTE ]
Simply put, it's just really hard to play anyone, much less a WCP, when he has the momentum in the match.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since "momentum" presumably has nothing to do with the actual cards being dealt (but, instead, how you play them), couldn't this be another way of saying "playing worse when you're down"?

I'm serious, btw - obviously I lack this kind of HSHU experience, but my experience with HU action has been that momentum causes the opponent to play far less than optimally.

[PartyGirlUK]

My main HU experience in from limit but I agree with Taylor. It's not so much that you play worse when you lose (altho everyone does), it's that your opponent's play much better. Weak predictable players gain the confidence to bluff, and even if they didn't you fear that they may have forcing you to call where you could previously have folded with ease. Good players, flush with a good score, adrenalin and happiness are willing to experiment and try new and unusual lines they never would in the normal course of things. It's much harder to win when you've lose over the past half hour.

[Thremp]

[ QUOTE ]
My main HU experience in from limit but I agree with Taylor. It's not so much that you play worse when you lose (altho everyone does), it's that your opponent's play much better. Weak predictable players gain the confidence to bluff, and even if they didn't you fear that they may have forcing you to call where you could previously have folded with ease. Good players, flush with a good score, adrenalin and happiness are willing to experiment and try new and unusual lines they never would in the normal course of things. It's much harder to win when you've lose over the past half hour.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this expressed in several poker books as a pretty basic and fundamental principle?

[Taylor Caby]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My main HU experience in from limit but I agree with Taylor. It's not so much that you play worse when you lose (altho everyone does), it's that your opponent's play much better. Weak predictable players gain the confidence to bluff, and even if they didn't you fear that they may have forcing you to call where you could previously have folded with ease. Good players, flush with a good score, adrenalin and happiness are willing to experiment and try new and unusual lines they never would in the normal course of things. It's much harder to win when you've lose over the past half hour.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this expressed in several poker books as a pretty basic and fundamental principle?

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically, yes, but not exactly. Still, many top online players feel that it doesn't apply to them.

I'd be interested to see what Phil G's take is on this discussion/phenomenon.

tc

[CrushinFelt]

w/e to all that nonsense ... this turn card is all sorts of fubar

[ QUOTE ]

Full Tilt Poker Game #3695585928: Table Halbert (heads up) - $300/$600 - No Limit Hold'em - 10:06:22 ET - 2007/09/28
Seat 1: OMGClayAiken ($77,397.50)
Seat 2: Phil Ivey ($145,478.50)
Phil Ivey posts the small blind of $300
OMGClayAiken posts the big blind of $600
The button is in seat #2
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Phil Ivey has 15 seconds left to act
Phil Ivey raises to $1,800
OMGClayAiken raises to $6,600
Phil Ivey calls $4,800
*** FLOP *** [9d 7d Ad]
OMGClayAiken checks
Phil Ivey has 15 seconds left to act
Phil Ivey bets $10,800
OMGClayAiken calls $10,800
*** TURN *** [9d 7d Ad] [Tc]
OMGClayAiken checks
Phil Ivey has 15 seconds left to act
Phil Ivey bets $27,600
OMGClayAiken has 15 seconds left to act
OMGClayAiken has requested TIME
OMGClayAiken raises to $59,997.50, and is all in
Phil Ivey calls $32,397.50
OMGClayAiken shows [9c 7c]
Phil Ivey shows [8h Jh]
*** RIVER *** [9d 7d Ad Tc] [Qh]
OMGClayAiken shows two pair, Nines and Sevens
Phil Ivey shows a straight, Queen high
Phil Ivey wins the pot ($154,794.50) with a straight, Queen high
OMGClayAiken is sitting out
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $154,795 | Rake $0.50
Board: [9d 7d Ad Tc Qh]
Seat 1: OMGClayAiken (big blind) showed [9c 7c] and lost with two pair, Nines and Sevens
Seat 2: Phil Ivey (small blind) showed [8h Jh] and won ($154,794.50) with a straight, Queen high

[/ QUOTE ]

[otter]

I think the same thing applies to full games to a lesser extent. If you're down 3 or 4 buyins the players who you may usually have control over feel like they've not got the control and they play differently against you.