|
|
#11
11-02-2006, 07:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Doyles Fold Of QQ at the 50k Horse Final Table!
[ QUOTE ]
This is degenerating into one of the most ridiculous threads ever. [/ QUOTE ] I asked a theory question. You know, with math and game theory and stuff. That sure is ridiculous! If you don't think the question is at least interesting then you don't think too much. But anyway... Let's talk more about big laydowns and "smelling when you're beat"! 
|
|
#12
11-02-2006, 08:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Doyles Fold Of QQ at the 50k Horse Final Table!
[ QUOTE ]
while it was a great laydown, chip's play smelled like a set more than anything, so it's not like doyle knew chip was slowplaying AA/KK. [/ QUOTE ] actually Doyle did know. right before he mucked his hand, he said "i knew you had some kind of pair, but i didn't know what pair it was".
|
|
#13
11-02-2006, 08:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Doyles Fold Of QQ at the 50k Horse Final Table!
"The implications remind me of prisoner's dilemma a little bit..."
actually it should remind u of zero sum games, not prisoners dilemma. if one person wins another has to lose. both can't win. (ie Heads up)
|
|
#14
11-02-2006, 10:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Doyles Fold Of QQ at the 50k Horse Final Table!
[ QUOTE ]
if 9 people are at a table and they know each others' betting patterns, and then a 10th player sits down, isn't that 10th player at a disadvantage? [/ QUOTE ] Yes, of course. How could they not? [ QUOTE ] The implications remind me of prisoner's dilemma a little bit... [/ QUOTE ] Explain.
|
|
#15
11-03-2006, 12:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Doyles Fold Of QQ at the 50k Horse Final Table!
I don't think Doyle knew what he had. He just felt (instincts) that his hand was beat. Against any other player at the table, he probably moves in. The smooth call by Chip on the flop is what made him dump his hand, after he replayed the action in his head.
|
|
#17
11-03-2006, 01:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Doyles Fold Of QQ at the 50k Horse Final Table!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The implications remind me of prisoner's dilemma a little bit... [/ QUOTE ] Explain. [/ QUOTE ] The thought was this: Say Chip's course of action will give both him and Doyle a lot of information, and add to both of their EV, at the expense of David, who doesn't know what the minraise means. (I have no opinion on whether Shandrax's hypothesis is true here BTW, until I or someone else thinks about it more) Well, that's a great result for Doyle and Chip individually. But not the best result. The best result for Doyle is to use Chip's assumption against him, and bluff. Similar to confessing in the prisoner's dilemma. You see this in Negreanu's blog all the time: "He knows my game really well so I decided to do something completely different". (Then again maybe not, I'm not sure I've seen that line of thinking in Negreanu's blog, but it should be the most natural reasoning in the world, no?) This would maximize Doyle's EV for the short term. But for the long term, Chip will adjust, and they will once again have no information about each other. So the best long-term result for both of them is some outside referee telling them not to deceive each other. Prisoner's dilemma.
|
|
#18
11-03-2006, 05:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Doyles Fold Of QQ at the 50k Horse Final Table!
Sure, Doyle knew that he was beat. I am not arguing with that. It's the combination of a very dry flop and a big overpair that makes me wonder. On a 7-high rainbow flop he folds queens to a min-raise? Come on! Not even Hellmuth does that.
Let's say they decide to softplay each other. Wouldn't this be exactly how it should work in practice - using betting patterns similar to bridge? First they sandwich Singer and once he folds it's all about deciding who gets the pot. I make a raise if I think I can win it, you make a min-raise if you think that you got a monster, I fold unless I got the absolute nuts in which case I re-raise all-in, then you give it some Hollywood and fold. Rumors are that Chip and Doyle got something like 20 years of experience "besthanding" people in such a way.
|
|
#19
11-03-2006, 05:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Doyles Fold Of QQ at the 50k Horse Final Table!
Really disappointed to read the discussion of possible collusion between Doyle & Chip.
Doyle made a great read, period. He raised UTG which indicates a big hand. Chip smooth calls Doyle's obvious big hand preflop with entire field to act. Doyle bets the flop and Chip miniraises with another caller behind. Doyle correctly deduced that Chip has a better hand. Give Doyle credit, he made a great laydown. He took his time to make the right decision. Chip honestly told him he made a great laydown and what he held. As most you know, a player doesn't make a lot of money in NLH cash games without making laydowns like this. Just because other people would struggle making this laydown doesn't mean that 2 top players are colluding.
|
|
#20
11-03-2006, 05:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Doyles Fold Of QQ at the 50k Horse Final Table!
Ever heard of Occam's Razor? It's much easier to make such a laydown if you got 50 years of playing poker with partners under your belly than by racking your brain over Bayes hand combinations and the odds for queens to be good on a 7-2-3 offsuit flop when someone makes a min-raise in position.
This was a standard play for both of these guys in their cashgame, but because of TV it got exposed and that's why they both looked so embarrassed making it.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
