The Freakonomics of Tournaments: A Preview (74s UTG at final table) - Page 12

DLizzle · #**111** 07-06-2006, 11:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I watched the full hh of this tourney, and I'd just like to encourage others to do so, because nath makes similar UTG raises numerous times, and just see how many times he takes the blinds uncontested.

[/ QUOTE ] I watched the FT, where this hand occurred. I tallied nath's UTG raises from when it was 8-handed to when it was 5-handed. He played in the UTG position 11 times. He raised 6 times. Two of those times he had a good hand (AK, 88). He was called twice (in other words, he was called 33% of the time). Net outcome: negative 25k chips.

For those who argue that nath had the table running scared, he was called by a 33 and by an A9. Sounds like the table adjusted well to nath's playing style.

Sorry to bring up the facts. I know you defenders of Nath like to go with the "feel of the thing" and ignore the inconvenient facts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, now these "facts" you bring up are terribly flawed. He was called twice, had a coinflip both of those times, and lost both. I know enough about poker math to know that there's a little thing we call equity, and if you factor that in, instead of your terribly results oriented thinking, I believe your -25k number looks a little stupid. Not to say that taking the equity of each situation showdown he happened to get involved in is a great analysis, just showing how ridiculous your post was.

Also, the fact that he was called by 33 is proof of people adjusting correctly? Personally I think it's proof of how this style makes people play like [censored].

flyingmoose · #**112** 07-06-2006, 11:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I watched the FT, where this hand occurred. I tallied nath's UTG raises from when it was 8-handed to when it was 5-handed. He played in the UTG position 11 times. He raised 6 times. Two of those times he had a good hand (AK, 88). He was called twice (in other words, he was called 33% of the time). Net outcome: negative 25k chips.

For those who argue that nath had the table running scared, he was called by a 33 and by an A9. Sounds like the table adjusted well to nath's playing style.

Sorry to bring up the facts. I know you defenders of Nath like to go with the "feel of the thing" and ignore the inconvenient facts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was jogging but I tripped and fell over, scraping my knee in the process. Therefore jogging is bad for my health.

jcm4ccc · #**113** 07-06-2006, 11:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I watched the full hh of this tourney, and I'd just like to encourage others to do so, because nath makes similar UTG raises numerous times, and just see how many times he takes the blinds uncontested.

[/ QUOTE ] I watched the FT, where this hand occurred. I tallied nath's UTG raises from when it was 8-handed to when it was 5-handed. He played in the UTG position 11 times. He raised 6 times. Two of those times he had a good hand (AK, 88). He was called twice (in other words, he was called 33% of the time). Net outcome: negative 25k chips.

For those who argue that nath had the table running scared, he was called by a 33 and by an A9. Sounds like the table adjusted well to nath's playing style.

Sorry to bring up the facts. I know you defenders of Nath like to go with the "feel of the thing" and ignore the inconvenient facts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, now these "facts" you bring up are terribly flawed. He was called twice, had a coinflip both of those times, and lost both. I know enough about poker math to know that there's a little thing we call equity, and if you factor that in, instead of your terribly results oriented thinking, I believe your -25k number looks a little stupid. Not to say that taking the equity of each situation showdown he happened to get involved in is a great analysis, just showing how ridiculous your post was.

Also, the fact that he was called by 33 is proof of people adjusting correctly? Personally I think it's proof of how this style makes people play like [censored].

[/ QUOTE ] I agree that the coin flips could have gone either way. But your argument was "see how many times nath takes the blinds uncontested." Argument refuted.

btw, if you are the short stack at the table with an M of 3, a maniac is raising your blinds, you're folding 33? Good play.

DLizzle · #**114** 07-06-2006, 11:53 PM

yes, i hate calling all in with low pairs. So we refuted each other's points really, so what now? Looking at the results, I'd say nath was pretty successful. He won the blinds 2/3 of the times, and was flipping to eliminate a shortstack twice.

jafeather · #**115** 07-06-2006, 11:57 PM

Only one thing is obvious:

Agree, disagree or simply don't know about Nath's play....when he posts a hand like this it gets multiple days of great discussion.

51.5 hours, 114 posts and counting, vigorous debate, still at the top of page 1....

This has been one hell of a thread...

stevepa · #**116** 07-06-2006, 11:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
yes, i hate calling all in with low pairs. So we refuted each other's points really, so what now? Looking at the results, I'd say nath was pretty successful. He won the blinds 2/3 of the times, and was flipping to eliminate a shortstack twice.

[/ QUOTE ]

This argument is going nowhere, he clearly never ran into any hands. If people played back at him with A9 and 33, it's shocking he never got played back at all the other times.

Steve

DLizzle · #**117** 07-07-2006, 12:18 AM

point taken, and I could be wrong again, but I think they played back at him with those hands because they were so low as a direct result of nath stealing a lot. I think it's very possible that they folded better hands to him earlier, but then got low and frustrated with him and opened up, giving him two coinflips to knock them out. I see no problem with inducing opponents to play like this.

tubasteve · #**118** 07-07-2006, 12:51 AM

[ QUOTE ]
yes, i hate calling all in with low pairs. So we refuted each other's points really, so what now? Looking at the results, I'd say nath was pretty successful. He won the blinds 2/3 of the times, and was flipping to eliminate a shortstack twice.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't call there with 33 thats a pretty big leak.

Soulman · #**119** 07-07-2006, 03:11 AM

For all the nath lovvas out there...I watched the entire final table replay, and must say I've rarely, if ever, saw a final table that passive before. If you argue that taking one hand out of context (74s) is incorrect, it's equally incorrect to take one FT and say 'look! this works across the board 100%!'.

Also...I see nath folding a lot when played back on after raising with crap (94o, Ax etc)...

curtains · #**120** 07-07-2006, 03:49 AM

First post in this thread seems way way overly complicated to me, and has at least a few points that I feel are mostly irrelevant. I didnt read the other 12 pages and I'm too lazy to point out specific examples.

(I don't think the raise is TERRIBLE or anything, although I'd almost always fold there)