[wazz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can't be bothered to read the rest of the thread, got to the middle of the second page, but I just wanted to comment on the doyle vs gold hand. Some guy said 'if you're going to stack off with the 3rd nuts 400BB deep, you're probably a losing player', and I seriously LOL in your weak-tight face if you're so nitty that people always have a better hand when you get action that deep. In live games people regularly stack off with 1000BBs with one pair. I've won a 1200BB pot in live PLO for god's sake with one pair at showdown, all-in on the turn.

Secondly, regarding the specifics of the hand. It's pretty easy to discount any flush draw that includes the J [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] in jamies' hand, given there's no way on earth he check-calls with a pair and a flush draw on the flop in late position. Q [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] T x constitutes some small range of jamies hands as well - why should jamie put doyle on a flush draw if he's bet the flop? It would be a c/r for value against two pair/set etc and semibluffing should doyle have a flush. So Doyle should really be thinking that Jamie can only have one hand that beats his, the nuts, and against a spewtard like Gold (anyone who gives him one iota of poker competence, given what we've all seen, must be a losing player IMO), just shouldn't fold. The idea that he could fold any flush is absolutely laughable. Whether the best play on the turn is all-in or just call, I don't know, but I do know that I died a little inside when I saw brunson fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've heard people mention it's impossible for Jamie to have a flush with the Js in it multiple times this thread, because he would not have check/called with it. This is an interesting point, but at the same time, this is exactly what he did in the hand against Baxter and Safai when he had J8cc on the 7cAcJs board. Harman, Farha, Baxter all checked before Gold, who then checked. Safai then bet 4000 into an 8000 pot, baxter made it 14000, and gold flatted. Ok, its a multi way pot and he is facing a bet and a raise, but Baxter was playing pretty aggro, and was liable to be raising there with a fairly wide range. Anyway, as it turned out, Baxter checked the Kd turn, Gold bet 50k, and took the pot.

Anyway, is it not possibly for Jamie to attempt to trap Doyle on the flop with Jxss and set up a check raise on the turn? On the flop Farha, Benyamine and Antonius all checked before Gold, who also checked to Brunson who then bet. This is similar action as the first hand, when Gold checked his combo draw with only a couple of people to act. So as far as his flop check goes, that doesn't rule out the Jsxx.

As far as jsut calling the flop bet, I don't see any reason to suggest why Jamie would necessarily raise 100% of the time there. The only hand remotely similar sees Jamie flat the action on the flop to a raise from an ultra aggressive player that he could easily have repopped again, with lots of money in the pot already.

So basically I disagree that Jamie could not have Jxss in that hand.

As for your comments about Doyle not being able to muck *any* flush, I find this laughable. Given that Doyle, Antonio, and who knows else are correctly reading Jamie for alot of strength (based on tells, betting patterns, whatever) following his turn check-raise, what the hell can he have?

Ok, barry thought he hit broadway. I guess that is a possibility. A flush, though, IMO, is the only other, and significatly more probable option, due to more possible combinations. Also, Jamie's inability to value bet a straight on a flushed board last week shows that he does display considerable apprehension with straights on 3 flushed boards. Barry/Doyle may not have seen/known this, but for you, having seen and known this, to say that folding any flush there is bad, shows that it is you that is absolutely laughable.

Ok, Doyle's fold of the 10 high flush was very marginal. Had he had the six or eight high flush, it then would have been a great fold, right? Would you still be saying his fold was absolutely laughable?

Anyway why bother trying to lecture you, you're too busy stacking off for 1200big blinds in PLO with 1 pair.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stacking off for 1200 bb in PLO with 1 pair and being good. Just thought I'd make sure that didn't go unnoticed.

Re the hand, you bring up some good points. I might mention that I was referring to Gold when I made the point about folding any flush. I.e. he could have the 3 high flush and would check-call a blank river. If he was more balanced with his bets, he would probably block/value-bet a 3 high flush on the river for $150k.

As has been pointed out a few times before, yes, doyle made the right read, which I guess everyone did, that Gold was in fact strong and not bluffing, but that he overvalues any flush, and that's where Doyle made the mistake.

As to whether gold could have the J-flush, I take your point on. I still think Gold *would* be more aggro with J [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] x [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], i.e. to at least checkraise when it comes back to him, but he might play it that way.

Again, I take on your point about the six or eight flush. Like I said before, I don't consider it laughable for doyle to fold any flush, I meant that it would be laughable to consider the possibility of gold folding any flush, assuming the river doesn't pair.

As to whether it's -EV or marginally +EV, I dunnow, I still think it's +EV enough to want to call. Gold has shown in the past that his river bets are essentially nuts or bluffs, so doyle won't be facing a big river bet that often and can get to a relatively cheap showdown/bet for value.

The argument that he has position on the two fish at the table is quite a compelling one, though, and added to the the possibility of him only being on one bullet for the night and I can see the fold being 'correct'.