Did I Get Pwned by Sklansky? - Strange 2-4 Hand

[andyfox]

If that post doesn't get you one, you're just not getting one. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[andyfox]

Not going to, I did try.

[Ikke]

I would say that if this hand is defendable under reasonable assumptions, then David has leaks in other parts of his game or his opponent is an extremely weak player.

Regards

P.S. Off to Vegas now! ;-)

[siegfriedandroy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
well, one thing i haven't seen mentioned is the following:

how do you think kevin and others will react to david when he does show even mild aggression in similar spots (that tend to occur quite often)

imo they'll either give too much action (thinking "well he doesn't bet w/ the goods so he probably doesn't have 'em here") or too little action (thinking "jeez, if he doesn't even play 2pr strong he must have a monster now")

these are hyperboles but basically it can be possible that the bets he makes up in determining which opponents are thinking which way against him likely far outweight the one or two bet cost of playing this hand as slow as he did.

Barron

[/ QUOTE ]

i dont see how you could possibly say w/ any degree of certainty that DS will somehow gain bets that 'far outweigh' those he may have lost here. i guess he indeed may simply be trying to mix up his play and make himself tough to read in similar future situations. your hypothesis seems very vague, nebulous, and speculative though, and there doesnt seem to be any way to really know for sure that you will somehow make up these lost bets b/c you checked three times w/ 2pair and never raised. maybe you are correct, but i dont think the benefits of playing 2pair like this 'far outweigh' bets he lost. perhaps he had a completely different rationale here (i.e. he saw OP as superaggro)

[/ QUOTE ]

i was just entertaining a possibility. what do you think "mixing up his play" is meant to accomplish? makes him tougher to read...i.e. he'll pick up pots (too little action) where he otherwise couldn't have or get too much action (too much action) where he again otherwise shouldn't based on the way some opponents may react to his playing a hand like this. of course my hypothesis is vague and nebulous...there is no way to know for sure thats what he was thinking. he gave up a (to many people) obvious big bet or so in the hand (namely not c'ring the river) and the only way that this is interesting is if he is logically thinking about why.

thats the assumption we're under so unless DS played an unthinking or totally uncaring hand, then there must be some reason as to why he chose the line he did. i was putting forth a hypothesis where ONE picked up small pot would already more than make up for the expectation of bets in a blind battle w/ A7o in the sb. i dont have the #s but im sure somebody has the expectation of A7o HU OOP in the sb. it's probably just under 1bb. saying he thought the OP was very agro makes even less sense though in terms of giving up expectation.

do you see why? [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

Barron

[/ QUOTE ]

fair enough [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[siegfriedandroy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think that, if you are going to open-limp, then betting out on the flop is probably the right play, mainly in the hopes of inducing a bluff raise.

[/ QUOTE ]




it seems to me his opponent would have to bluff raise about half as often as he bluff bets for this to be true. very rare i would think, since most opponents bluff bet virtually every time.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand the river play, either. Perhaps he could argue that your range consists only of hands that aren't good enough to call a check-raise, or luckbox hands like T8 that made a straight. But, that wouldn't be a very good argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

why not, this could easily be the case. if we assume for instance that he bets most of his pairs on the turn. or that he will fold weak 2 pair to the raise.

[/ QUOTE ]


do many players fold a weak 2 pair in hands like this in blind situations?

[/ QUOTE ]

no. but as seemingly tight as david is, and how he played the hand, against HIM they might. hed basicallyb e saying "TP no goot" ... and if top pair aint goot...well, you know the rest assuming he aint bluffing [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Barron

[/ QUOTE ]


is DS normally a rock? i did not know this. that would be pretty ironic if sklansky is a nit [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] i didnt think you could make money at high limits playing this way.

[Robk]

[ QUOTE ]
I would say that if this hand is defendable under reasonable assumptions, then David has leaks in other parts of his game or his opponent is an extremely weak player.

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree that his opponent would have to be unusually poor or predictable, but as described he was "the bad player in the game". even putting some aces in his range checking isnt wrong by much.

[Schneids]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, but this thread has generated far too much useless discussion on a very insignificant hand that will just not come up very often in long term play. There is just not much useful strategic material here. Most good players dont include 9-5o in their overall strategy and probably this hand should have just been chopped. Who cares that DS was in the blind. He is a great poker writer and player, but this hand is stupid, and whether or not DS missed a value raise on the end is also stupid. I dont mean to sound patronizing, but I think this happens too often on here lately- too much clutter and effort put into something that isnt important. Am I wrong?

-J

[/ QUOTE ]

Both hands are very important IMO and if you aren't getting your value from hands such as these then you aren't going to beat a high stakes LHE game for much, if at all.

Both hands are very bad IMO, and I was at the table for one of them. DS had played orbits with the opponent (in BK's AK one), he had to be aware that this guy could very well have an ace and/or call with a worse hand.

DS's play is just weak and if these hands were posted in SS by an anonymous poster they would get rightly berated for them.

I am very open minded about poker ideas and trying to understand things, but I just cannot see how missing such easy bets can be made up in other phantomesque ways in these particular examples. I have never observed David ever opening up his game and utilizing his rock-weak-tight image. Where are his 54s raises and postflop raises with the obvious worst hand?

[Kevin J]

I did not post this hand in any way, shape, or form, to ridicule Sklansky, or get him ridiculed. I thought it was a strangely played hand and was curious what the merit might be.

You might be right that the hand itself is insignificant, but the underlying concepts are not. I also don't know of too many 2-4 players who chop their blinds, so these hands do come up all the time.

[siegfriedandroy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
\ but I just cannot see how missing such easy bets can be made up in other phantomesque ways in these particular examples.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol- this is what i was trying to say later on in the thread (in response to decipher). it took me like two lengthy paragrahs to say what you so eloquently sum up in a sentence! i like 'phantomesque'!

[siegfriedandroy]

[ QUOTE ]
i think the bold mighta been overkill mike...

[/ QUOTE ]

pretty funny...