QQ hand folded face up beginning of WSOP FT

[Toronexti]

and what was up with gordon advocating a call PF/lead flop line OOP like every 3 minutes during the broadcast? such retarded advice.

[Todd Terry]

At the beginning of the broadcast, FWIW (probably less than nothing), Phil Gordon described Jerry Yang as both weak and tight. At least at the final table, he was neither, but perhaps Childs had that in his head as Yang's image going into this hand.

I don't think you can say AA or KK is more likely than AK preflop, AK is statistically more likely than both combined, and I can't imagine someone not reraising with AK in that situation.

This is a tough spot for Childs. He's out of position, and he's not going to know he's beat until he gets all his chips in bad.

These are his options:

1. Shove preflop, he'll probably get called by AA, KK or AK (but I'm not sure about AK, I sure as hell wouldn't fold AK there), and get JJ- to fold. Result: 80-20 dog to AA or KK, flip with AK, win against other hands.

2. Call preflop and then shove or check-raise a flop without an overcard. You're going broke either way if you're beat, might as well check raise rather than shove to get more money in the pot. Result: if A or K flops, just lose the call; if they don't, get AK to fold (probably), get called and 92-8 dog against AA or KK; no idea what result against JJ, TT or 99, maybe get them to call the C/R and be a huge favorite in a huge pot.

3. Call trying to flop a set if you're not willing to take a chance on going broke in the hand, which seems too weak to even contemplate.

I would not even put what he did, call and then weak lead on raggy flop, as an option on the list because against a halfway decent player you will get put all in every single time -- you are screaming that you have an overpair but are not willing to go all the way with it. Which is why it would be a good way to play a flopped set here, but nothing else.

I'd probably just shove preflop, although calling and then check-raising all-in if an A or K doesn't flop could be better. Or I'd fold preflop and when asked about it on TV, say I had KQ and your hole card camera must not have picked it up right if you thought I had QQ. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, it would be a mistake to put people on ranges and assume QQ was usually good in this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it would be a mistake to say "OMG RERAISE FROM MID POSITION OMG KK OR AA OMG FOLD"

[/ QUOTE ]
It was a 2nd position reraise of an UTG raise. I don't think you should think you are necessarily against AA or KK. However, if you look at it in terms of ranges and say TT+, AK, I am way ahead of that, it is very misleading. Against some players, this is almost always AA or KK.

[whynot?]

so how much time did childs play with yang before the FT? think a perspective on how much of a read he had on him before that hand is very relevant - if he thought he was w/t then its not a bad fold - but based on all the smarts we have now it sure doesnt appear to be, but in fairness we're looking at this in 20/20 hindsight

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
so how much time did childs play with yang before the FT? think a perspective on how much of a read he had on him before that hand is very relevant - if he thought he was w/t then its not a bad fold - but based on all the smarts we have now it sure doesnt appear to be, but in fairness we're looking at this in 20/20 hindsight

[/ QUOTE ]
Childs had played with Yang the day before. I can't believe he thought Yang was weak/tight.

Yang got here by pushing A3s after two raises on a semibluff and getting called by KK. Of course he had an ideal hand against KK other than AA. I am not sure whether he cold pushed, limpreraised, or had put in the initial raise and 5-bet. This happened in earlier rounds and I saw different versions.

Against a random player, I agree you want to get allin with QQ, although it is close. Without knowing anything else, you could profile Yang as an Asian and not real old, and think he mioght be aggressive.

I don't disagree with getting your money in here. I just diagree with using evenly distributed ranges.

[whynot?]

did anyone ask yang what he had yet? or is he bound to espn not to devulge? seems a bit odd that it hasnt leaked out by now

[stealthmunk]

[ QUOTE ]
Really...
I have done dumber things in my life than this I expect.

But I've never done something this stupid and then admitted on national TV I thought his range was 50/50 with me yet I folded getting 2.1:1 odds.

ANYONE can FT the ME. ANYONE.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a clear example of the sirio11 theorem on artificial pot odds in play.
2.1:1 odds are irrelevant because he created them.

[southgapoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Really...
I have done dumber things in my life than this I expect.

But I've never done something this stupid and then admitted on national TV I thought his range was 50/50 with me yet I folded getting 2.1:1 odds.

ANYONE can FT the ME. ANYONE.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a clear example of the sirio11 theorem on artificial pot odds in play.
2.1:1 odds are irrelevant because he created them.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're going to need to explain that to me. (link to this theorem? I have not read it)

[A_PLUS]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Really...
I have done dumber things in my life than this I expect.

But I've never done something this stupid and then admitted on national TV I thought his range was 50/50 with me yet I folded getting 2.1:1 odds.

ANYONE can FT the ME. ANYONE.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a clear example of the sirio11 theorem on artificial pot odds in play.
2.1:1 odds are irrelevant because he created them.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're going to need to explain that to me. (link to this theorem? I have not read it)

[/ QUOTE ]

His theory, if I remember correctly isn't about the call after you bet. It is about the original bet. After the bet was made, there are no theories, just simple addition and division. I win X if I have the best hand, I have to risk Y. My odds are X/Y. After the bet is made, it doesn't matter if the chips fell from heaven the odds are the odds.

What I assume you are talking about is the fact that you need to think the hand in entirety. For example, someone semibluffs, and is reraised. They now have odds to call on the draw. But, if you look at the hand in total, they just got there money in without the proper odds. That doesn't mean you should fold after you made the bet, but maybe you need a better line than making a big bet originally.

[southgapoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Really...
I have done dumber things in my life than this I expect.

But I've never done something this stupid and then admitted on national TV I thought his range was 50/50 with me yet I folded getting 2.1:1 odds.

ANYONE can FT the ME. ANYONE.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a clear example of the sirio11 theorem on artificial pot odds in play.
2.1:1 odds are irrelevant because he created them.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're going to need to explain that to me. (link to this theorem? I have not read it)

[/ QUOTE ]

His theory, if I remember correctly isn't about the call after you bet. It is about the original bet. After the bet was made, there are no theories, just simple addition and division. I win X if I have the best hand, I have to risk Y. My odds are X/Y. After the bet is made, it doesn't matter if the chips fell from heaven the odds are the odds.

What I assume you are talking about is the fact that you need to think the hand in entirety. For example, someone semibluffs, and is reraised. They now have odds to call on the draw. But, if you look at the hand in total, they just got there money in without the proper odds. That doesn't mean you should fold after you made the bet, but maybe you need a better line than making a big bet originally.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok... so he should have checkraised all in, I agree.

But given his line a fold is not an option.

Really am I this loose? When he flipped over queens I threw up a little in my mouth. Am I THAT loose? I honestly do not even see a debate here. CALL. CALL. CALL. C/R next time maybe but in this case CALL CALL CALL.