#141
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 25k at the 60s in 1 month challenge
[ QUOTE ]
of course 45 man sngs are not included in this prop, thatd change the entire dynamic of the bet. [/ QUOTE ]Why? |
#142
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 25k at the 60s in 1 month challenge
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] of course 45 man sngs are not included in this prop, thatd change the entire dynamic of the bet. [/ QUOTE ]Why? [/ QUOTE ] Cuz that's not how we roll in STTF. |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 25k at the 60s in 1 month challenge
in regard to the much ballyhoed hand, the hand that i described happened exactly as i wrote. so tim, i did not see the hand that you posted. in my hand, gravy made a straight and in yours he made a boat. my apologies, so i guess when you're playing every sng available on the internet, you are bound to run 8's up against 9's from time to time.
|
#144
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 25k at the 60s in 1 month challenge
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] of course 45 man sngs are not included in this prop, thatd change the entire dynamic of the bet. [/ QUOTE ]Why? [/ QUOTE ] because 5 table SNGs play differently than 1 table SNGs...45 people in a tournament create different tournament situations than 9 man tournaments. I would hope that this concept would be intuitive to most everyone thats ever put time into tournament poker. |
#145
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 25k at the 60s in 1 month challenge
Not to mention that STT stands for single table tournaments. If he was going to make a prop bet involving mtts he'd post it in MTTF not STTF
|
#146
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 25k at the 60s in 1 month challenge
I think of them in the same vein because they do play fairly similarly...until you get to 200/400 and still have a full table.
edit for grammar |
#147
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 25k at the 60s in 1 month challenge
[ QUOTE ]
I think of them in the same vein because they do play fairly similarly...until you get to 200/400 and still have a full table. edit for grammar [/ QUOTE ] do they also have a very flat payout structure? Is it easy to steal ur way into the money? |
#148
|
|||
|
|||
Re:
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] of course 45 man sngs are not included in this prop, thatd change the entire dynamic of the bet. [/ QUOTE ]Why? [/ QUOTE ] because 5 table SNGs play differently than 1 table SNGs...45 people in a tournament create different tournament situations than 9 man tournaments. I would hope that this concept would be intuitive to most everyone thats ever put time into tournament poker. [/ QUOTE ]It's not 'intuitive' because there is no inherent advantage in playing 45 person SNGs over of 9. Is it really that egregious to interpret "25k at the 60s in 1 month challenge" as being able to play any $60 SNG tournament structure you want? |
#149
|
|||
|
|||
Re:
[ QUOTE ]
Is it really that egregious to interpret "25k at the 60s in 1 month challenge" as being able to play any $60 SNG tournament structure you want? [/ QUOTE ] Well when it is posted on the Single Table Tournaments forum, yeah I think so. |
#150
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 25k at the 60s in 1 month challenge
[ QUOTE ]
PokerStars Game #12732731397: Tournament #64616725, $55+$5 Hold'em No Limit - Level IV (50/100) - 2007/10/20 - 01:33:13 (ET) Table '64616725 1' 9-max Seat #9 is the button Seat 1: idm3mdi (1415 in chips) Seat 3: scorpian5000 (1425 in chips) is sitting out Seat 4: Vinytuc (1840 in chips) Seat 5: 69HAMMSTER69 (3345 in chips) Seat 6: Romes23 (965 in chips) Seat 7: TimWakefield (1395 in chips) Seat 8: sauvaojf (1570 in chips) Seat 9: spacegravy (1545 in chips) idm3mdi: posts small blind 50 scorpian5000: posts big blind 100 *** HOLE CARDS *** Dealt to TimWakefield [9s 9h] Vinytuc: folds 69HAMMSTER69: folds Romes23: folds TimWakefield: raises 200 to 300 sauvaojf: folds spacegravy: raises 1245 to 1545 and is all-in idm3mdi: folds scorpian5000: folds TimWakefield: calls 1095 and is all-in *** FLOP *** [4h 4s 6c] *** TURN *** [4h 4s 6c] [7c] *** RIVER *** [4h 4s 6c 7c] [8c] *** SHOW DOWN *** TimWakefield: shows [9s 9h] (two pair, Nines and Fours) spacegravy: shows [8d 8s] (a full house, Eights full of Fours) scorpian5000 has returned spacegravy collected 2940 from pot *** SUMMARY *** Total pot 2940 | Rake 0 Board [4h 4s 6c 7c 8c] Seat 1: idm3mdi (small blind) folded before Flop Seat 3: scorpian5000 (big blind) folded before Flop Seat 4: Vinytuc folded before Flop (didn't bet) Seat 5: 69HAMMSTER69 folded before Flop (didn't bet) Seat 6: Romes23 folded before Flop (didn't bet) Seat 7: TimWakefield showed [9s 9h] and lost with two pair, Nines and Fours Seat 8: sauvaojf folded before Flop (didn't bet) Seat 9: spacegravy (button) showed [8d 8s] and won (2940) with a full house, Eights full of Fours [ QUOTE ] Someone should run this hand in SNGWiz. If you think gravy's range is TT+,AK - I think 99 is a fold even with dead money. Also why I like to either make it 250 or open-shove a hand like that UTG at that level. Either of you just search your HHs for "Dealt to (me) [8c, 8" - you only have to search 4 times (one for each suit on the first 8 or 9). Tim what time was it roughly? [/ QUOTE ] Eh, Gravy's range isn't that tight. I think he's more likely TT+, AQ+, and maybe much wider (I haven't played with him much). I think it's a call with the dead money, and anyways sometimes he has 88 [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]. [ QUOTE ] but as mj just said i think he got the situation completely wrong. [/ QUOTE ] So I did clearly get the situation wrong - I wasn't UTG and I think it makes both of our plays more reasonable. I was certainly closer than mj though [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. Edit: Meh, disregard my comment about the call^^. If I had been UTG it does look like an obvious fold now that I think about it. Also, are you only allowed to play single-table for your bet? The $60 45-man are very fishy, and while they do take longer to finish, if you can fit some in you might as well because they are +++++++EV. [/ QUOTE ] Well if you look, the bb is sitting out so it's a pretty easy shove. Also, fpps and 18/45 mans are not included. |
|
|