An absolutly WORLD CLASS play in my opinion......your thoughts please

[Gonso]

[ QUOTE ]
I think its a good play, obviously since he was right

[/ QUOTE ]
You'll hear a lot of arguments against this kind of results-oriented thinking, especially here on 2+2, but it's been mentioned a few times this thread already.

[ QUOTE ]
If your up against a tight, and it seems like andy is extremely tight, player. Than you know hell only raise from the bb with AK or a a pretty medium to big pair. So, you can beat AK for top two pair (which still has 4 outs) or lose to trip 8s, Ks, and As. So, he can beat 1 out of the 4 hands he could be up against.

[/ QUOTE ]

This hand range is too limited to be consistent with the description of a solid player. There wasn't any strength shown prior to his raise whatsoever. Raising a good number of hands here would be more than reasonable, you'd hardly need AK.

Also, what happened with the medium pairs in your range? 88 made it but QQ-99 vanished. He could think that JJ might have a chance at being good here, and be taking a big shot on the turn. He's putting a lot of money out but I don't think this commits him - although if called or reraised it would essentially demonstrate that his opponent will play for stacks this hand.

With one of those medium pairs with overs on the board, he could still shut down if he gets any action on his turn bet - which, by the way, sure looks as if he's trying to discourage a call with. He'd be short if he gave up, but still have 15BB or so to work with.

[tarheeljks]

[ QUOTE ]
I think its a good play, obviously since he was right.

[/ QUOTE ]

no. results oriented. if i push w/a two outer and it hits was that a good play?

[Phone Booth]

[ QUOTE ]
I think its a good play, obviously since he was right. If your up against a tight, and it seems like andy is extremely tight, player. Than you know hell only raise from the bb with AK or a a pretty medium to big pair. So, you can beat AK for top two pair (which still has 4 outs) or lose to trip 8s, Ks, and As. So, he can beat 1 out of the 4 hands he could be up against. Not that hard of a laydown. Ive folded a flopped set maybe 10 times my whole life (when there wasnt an obvious straight or flush out there) and I was right all 10 times. But for the most part, your better off just losing with a set, unless you know for sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, even if you can narrow the range down to AA/KK/88, there are as many combinations of AK as there are of 88/KK/AA combined. So you have more than enough equity against that range. Second, a player tight enough to not raise AQ would often not raise 88 as well.

[skin city]

the guy made a great play......lets drop it already

[Gonso]

[ QUOTE ]
lets drop it already

[/ QUOTE ]

This thread was three days gone prior to you bumping it

[PokrLikeItsProse]

Well, since it got resurrected....I haven't read his book but I think it was discussed...didn't Barry Greenstein write about folding a set of queens in a tournament against an opponent who he read correctly as holding a set of aces?

[Gonso]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, since it got resurrected....I haven't read his book but I think it was discussed...didn't Barry Greenstein write about folding a set of queens in a tournament against an opponent who he read correctly as holding a set of aces?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes he did, I'm glad you brought this up, I completely forgot about this hand. Here's a short version of what happened and how Barry described it:

It's a PLNE WSOP event, first level of the tourney. Barry and all concerned are 40+ BB deep.

Barry has Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] Q[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], raises 3x BB, and it folds to the SB (who is unknown to Barry). SB raised the size of the pot (350). At this point, Barry points out several things:

1) The player raised "confidently"
2) That this was the first pot SB had raised
3) The player had only been in two previous pots period, and
4) that the player appeared conservative

I'll just throw in the obvious here, in case it gets overlooked: An OOP player 3-bets an EP raiser (who happens to be Barry [censored] Greenstein).

Barry calls, and the flop comes Q[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 6[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], and he makes his set. However, Barry is surprised and confised when Nathan (the unknown guy) checks to the flop to him. He notes:

5) that if Nathan had AK, a decent sized bet would be normal
6) that a check might fit KK-JJ because of the ace, and that
7) he might also check a set of aces

"But since he checked, the only logical hand he could have which would make it correct for me to [make a sizable bet] is two kings." This is because he didn't want to scare off JJ-TT, since them hitting trips would ruin them. Barry checks.

The turn comes 2[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img].

8) "Nathan makes a strange bet of only 250 into a pot of 1050 [...] I don't see how the bet has altered the concerns I had on the flop. It seems best to call the small bet."

The river is the 5[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], and Nathan moves all-in. Barry says,

9) "It's hard to imagine any hand other than pocket aces that would be bet in this fashion. It certainly seems right to fold," which he does.


****

Notice all of the reads Barry made here, and how many clues BG pointed out throughout the hand. No mention of ESP or set-specific tells or anything off the wall, just a good strong hand analysis as done by a true world class player.

Apparently conservative player 3-bets a world-class EP player, he's giving him a range of TT+, AK, with QQ being effectively ruled out. Betting patterns on three streets make AK, KK, JJ, and TT all relatively unlikely (as is any kind of bluff)... which leaves AA. Here, AA fits villians behavior like a glove - plug in the other hands from villian's perspective and see if they make sense to you.

This is miles away from the OP's hand. In the OP's hand there are a number of hands that could fit the action.

[PokrLikeItsProse]

[ QUOTE ]

This is miles away from the OP's hand. In the OP's hand there are a number of hands that could fit the action.

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree they are different hands. I just bring it up because there are some people who are wrong in saying that only an idiot would ever fold a set with no straight/flush out there.

We have incomplete information. The OP didn't tell us everything. Maybe the two players involved are very familiar with each the other's play. (At least, I don't think that the OP told us if that was the case, although he did have the folder addressing Andy Nguyen by first name.) The OP told us the guy was making some good reads. I think that probably includes value betting weak hands or showing bluffs and not just showing big laydowns, but we don't know. In his book, Matt Matros described a scenario on the way to his WPT final table where he might have folded bottom set to his friend and mentor Russell Rosenblum.

For all we know, Andy Nguyen didn't have a set-specific tell, but only raises preflop with pocket pairs from the BB in a limped pot, checking big aces like AK-AQ. Then, he might have a betting pattern where he doesn't double-barrel bluff but only bets both flop and turn when he has connected with the board. I'm not saying either of those are true (I kinda doubt it), but combined, a player with those traits would have bottom set beat, right? So, there could be logical read of betting patterns and the question about showing may have confirmed a read rather than led to one. We just haven't been told everything, possibly. If we had that Barry Greenstein hand described by another player at the table without Barry G's commentary, would we be able to reconstruct his reasoning?

By the way, I don't think that anyone will fold and show bottom set unless they have a rock-solid belief that they are right. Something more concrete than a 'hunch" as some posters suggested. Most human beings that I know aren't willing to look that stupid. Since OP described this player as a good reader, I'm willing to entertain the possibility that the guy had some legitimate reasons for folding rather than automatically filing him as a weak-tight donkey.

[Gonso]

[ QUOTE ]
We have incomplete information. The OP didn't tell us everything.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true, but it's all we were given to go on... there's always the possibility the guy is a genius, but that's so remote as described I'd have to see a hell of a lot to overcome the initial impression.

EDIT: A friend just mentioned that he thinks the Horseshoe is gone and I wiki'd it... is there another Horseshoe in Vegas besides the one that closed and became Binions Gambling Hall a couple of years ago?

[Memphis21]

99-QQ are irrevelant, because the super tight player that he described would never bet twice into a board of AK without top two pair or a set.