Comm 40: Trips multiway vs Scott Lazar

[DrawingDonkey]

PF: I don't mind the call, c/r turn

I played the 50-100 @ the WSOP last year. He was a very unpleasant person to the dealers and pretty much everyone he didn't consider a friend. Not a joy to be around. Could be he was having a bad day, but I consider him a jackass.

[Dugalufagus]

He's the guy who got like 6th place for like 1.6 million in the WSOP 2 years ago. Now he's a consultant on one of the new poker movies.
I usually fold or 3 bet against possible steal raises when I'm in the blinds. But I think I prefer if there suited, I love three betting hands like JT suited in that spot though.

[andyfox]

"Sometimes I think that he thinks he should be running the cardroom because he was famous for a while."

I don't think that's it at all. I played quite a bit with Scott, although it was a while ago. He was always the table captain and could be way out of line, although we were quite friendly and he treated me with respect. He would frequently pull a Hellmuth, berating a player who had outdrawn him for his bad play, and would, after betting the river with a board of, say, K-Q-J-8-8, show a 5 when his opponent folded, asking "are we clear?"

I would not normally discuss this here, but since Scott was public about it during the World Series when he made the final table, I think it's OK: Scott had substance abuse problems and consequent marriage problems; it's my opinion that that is what was behind his behavioral issues. He's now, apparently, clean and sober, but it's harder, sometimes, to change the behavior associated with substance abuse than the abuse itself. Not that this is a rare thing in the poker room.

On the turn, I agree with you, a 3-bet from Scott does not necessarily mean a better hand; in fact, I think it's more likely a big pocket pair.

Best hand I ever played with Scott was: I raised pre-flop, only Scott called from the big blind. Scott checked blind, I bet blind before the flop came down; Scott called. Scott then checked the turn and I bet it and he called. All this still before the flop came.

We had one confused dealer. (Old Joe for those of you who play Commerce. Yeah, I know, he's pretty much confused anyway.)

Anyway, he's always been, IMO, a terrific mid-limit hold'em player.

[sweetjazz]

Not to get off the hand, but was Scott Lazar the one who had a meltdown at the final table and misplayed two hands in succession to get knocked out? Just curious.

I don't know what your image is like and all, but I think if Scott is decent you are not getting 3 bets in on this river very often, maybe if he has AA. I think the primary reason to bet the river is because it looks like he has 99 and he should be sensible enough to check behind.

Cap the flop or check raise the turn. You have no reason to believe that Scott will help you on the turn and raise a worse hand for you.

Also preflop seems like a fold unless Scott steals a lot and the button is a loose cold-caller.

[Gabe]

I more or less agree with what you're saying about Scott. I've always liked him, too.

With these two players, I don't think you'll see 3-bets each on the river too often. How about you, Andy?

[mike l.]

"Sometimes I think that he thinks he should be running the cardroom because he was famous for a while.)"

yeah but he acted that way even before TV. and that wsop tiltfest was more infamous than famous.

[andyfox]

Yes, that was Scott--called an all-in bet with Q-T to bust out of the tournament.

[andyfox]

No not often.

[danzasmack]

I believe the tilt was induced by folding a hand pf that would have made quads, correct? That was really weird to watch.

EDIT: I c/r this river.

[andyfox]

That's the way it was played up on TV, but not true, according to one of Scott's backers who was there that day. He told me that Scott was simply exhausted, physically and mentally, and that the hand he folded (A-4o) where he would have turned quads was not a factor. Of course, that's just what Scott told him, so who knows. It's unlikely Scott would have won a big pot there anyway.