Cunningham: Not Beating...Joining?

Another reminder that even perfect players don't really play perfect?

[Russ M.]

[ QUOTE ]
The turn put a second club on the board and Frank led with 200.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hilarious.

[Howard Treesong]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I highly doubt that AC thought his K or Q outs would be live if he got called. In fact, that is the reason that he pushed.

The play does seem a bit uncharacteristic of him. It was clearly an opportunity cost play.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems apparent that he has no faith in those six outs.

I suppose if he had thought they were good, he would be value betting closing the action against what he had to assume was a single pair (with a provision to fold if reraised out of his seat).

But otherwise, it's a pretty lazy and/or bad play, depending upon what we see as his motivation (or lack thereof).

[/ QUOTE ]

If the overcards are live outs he's on a seventeen-outer; if they are not, eleven. In each case, he's a dog on the turn (2:1 if live overcards, 3.5 or so:1 if otherwise).

Why isn't his action the same in either case? The only difference I can make out is that if AC thinks the overcards are live outs, then he might get paid off on a value bet on the river if he spikes one. But that's a pretty narrow branch on the decision tree (6/44 of the time), and my guess is he's trying to pick up FE here -- and if that's the thought, why isn't that equally valid for each possibility? It may be a sucky decision, but I don't understand the inference that AC didn't think the overs were live.

I may be supersuperdense here: I'm tired and jetlagged. But this hand caught my eye for some reason, and I know I don't understand your thinking on it.

[Cornell Fiji]

What I am saying is that Cunningham would probably believe that no rational player would call his overbet shove with a one pair hand. Therefore, if the shove is called the K or Q could not be live.

I am not saying that 2 pair or a set are a huge % of the villains range, I am just saying that the villain would not be calling with some crazy [censored] like 97cc

[Rushmore]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The turn put a second club on the board and Frank led with 200.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hilarious.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe Frank was utilizing the "blocking bet" here.

It is a very complex device, not for the faint of heart.

IIRC, I think he might have invented it.

[NajdorfDefense]

[ QUOTE ]
Playing for 1st obv

[/ QUOTE ]

[TimTimSalabim]

[ QUOTE ]
What the hell is THIS??!:


[/ QUOTE ]

A semi-bluff. You ask such easy questions!

[Max Raker]

Why not call? If the guy is bad enough to bet 200 he might call u on the river when u hit and when u miss u can call another 200 with K high.

[Rushmore]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What the hell is THIS??!:


[/ QUOTE ]

A semi-bluff. You ask such easy questions!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, an all-in massive overbet semibluff in a spot where you are almost certainly a favorite to outplay all of the donks at your table, provided you remain in the tournament.

So sure--risking all of your chips in this spot is a great idea if you're Allen Cunningham.

But never mind--it was just a dumb question I never should have asked.

[Howard Treesong]

[ QUOTE ]
What I am saying is that Cunningham would probably believe that no rational player would call his overbet shove with a one pair hand. Therefore, if the shove is called the K or Q could not be live.

I am not saying that 2 pair or a set are a huge % of the villains range, I am just saying that the villain would not be calling with some crazy [censored] like 97cc

[/ QUOTE ]

Got it, thanks. I don't know what Allen is thinking here, but it may be that he'll be in a tough spot if the enemy pushes back when Allen raises smaller. If Allen raises half the pot, then a call to an enemy push coming back is getting 2.5:1 -- probably not justified even if the K and Q are outs, which means he's got to muck to a push.

Still, what's a man to do? A 200 bet is pricing Allen in at 45899320395 to 1, so he must at least call. A smooth call means he spikes a good river 1/4 of the time, a hard-decision card (nonclub K or Q) 1/8 of the time, and a brick 5/8 of the time. Allen probably thinks that a flush card isn't getting paid off (although it is, here) and so his good card chances don't get a multiplier for implied odds.

Seems to me thats a tough line because Allen doesn't get paid a river bet unless he hits the 3-out straight (Jc kills the action).

Thus, a raise is a fair play to try to win the 2800 pot with FE. How much? Less than about 1/3 of the pot generates too little FE, but more than that gets you heading towards pot-commitedness. If Allen raises the pot, for example, he's putting in another 2800 with only another 6K behind it -- which means a pretty good price coming back.

I'm probably overthinking this.