Dutch Boyd on The Circuit tonight - Page 5

maryfield48 · #41 07-21-2006, 12:24 PM

I just listened to this thing. Gavin Smith says if he's in the BB on the 1st hand of the WSOP ME and the SB goes all in and shows him QJ, he would fold JJ. Because it's so easy to pick up chips playing normally he doesn't need to risk his tournament life. So I guess Smith is a better than 63% favourite to double his chip stack. Ok, everybody has their own value on survival. But he also says that doubling your chip stack doesn't double your chances to win, and Sebok chimes in with "Yeah, it probably doesn't increase it more than like half a percent". So I guess that means Sebok thinks he's better than 200-1 to win the ME.

maryfield48 · #42 07-21-2006, 03:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does Dutch have gambler's fallacy? I really thought Dutch Boyd was stupid silly to say "pushing all-in with AQ will eventually catch up to him by hands such as ace-rag" and "Joe is playing against the odds since he is destined to lose 3:1 advantages once a while". If anyone can push a 3:1 advantage preflop, wouldn't you do it every time you could? Dutch confused the crap out of me.

[/ QUOTE ]

He meant because Hachem was so short stacked, the repitition of the hand match-ups was bound to catch up. Im sure he wasn't criticizing Hachem's play, but rather explaining his own-

He was calling Hachem's all-ins with hands that he *knew* were likely only 30% to win the hand. He was explaining *why*

This is basic big stack vs. short stack HU strategy. Big stacks take riskier gambles in match-ups when they can sustain losing multiple all-in match-ups, because the short stack has a distinct disadvantage from being forced to win repeated all-in matchups. Maenwhile, they chip away at the short stack, who is waiting to get it in with a sizable lead.

This is basic. If Boyd's explaining it confuses you, you can hardly blame him.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not so sure that that's what Boyd was talking about - he said that Hachem was lucky to even make the final table because:

"When we were down to three or four tables, whenever an all-in was announced I would look around and see Hachem standing up. He was in so many all-ins. Eventually I knew that the all-in situation would have to catch up with him.
You know you can only run Aces against Kings so many times before they finally don't hold up. And then you go home and complain about your bad beat. It wasn't a bad beat, I mean they held up three times before."

Taken on the face of it, it sounds to me like Boyd is saying Hachem was 'due' to lose some races. Oh, and that comment about Aces & Kings not being a bad beat because they held up three times before? Sounds like gambler's fallacy to me.

klonpucko · #43 07-22-2006, 09:40 AM

uh

if you have aces and get it all-in versus kings four times and only win three of those times, you haven't been very unlucky, you have pretty much won the hand about the number of times you're supposed to win it (75% of the times at ~80% equity). that's obviously what he meant, not that "OMG HES DUE FOR A BEAT". pretty obvious stuff to most.

FromTheSouth · #44 07-22-2006, 06:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Why should Dutch pay anyone back anyways? Everyone that currently hates him will still hate him and never ever ever ever let this go. I'd rather have money and be hated than be broke and hated.

[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously, you still posting because it is free. Without arguments nor logical base.
Show some respect to Sunshine. The community has already told you this. Stop Trolling.

FromTheSouth · #45 07-22-2006, 06:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why should Dutch pay anyone back anyways? Everyone that currently hates him will still hate him and never ever ever ever let this go. I'd rather have money and be hated than be broke and hated.

[/ QUOTE ]

also very false

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you see why?

T-God · #46 07-23-2006, 02:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Why should Dutch pay anyone back anyways? Everyone that currently hates him will still hate him and never ever ever ever let this go. I'd rather have money and be hated than be broke and hated.

[/ QUOTE ]
For alot of people, paying the money back would relieve their conscience and allow them to move on in life without the guilt. You're assuming the only things that effect Boyd's happiness are the opinions of others, not his opinion of himself.
Of course, whether the douche is affected by this [censored] is hard to say.