How valuable are implied odds in stud?

[Micturition Man]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However I was not the person with this hand. The person with this hand is considered to be an expert stud player.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe Phil Ivey made this exact play in a $1,000/$2,000 game the other night. He proceeded to check/call after pairing his 8 on fourth street, and he got a ton of action on fifth and sixth (I think 7 big bets total) after catching another 8 on fifth. His opponent caught paint on those streets, and ended up losing a showdown to Ivey's full house. I also thought the decision on third street was interesting to consider.

[/ QUOTE ]


Nice catch sir.

I changed the limit to 100-200 and didn't name Phil because I didn't want people to get distracted with false hand-waving arguments like "At these limits poker becomes much more of a mental game!", or "Phil and David probably have a long history with each other so they're just playing this way for fun."

(I have actually seen both of those arguments made, more or less, in other forums to justify dubious plays by name pros.)

[electrical]

What you saw play out was a longshot hitting perfect. With straight cards dead as hell, making disguised trips was about the best that could be expected, and Ivey did better than that. If he makes an open pair after raising an Ace door and "gets a ton of action" do trip eights really look that good?

There are two reasons this hand is junk: 1) it's junk, and 2) if he makes an open pair he may not get any action. That he did get action exposes a third reason: 3) any hand willing to make a big pot with him probably has him in bad shape.

This is a gambling play, a gambling situation and a gambling hand. It is not out of the question that an excellent poker player will also like to gamble. Me, I have about one percent gamble in me, and I fold without thinking twice on Third. If I got it in my head that a steal would work, I fold to the raise afterword.

Regarding the hand as played, or situations like it, if somebody wants to play poker that way (clinging to a bluff with a trash hand, dead outs, out of position...), he is my guest. Occasionally he will hit three perfect cards and make a full house, and once in a blue moon his opponent will also have a hand to make a pot worth the effort.

Using this one hand as a template is too results-oriented to be seriously considered.

[Micturition Man]

[ QUOTE ]

Using this one hand as a template is too results-oriented to be seriously considered.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are assuming the (98)A call is -EV, which is what I would previously have done.

I am wondering if it's possible that the ability to get away cheaply on 4th or 5th when the hand does not improve is enough to overcome the steep equity deficit you face versus the T's distribution here.

I am not making anything of the fluke way the cards came down. I am not being results oriented. Give me some credit here.

The only thing that intrigues me is that someone who is supposed to be a great stud player seemed to think the 3rd street call was correct.

I would have found the hand equally interesting if Phil had bricked on 4th and his opponent made open TT and Phil folded (except that I would never have gotten to see his hole cards.)

[PoorLawyer]

I really think he got trapped into playing on by his poor 3rd street decision to call the raise.....then he got extremely lucky. This is one of the reasons I would fold this hand. You put villain on probable tens and now you improve on 4th to a pr of 8s and now feel the need to continue on with your dog underpair. It just seems like a losing play leading to potential bigger mistakes and losses as the hand plays on, instead of just mucking the steal attempt and moving on.

[Brad1970]

MM,

Was this a live game or online? If it was online & at FTP, they shuffle the hole cards if you didn't know that already (you probably do!!!). Could have some bearing on everybody's analysis.

[electrical]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Using this one hand as a template is too results-oriented to be seriously considered.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are assuming the (98)A call is -EV

[/ QUOTE ]
How can it not be? From Twodimes against (2[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] T[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]) T[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] Hero is .325 to win. The completion was a mistake, and chasing the money with no hand is a mistake. If he calls the raise, he will have paid 2 SB (albeit in two installments) to win 3.9 SB. If we just consider the immediate call, getting 4.9:1, well then he has put enough money in already to "justify" calling the raise, but that's crazy and not really a solid argument for this line. The pot "justifies" the call, but the line as a whole is clearly flawed. Put in enough ill-advised action early and you will eventually find yourself in a position that mathematically justifies calling one more bet, regardless of your chance of winning. This is not sound poker, it's a martingale.

[ QUOTE ]
I am wondering if it's possible that the ability to get away cheaply on 4th or 5th when the hand does not improve is enough to overcome the steep equity deficit you face versus the T's distribution here.

[/ QUOTE ]
There is only an implied odds position if the Tens are willing to make a big pot. That is only good for hero if his hand can beat the Tens for a big pot. Hero's hand usually suffers from negative implied odds itself because he has misrepresented it as stronger than it plays, and if he gets action he usually won't like it. Making money here is a longshot.

[ QUOTE ]
I am not making anything of the fluke way the cards came down. I am not being results oriented. Give me some credit here.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, this is about the only scenario where hero doesn't just put chips in the pot and they go away. Normally, yes, you get credit, but without knowing the results, how can this be seen as anything other than a gamble on a longshot?

[ QUOTE ]
The only thing that intrigues me is that someone who is supposed to be a great stud player seemed to think the 3rd street call was correct.

[/ QUOTE ]
It looks to me like he thought he was gambling.

[SweetLuckyMe]

What you really seem to be asking is if it's OK to call a raise after you've bluffed a fairly large amount into a very small pot. The answer, I guess, is yes - *if* you think you're going to catch. This same reasoning is used by all the fish at the table, who can't make correct folds when they know they're sufficiently behind in a limit game. Catching and getting paid off isn't justification for making bad decisions early in a hand - no matter if it's a fish or Phil Ivey (or both).

[bugstud]

did you guys not just see the ev calc vs split tens?

[Andy B]

I've read the thread, and I still think this is a fold when it gets back to you. You've got crap, the Ten has a real hand, and this has got to be a playing loser.

Perhaps Phil Ivey can turn this into a profitable situation because he's Phil Ivey. He's got an intimidation thing going for him that I'm not likely to have any time soon. Perhaps he only believes that he can turn this into a profitable hand. I'm not saying this is the case here, but a lot of folks have an inflated notion of their ability to outplay their opponents. I think it's a bad call.

[Micturition Man]

Ok, it seems like everyone thinks Phil's 3rd street call is simply wrong.

Like I said it seems wrong to me too, I just wondered if it might be right due to IO considerations that I have underestimated. (Not the IO from making a fluke boat, which is just as likely with 723 as with a98, just the 'IO' of being able to fold cheaply on 4th or 5th if you have not developed a playable hand.)

Remember when there is a bunch of money in the pot, you do not need to improve to a favorite for your hand to become profitable. Just improving to some kind of playable hand by 5th (any pair or a str8 or flush draw) will be a significantly profitable situation with 3.9 small bets already in the pot after our steal attempt (and 7.9 in there if we get to 5th).

But again, maybe the 3rd street call is just plain wrong, so that's that.

The second point that has been raised, which I did not expect, was a couple of people are insisting the original 3rd street completion is wrong.

I feel almost certain the original 3rd street completion is mandatory and I didn't expect people to disagree with it.

This is a *good* board for you hand.

Basically unless the T up has split TT or any of your opponents has a buried overpair to your 8 (or roll-ups), you don't even mind getting called, and barely mind getting raised, because of the large overlay from the pot.

Given that fact plus your substantial steal equity, I truly think this is an insta-raise in any reasonable lineup where the ante is not small.