Insane HH from Niagara 10k involving THE Vanessa Rousso (and Shaniac)

[registrar]

Can we stop this argument now? It's a simple issue of reading comprehension. Curtains made a very precisely defined statement and in the terms the statement was defined, the statement is irrefutable.

This is only tangentally relevant to whether 'we' should be opening 74s here. OP obviously shouldn't because he folded the second nuts to a four-bet from Vanessa Rousso. I agree with Ansky that opening here is bad poker etc. but I like DJK's sentiments because that's how I roll but also because the BBs spent here, this deep and live, actually have, in all practical terms, a totally unquantifiable expectation.

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
Can we stop this argument now? It's a simple issue of reading comprehension. Curtains made a very precisely defined statement and in the terms the statement was defined, the statement is irrefutable.

This is only tangentally relevant to whether 'we' should be opening 74s here. OP obviously shouldn't because he folded the second nuts to a four-bet from Vanessa Rousso. I agree with Ansky that opening here is bad poker etc. but I like DJK's sentiments because that's how I roll but also because the BBs spent here, this deep and live, actually have, in all practical terms, a totally unquantifiable expectation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I also completely agree that we shouldn't be opening 74s here. Well, at least I shouldn't be opening it.

[Todd Terry]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I haven't played with Vanessa in a long time, but back when I last did (Feb '06), she was a rock.

[/ QUOTE ]

Vanessa is anything but a rock. If anything, she errs on the side of putting chips in the pot, not playing too tight.

[/ QUOTE ]

This hand is overwhelmingly conclusive evidence that she is no longer a rock. Holy [censored], 8 [censored] 5 on that board.

If anything, this hand demonstrates the potential value of playing 74s this deep. I'm constantly amazed at how people will stack off this deep in big buy-in deep stacked tourneys. Just a few off the top of my head: with overpairs (I flopped a set with 77 against a guy with KK and stacked him in the Borgata Summer Open 5K when we were both over 300 BBs deep; Bellagio 15K flopped a set with 22 vs. Gus Hansen's AA at 230 BBs), top pair (Bellagio 5K, A 2 5 rainbow flop, I had 34 UTG, Villain stacked off with AJ at 160 BBs deep), TPTK (Caesar's 10K, KQ2 flop, I doubled up for 150 BBs with 22 vs. AK). Crazy [censored] happens early in these tournaments, and you may not want to be on the sidelines saying I wish I played for 150 more when you have a 30K stack.

Edit: Upon reflection, Vanessa's play here may be +$EV because she's going to get paid off on every big hand she has for the next 5 years as a result of this. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[dogsballs]

[ QUOTE ]

BTW, I get you, but I'm not totally sure it's theoretically right either since there are math-based spots where you have to put in more chips after the initial raise. it's close enough though.

[/ QUOTE ]


Hopefully this was just a brain fart, adanthar. If a math-based spot has you putting more chips in, then it'd better be +EV...or you did your math wrong.

[adanthar]

easiest example: you raise to 150 and some donk makes it 250. you now have to call 100 into 475 making the call roughly theoretically breakeven vs. his range (lol) taking nothing but equity into account. however, due to the fact that twodimes equity is "showdown equity" which includes a lot of running two pair/backdoor draws, you actually lose more chips on the play. the end.

this example is as contrived as curtains' btw and means absolutely nothing.

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
easiest example: you raise to 150 and some donk makes it 250. you now have to call 100 into 475 making the call roughly theoretically breakeven vs. his range (lol) taking nothing but equity into account. however, due to the fact that twodimes equity is "showdown equity" which includes a lot of running two pair/backdoor draws, you actually lose more chips on the play. the end.

this example is as contrived as curtains' btw and means absolutely nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think my example is that contrived, because if a lot of what was being said was true, it would often be correct to muck from the BB without taking your option.

[getballed]

Cant believe cbr folded. Well i he shoved that would of gotten vanessa out and would of been a split pot.

but she is a baddie, "nice" call on the river

if annette_15 was old enough she'd take this one down

[postoakpoker]

I would expect the typical player in a $5 stars tourney to at least think before they stacked off w/ 85 in this position. But a named "pro" 400bb deep in a major tourney? Wow, simply astounding. I wonder how surprised shaniac was to see her table top and bottom...

[gobboboy]

[ QUOTE ]
Cant believe cbr folded. Well i he shoved that would of gotten vanessa out and would of been a split pot.

but she is a baddie, "nice" call on the river

if annette_15 was old enough she'd take this one down

[/ QUOTE ]

She is 19 and she'd win this tournament 1/300 times just like all the other good players.

[Pudge714]

Curtains,
It is a small chunk of your stack, but it is also impossible for it to be +EV so you can never justify it.
Assuming we raise preflop. Postflop some people will have an expectation of greater than -150 others will have one lower and it is very player dependent.