High Stakes Poker thread (11/12 - 500k Buyin - Part 2 Spoilers ahoy) - Page 14

namisgr · #**131** 11-13-2007, 06:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
No ones mentioned the fact that PA might think he can outplay Jamie. I think it's uncertain how confident PA was that Jamie had a big hand. I think it's an incorrect assumption made a few times in this thread that PA def thought Jamie had a big hand. Makes the analysis much different.

[/ QUOTE ]

This deserves more attention. After all, if PA is drawing for the huge implied odds against Jamie's super strong hand, then why would he be so quick to have it run 2-3 times? The EV is only positive if he can stack Jamie, rather than "settling" for $125K.

PA was uncertain how strong Gold's hand was.

sww · #**132** 11-13-2007, 06:55 AM

If PA was able to narrow Gold down to TT-KK or so, then the flop call is optimal for sure. When PA hits his A he can let Jamie do the talk and make correct decisions. It shouldn't be too hard to judge wheter he has a pair that hates the ace or a set. PA has a reasonable equity on flop against Gold's range, huge implieds (when he turns the straight, Gold has always a set or JJ with straight draw and will pay off) and ability to outplay Gold when it gets tougher (ace hits).

Gold played the hand terribly because he gave away too much info. Antonius used the info and made the most optimal plays. At least that is how I see it.

exec771 · #**133** 11-13-2007, 07:06 AM

[ QUOTE ]

BTW. On season 1 and 2 running it three times meant that one player will scoop the whole pot. That's how I understood it. This was explained by Eli Elezra in one of the episodes where they ran it twice. Running it twice was better according to Eli has it gave to "even it out". I guess I understood the concept wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Running it thrice and having best 2 out of 3 taking the pot doesn't reduce variance for Gold at all, because Antonius is going to scoop the pot closeto 75% of the time, same as his equity in the pot. So it really makes little difference.

This way he only loses the entire potlike 45% of the time, so running it more times reduces variance.

darksideofthewal · #**134** 11-13-2007, 07:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

BTW. On season 1 and 2 running it three times meant that one player will scoop the whole pot. That's how I understood it. This was explained by Eli Elezra in one of the episodes where they ran it twice. Running it twice was better according to Eli has it gave to "even it out". I guess I understood the concept wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Running it thrice and having best 2 out of 3 taking the pot doesn't reduce variance for Gold at all, because Antonius is going to scoop the pot closeto 75% of the time, same as his equity in the pot. So it really makes little difference.

This way he only loses the entire potlike 45% of the time, so running it more times reduces variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actualy 2 out of 3 scoops is -ev for Jamie, as he would have 10 outs for his first win but only 9 for his second (which of course is more significant then PA's outs going from 38 to 37)

Rottersod · #**135** 11-13-2007, 07:29 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Playing a gutshot against a big hand is a standard play in deepstack NLHE.

[/ QUOTE ]

really ?!? thanks for the heads up...i had no idea. all boards arent created equal. all gutshot draws arent created equal.

[/ QUOTE ]

A Q,T,x board is perfect to play a gutshot with AJ. Antonius was drawing to the nuts and there was a good probability Gold would have a big hand. It was the perfect situation to play a gutshot against a big hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

fair enough.

i beleive that because either 2 of your outs are gone or your opponent always has a redraw this is a bad spot.

also your lost if you hit an ace or a j. im not a big gutshot fan in general, i think the "implied odds" are overrated and this isnt a good spot in my experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think the implied odds are overrated? Huh? What we saw tonight is a textbook example of playing the gut shot for implied odds in a deep stack game. All of Gold's money went in. Look up implied odds in the dictionary and you'll get that hand as the definition.

glimmertwin · #**136** 11-13-2007, 07:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Why is it ok to talk about youtube links and not torrents?

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't download a copy of the Theory of Poker from YouTube?

Rottersod · #**137** 11-13-2007, 07:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry limon, but what the hell are you talking about? PA's play was +EV no matter how you look at it. If Jamie has a set or hits a set with PA's gin card then PA is getting Gold's enitre stack. Also, I think you are hugely overestimating Jamie's ability. I think Jamie loses a fairly large chunk of his stack with AA or 2 pair there as well. And also you seem to be ignoring that PA could be calling with the best hand. That obviously wasn't the case in that instance, but Jamie does like to bluff a lot. How does running it 3 times prove that PA was lost????? He had the best hand, but Jamie had 10 outs and PA had ~365k invested in that hand. He obviously just wanted to reduce his variance and it worked out for him. Instead of a 365k loss he took a 125k loss from Jamie drawing out.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think the crux of this problem is that everyone is hugely UNDERESTIMATING jamies ability. ive actually logged alot of hours w/ jamie and he is a losing player but not crazy or stupid. and on the scale of losing players in the la 10-20+ nl hes a piker at best (PRE WSOP WIN)

[/ QUOTE ]

I like how you qualified that last sentence. Because I've seen him burn through $50K at a time at Hollywood Park.

Rottersod · #**138** 11-13-2007, 07:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No ones mentioned the fact that PA might think he can outplay Jamie. I think it's uncertain how confident PA was that Jamie had a big hand. I think it's an incorrect assumption made a few times in this thread that PA def thought Jamie had a big hand. Makes the analysis much different.

[/ QUOTE ]

This deserves more attention. After all, if PA is drawing for the huge implied odds against Jamie's super strong hand, then why would he be so quick to have it run 2-3 times? The EV is only positive if he can stack Jamie, rather than "settling" for $125K.

PA was uncertain how strong Gold's hand was.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't make sense. The hands were tabled when the discussed running it multiples times. No one was confused. There was probably a lot of discussion that went on that was edited out. From what I have been told it's typical at these stakes that when someone requests to run it a certain number of times it's usually agreed to. Maybe if there is a personal animosity between two players they won't but PA probably doesn't want to come off looking like a jerk on TV by refusing. And he still had the odds in his favor for scooping. If there were two cards to run it would have been different.

FoldALot. · #**139** 11-13-2007, 08:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
From what I have been told it's typical at these stakes that when someone requests to run it a certain number of times it's usually agreed to. Maybe if there is a personal animosity between two players they won't but PA probably doesn't want to come off looking like a jerk on TV by refusing.

[/ QUOTE ]´
Barry never runs it twice, and neither does Antonio from what I've seen.
And neither one came off looking like a joke by refusing to do it IMO.

Rottersod · #**140** 11-13-2007, 08:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
From what I have been told it's typical at these stakes that when someone requests to run it a certain number of times it's usually agreed to. Maybe if there is a personal animosity between two players they won't but PA probably doesn't want to come off looking like a jerk on TV by refusing.

[/ QUOTE ]´

Barry never runs it twice, and neither does Antonio from what I've seen.
And neither one came off looking like a joke by refusing to do it IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because they are consistent and tell the others that they never run it twice. Nothing wrong with that.