Child's QQ -v- Yang's JJ - Page 6

HustlerLA · #51 10-10-2007, 07:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think he was getting nearly 3:1 on his money here.

I did a Poker Stove on Yang's hand range. It's a pretty tight range, but even if you include 77, 44, 22, it's 60/40 in favor of Yang. It's a clear call. Might have even included other hands that Childs has beat like 88, 99, naked AK, AQcc. It's a call.

172,260 games 0.003 secs 57,420,000 games/sec

Board: 7c 4d 2c
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 45.777% 44.13% 01.65% 76020 2835.00 { QQ }
Hand 1: 54.223% 52.58% 01.65% 90570 2835.00 { TT+, 77, AcKc }

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a perfect example to illustrate my earlier post. For most players including myself, a call wont be made by a comparison of pot odds to equity. You are saying his hand holds up about 1 in 2 times here, and by pot odds he only needs to win 1 out of 4 times to make this call profitable. But I argue this isnt the case. He wont be getting 4 times to make this call in a identical situation let alone a large sample that would make his call correct. This is his one chance at the ME final table. I would decide more heavily towards, "Do I think I am good here?" If you argue that this is theoretically the incorrect way to paly, I agree only in theory. But if you clearly defined Jerry's range as the one above and I was getting those odds, I might consider the fold still. My overall point is that on a daily basis, I make decisons on strictly "is it + or - EV?" as most of you try to do I am sure. BUt how many people agree with me , if they were at the ME final table that there would be bigger motives, like surviving, and enjoying the experience for a longer time.

blankoblanco · #52 10-10-2007, 08:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You need to calculate chip stacks and cash equity if you really want to analyze the situation.

Pure chip EV is not equal to $EV at a final table with steeply ascending pay ladder.

Unless of course you're playing purely for glory.

[/ QUOTE ]

uh the steepness of a tournament pay ladder is what makes it even MORE of an obvious call IMO

liquid · #53 10-10-2007, 08:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Childs bets 3 million and Yang says "all-in" for 11.78 million before Childs finishes putting in his chips.

Pot = 19.41 million, 7.78 million to call (Childs covers, but apparently not by much).

[/ QUOTE ]

If Childs covers, and the preceding action is accurate, wouldn't it be 8.78m to call?

shamus · #54 10-10-2007, 08:43 PM

Childs actually did not have Yang covered when this hand -- Hand No. 9 -- began. After Hand No. 8, Yang had around 14 mil & Childs 13.3 mil. ESPN was wrong/misleading last night here. McEachern says “this would be for almost all of Lee Childs’s chips,” but in fact, it would have been for all his chips.

Here is Poker News' report -- click the "Show This Hand" feature for chip stacks prior to beg. of hand.

SDone · #55 10-11-2007, 02:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Yang would have prayed for a jack and hit it, good laydown

[/ QUOTE ]

obv

You don't [censored] with the man who has God on his side.

Bonified · #56 10-11-2007, 05:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
uh the steepness of a tournament pay ladder is what makes it even MORE of an obvious call IMO

[/ QUOTE ]

That's right. With Childs' remaining stack, the small increments for 8th-5th and the huge additional EV of winning, chip EV and cash EV are close enough at this point not to come into the decision.

In regard to another point, if I really thought that having my family there would inhibit my play, I'd ask them not to come. Seriously. In practice of course, I would want them to be there but if I have to bust on the first hand doing the right thing, so be it.

im a model · #57 10-11-2007, 05:52 AM

i just thought i would chime in here to say that childs is a HUGE PUSS. wowowwoowowwowowowow. hes is final table chip leader if he wins the hand. if he folds he has like 18x the big blind (and dont forget there are antes). plus he has played with yang and if someone has raised the past FOUR OUT OF EIGHT HANDS AND YOU HAVE QQ, then jesus tapdancing christ, i hope he took his winnings and went straight to chanel and bought himself a nice dress. whats the point of calling preflop? i guess if you want to be absolutely sure an A or K doesnt come out on the flop, then you can just call. and i love how he commits half his chips and folds. i guess he was playing QQ for set value there. i will make fun of him if i ever see him playing live, but i doubt that i, or anyone else, will remember who lee childs is a couple months from now.

but to be fair,
[ QUOTE ]
this is the most ridiculous laydown in the history of televised poker! I dont know how these guys make final tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

the worst laydown in the history of televised poker is by some guy whose name i have forgotten (surprise) who had TT and flopped a set and then folded on like a KT8 board. i dont know if anyone remembers this hand, but right after he folded he said to phil ivey who was next to him that he folded TT and he may have made a mistake and phil just laughed at him and said, "no. no way you folded TT just now. no way." i think it was on espn a few years ago.

automat · #58 10-11-2007, 06:02 AM

watching the hand and knowing that yang would win the thin, i was SO sure that childs would insta-shove only to get sucked out on ... [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

sickest fold i´ve ever seen, even more so since yang was playing a hyper-agressive style on the final table ...

pretty sure i´d shove and pray before the flop in his spot ...

ShizzMoney · #59 10-11-2007, 09:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]
the worst laydown in the history of televised poker is by some guy whose name i have forgotten (surprise) who had TT and flopped a set and then folded on like a KT8 board. i dont know if anyone remembers this hand, but right after he folded he said to phil ivey who was next to him that he folded TT and he may have made a mistake and phil just laughed at him and said, "no. no way you folded TT just now. no way." i think it was on espn a few years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it was during the 2005 WSOP Circut Event in Reno. Granted, he folded on the turn when a straight card hit, but it wasn't that much to call for the river, and he would have also boated up. I think instead David Pham won the hand by bluffing that the actual villain who was raising with a King and a weak kicker.

The teevee makes ppl play funny.

SuperUberBob · #60 10-11-2007, 09:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
BUt how many people agree with me , if they were at the ME final table that there would be bigger motives, like surviving, and enjoying the experience for a longer time.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you play scared, you won't win. This was proven when Lee Childs finished in 8th place. He had QQ on the ideal flop: all undercards. How do you not get it all-in on that flop? Bet/folding is just so, so weak. He basically played QQ for set value on that hand. Horrible decision.

I don't think Hilm was busto yet, so he'd move one step up the pay ladder, but would be short stacked as a consequence and it'd be unlikely that he'd get much further. But if he called and doubled up, he would have been the chip leader and in a real good position to win it all.

Lee Childs was not playing to win. He was playing to survive. If he was playing to win, he calls that immediately. If Yang has KK or AA (or hits a flush), tip your hat and say good game.