Quitin time for Doyle

[pete fabrizio]

I'm actually much more impressed with Doyle than I ever have been as a result of this laydown.

[JohnnyGroomsTD]

Why call off your stack there with the third nuts. It seems a better long term strategy to me to lay the hand down. Poker is not about winning every pot. It's about winning money. In most spots, Doyle would not have the best hand there. It seems that when you play against a guy who like to bluff, you will get you chance to punish him, but you must be patient. Doyle has been playing since most of us were born. He has patience

[Poker monkey]

If Doyle's read is right, and Jamie has a flush (which he does), his hand is 53% vs Jamie's range, which is not really a great situation to be in when you're playing massively deep. If you take the 5-high flushes out, Doyle's probably a dog to Jamie's range (maybe someone with better pokerstove skills can compute this).

So yeah, it's a great fold.

Board: Ks 4s Jd As
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 53.328% 53.33% 00.00% 657 0.00 { Ts8s }
Hand 1: 46.672% 46.67% 00.00% 575 0.00 { AsKs, AsQs, AsJs, AsTs, As9s, As8s, As7s, As6s, As5s, As4s, As3s, As2s, KsQs, KsJs, KsTs, Ks9s, Ks8s, Ks7s, Ks6s, Ks5s, Ks4s, Ks3s, Ks2s, QsJs, QsTs, Qs9s, Qs8s, Qs7s, Qs6s, Qs5s, Qs4s, Qs3s, Qs2s, JsTs, Js9s, Js8s, Js7s, Js6s, Js5s, Js4s, Js3s, Js2s, Ts9s, Ts8s, Ts7s, Ts6s, Ts5s, Ts4s, Ts3s, Ts2s, 9s8s, 9s7s, 9s6s, 9s5s, 9s4s, 9s3s, 9s2s, 8s7s, 8s6s, 8s5s, 8s4s, 8s3s, 8s2s, 7s6s, 7s5s, 7s4s, 7s3s, 7s2s, 6s5s, 6s4s, 6s3s, 6s2s, 5s4s, 5s3s, 5s2s, 4s3s, 4s2s, 3s2s }

[Spurious]

how can you include hands that he couldnt have?
AsXs is not in his range, and KsXs isnt as well, etc.


I think this looks right:

1,232 games 0.005 secs 246,400 games/sec

Board: Ks 4s Jd As
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 53.328% 53.33% 00.00% 657 0.00 { Ts8s }
Hand 1: 46.672% 46.67% 00.00% 575 0.00 { QsJs, Qs9s, Qs7s, Qs6s, Qs5s, Qs3s, Qs2s, Js9s, Js7s, Js6s, Js5s, Js3s, Js2s, 9s7s, 9s6s, 9s5s, 9s3s, 9s2s, 7s6s, 7s5s, 7s3s, 7s2s, 6s5s, 6s3s, 6s2s, 5s3s, 5s2s, 3s2s }

He's ahead, by just a little.
Still a good fold, since half of the hands are junk, and Gold probably doesnt play them.


EDIT: Just saw, that Pokerstove excludes the hands that he couldnt have [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[andyfox]

"After the flush hand with Doyle and Jamie, Doyle leaned over and asked me what I thought Jamie had. I told him I thought Jamie had an Ace high straight. When Doyle told me he could beat that, I told him I wouldn't have folded. Doyle said, 'I know by the way Jamie was acting that he thought he had the nuts, but I hope he didn't misjudge his own strength'. Later when Jamie tells Doyle what he had, Doyle gets steamed up and costs me money with a play he wouldn't ordinarily make."

This is what Barry said about the hand. So:

-Barry would have won the pot; but he would have lost it with a smaller flush, whereas Doyle would not have.

-Doyle had doubts about his play, evidenced both by his questioning of Barry and, more importantly, by his statement that he hoped Jamie hadn't misjudged the strength of his own hand.

-Nobody plays perfect. Here you have arguably the greatest no-limit cash game player ever and another who ranks in the top echelon all-time. One of them wasn't sure about his play. The other would have called Jamie down with a small flush and lost a bundle. In addition, Barry, who has played with Doyle a lot, states that Doyle cost him money afterwards because he went on tilt. Shouldn't Barry, of all people, recognize Doyle's tilt and have played accordingly? How can he blame anyone other than himself, rather than Doyle, for costing him money?

[yogadude]

It's one hand out of a lifetime of hands. This hand was proved the often repeated, "If you dont fold the winner every once in a while you're not playing good poker." Poker ability is proven over time, not single hands or single sessions for that matter.

I can see why he would fold this hand. In a deep-stack game it has to be wrong to stack off with a 3rd nut hand. I think Doyle folded because he figured by calling the 125 he would of had to call the balance (350ish) on the river and didnt want to put a half million in the pot with this hand.

[yogadude]

[ QUOTE ]
LOL@ all the donks that dont understand. Confirms there will always be bad players in poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

[yogadude]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
would Doyle have called a 50k raise?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think so, but I'm just a random railtard.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he would of because he would be willing to pay off the 100G of so Jamie would bet on the river instead of the most-likely push on the river if Jamie makes it 125 to go instead of 50. This is something I think alot about when I play. If I call the turn check-raise can I call a typical bet on the river?

[TruePoker CEO]

Well stated. ....

[leprous_hand]

I think he also was sure he could get jamie to stack off in a spot where he had more of a lock on the pot.