Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > General Poker Discussion > Televised Poker

View Poll Results: Ohio St 11-0
1 38 90.48%
2 2 4.76%
3 0 0%
4 0 0%
5 0 0%
6 0 0%
7 0 0%
8 0 0%
9 0 0%
10 2 4.76%
Voters: 42. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #441  
Old 11-10-2007, 03:33 PM
TimTimSalabim TimTimSalabim is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Posts: 3,114
Default Re: High Stakes Poker thread (11/5 - 500k buyin - Spoilers expected)

Bottom line is: if you never fold the best hand, you're not likely to be a winning poker player. And Doyle has been a winner longer than most of us have been alive.
Reply With Quote
  #442  
Old 11-10-2007, 03:34 PM
futuredoc85 futuredoc85 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: ATL
Posts: 9,014
Default Re: High Stakes Poker thread (11/5 - 500k buyin - Spoilers expected)

ok but that doesnt mean he deserves unending praise for folding it...
Reply With Quote
  #443  
Old 11-10-2007, 03:41 PM
aislephive aislephive is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: And now the children are asleep
Posts: 6,874
Default Re: High Stakes Poker thread (11/5 - 500k buyin - Spoilers expected)

[ QUOTE ]
Bottom line is: if you never fold the best hand, you're not likely to be a winning poker player. And Doyle has been a winner longer than most of us have been alive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty weak argument.
Reply With Quote
  #444  
Old 11-10-2007, 04:09 PM
legend42 legend42 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,382
Default Re: High Stakes Poker thread (11/5 - 500k buyin - Spoilers expected)

[ QUOTE ]
no.. what i am saying is that gold believes he has the best hand at that moment. i is aware that his flush is vulnerable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea why you would think Doyle would ever have AxQs there. Explain how that makes any sense based on his pre-flop, flop, and turn action.

[ QUOTE ]
the way i see it, gold did not want doyle to call his raise. he wanted the fold and to take down the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, he was just thinking that he made his flush, and was going to get money in the pot, and try to make it look like a bluff. Not much beyond that. Which is what had Doyle a bit confused.

[ QUOTE ]
yet he did not want to simply call doyle, or min raise him (or a little more like 75k). if he had the nut flush he would have surely done one of these things.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure you're wrong there also. He would have played the nut flush the exact same way. They have $500K stacks, and Jamie just made what looks like to him like a monster. Of course he's going to pump it.

[ QUOTE ]
i believe that you are right. yet, i think that if doyle had taken more time (if it is to believed that there wasn't a chunk of time edited out of the broadcast where doyle actually did spend some time thinking) that he may have reasoned it out that gold was not very strong with his raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, he might have sniffed it out. But like I said before, QsTs (and to a lesser extent JsTs) are such huge possibilities for Doyle, and Jamie was so cocky he didn't seem worried about them at all. Which made him think the kid must have the Qs. I'm sure he considered the possibility of a lower flush, but wasn't willing to put $100K in when his read had him drawing dead.
Reply With Quote
  #445  
Old 11-10-2007, 04:18 PM
legend42 legend42 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,382
Default Re: High Stakes Poker thread (11/5 - 500k buyin - Spoilers expected)

One thing I would like see is, at the end of the session, when Jamie told Doyle what he had (like he promised to do after the hand):

Doyle: "So what'd you have on that one, Jamie?"

Jamie: "I had the flush"

Doyle: "I know you had the flush, you little pissant. How goddamn HIGH was it?"

Jamie: "Umm, I don't really remember. 8 or 9, maybe?"

Doyle pukes in the kid's bowl of blueberries...
Reply With Quote
  #446  
Old 11-10-2007, 06:22 PM
TimTimSalabim TimTimSalabim is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Posts: 3,114
Default Re: High Stakes Poker thread (11/5 - 500k buyin - Spoilers expected)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bottom line is: if you never fold the best hand, you're not likely to be a winning poker player. And Doyle has been a winner longer than most of us have been alive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty weak argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not as weak as your rebuttal.
Reply With Quote
  #447  
Old 11-10-2007, 07:40 PM
JDesab JDesab is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 184
Default Re: High Stakes Poker thread (11/5 - 500k buyin - Spoilers expected)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
no.. what i am saying is that gold believes he has the best hand at that moment. i is aware that his flush is vulnerable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea why you would think Doyle would ever have AxQs there. Explain how that makes any sense based on his pre-flop, flop, and turn action.


[/ QUOTE ]

is it truly beyond your grasp to believe doyle capable of limping with AQo? have you not watched the prior 3 seasons.

god, i love weak tight internits... they watch while everyone else plays. then when they go busto with AK vs someone elses 89s they storm away crying about how bad everyone else plays. and how they can't wait to get home to their dual 30" monitors.

after they leave.. everyone laughs.
Reply With Quote
  #448  
Old 11-10-2007, 08:11 PM
JokersAttack JokersAttack is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 940
Default Re: High Stakes Poker thread (11/5 - 500k buyin - Spoilers expected)

[ QUOTE ]
This is a cash game, not a tournament. You don't surpass +EV spots except in very specific circumstances, this doesn't qualify. How does Doyle know he is going to get in a better spot against Jamie? This is live poker, meaning not many hands per hour, and there are 8 other people playing, all just as likely to get Jamie's money. If the third nuts isn't good enough then you're putting Jamie presicely on the second or complete nuts, meaning that in the future you're going to wait until you get the nuts vs Jamie's second nuts? That's extremely unlikely to happen. How often have we even seen big nuts vs second nuts hands overall during HSP? Now what are the odds that happens with two specific players?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is simply not true. Why pay someone off that you read for having a better hand, just because you happen to have the third nuts.

Jamie bluffs alot, and Doyle has a good read on Jamie. Why play a pot with him when you're getting ultra high confidence tells from him and may genuinly believe it is likely that he is holding a winning hand, when you can wait for him to bluff off money or simply wait for a spot when you read him for a hand but not for one that beats yours.

Also, the fact that it is a cash game and not a tournament also means that Doyle should be in no rush to get into a 1 million dollar pot against a chronic bluffer. I have no doubt if Doyle thought he was ahead the majority of the time there, he would have called.

And we don't know for sure he has multiple bullets available. We heard PH say that the players don't like carrying huge amounts of money around (which is why PH was playing behind). Whilst this may not apply as much to Doyle, it is possible that he may have only had the 1 bullet (or 2) available at the time and given how popular the show rated to be, didn't want to bust in an extremely thin EV situation so early into the game.

and JDesab > I don't think Jamie wanted Doyle to fold, he was jamming what he thought to be the winning hand whilst trying to disguise it as a bluff.

Also, I don't think there's much basis to say that Jamie's play would change if was holding the nuts or second nuts. I don't think he was trying to price out a draw so much as to simply get paid off. And if Jamie did put Doyle on the Qs, since he just made a pot+ sized bet, wouldn't it be a better idea to just call and try and induce a river bluff? Or raise more thinly for value rather than make a bet that he can't call?

Also, the only hand that includes the Qs that bets that flop like Doyle did is the AxQs. And would Doyle really bet the turn like that with that hand? He might, since he is good at blending his range and disguising his hand strength. However, I think Doyle raises preflop with this hand, esp in late pos, which he did't do.
Reply With Quote
  #449  
Old 11-10-2007, 08:43 PM
JDesab JDesab is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 184
Default Re: High Stakes Poker thread (11/5 - 500k buyin - Spoilers expected)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is a cash game, not a tournament. You don't surpass +EV spots except in very specific circumstances, this doesn't qualify. How does Doyle know he is going to get in a better spot against Jamie? This is live poker, meaning not many hands per hour, and there are 8 other people playing, all just as likely to get Jamie's money. If the third nuts isn't good enough then you're putting Jamie presicely on the second or complete nuts, meaning that in the future you're going to wait until you get the nuts vs Jamie's second nuts? That's extremely unlikely to happen. How often have we even seen big nuts vs second nuts hands overall during HSP? Now what are the odds that happens with two specific players?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is simply not true. Why pay someone off that you read for having a better hand, just because you happen to have the third nuts.

Jamie bluffs alot, and Doyle has a good read on Jamie. Why play a pot with him when you're getting ultra high confidence tells from him and may genuinly believe it is likely that he is holding a winning hand, when you can wait for him to bluff off money or simply wait for a spot when you read him for a hand but not for one that beats yours.

Also, the fact that it is a cash game and not a tournament also means that Doyle should be in no rush to get into a 1 million dollar pot against a chronic bluffer. I have no doubt if Doyle thought he was ahead the majority of the time there, he would have called.

And we don't know for sure he has multiple bullets available. We heard PH say that the players don't like carrying huge amounts of money around (which is why PH was playing behind). Whilst this may not apply as much to Doyle, it is possible that he may have only had the 1 bullet (or 2) available at the time and given how popular the show rated to be, didn't want to bust in an extremely thin EV situation so early into the game.

and JDesab > I don't think Jamie wanted Doyle to fold, he was jamming what he thought to be the winning hand whilst trying to disguise it as a bluff.

Also, I don't think there's much basis to say that Jamie's play would change if was holding the nuts or second nuts. I don't think he was trying to price out a draw so much as to simply get paid off. And if Jamie did put Doyle on the Qs, since he just made a pot+ sized bet, wouldn't it be a better idea to just call and try and induce a river bluff? Or raise more thinly for value rather than make a bet that he can't call?

Also, the only hand that includes the Qs that bets that flop like Doyle did is the AxQs. And would Doyle really bet the turn like that with that hand? He might, since he is good at blending his range and disguising his hand strength. However, I think Doyle raises preflop with this hand, esp in late pos, which he did't do.

[/ QUOTE ]

what i am saying is not that gold read doyle wrong. what i am saying is possible reasons why jamie played his hand the way he did. i ask you .. do you think jamie gold holding the 9 high flush should not have felt he had the best hand when the action came to him after doyle bet 25K? i believe that had i been in jamie's shoes i would have believed i had the best hand. one point i'm trying to make is that jamie did nothing wrong. while most people posting here are going to great measures to defend doyle's play in the hand they are at the same time implying that jamie played it badly. i disagree.
Reply With Quote
  #450  
Old 11-10-2007, 09:21 PM
JokersAttack JokersAttack is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 940
Default Re: High Stakes Poker thread (11/5 - 500k buyin - Spoilers expected)

well, I agree, I don't really think Jamie played it badly.

I just don't agree with you that his play would have changed if he had a higher fluez, that's all.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.