Phil Gordon Interview W/Jerry Yang for The Poker Edge Podcast 8/7/07

[blankoblanco]

p.s. i'm not remotely suggesting he should have folded preflop. i'm suggesting it's retarded not to call the flop

[Persistence]

Jerry seems like a really nice guy. But yeah, anyway. That laydown, indeed, is going to KILL Lee Childs if Jerry did have pockets jacks. And it's just like what everyone has said, seeing as it definitely will be on TV, what reason would Jerry have to lie? And the logic backs up the move too, to an extent. Bit of a spoiler here as far as the broadcast goes but Jerry said he put his opponent on overcards, AQ/AK you know and that's a decent read imo based on the preflop action. Then again, maybe I'm dead wrong, and maybe it's hard to judge anything seeing as it was early at the final table and perhaps that was affecting play, obviously if that was the case, on Lee Child's side. Maybe he would just call with kings to see if an ace flopped out there, maybe he would have called with AQ/AK to see if the same happened where he could play accordingly. I think pocket queens is a blind spot maybe for Yang's jacks, assuming it's all true...I mean, while we see how Childs played it, it's reasonable to assume someone would be more aggressive with kings or aces, but queens do drop a bit, as a hand to call with, see a flop with, then run with. Unless he flopped a set or something that flop couldn't be a whole lot better for Childs but yeah, Yang's insta all-in is pretty basic, again, imo. Two times this has happened now, on notable hands, with Yang and Mortensen with his AQ. When someone does that it seems like the thought process goes (same for me when/if I do it), "I have the best hand here, there are some drawing possibilities, this pot is big enough, let's end it right here," and the best way to do that, more than likely, will be to make a big bet, as often happens, in this instance making an opponent muck a superior hand. Jerry had to have thought he had the best hand, and it's hard to imagine him making the move with overcards there, but then again, he was playing very aggressively and that continued to be the case as the final table went on. So, what can Lee put Jerry on? May be difficult to put him on overcards, overcards with a flush draw is conceivable, then jacks comes into mind which is something like a blind spot to queens as well. Gotta be afraid of kings or aces with such a move, it's legitamate to put your opponent on overcards with a flush draw too, or an overpair in general that may be worse than queens. The last option turned out to be the case, Lee made the wrong laydown, it is going to suck to see this on TV for him, but Jerry's reraise range of someone coming in UTG like that would surely have to be fairly small, then on that flop with Jerry's next move it really does seem like tens, jacks, kings, or aces? Idk, probably didn't say anything that hasn't already been said there, may have been going in circles, but I posted it anyway. Oh well.

[papilindo]

yeah, I see your point in calling given that Yang could have been on almost anything due to his recent wild play ...probably more often than not, Childs has him beat. Just don't know if I'd go so far as to say it's one of the worst laydowns ever. Also, I find it interesting that in the interview he claims to have resorted to a semi-bluff to win the pot...I hadn't heard that.

[Persistence]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have said this to virtually everyone here and blogged about it a few times. Lee Child's laydown will go down as the worst lay down in televised poker history. Literally nothing fit for him to lay down that hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I play almost exclusively limit, however it seemed to me that given the strong PF reraise and then insta-push/raise on the flop bet, that it could have been very possible for Yang to be holding AA/KK...his actions seemed to be in line with those hands (at least to me).

[/ QUOTE ]

doesn't justify it at all IMO. if lee is going to lay down QQ to an all-in on that flop, based most largely on the PF reraise, he shouldn't have called the reraise to begin with

[/ QUOTE ]

Great point, already kinda keeps the crap out of what I just typed above.

[papilindo]

[/ QUOTE ]doesn't justify it at all IMO. if lee is going to lay down QQ to an all-in on that flop, based most largely on the PF reraise, he shouldn't have called the reraise to begin with

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point, BUT...if Childs puts Yang on AK etc based on the PF reraise, then a flat call is okay. No A or K comes on the flop so he leads out, again okay. THEN, Yang suddenly insta pushes, and now Childs really HAS to consider the possibility that he is beat by AA/KK and so makes a laydown. If Yang had not been playing wildly, I don't think we'd be having this discussion. Because he was though, now it seems like it may have been the wrong move, but again IMHO not terribly wrong.

[SunyD]

What does everyone think about a check-raise in that situation?

I know it can be a mistake to check to the original raiser, incase he peels off a free card to beat you. However, with as much agression as Jerry was showing, I'm pretty sure he wouldve bet if checked to.

It would have been interesting to see Lee check over to super-aggressive Jerry, and then CRAI. That's if he thought his Queens were good - which he seemed to be doubting even preflop.

[beanie]

[/ QUOTE ]

doesn't justify it at all IMO. if lee is going to lay down QQ to an all-in on that flop, based most largely on the PF reraise, he shouldn't have called the reraise to begin with

[/ QUOTE ]

spot on. Fact is I only think Lee wanted to gamble when he had a set or something. Later he figured out he had been duped and called Jerry with a much more marginal KJ when he felt he needed a gamble.

Of course the guy could have had AA or KK but think about it, really, think about it.

Did he flop a set, no way he plays a set that way.

AA or KK are not options either, they are both short stacked. It was the worst lay down in televised poker history.

Kind of makes you wonder how Childs got to the final table in the first place.

To the guy that says you can play Yang for AA or KK, I could care less if he is playing wild or not. I would just have to take that beat. I actually liked the call with the QQ, that was a decent play IMO.

[Rekrul]

"I put him on a small pair or maybe AQ or AK so I felt like going allin with my jacks to represent pocket aces so that I could make him fold"

Nice poker logic, champ.

Also cute how when he recounts the preflop action of his JJ vs QQ hand he got the fact that he re-raised childs preflop and not vice versa mixed up is pretty laughable.

[freekobe]

[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

doesn't justify it at all IMO. if lee is going to lay down QQ to an all-in on that flop, based most largely on the PF reraise, he shouldn't have called the reraise to begin with

[/ QUOTE ]

spot on. Fact is I only think Lee wanted to gamble when he had a set or something. Later he figured out he had been duped and called Jerry with a much more marginal KJ when he felt he needed a gamble.

Of course the guy could have had AA or KK but think about it, really, think about it.

Did he flop a set, no way he plays a set that way.

AA or KK are not options either, they are both short stacked. It was the worst lay down in televised poker history.

Kind of makes you wonder how Childs got to the final table in the first place.

To the guy that says you can play Yang for AA or KK, I could care less if he is playing wild or not. I would just have to take that beat. I actually liked the call with the QQ, that was a decent play IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Guess you can only go with one read on a hand. Once you make up your mind, got to go with it.

[PBJaxx]

This belongs in BBV: You listened to Phil Gordon talk about poker.