|
|
#1
11-14-2006, 08:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
interesting hand from foxwoods wpt
Loi Phan Doubles
Loi Phan raises $90,000 and Kathy Liebert re-raises $250,000 total. Phan pushes all in for an additional $200,000. Despite accidently exposing his hand, Phan still receives a call from Liebert. Phan shows the AhKh and Liebert turns over the AsJc. The board brings the AA1093 and Phan doubles up to over $1 million. assuming the card player report is correct (and this is a bold assumption), the blinds were 10/20k with a 3k ante. there were 14 players left so 7 on each table. that makes 51k in the pot to begin with, plus phan's 90k, kathy's raise to 250k, and the additional 360k phan put in after his original opening bet. that would be 750k in the middle, giving kathy 3.75 : 1 on her call of 200k. now once phan exposes his hand, kathy knows what kind of trouble she is in. she is 22% to win, 73% to lose, and just under 5% to tie. this makes her a 3.3 : 1 dog. should she make the call? p.s. kathy is the chipleader at this juncture with between 1.5 and 2mil in chips, which could definitely play a role in her decision here. what do you do if you start the hand with 1 mil? 800k? 
|
|
#2
11-14-2006, 08:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: interesting hand from foxwoods wpt
Sick call by Kathy, I think. Just very marginally wrong and unnecessary, and a fundamental mistake with that chiplead.
t960k.
|
|
#4
11-15-2006, 04:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: interesting hand from foxwoods wpt
She's getting 3.75:1 when she needs 3.3:1 to call. She's chip leader and won't be crippled by the call. Looks pretty basic to me that she'd toss the extra 200k in when she saw she had the correct odds.
I'm sure a lot of this went through her head when she made the original raise and she knew if Phan pushed she'd be making the call.
|
|
#5
11-15-2006, 04:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: interesting hand from foxwoods wpt
[ QUOTE ]
giving kathy 3.75 : 1 on her call of 200k. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] this makes her a 3.3 : 1 dog [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] should she make the call? [/ QUOTE ] Am I missing something here? Isn't the answer obviously yes?
|
|
#6
11-15-2006, 04:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: interesting hand from foxwoods wpt
[ QUOTE ]
Am I missing something here? Isn't the answer obviously yes? [/ QUOTE ] You forgot to mention that she has chips to gamble with.
|
|
#7
11-15-2006, 05:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: interesting hand from foxwoods wpt
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Am I missing something here? Isn't the answer obviously yes? [/ QUOTE ] You forgot to mention that she has chips to gamble with. [/ QUOTE ] But she's not "gambling." She's making a correct +EV play. Unless you were being sarcastic, in which case [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]
|
|
#8
11-15-2006, 05:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: interesting hand from foxwoods wpt
Heh.
Agreeing with me on anything is bad for your tournament life. [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img] Like I said, sick call.
|
|
#9
11-15-2006, 06:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: interesting hand from foxwoods wpt
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Am I missing something here? Isn't the answer obviously yes? [/ QUOTE ] You forgot to mention that she has chips to gamble with. [/ QUOTE ] But she's not "gambling." She's making a correct +EV play. Unless you were being sarcastic, in which case [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] She's still "gambling" she's just gambling with an edge.
|
|
#10
11-15-2006, 09:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: interesting hand from foxwoods wpt
Semantics, but I don't think that's gambling.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
