Ivey AK vs. Brunson QQ

[lolita16]

I would like to hear others opinions on this hand as I would not have played the hand the way that Phil Ivey did. Doyle limps in under the gun, Phil makes the standard raise, then Doyle pushes all in for about 7 times the raise amount. Hmmmm. If you put Doyle on the possible hands he would play this way, we have AA, KK, QQ, AKs.

There are normally 6 ways to make aces or kings, though if you have one of each that is reduced to 3 each. QQ can be made 6 ways and AK now at 9 ways. Out of all of these hands Phil is a huge dog 6 out of 21 times, a small dog 6 out of 21 times, and dead even the remaining 9 out of 21 times (or still a small dog if Doyle is suited). Perhaps he is thinking that Doyle would play many other hands here but to me the limp then all in play is very strong.

Am I missing something here or was this a misstep by the great Phil Ivey? (not trying to be sarcastic here; I truly think he is one of the very best players out there).

Regards-

[ohgeetee]

Actually I think AA and KK would call the reraise, or make another normal reraise, and the AK hand would push all in. You want AA and KK called for as much as possible, but AK given a choice, I think taking off with the current pot is good stuff. I bet Phil was at least 80% that doyle was on AK or possibly even AQ or AJ by the way he played the hand.

[lolita16]

Interesting analysis. I would have put Doyle on the grouping of hands that I mentioned as he specifically talks about AQ on down, and KQ on down as troublesome hands. From Super System: "You should commit to memory the following list of trouble hands. I call them that because that's exactly what they are... and I only play them in borderline situations. They're hands you can lose a lot of money with... so you should play them very cautiously. You don't want to jeopardize much money with them." (p. 505)

Based on this analysis, I would not have called the all in.

Regards-

[AJo Go All In]

ivey opens a lot of pots, he will not be strong enough to call a reraise much of the time. for this reason doyle could be moving in with a wide range of hands. (see his Q8 move in the WPT championships '03).

also your comments relating to his book are completely irrelevant to the discussion.

[Don_Lapre]

I believe Doyle and Phil play together regularly in cash games, Phil might have picked something up on Doyle or been aware of how he has played similiar hands in past. I also think it's hard to judge what is really going on during that tournament, it seems like, big all in hand, commercial, new chip count, player interview, big all in hand, commercial, etc.

DL

[beanie]

Actually didn't Doyle limp and Phil came over the top and then Doyle went all in. I was thinking Doyle could be the one criticized. Why not call? Phil has to call the all in with AK, he has too many chips committed.

Also, as someone points out later in the thread, maybe Phil picked up something in cash games against Doyle. Like what? How to coin flip. I would be the last person to criticize a guy for taking a coin flip with the best hand but Doyle could have controlled the pot better by calling. If it isn't in his new book it should be. In NL hold-em the first person to act often controls the pot.

[SpiderMnkE]

Don Lapre... haha.. didn't I see him teaching how to make millions by placing tiny classified ads in newspapers.

Is this the real Don Lapre.. or just one of his fans?

[Beavis68]

Yeah, Doyle limped, Gus limped, and Ivey made a REALLY big bet, like 7+BBs.

I actually like Doyle's play the least, I don't understand trying to trap with QQ.

[Richard Tanner]

I would think that Doyle's play was designed to trip the hyper-aggesive Hansen in a raise and the move-in. He probably didn't count on anyone else raising the pot and if they did he could just move-in anyway.

Cody

[Beavis68]

Then that was a mistake too, Gus was only one player at the table, and Doyle was first to act.

[lolita16]

I mentioned Doyle's book comments about AQ on down as the previous poster stated that he thought Ivey had put Doyle on a hand like AQ. His comments about trouble hands were mentioned specifically because I *do not* think it is reasonable to put him on a hand like AQ on down based on the way that he played the hand and his comments about trouble hands. I felt it was quite relevant to this discussion.

Has this forum always been this antagonistic or is this a recent development?

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
If you put Doyle on the possible hands he would play this way, we have AA, KK, QQ, AKs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is the problem with your analysis. Doyle will do this with many more hands.

During the internet coverage of the WSOP main event, there were reports that Doyle was going all-in over and over when the tournament got to the bubble for payouts. Nobody was willing to call the all-in bet because they didn't want to be the guy who busted out one spot from a $10,000 payout.

Doyle doesn't need cards to push all-in. He just needs to think you will fold.

[dakine]

Dynasty..Very good point.

[AJo Go All In]

a tournament is different from a cash game. the stuff about "trouble hands" that you are talking about is for cash games, not tournaments. so no, none of it is relevant. at all.

[Tosh]

[ QUOTE ]
(see his Q8 move in the WPT championships '03).


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you on what you said, but that move was against Alan Goehring.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you put Doyle on the possible hands he would play this way, we have AA, KK, QQ, AKs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is the problem with your analysis. Doyle will do this with many more hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tonight, we saw a WSOP hand where Doyle limp-reraised with 77.