River2Pair
09-01-2004, 02:01 AM
I don't have Super System in front of me, and it was hard to hear all the table talk due to editing and commentating.
But I wonder if it is possible that when Fishman was blathering about queens, if what he was really saying was, "you don't have queens."
In Super System's chapter on no limit hold 'em, Doyle explains how it is possible to lay down kings against a tight opponent. It is basically to ask yourself if it is possible for your opponent to make that same raise with queens or jacks. If you strongly feel the answer is no, then you can lay down kings.
So Doyle open limps with 77 and Fishman makes a 4-5 BB raise with AKo. Doyle pushes. I think it is possible that Fishman made up his mind immediately that he would fold the AK. So when he said he could beat queens, perhaps he was not telling the truth about his hand. Perhaps he was saying to Doyle, "I guess I have to fold my kings, because I know you have aces." And if this is what he was saying, his intent would have been to encourage Doyle to play back at him again when Scott does have a dominating hand.
This would explain why Scott called Doyle's all-in on a later hand with AK against Doyle's KK. Scott would have felt that he set up this opportunity by advertising to Doyle that he was bluffable. The consensus on this message board was that Doyle could only have a premium hand in this situation, because of the all-in player.
But assume for a second that Doyle had a good read on the all-in player. Short-stacked, early position, doesn't want to blind out. The all-in player could have anything. So Doyle's push after Fishman's call could have been to protect his interest in the main pot with all sorts of hands, AT+, KJ+, 99+. Doyle probably actually felt that he did need to protect his hand and not let an ace draw out on him for cheap.
I guess my point is that the play might not have been as bad as it looked at first glance, that Scott would use Doyle's aggression against him, but he just made his stand at the wrong time.
I dislike the crew as much as most as you do, but to say, "Oh he's a chump who finally got what he deserved," might be a bit unfair to a guy who has put up impressive results this year.
But I wonder if it is possible that when Fishman was blathering about queens, if what he was really saying was, "you don't have queens."
In Super System's chapter on no limit hold 'em, Doyle explains how it is possible to lay down kings against a tight opponent. It is basically to ask yourself if it is possible for your opponent to make that same raise with queens or jacks. If you strongly feel the answer is no, then you can lay down kings.
So Doyle open limps with 77 and Fishman makes a 4-5 BB raise with AKo. Doyle pushes. I think it is possible that Fishman made up his mind immediately that he would fold the AK. So when he said he could beat queens, perhaps he was not telling the truth about his hand. Perhaps he was saying to Doyle, "I guess I have to fold my kings, because I know you have aces." And if this is what he was saying, his intent would have been to encourage Doyle to play back at him again when Scott does have a dominating hand.
This would explain why Scott called Doyle's all-in on a later hand with AK against Doyle's KK. Scott would have felt that he set up this opportunity by advertising to Doyle that he was bluffable. The consensus on this message board was that Doyle could only have a premium hand in this situation, because of the all-in player.
But assume for a second that Doyle had a good read on the all-in player. Short-stacked, early position, doesn't want to blind out. The all-in player could have anything. So Doyle's push after Fishman's call could have been to protect his interest in the main pot with all sorts of hands, AT+, KJ+, 99+. Doyle probably actually felt that he did need to protect his hand and not let an ace draw out on him for cheap.
I guess my point is that the play might not have been as bad as it looked at first glance, that Scott would use Doyle's aggression against him, but he just made his stand at the wrong time.
I dislike the crew as much as most as you do, but to say, "Oh he's a chump who finally got what he deserved," might be a bit unfair to a guy who has put up impressive results this year.