Fossilman's rebluff hand vs the chip leader

[Daliman]

Amazing that in the hand where Greg twice went at the chip leader with nothing, if he had only gone allin on the turn rather than make a 200k bet that seems too big to fold from, he wins the hand either way.

Imagine what he could have done if he won that hand by being a BIT more aggressive than he already was?

Ah, what if?

[Smasharoo]

if he had only gone allin on the turn rather than make a 200k bet that seems too big to fold from, he wins the hand either way.


It worked out that way, but pushing all of his chips in against a bigger stack wouldn't have been a terribly good idea there. Sometimes you get called. When you get reraised for 200K you can get away from it and survive.

[NUReedy]

Are you talking about the hand where he had AKh against Murphy's JJ? I wouldn't exactly call thata rebluff

[eMarkM]

I think it was the T9o (I think) hand where he had nothing, not even much of a draw, and the chip leader (Murphy) had 53h giving him a flush draw and a gut shot who then went all-in to push him off.

[Ghazban]

That hand against Murphy was a beaut. I think they both played it well. Murphy looked more experienced than his 21 years would figure with the way that played out.

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine what he could have done if he won that hand by being a BIT more aggressive than he already was?

Ah, what if?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, you know Fossilman might have finished higher in the tourney than he actually did if he won that pot. Oh well.

[unfrgvn]

My thinking when I watched that hand was this looks like the sort of mistake I make. Limp in and the BB gets a free flop, then lose way too much trying to win a small(at the time) pot.

The hand that impressed me was the Q2o hand. I'm with Norman Chad on that one, that is a play I probably can't make in that spot.

[jwvdcw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Imagine what he could have done if he won that hand by being a BIT more aggressive than he already was?

Ah, what if?

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Yeah, you know Fossilman might have finished higher in the tourney than he actually did if he won that pot. Oh well.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Dominic]

that was one of the best moves I've seen this year...Murphy re-raises with a 5 high! Okay, so he had one more card to catch his flush and/or gutshot straight...but still...

[z32fanatic]

[ QUOTE ]
My thinking when I watched that hand was this looks like the sort of mistake I make. Limp in and the BB gets a free flop, then lose way too much trying to win a small(at the time) pot.

The hand that impressed me was the Q2o hand. I'm with Norman Chad on that one, that is a play I probably can't make in that spot.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree this was the most well played hand I've seen. He knows the guy can't call with a pair of 9s, and he was committing 2/3rds of his chips to the pot, meaning he most definitely has something. Great play.

[woodguy]

I played at the same table as John Murphy on the 1st day and hung out a bit with him on the breaks, and he was capable of anything.

About 3 hrs in he was down to 3,000 and made a great comeback with very aggressive play.

Some of the other players were dying to play back at him and when they did, he usually had a hand.

He pushed all his chips in the middle at least 3 times before the table broke (one of the 1st to break), he only called-all in once, and it was a great call.

John raised 3xbb, in LP, BB (solid player, table chip leader, outchipped Johh by about 2000, BB also was steaming at John for betting him out of pots) calls.

Flop come rags, BB checks, John bets the pot, BB come over the top all in....John thinks for about 5 minutes and then calls all his chips with KK, BB turns over 77 (no 7 on board), and John was off to the races.

I would say John was a little reckless at times, but it seemed to work for him.

regards,
woodguy

[gergery]

I didn’t realize you went –how did you do?

And what did you think of the play there?

-g

[Tyler Durden]

You didn't ask me but I'll tell you anyway. I thought most of the play wasn't too good on the first day of play. Pretty much the same on the second day. But on cash day, seemed like everyone came to play.

[woodguy]

I agree with Tyler. Pretty basic and some really bad play on Day 1.
I didn't do too well.
Busted out on Day 2 (Monday) when the board was showing 755 left.
Ended day 1 with $10,025 after being as low as $4000 (you start with $10,000). Never really got a hand on day 2, and got into all in mode had my QQ busted by AQs who hit their flush.

Was really card dead the entire time I played. Biggest hand I had was QQ (3 time) and JJ (twice). No AA, KK, or AK at all!!!!

Biggest regret of the tourney:

Day 2 and I start the day at Phil Helmuth's table. We all get moved upstairs after an hour or so and re-settle in.

This is the hand Helmuth described in card player mag, where one player said raise, but only put enough chips in for a call as he didn't see that someone had already raised.

The player to my right had made the raise (min-raise) and I was about to go fishing with 33.

I fold, and of course a 3 flops with 2 other low cards, and Helmuth was slowplaying JJ.

If I would have had to balls to call the minraise (I was going to call Phil's limp), I would have had a chance to put a big dent in Helmuth's stack, based on what he said in his cardplayer article.

Oh well. Got a free trip out of the deal.

regards,
woodguy

[Desdia72]

should have never even bet 2 cents on that hand? nothing about Raymer's play on that hand was impressive no matter how bold it looked. had it been some no-name schmuck, internet qualifier from Let'sPlayPoker.com who busted out in 1156th place trying to muscle a guy with more chips off a hand with equal crap...y'all would be saying how stupid could the guy be. now that everybody in 2+2 knows Greg won, the fact that the hand was awful get's pushed aside. a $2 MTT player makes that play, he could'nt possibly know any better how awful he is. Greg makes that play, then "what a bold display of Van Gogh artistry". gimme a break. crap is crap. you can't sprinkle sugar on a pile of dog turds and then try to pass if off as a sweet, chocolatey bakery delight.

[Greg (FossilMan)]

I think I know exactly what you're saying. There is no way to tell the difference here between two maniacs, and two great players. I sensed that Murphy was weak, and didn't want a call, so I raised. He apparently did the same thing, and reraised me. Unfortunately, he got to put in the last raise, and that won him the pot. If his all-in raise had been smaller, and left him with enough chips for him to not be potstuck, I would've raised again, and bluffed him out.

I think.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[nolanfan34]

Man, you are way too nice. Very good response.

[midas]

Greg:

Are you playing in every big tournament these days?

BTW, Matusow's constant shaking would have driven me nuts after about 5 minutes!!!

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I know exactly what you're saying. There is no way to tell the difference here between two maniacs, and two great players. I sensed that Murphy was weak, and didn't want a call, so I raised. He apparently did the same thing, and reraised me. Unfortunately, he got to put in the last raise, and that won him the pot. If his all-in raise had been smaller, and left him with enough chips for him to not be potstuck, I would've raised again, and bluffed him out.

I think.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[/ QUOTE ]

like it was some of the best poker this side of a $3000-$6000 game in Vegas. people will applaude you for playing and losing those amount of chips with a crap hand by the way you explain it (the thought process of a cagey, skilled professional) but if a novice were to post this hand in a crapshoot freeroll or $5 NL tourney online, they'd get lit up on like the Christmas tree in Rockefeller Center. i did'nt like the hand one bit, so anybody trying to make it look like a work of art is over-embellishing.

[Daliman]

I guess you just don't get it then, do you? Not like he just rebluffed with QT preflop and then had to cll the allin that followed....

When you see a great player call a 89K 2 heart flop with 44 in position, then bet the turn after his opponent checks, you are seeing a great play usually, borne of many different reasonings, thoughts, and observations.

When you see a poor player make the same play, he is making it because he thinks his 4's are good.

This is also comparative to the phenomenon of non-pot-commited people calling allin reraises with hands like 44 saying " I put you on overs...". Most great players won't make this play, and when they do, they are HOPING for overs only.


You should work on figuring out the difference.

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]

like it was some of the best poker this side of a $3000-$6000 game in Vegas. people will applaude you for playing and losing those amount of chips with a crap hand by the way you explain it (the thought process of a cagey, skilled professional) but if a novice were to post this hand in a crapshoot freeroll or $5 NL tourney online, they'd get lit up on like the Christmas tree in Rockefeller Center. i did'nt like the hand one bit, so anybody trying to make it look like a work of art is over-embellishing.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a difference here. Greg and Murphy are good players. People at a $5 SnG generally aren't.

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

like it was some of the best poker this side of a $3000-$6000 game in Vegas. people will applaude you for playing and losing those amount of chips with a crap hand by the way you explain it (the thought process of a cagey, skilled professional) but if a novice were to post this hand in a crapshoot freeroll or $5 NL tourney online, they'd get lit up on like the Christmas tree in Rockefeller Center. i did'nt like the hand one bit, so anybody trying to make it look like a work of art is over-embellishing.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a difference here. Greg and Murphy are good players. People at a $5 SnG generally aren't.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's also a little more on the line in the WSOP. The other main difference that makes Greg and John's plays impressive, is the fact that it's live play. You can't make that kind of read online, basing a play on someone being weak or betting weak. Live play you can do that, they both made great reads of each other, which makes it impressive.

I don't think Greg or anyone else is immune from criticism here. In fact, when they air the final table, I'm pretty sure there's a hand involving Greg and Mattias Andersson that people are going to say Greg made a poor play. Not saying I think that necessarily, but there will probably be a discussion about it.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess you just don't get it then, do you? Not like he just rebluffed with QT preflop and then had to cll the allin that followed....

When you see a great player call a 89K 2 heart flop with 44 in position, then bet the turn after his opponent checks, you are seeing a great play usually, borne of many different reasonings, thoughts, and observations.

When you see a poor player make the same play, he is making it because he thinks his 4's are good.

You should work on figuring out the difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

that's not the purpose of what i wrote. IMO, neither player should have even been in the hand. if the read is that good with both players bluffing with crap hands, then Greg makes the call, wins the hand at the showdown, further getting more brown-nosing from this board. i've often made the same type of reads in a $5 + $.50 SNG with better holdings only to get sucked out of the river. does that make me a poor player because i figured right and lost? i don't need to work on figuring the difference. the end result to all that world class reading and observation was a loss of chips. because he's Greg Raymer, it was great play. had it been some unknown schmuck who had the same thought process, i don't see the same heaping of praise. simply put, i don't distinguish a loss of chips on a play whether it involves good reads, bluffing, or neolithic ineptitude--- regardless of the skill level of the player. a lost pot is a lost pot.
all the great reading and professional thought processing
in the world is'nt gonna change that. that's putting that hand in it's bare bones proper perspective- no chaser.

[Cleveland Guy]

There is also a huge difference in stack sizes/vs. Blinds that they were playing with vs. what we do online most of the time.

They had the chips that they could fold after a 200K bluff.

When online the average stack is maybe 20BB we don't have that chance

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
had it been some unknown schmuck who had the same thought process, i don't see the same heaping of praise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh really? There have been plenty of times people have posted about unknowns (at the time) making great moves against the pros or others. The live Fox tournament that featured some great poker between Phil Ivey and John D'Augustino (I don't think I'm spelling that correctly), had a lot of posts talking about some great plays that John made, great reads, etc. I think to most people he was an "unknown schmuck" beforehand.

If you can't handle the Greg Raymer fandom, I'd suggest not reading this part of the forum for a while. And as I said before, parts of his play will be discussed and criticized before the episodes are over.

[ThaSaltCracka]

Greg,
You should change your location to :swimming in piles of cash.
That would be awesome.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
IMO, neither player should have even been in the hand. if the read is that good with both players bluffing with crap hands, then Greg makes the call, wins the hand at the showdown, further getting more brown-nosing from this board.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, so, your contention is that the best play for Greg was to call there, which, though right, would have been completely ludicrous. Just because you know someone is bluffing doesn't mean you call Ten high, just like Mcmanus did with Q high vs. Ellix powers; yeah, he was bluffing, but you gotta have SOME kind of hand to call with.
As far as some no name making the same play and getting praise;

John Murphy- Chip leader going vs another big stack, pressed vs what looked like a semi-commiting bet with a 28% chance to win the hand, maximum.


Great play-unknown player. Your argument again shot to pieces.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
There's a difference here. Greg and Murphy are good players. People at a $5 SnG generally aren't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, Greg is an excellent player and there's a lot of data to support that, not just this single tourney win. Now, what makes you think Murphy is a good player? Just curious.

[Punker]

"simply put, i don't distinguish a loss of chips on a play whether it involves good reads, bluffing, or neolithic ineptitude--- regardless of the skill level of the player"

You are wrong - it really is about you not getting it if you believe this statement. The reason behind your actions is what makes you a winning player, not the actual play itself.

[AceFace]

(Not a direct attempt to answer your question, but just an observation)

Seeing John Murphy sit at the table with a good stack, the way he was conducting himself left a strong impression on me. He seemed to have a quiet confidence about him and his play just reinforced this perception. He was fearless and decisive and he obviously knew what he was doing.

Again, this was such a contrast to the obnoxious "crew", especially Scott Fis(c)hman.

I remember John Murphy went out in 14th place or something like that, and the people reporting the event as it unfolded were very impressed with the kid and disappointed with his exit.

He's only 21, so he hasn't had enough time to really prove a lot, but he seems to have a great feel for the game and a strong table presence.

I hope he continues to do well.

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's a difference here. Greg and Murphy are good players. People at a $5 SnG generally aren't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, Greg is an excellent player and there's a lot of data to support that, not just this single tourney win. Now, what makes you think Murphy is a good player? Just curious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just a feeling really. Nothing more than that. The ability to lay down JJ in a situation like that is one that would separate him from the normal Party $5 player. He's also built up a good chip stack during the tournament and seems to handle himself with confidence.

Do I KNOW that he's a good player? No. But it seemed like he was playing pretty well.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
had it been some unknown schmuck who had the same thought process, i don't see the same heaping of praise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh really? There have been plenty of times people have posted about unknowns (at the time) making great moves against the pros or others. The live Fox tournament that featured some great poker between Phil Ivey and John D'Augustino (I don't think I'm spelling that correctly), had a lot of posts talking about some great plays that John made, great reads, etc. I think to most people he was an "unknown schmuck" beforehand.

If you can't handle the Greg Raymer fandom, I'd suggest not reading this part of the forum for a while. And as I said before, parts of his play will be discussed and criticized before the episodes are over.

[/ QUOTE ]

Greg Raymer fandom. you guys can fan it up all you want, it's a free country. however, when you put the hand put in it's proper perspective--- he did'nt gain any chips; he bled them off on a bluff with a crap hand. it does'nt matter to me if the hand was played on Pokerstars or at the Horseshoe. it does'nt matter to me whether it was a $5 Party SNG maniac who played the hand or Barry Greenstein. it has nothing to do with Greg Raymer or John Murphy. i have a problem with the hand period and don't think any kind of praise is due on either side. some of you seem to be taking this as an assassination to Greg's character or something. it's not about him, it's the hand itself.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IMO, neither player should have even been in the hand. if the read is that good with both players bluffing with crap hands, then Greg makes the call, wins the hand at the showdown, further getting more brown-nosing from this board.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, so, your contention is that the best play for Greg was to call there, which, though right, would have been completely ludicrous. Just because you know someone is bluffing doesn't mean you call Ten high, just like Mcmanus did with Q high vs. Ellix powers; yeah, he was bluffing, but you gotta have SOME kind of hand to call with.
As far as some no name making the same play and getting praise;

John Murphy- Chip leader going vs another big stack, pressed vs what looked like a semi-commiting bet with a 28% chance to win the hand, maximum.


Great play-unknown player. Your argument again shot to pieces.

[/ QUOTE ]

post, i said that neither should have been in on the hand in the first place. the only reason why i said he should've called is because you were on the play so hard about how good his read was. i was like, "well, if the read was so great, he makes the call, etc". as far as J Murphy is concerned, i consider him very fortunate to even win the hand.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
the only reason why i said he should've called is because you were on the play so hard about how good his read was. i was like, "well, if the read was so great, he makes the call, etc".

[/ QUOTE ]


Please tell me where is said the read was good.

[gergery]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
had it been some unknown schmuck who had the same thought process, i don't see the same heaping of praise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh really? There have been plenty of times people have posted about unknowns (at the time) making great moves against the pros or others. The live Fox tournament that featured some great poker between Phil Ivey and John D'Augustino (I don't think I'm spelling that correctly), had a lot of posts talking about some great plays that John made, great reads, etc. I think to most people he was an "unknown schmuck" beforehand.

If you can't handle the Greg Raymer fandom, I'd suggest not reading this part of the forum for a while. And as I said before, parts of his play will be discussed and criticized before the episodes are over.

[/ QUOTE ]

Greg Raymer fandom. you guys can fan it up all you want, it's a free country. however, when you put the hand put in it's proper perspective--- he did'nt gain any chips; he bled them off on a bluff with a crap hand. it does'nt matter to me if the hand was played on Pokerstars or at the Horseshoe. it does'nt matter to me whether it was a $5 Party SNG maniac who played the hand or Barry Greenstein. it has nothing to do with Greg Raymer or John Murphy. i have a problem with the hand period and don't think any kind of praise is due on either side. some of you seem to be taking this as an assassination to Greg's character or something. it's not about him, it's the hand itself.

[/ QUOTE ]



The difference here is not what cards are played or what bets are made, but rather WHY the plays are made. And the reasons that Raymer/Murphy tend to make plays tend to be better reasons with more positive EV than $5 sng players.

And since he has posted here for years generously sharing his insight on poker which is more than 99% of top poker players have done (and which has been universally cited on these boards as excellent advice), AND he got some great success, what’s so wrong with a little adulation from these boards? Sure he got lucky to win, but probably less lucky than the “typical” winner of a 2500 person NL event.

--Greg

[citanul]

I've been reading through all this crap, and I'm wondering, is what you're actually saying in this thread that any time you make a bluff and lose chips, you have made a bad play? That seems to be the gist of it.

Greg and John were able to play hands that you wouldn't have played for many reasons, preflop. Their post flop play you don't understand and are unwilling to understand that once a pot is heads up, it's heads up. Then there's chips in the middle, and chips in front of you. You then go to war for said chips. That's what they were doing. If you happen to bluff and are forced to fold, that means that the other guy won the battle this time. If you bluff and take down the pot, you won the battle.

I just don't see where your argument that they shouldn't have been in the hand takes root.

As for "if you had made the same play, etc" I think that's all a load of horse poo too. Personally, I don't think you could possibly get the same kind of reads on a $5 sng that one does sitting at a live table of any tiype, but if you were to correctly play at someone, with a "bluff" (especially if your "bluff" was a stronger holding than your opponent's) and he calls you down and you lose on the river, you lost a hand. You may have played it well and your opponent played it poorly, but your better hand lost to an at the time worse hand. If you had the worst hand and he called, he read you well, maybe. Maybe he just plays bad.

It's early in my out-late-last-night worled. So I hope any of that makes sense.

citanul

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
I've been reading through all this crap, and I'm wondering, is what you're actually saying in this thread that any time you make a bluff and lose chips, you have made a bad play? That seems to be the gist of it.

Greg and John were able to play hands that you wouldn't have played for many reasons, preflop. Their post flop play you don't understand and are unwilling to understand that once a pot is heads up, it's heads up. Then there's chips in the middle, and chips in front of you. You then go to war for said chips. That's what they were doing. If you happen to bluff and are forced to fold, that means that the other guy won the battle this time. If you bluff and take down the pot, you won the battle.

I just don't see where your argument that they shouldn't have been in the hand takes root.

As for "if you had made the same play, etc" I think that's all a load of horse poo too. Personally, I don't think you could possibly get the same kind of reads on a $5 sng that one does sitting at a live table of any tiype, but if you were to correctly play at someone, with a "bluff" (especially if your "bluff" was a stronger holding than your opponent's) and he calls you down and you lose on the river, you lost a hand. You may have played it well and your opponent played it poorly, but your better hand lost to an at the time worse hand. If you had the worst hand and he called, he read you well, maybe. Maybe he just plays bad.

It's early in my out-late-last-night worled. So I hope any of that makes sense.

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

chips, i'm not saying all bluffing is bad. you gotta be able to pull of some every now and then in NL poker to be successful. however, take a look at Greg's holding. i think he had 10 3 offsuit. it's a bad hand to bluff with, IMO. it's not suited, it has no connectivity, etc. let me give you an example:

let's say you raise with 10 /images/graemlins/spade.gif 3 /images/graemlins/heart.gif and you get three callers, one being someone with A /images/graemlins/heart.gif10 /images/graemlins/heart.gif. now let's say the board hits 10 /images/graemlins/club.gif10 /images/graemlins/diamond.gifQ /images/graemlins/spade.gif. you bet strong at the pot with trip 10s, two players fold, and the guy with the Ace 10-suited hand reraises you. this is an example of how being aggressive with a crap hand like 10 3o
can have catastrophic consequences. you're now in some deep dog manure. a Queen will help you because there will be a split pot, provided an Ace does'nt fall on the river. your best hope is a 3, no Queen, and no Ace. overall, you're in a bad spot IMO. the guy with Ace 10-suited can win as is, he can win with a Jack and a King for a straight, he can win with another Ace (providing a 3 drops also- further dog crap)...you can see where i'm going with this. that's what i mean by not being in on the hand at all. when i look at a hand to bluff with, one of the primary things i consider is, "How well will this hand do unimproved? do i have to worry about kicker issues if i flop a pair or trips? would my hand be vulnerable to flush and straight possibilities if it's unsuited and is too far from being connected (i.e 10 3 offsuit? if i got into a battle of fullhouses with someone else that has a 10 like me, can my fullhouse stand up as the nuts? if i try to bluff with this hand and raise, can my hand stand a reraise? if i raise with this holding, what are the type of hands my opponents will call with, and how many of those hands will i be a favorite over? even though i'm a $5 SNG player, i try to think the way a more skillful and successful player thinks when playing the hands i play. so when i do bluff, it's either gonna work or i'm gonna lose the least amount of chips possible. i see nothing good about bluffing off a bunch of chips with a hand like 10 3o, even if you sniffed weakness in an opponent and even if you have chips to burn. if you happen to have a successful bluff with that hand, i consider you fortunate to have not run into a better hand. either way, i don't see anything spectacular about it.

[AJo Go All In]

the problem is, it makes no sense to make rebluff plays in a $5 SNG because of the kind of opponents you face. that's why you're an idiot if you try the same play.

also, if you are playing $5 SNGs, you are not a good player. sorry.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
the problem is, it makes no sense to make rebluff plays in a $5 SNG because of the kind of opponents you face. that's why you're an idiot if you try the same play.

also, if you are playing $5 SNGs, you are not a good player. sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]

it's typical of somebody that does'nt take into account that i have less than a year of poker playing experience and when trying to further learn the nuiances of the game, a $5 SNG is where i should be. secondly, i was speaking of reads i made in a $5 SNG with a better holding (say TPTK only to have the player catch his card on the river) not a rebluff. i know better than to try rebluffs at the lower levels. thirdly, why apologize about saying, "you're not a good player if you're playing $5 SNGs". sounds like it was something you meant to say.

[citanul]

Edit: I believe his holding was T9o, I could be wrong.

I think you're missing the point of the idea of a bluff.

We're not talking about a semi bluff.

We're talking "I either expect, want, or both my opponent to fold."

Several times throughout this thread you also have the problem that you're assuming a good player (Greg) won't be able to get away from a "bluff" hand if it hits the flop. This appears to possibly be a problem with your play, not most top end players. The idea that the first thing you look for in a bluffing hand is how it will do at showdown unimproved is clear proof of this. The first thing you should look for in a bluffing hand is how often it will win the pot because everyone folds. Hands with showdown value of likely strong draws are actual hands. These hands that are suited and connected, or have high card value, those are like, good hands! Hands like Q3o, when played, are _usually_ bluffs. (I'm guessing almost always from a good player.)

Your imaginary bluff hand with T3o is a complete load of garbage, as is your apparent definition of bluff. Yes, sometimes, you will get trapped if you bluff and flop huge and someone else flops bigger. Oh No! Don't play NL poker if this is your fear. Don't play poker if this is your fear! What next "Take the following example, you raise preflop with KK, and are called by a player on the button. The flop comes AAK and you bet big and are reraised by the button. You are now in a big pile of doo doo! Because, after all, making up all the hands in the example, your opponenet has AA." If you want, I could list your outs at this point, as you did 'none.'

Jeez. There are plays that are good plays in the right situation, and then there are plays that are not good plays. If you made an identical play in a $5 sng, and took down the pot, people would be fine with the play. You could post it, and people would be proud of you. It is, however, unlikely that another player at a $5 sng will have given you a raise with 35h and then call a reraise. (Then again, I've never played the 5s, that might be exactly as bad as the players are.)

So, in summary: Good players are able to play better post flop. Bluffs are not necessarilly done with good hands. Plays that work at high levels don't necessarilly work on low levels. Reads are good.

Sorry this got wordy.

citanul

[nothumb]

So what you're saying is, you're not good enough to play in the 10+1 SNG's at Party Poker, but you're good enough to critique the play of a World Champion?

Interesting. I think you're probably right on one, but not both of those counts.

NT

[AJo Go All In]

[ QUOTE ]
it's typical of somebody that does'nt take into account that i have less than a year of poker playing experience and when trying to further learn the nuiances of the game, a $5 SNG is where i should be.

[/ QUOTE ]

your experience is irrelevant. if a 1-month-old baby knew that a flush beat a straight, it wouldn't make him a good poker player.

[ QUOTE ]
secondly, i was speaking of reads i made in a $5 SNG with a better holding (say TPTK only to have the player catch his card on the river) not a rebluff.

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't know who would call you an idiot for getting all your money in as a significant favorite.

[ QUOTE ]
thirdly, why apologize about saying, "you're not a good player if you're playing $5 SNGs". sounds like it was something you meant to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm not apologizing for saying it. i'm sorry that it had to be said.

i don't think greg's play was particularly great here. he made a bad read that the kid could be pushed around and clearly he couldn't. fine. but, if you never get caught bluffing, then you are probably not bluffing enough.

[siccjay]

[ QUOTE ]
it's typical of somebody that does'nt take into account that i have less than a year of poker playing experience and when trying to further learn the nuiances of the game, a $5 SNG is where i should be. secondly, i was speaking of reads i made in a $5 SNG with a better holding (say TPTK only to have the player catch his card on the river) not a rebluff. i know better than to try rebluffs at the lower levels. thirdly, why apologize about saying, "you're not a good player if you're playing $5 SNGs". sounds like it was something you meant to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

Looks like you have no where near the live poker experience to even comment on this hand.

You can't even begin to make plays like this at $5 SnG's because players don't lay anything down. Not because they have good reads but because they have NO reads.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
So what you're saying is, you're not good enough to play in the 10+1 SNG's at Party Poker, but you're good enough to critique the play of a World Champion?

Interesting. I think you're probably right on one, but not both of those counts.

NT

[/ QUOTE ]

play in a Party $10 + $1 SNG? i play exclusively on PS, so Party SNGs were'nt even discussed. also, i would'nt care if George Dubya was World Champion and played the same hand, i still would comment on it. AJo said nearly the same thing in his response back to me and i'm sure he's not on Greg's level either.

[lolita16]

Desdia,

The only problem I see with your assessment of the hand is the reality of what Greg's hand was. I, like you, frequently have to resort to calling someone down who keeps firing at me when I sense their hand is weak. The problem with raising these overaggressors is that they will frequently rebluff with the same garbage they have been firing with.

The problem in this particular hand for Greg, was that if I remember the hand correctly he had a 10 high. When John bet the flop and Greg sensed weakness, he was not really in a spot to simply call down the maniac. I have called down many a bully with a small pair or A, sometimes even K high, but I don't recall ever calling someone down with a 10 high. Like you, I would have probably folded here if I had been in Greg's spot, but I can also see the rationalization behind raising.

To me the huge mistake made in this hand was John's. Likely also the reason he didn't make the final table even with a massive chip lead at that point. He got lucky that Greg didn't have a minimum "call the maniac down with" hand.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
Desdia,

The only problem I see with your assessment of the hand is the reality of what Greg's hand was. I, like you, frequently have to resort to calling someone down who keeps firing at me when I sense their hand is weak. The problem with raising these overaggressors is that they will frequently rebluff with the same garbage they have been firing with.

The problem in this particular hand for Greg, was that if I remember the hand correctly he had a 10 high. When John bet the flop and Greg sensed weakness, he was not really in a spot to simply call down the maniac. I have called down many a bully with a small pair or A, sometimes even K high, but I don't recall ever calling someone down with a 10 high. Like you, I would have probably folded here if I had been in Greg's spot, but I can also see the rationalization behind raising.

To me the huge mistake made in this hand was John's. Likely also the reason he didn't make the final table even with a massive chip lead at that point. He got lucky that Greg didn't have a minimum "call the maniac down with" hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

assessment and i feel you don't have to be a world class player or at least on Greg's level in order to make it. i feel that his [Greg's] feeling that John was weak on the flop may have been an oversight, especially considering his 10 high hand. John could have had an A x hand that did'nt connect with the board and Greg could've still bleed off the same amount of chips going off what he perceived was weakness. i've run into scenarios in SNGs and MTTs online where i sensed weakness, bluffed strong at a pot, then got out when the guy made a confident call (later checked and did'nt bluff anymore chips)or robust reraise. alot of times in those instances, the guy actually showed his hand letting me know, "nice try, but i had a monster". in other instances, could i have had the best of it without a made hand with the correct read? sure, but i don't consider that
anything worthy of starting a thread over, especially when my chips are in another player's stack. had i started this same thread [authored by Daliman] detailing the same type of hand from a $5 SNG with 10-high against 5-high and explained it the same way Greg did, i don't see the same type of praise. most forumers don't even respect the level of play at that level (as evidenced by the comments of folks like AJo).

[nothumb]

Well, excuse me for not knowing what site you grind out your $5 SNG wins on. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif The point remains the same.

You are welcome to comment on Greg's play; every other hack under the sun does the same thing when he watches it on TV. Just prepare to be ridiculed when the multitude of players with even a modicum of live experience point out that you'd be better qualified to discuss quantum physics. As a stubborn, arrogant ass I will tell you I can smell my own and since you don't know a damn thing it would be best if you STFU.

NT

[J.A.Sucker]

I will bet a pretty penny that Murphy laid down that JJ to Raymer for one reason: he didn't want to be busted out on his first hand at the TV table. Realize that I have played live NL games with John for awhile. Granted, it was the right play, but not one that he would make if he had been sitting there for awhile.

[citanul]

Not to pick at nits,

I've never played with him or anything, but unless by "busted" you mean, lose a lot of chips, this can't be entirely true. As chip leader of course couldn't actually be busted in one hand.

I'd agree that there are lots of players who wouldn't want to lose an embarassingly large pot on their first hand at the TV table though.

citanul

[bigfishead]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I know exactly what you're saying. There is no way to tell the difference here between two maniacs, and two great players. I sensed that Murphy was weak, and didn't want a call, so I raised. He apparently did the same thing, and reraised me. Unfortunately, he got to put in the last raise, and that won him the pot. If his all-in raise had been smaller, and left him with enough chips for him to not be potstuck, I would've raised again, and bluffed him out.

I think.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[/ QUOTE ]

Keyword; Potstuck

[J.A.Sucker]

Nit picked. My impression of the hand was the Murphy and Greg both had the two biggest stacks, and they were almost equal. In any event, my point remains; there's NO WAY that John will not push the JJ all in if he doesn't fear getting raped on his first hand at the TV table.

I'm willing to bet that the Diablo will agree.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think I know exactly what you're saying. There is no way to tell the difference here between two maniacs, and two great players. I sensed that Murphy was weak, and didn't want a call, so I raised. He apparently did the same thing, and reraised me. Unfortunately, he got to put in the last raise, and that won him the pot. If his all-in raise had been smaller, and left him with enough chips for him to not be potstuck, I would've raised again, and bluffed him out.

I think.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[/ QUOTE ]

Keyword; Potstuck

[/ QUOTE ]

that and, Greg could've lost even more chips if he reraised John again and John went all-in. even if John had reraised Greg back (not an all-in) that left him some chips and Greg reraised again to bluff him off the pot, John could've still played his hand the same way and went all-in. so in essense, you're banking on a re-reraise bluff back at the chipleader holding 10-high with the hope that your read of weakness will buy you the pot when, ultimately, you could very well lose (waste) even more chips than you already have
on this very read. i saw something similar happen in a $100 or $200 SNG that i watched on Stars yesterday. down to three players ITM, the shortstack in the SB called 300 to complete against the chipleader who immediately raised the
BB from 600 to 1200 (possibly sensing weakness and not wanting the SB to get in cheap to a flop). the shortstack paused, then reraised to 1800. the chipleader then reraises again causing the shortstack to be all-in if he called, which he did. when the cards got shown, the chipleader had J 10 offsuit and the SB had K K. his kings held up to the showdown and the chipleader lost alot of chips on that play and eventually ended up placing 2nd. i did'nt like the play one bit, to say the least, and it kind of reminded me of the hand between Fossy and J Murph.

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
the chipleader had J 10 offsuit and the SB had K K. his kings held up to the showdown and the chipleader lost alot of chips on that play and eventually ended up placing 2nd. i did'nt like the play one bit, to say the least, and it kind of reminded me of the hand between Fossy and J Murph.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me be the first to say, this isn't remotely close to the hand discussed in this thread. Unless you're saying that the chip-leader "sensed weakness" and was making a bluff at the SB, which is pretty absurd. Whether putting someone all-in when you're holding JT in a $200 SNG is a good play or not, is a different topic altogether.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the chipleader had J 10 offsuit and the SB had K K. his kings held up to the showdown and the chipleader lost alot of chips on that play and eventually ended up placing 2nd. i did'nt like the play one bit, to say the least, and it kind of reminded me of the hand between Fossy and J Murph.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me be the first to say, this isn't remotely close to the hand discussed in this thread. Unless you're saying that the chip-leader "sensed weakness" and was making a bluff at the SB, which is pretty absurd. Whether putting someone all-in when you're holding JT in a $200 SNG is a good play or not, is a different topic altogether.

[/ QUOTE ]


why would it be absurd for the chipleader to be making a bluff at the shorterstacked SB who called the extra 300, essentially limping to see the flop? his reasoning could be, "i'm the chipleader and i'm not letting him see a cheap flop, even if he is the shortstack so i can raise with anything. surely if he had a good hand, he would'nt be limping in against me". this could be perceived as weakness. so you raise the SB, he then reraises you, then you reraise him back, essentially putting him all-in. Greg said that he would have rebluffed (reraised) again had John not be all-in with some chips left. that's what reminded me of the play in the SNG. he reraised the SB, the SB reraised back (with some chips left), and the chipleader rebluffs (reraises) again.