Williams 55 Call

[Rasputin]

Please forgive me, I know there's a newbie question section but it doesn't seem to get much action and I figured there would be a lot of discussion here today.

I'm new both here, and to the game, so be gentle.

It seems like the consensus here is that the Williams call with the fives was horrible and I was hoping someone could explain why.

If I remember correctl (and I may not) is that calling the bet would be roughly 1/4 to 1/3 of his stack and he was one of several players jockeying around on the short end.

If he calls and loses he goes to the back of the pack. If he raises and loses he gets knocked down to next to nothing.

My instinct there is that you have something, you know you need a break to get into the top 2-3, you're already getting a pretty nice payday. If you go all in there and the opponent folds, you gain a bit on the gaggle of shorter stacks. If he calls, you have a chance to make a more serious move.

Is that somewhat along the lines of what y'all are thinking? If not, could someone explain?

Thanks,

[Big_TX]

As another newbie... I liked the play when I saw it as well--I may just be results oriented though. That and my viewpoint was skewed by the fact that I wanted to see Arieh bust out real bad.

It seems like the experienced are saying a call is bad here pre-flop. So is a push or raise better, or is this fold every time? To me it looked like a gamble with a short stack against an aggressive player--checking in the dark to allow him the chance to maximize the payoff here if a set hit. The next question is if it flopped over cards and no set...then does he fold to the bet?

[ohkanada]

He had about 1.5 million to start the hand. Josh raised to 500k and Williams needed to call another 375k. I can't remember if Williams initially raised or was just in the Blind. I think he raised initially.

Williams had several choices:

1) Muck to the raise.

2) Raise all-in. Of course Josh might fold if he has a poor hand or it is either a coinflip or a big underdog.

3) Call and bet out on any flop. This is basically the stop and go. This wasn't his plan because he checked in the dark. The stop and go is better used when an all-in re-raise pre-flop has very little chance of getting your opponent to fold. Although with AK, Josh isn't folding for another 1 million but he might fold some other weaker hands.

4) Call, check in the dark and react to the flop and Josh's flop play. This is what Williams did. What we don't know is what Williams would have done if the flop didn't give him a set. He certainly doesn't have the odds of spiking a set.

I personally like option 1 or 2 much better.

Ken

[clevernapkin]

This particular situation to me stresses the importance of gaining as much information as possible. Here Williams was put to the test by Arieh by having to call 1/3 of his stack. IMO Williams knew that Arieh has just 2 big cards and it would be a coin flip, otherwise if Arieh had a higher pocket pair he would not have been so aggressive as he tended to back off on his strong pocket pairs. However, Williams also knew that if he hit his set then he would double up on Arieh almost guarenteed, possibly going in on implied odds. I think that a call was the correct one; u gotta take calculated risks at the final table and even tho the check in the dark was a bit risky, say flop was jack hi Arieh could have just checked and hit a card on the turn it worked out for him in the end. About the part about going all in preflop, that is an acceptable move because your almost guaranteed a coinflip. But by Williams just calling he is giving himself a better chance on winning the pot off the flop if all rags come out.

[jwvdcw]

Since Arieh is aggressive, unless a 5 flops, the pocket 5s is pretty much unplayable after the flop. Therefore, risking 1/3 of your stack on pocket 5s is not a good move. The right move there was to fold. You simply can't risk 1/3 of your stack on such a marginal hand.

[Gronk]

With that many chips in the pot, Williams doesn't have much of a chance to get his opponent to fold if three rags flop unless they're particularly scary(3 of a suit that his opponent doesn't have for example). Therefore I don't think he really increases his chances of winning on the flop by just calling preflop. If he checks his aggresive opponent is going to go all-in(like he did) and if he moves all-in his opponent will probably call. If Williams thought his opponent had two overcards and he decided to play, a push preflop would have been better. Better to get it in when you think you're a favorite than on the flop when you're not sure if he hit his overcards. His implied odds here are terrible when you compare them to the odds of hitting his set on the flop.

Maybe Williams was just trying to be tricky, but if he pushed preflop the result would have been the same. Much tougher for his opponent to get rid of his hand with 5 cards coming since he'd be getting roughly 2 to 1 odds to make that call.

I might have folded here since he still would have had plenty of chips, but maybe Williams just decided it was time to make a stand against a bully. I can understand both choices.

[Daliman]

Sure you can, if you feel you might be in a coinflip situation vs a player who can outplay you. It is almost always advisable to get all your chips in with ANY edge vs a player better than you. That said, I don't think the call was very good, but he was playing a lot of ABC poker, and JA was doing a lot of raising. If he pushes preflop , JA is fairly compelled to call with most any hand he could raise with, getting 2-1, so i tend to agree somewhat with the stop and go advice.

[flair1239]

I think in context, this is not a horrible call. Everybody notes that Arieh had been very aggressive and stealing many pots.

Arieh had a fairly large stack and was looking to throw his weight around more.

Given the circumstances, I don't think that Willams was out of line calling what at the time was a 10X the BB raise (I think the BB was 50,000 at that time?). Against any overcards he is a slight favorite. Also checking in the dark was good, because it took away Ariehs oppurtunity for a steal raise on the flop.

I think Williams was planning to push if no high cards fell on the flop.

In short, considering how aggressive tha Arieh was being, and William's chip position. I don't think that this can be labled a horrible call, especially since it was such a situation specific play.

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
In short, considering how aggressive tha Arieh was being, and William's chip position. I don't think that this can be labled a horrible call, especially since it was such a situation specific play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. Normally it's not a great play to make, but I think Williams probably felt that if the flop came with low cards, he'd probably have the best hand, and could get all his money in then. Without seeing all of the hands at the table prior to this, and the types of cards Arieh was raising with, it's hard to say this is a black or white good/bad call.

Based on Josh's comments after the hand, he was clearly baffled by Williams' play, and maybe Williams thought a little deception might be better there than simple ABC all-in poker.

[ohkanada]

"I think Williams was planning to push if no high cards fell on the flop."

Then why did he check dark?

Ken

[Scooterdoo]

If you're going to just call (versus pushing) against an aggresive player like Josh you only win if you hit your set or if you're willing to push your chips in on the flop, assuming rags fall. There is only a 11% change of hitting the set, so in the the other 89% cases he needs to see the flop and make a decision based on his read of whether pushing makes sense. By checking the flop Josh is usually going to make a sizable bet and now Williams will be virtually forced to see a showdown because even if Williams comes back over the top with a raise, it's likely that Josh will call it. So for the call to work, he needs to see the flop and have the opportunity to bet it. His check in the dark doesn't make sense to me (unless of course he knew that the 5 would come!).

[Goodie54]

Was not the call at all. Here's the deal, you either put your opponent on two big cards or an overpair. If you put him on two big cards, call and move in on a rag flop. If you put him on an overpair, fold.

The problem with the call was the check in the dark. Give Arieh a chance to fold his two overcards. Plenty of money in the pot to pick up and it doesn't make any sense to give Arieh a chance to hit when your tournament life is at stake.

If the flop had come rags, I'm sure that Arieh would have folded if Williams had moved for a million.

I like the call if you have a pretty good read that he has two high cards, but I hate the check in the dark. In fact, I hate ALL checks in the dark.

Peace

Goodie

[Yeknom58]

Finally someone see's the point here. The Dark check shows that he had no plan after the flop and the reasoning for his call was poor.

[Gronk]

Calling with 1/3 of your chips preflop with the intention of folding on the flop if you don't hit is assinine. Once he decided to make that call I think all his chips were going in the middle unless the flop was something ridiculous like AQK where he's virtually sure he's beat. If you put him on two big cards you don't call and move in on a rag flop if calling takes 33% of your chips. You reraise all-in or fold to the preflop reraise.

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with the call was the check in the dark. Give Arieh a chance to fold his two overcards. Plenty of money in the pot to pick up and it doesn't make any sense to give Arieh a chance to hit when your tournament life is at stake.

If the flop had come rags, I'm sure that Arieh would have folded if Williams had moved for a million.

[/ QUOTE ]

There was already a million in the pot and Williams was the short stack with only a million left. A flop of all rags is a fantastic spot for short-stacks to bluff and Arieh knows this. It's only 1 million to call to win 2 million and the action is done after that. I think there's a slim chance he'd fold that. You'll win roughly 1/4 of the time holding overcards to a pocket pair on a flop with all rags(ignoring straight and flush draws) and if he is bluffing you're a favorite. You're only getting 2 to 1 from the pot but you have plenty of chips. It's definitely worth the risk to try and bust a small stack and advance in the money.

[aces961]

From the fundamental theory of poker the best way for Williams to play the hand is the best way for him to play it against a ak. Now lets consider the ev of possible courses of action he could take.

From pokerpages to the blinds were 30/60k williams raised utg+1 to 120k and was reraised by arieh who was not in a blind to 500k. So there was 500+120+90+7*10k(antes) in the pot when it gets back to Willaims or a total of 780k in the middle. With 400k of that dead.

His options fold: I'm going to call this the 0ev play since his stack size will have zero varience from its current size at this point, any previous action in the hand has already occured and that money is dead.

Raise all in: If Williams was that sure of his read he is probably also very certain Arieh would call this. In that case say he had 1.6million left after raising the 120k. The all in amounts to paying 1.6 mil to win 3.6. He has a .518 preflop ev from the suits shown on poker pages, I don't have the telecast recorded to double check this. So his expected payout from the pot is 1.86 mil for an ev of 260k in extra chips.

Now if he calls preflop with the intention of checking and folding if a ace or king flops with no five. and pushing otherwise without a five. and checking and calling if a five hits with or without an ace or king. I think its reasonable that arieh would make a play at the pot at some point later in the hand if williams checks to him.
(NO A No K No 5) occurs (40 choose 3)/(48 Choose 8) percent of the time or 57.123% of the time. A five flops 12.234 percent of the time so we have a a or k and no five 30.643
percent of the time.

Now if we assume Arieh will fold to each of the bet outs and otherwise will bet enough to put williams all in, and williams will fold if an a or k hits without a five and call otherwise he have the following.

57.12 percent of the time williams gains 780k in chips with this course of action.(This assumes arieh folds, its actually something like 999k if he doesn't)
30.643 percent of the time he loses 380k
Now say when he flops the set he has on average a 90 percent ev (There could be flush and straigh draws and full house draws for arieh This is by no means exact but I think its close enough for our purposes)
So now Williams has paid 400k for a .9 percent chance at a 3.6 mil pot. 3.6*.9-.38 is a gain of 2.86 million 12.234 percent of the time.

Adding these up we see he has a ev of 445.863k in chips if he calls preflop with the intentions stated above.

And I've run out of time to work on this now so I'll do the check in the dark case later.

[Tyler Durden]

[ QUOTE ]
He had about 1.5 million to start the hand. Josh raised to 500k and Williams needed to call another 375k. I can't remember if Williams initially raised or was just in the Blind. I think he raised initially.

[/ QUOTE ]

From the Josh Arieh interview in Cardplayer:

"Without taking anything away from David Williams, who played great," Arieh began, "my big trouble hand was when the blinds were 30K and 60K, he made it 120K with what turned out to be two fives, and I made it 620K with my AK. It's hard to call half a million with a small pair like that, but he did, and when both and ace and a 5 hit the flop, he doubled through me.
"Never mind my winning that hand," Arieh explained. "Forget about my winning that extra 500K, or ever just his 120K if he throws it away. If I just don't lose that hand, I'm OK with about six million. But losing it, now I have only four and a half, David has the same amount as me instead of one-third as much as me, and Fossilman has eight million. So instead of a small lead on me, he has almost twice what I do and can play much more fearlessly. If there was one moment, that was it, but it wasn't like I never got lucky in this tournament. At one stretch a couple of days earlier, I'd been all in with a short stack (20K) and held AQ against an AK with the flop already KQ2, and somebody said, just before the turn, 'I had a Queen.' Bang, a queen on the turn, the old one-outer. If I don't get lucky there, there's no story to talk about later."

[hockey1]

Nice post.

[ohkanada]

Atleast 2 pros that I have read have commented on this being a terrible play by Williams. Erick Lindgberg (on RGP) and Paul Phillips (in his journal) have both commented on that particular hand.

http://extempore.livejournal.com/

Paul has some great commments on that hand as well as many other thoughts.

Ken

[Goodie54]

"Calling with 1/3 of your chips preflop with the intention of folding on the flop if you don't hit is assinine."

That's a miss statement of what I said. Williams did not have to "hit" the flop, the flop just needed to come without an Ace or a King.

Clearly moving in pre-flop is not what you want to do here. Moving in assures you of a call and you are either way behind or a coin flip. Since you still have a million dollars left, you gain folding equity if you call and move in on a rag flop.

There is no upside to going all in pre-flop as far as I can see. So you have two choices, fold or stop and go it. All comes down to a read. If you think there's a much better chance that your opponent has big cards, then you stop and go, if you think big pair, fold.

The check in the dark is the problem here.

Peace

Goodie

[flair1239]

[ QUOTE ]
"I think Williams was planning to push if no high cards fell on the flop."

Then why did he check dark?

Ken

[/ QUOTE ]

To take a guess, because if Arieh checked he gets a look at the turn for free. He is looking for a set; plus he would get to see another card before deciding whether to push or not.

[fnurt]

That may have been his actual thought process; but to put it simply, if you think you are against overcards, why would you want to let your opponent see four cards instead of three?

Calling a third of your stack based on set value can never be right. He needed folding equity to make the call work, and you won't get folding equity from checking in the dark.

[jwvdcw]

never mind this post...I misunderstood what was said.

[jwvdcw]

[ QUOTE ]
About the part about going all in preflop, that is an acceptable move because your almost guaranteed a coinflip.

[/ QUOTE ]

explain to me how on earth you are almost guaranteed a coinflop when you have pocket 5s.

[jwvdcw]

[ QUOTE ]
Sure you can, if you feel you might be in a coinflip situation vs a player who can outplay you. It is almost always advisable to get all your chips in with ANY edge vs a player better than you. That said, I don't think the call was very good, but he was playing a lot of ABC poker, and JA was doing a lot of raising. If he pushes preflop , JA is fairly compelled to call with most any hand he could raise with, getting 2-1, so i tend to agree somewhat with the stop and go advice.

[/ QUOTE ]

And how on earth does he put him on two overcards and not a higher pocket pair? I simply don't think very highly of Williams play at all. I put him up there with Varkoni in the luck category.

[jwvdcw]

[ QUOTE ]
Was not the call at all. Here's the deal, you either put your opponent on two big cards or an overpair. If you put him on two big cards, call and move in on a rag flop. If you put him on an overpair, fold.

The problem with the call was the check in the dark. Give Arieh a chance to fold his two overcards. Plenty of money in the pot to pick up and it doesn't make any sense to give Arieh a chance to hit when your tournament life is at stake.

If the flop had come rags, I'm sure that Arieh would have folded if Williams had moved for a million.

I like the call if you have a pretty good read that he has two high cards, but I hate the check in the dark. In fact, I hate ALL checks in the dark.

Peace

Goodie

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this, but let me add taht I don't think Williams had any great read that he had 2 overcards. I simply think Williams is a bad player and wanted to call.

[aces961]

[ QUOTE ]
From the fundamental theory of poker the best way for Williams to play the hand is the best way for him to play it against a ak. Now lets consider the ev of possible courses of action he could take.

From pokerpages to the blinds were 30/60k williams raised utg+1 to 120k and was reraised by arieh who was not in a blind to 500k. So there was 500+120+90+7*10k(antes) in the pot when it gets back to Willaims or a total of 780k in the middle. With 400k of that dead.

His options fold: I'm going to call this the 0ev play since his stack size will have zero varience from its current size at this point, any previous action in the hand has already occured and that money is dead.

Raise all in: If Williams was that sure of his read he is probably also very certain Arieh would call this. In that case say he had 1.6million left after raising the 120k. The all in amounts to paying 1.6 mil to win 3.6. He has a .518 preflop ev from the suits shown on poker pages, I don't have the telecast recorded to double check this. So his expected payout from the pot is 1.86 mil for an ev of 260k in extra chips.

Now if he calls preflop with the intention of checking and folding if a ace or king flops with no five. and pushing otherwise without a five. and checking and calling if a five hits with or without an ace or king. I think its reasonable that arieh would make a play at the pot at some point later in the hand if williams checks to him.
(NO A No K No 5) occurs (40 choose 3)/(48 Choose 8) percent of the time or 57.123% of the time. A five flops 12.234 percent of the time so we have a a or k and no five 30.643
percent of the time.

Now if we assume Arieh will fold to each of the bet outs and otherwise will bet enough to put williams all in, and williams will fold if an a or k hits without a five and call otherwise he have the following.

57.12 percent of the time williams gains 780k in chips with this course of action.(This assumes arieh folds, its actually something like 999k if he doesn't)
30.643 percent of the time he loses 380k
Now say when he flops the set he has on average a 90 percent ev (There could be flush and straigh draws and full house draws for arieh This is by no means exact but I think its close enough for our purposes)
So now Williams has paid 400k for a .9 percent chance at a 3.6 mil pot. 3.6*.9-.38 is a gain of 2.86 million 12.234 percent of the time.

Adding these up we see he has a ev of 445.863k in chips if he calls preflop with the intentions stated above.

And I've run out of time to work on this now so I'll do the check in the dark case later.

[/ QUOTE ]
First a correction, the end of the last post should read as follows.

So now Williams has paid 400k for a .9 percent chance at a 3.6 mil pot. 3.6*.9-1.6 is a gain of 2.74 million 12.234 percent of the time.

Adding these up we see he has a ev of 612k in chips if he calls preflop with the intentions stated above.

First notice that in the case where he moves all in preflop this equity he gains from that on average is offset by the fact that around half the time he is out of the tournament. Depending on the payout scheme and the other stack sizes this may influence the value of doing that.

Also note the call preflop and post flop play as described above if we assume that arieh folds to a all in on the flop as he should ev wise in the hand. the only cases in which williams is eliminated from the tourney are when he flops the set and still loses, taken to be about 10 percent of the time he flops the set or 1.2 percent overall.
Thus here we see calling and playing as described above minimizes the risk of elimination as well as maximizing the ev.

Some people may argue that arieh would call an all in on the flop with just the two overcards. If so he would have a 24 percent chance of hitting a pair on the turn or river without wiliams hitting a five. Thus Williams would be eliminated an extra 57*.24 percent of the time. Even with this added he still is eliminated under 20 percent of the time in total, and this occurance actually adds to his chip ev.

So on to the check in the dark:
First of all I don't think we know enough about Arieh's play to judge his reaction to the check in the dark on different flops so I'll simply list some reasons Williams might have decided to check in the dark.

1. If he wasn't certain of ariah having ak, perhaps it was aq or aj. He might think the check in the dark will get arieh to check behind on the flop if he doesn't hit one of his pairs.

2. If he is certain the check in the dark will induce arieh to bet all in on any flop that could occur. This will add to his ev as shown above when arieh calls the all in when no a,k,or 5 hits. However it would increase his risk of elimination significantly.

3. Both of the reasons above seem to be reasons against the check in the dark. The only reason I can think of that the check in the dark is useful is if he is assuming that if he bets out on a no a,k,or 5 board arieh will call thus increasing his risk of elimination, and if he checks normally on such a board arieh will put him in as well. both of these had a relatively high risk of elimination. Now if he checks in the dark and assumes arieh will check behind on a no a,k,or 5 board.
I assume he thinks it likely that arieh will fold to a turn bet if no a or k hits.(he may gain some equity by checking a 5 turn, but I won't include that in the calculations)
and if one does hit he will check and fold.
Now the a or k will hit 6/45 times, so in these situations he loses the that portion of the equity he had. the rest of the time he has the same equity as the bet on the turn assuming a arieh fold. The difference is he has no risk of elimination from this.
The new ev from the check in the dark play is going to be 39/45*780k*.57-380*(.306+6/45*.57)+1740*.12= 454k in chips

So in effect the check in the dark if ariehs reactions is believed be by williams as stated above would provide a much lower risk of elimination in exchange for losing some chip equity.

[aces961]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sure you can, if you feel you might be in a coinflip situation vs a player who can outplay you. It is almost always advisable to get all your chips in with ANY edge vs a player better than you. That said, I don't think the call was very good, but he was playing a lot of ABC poker, and JA was doing a lot of raising. If he pushes preflop , JA is fairly compelled to call with most any hand he could raise with, getting 2-1, so i tend to agree somewhat with the stop and go advice.

[/ QUOTE ]

And how on earth does he put him on two overcards and not a higher pocket pair? I simply don't think very highly of Williams play at all. I put him up there with Varkoni in the luck category.

[/ QUOTE ]

What remains is that in this particular hand the play of calling preflop is correct in almost every definition of what a correct play is. He made the play that assured him the highest ev given perfect knowledge of his opponents cards.
Now we can't argue this call wasn't correct in this situation, what we can argue is that he didn't have that perfect of a read and stumbled into the correct play by accident. To do that I think we have to have a much greater knowledge of David Williams play than espn has given us. To be honest I've seen what maybe at most 8 hands he played on tv that I could draw this judgement from, and I really don't think that that is enough hands to be able to provide testament to his card reading ability.

[fnurt]

[ QUOTE ]
What remains is that in this particular hand the play of calling preflop is correct in almost every definition of what a correct play is. He made the play that assured him the highest ev given perfect knowledge of his opponents cards.
Now we can't argue this call wasn't correct in this situation, what we can argue is that he didn't have that perfect of a read and stumbled into the correct play by accident. To do that I think we have to have a much greater knowledge of David Williams play than espn has given us. To be honest I've seen what maybe at most 8 hands he played on tv that I could draw this judgement from, and I really don't think that that is enough hands to be able to provide testament to his card reading ability.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't just view the call in isolation and say it was correct, you have to look at his overall game plan.

Calling with the intention of pushing on any flop (the "stop-and-go"), for instance, may have very well been the correct play. It's certainly a reasonable play.

Calling 1/3 of your stack with the intention of folding unless you a flop a set, on the other hand, can't ever be the correct play. The implied odds simply aren't there.

We don't know what David's intention was; all we know is that it certainly wasn't the stop-and-go, since the check in the dark rules that out. The more thoughtful posters in this thread aren't saying that the call was wrong, period; they are saying that the call was wrong UNLESS he was prepared to back it up with the right play post-flop, which it seems he wasn't.

[aces961]

What I said in an earlier post is that the check in the dark could be viewed as the correct play under the following circumstances. Wiliams thought that on a flop with no A or K or 5 Arieh would call his bet out with the ak, and that if he checked in the dark Arieh would check behind on such a flop and then fold to a bet on the turn if no A or K turned.

I am simply providing a set of reads Williams could have had that would make his strategy on the hand correct if he knew arieh's hand and had those assumptions about his play.

In this situation I don't think we have seen enough of either Arieh's or Williams play to justify if these reads are correct or if Williams is capable of making such a read and taking this much into account.

[fnurt]

Well, except in that scenario, what you've accomplished is getting your opponent to fold the worst hand with one card to go. If Arieh is going to call on the flop with no pair, you should love the opportunity to double up. Add to this the fact that he can't know Arieh has exactly AK, so he doesn't know which overcards to feel, and I don't think this can be a correct strategy. I respect your point though, and for all I know, his actual thinking might very well have been something like this.

[aces961]

If Williams thought that Arieh would call him on the flop if he pushed in with the fives, in a ring game he would obviously bet out. Again in a ring game if he though Arieh would push in with the ak on the non a or k flop again he would check normally and then call the all in. However this is not a ring game and your risk of elimination in a hand does need to be evaluated.
If Arieh would fold on the flop to the bet out by williams every time then obvious betting out like this would be the correct play on a flop without a, k, or 5. However if Williams thinks he will get called here(It would be minus ev for Arieh, but not as minus ev as calling the same bet on the turn when no a or k hits) He may have tried the check in the dark to delay this bet out to the turn in that situation. This allows for a much lower risk of being eliminated something from over 15 percent to under 2 percent.

[slickpoppa]

What exactly is the definition of a check int he dark?

[aces961]

If you are the first to act on a round of betting you can choose to either check or bet before the card is shown that starts that round of betting. This is called checking or betting in the dark

[poboy]

I think alot of it had to do with who was raising him. If it had been a solid respected player he may have folded. But it wasn't a solid player it was a maniac with a big stack who could have been raising with all sorts of hands. Also if he is to have any chance of winning he needs to take some gambles and double up as he was short-stacked at the time. I don't think his play was horrible at all given the situation. What was he supposed to do sit there and get anted off waiting for AA or KK.

[Beavis68]

Greg checked before the next cards was dealt.

I think something that is missing here, if Williams had to fold post flop, he still have had about 15x the BB left. Greg had a big chip advantage on him anyway, and Josh had him covered. He already have 3rd locked up, and needed to win a higher spot. He took a risk. The check in the dark was strange, but it also could have bought him a free card if a K fell on the flop. It was a head move. He was already a millionaire, and could afford to take some chances and he needed a lot of chips if he had ANY chance of winning it.

Look at the big picture kids. I think Josh just pushing all-in was pretty rash. Josh signaled that was was strong with the check in the dark, either AA, KK or AK.

I dont think i could have played it like william's did, but I have not made too many final table either, an none for triple digits, never the less 7 figures. I think some of these other pro's are just jealous. I really lost respect for Darden after reading his blog. And philip's is good, but there is more than one way to skin a cat, that dude sure doesnt play like Cloutier.

Every player makes moves that the others dont like, that is part of the art of NL.

[West]

Let's say Arieh misses and checks the flop...do you really think he is then going to call an all in on the turn if he hasn't hit? (38 to 6 against him hitting, potentially drawing dead, pot offering him slightly better than 2 to 1 on a call...don't think so.)

Since someone posted a quote from an interview where Josh Arieh says he raised to 620k (from David's 120k raise), I'm assuming it was 500k for Williams to call, and he has 1.5 mil left.

Obviously, a reraise like that implies strength, and it's NL Hold Em 101 to muck a pair of fives here, because you're in a coin flip at best, and a 4:1 underdog at worst, and you're not even remotely close to getting the odds for flopping a set. If the blinds were 30,000/60,000, you're hardly desparate yet. In general, if you're going to make a habit of playing your hand in situations like these, then you are, as they say, dead money.

But let's say you're against a player who has been very aggressive, like Arieh. You just know in your soul he doesn't even have a pair. You'd better know in your soul he doesn't, but let's say that you do. Ok...but how do you know he has AK? If it's his aggressive play that leads you to read him for no pair, then you have to consider that he could have a lot of different hands. Unless you have X-ray vision, how are you going to know if a Q high flop hit him? What about J high? K high? For that matter, A high?

So you're going to call a third of your 1.5 million chips....and then check in the dark??

So now if you were right about Arieh having overcards, even if you get a rag flop, you are now giving him the chance to take the 1.3 million from you (more chips than you now have in front of you) with a free card you never should have let him have. Remember that he has you covered (according to the quote posted from Cardplayer, he had 6 mil?), and you are playing with your tournament life here.

Now what are you going to do if he puts you all in and it's not a rag flop? Are you just planning to call any all in on the flop no matter what? Any without an ace or a king (again how do you know he has AK? how do you know he won't take a free card if low cards flop?)

If a player is that aggressive against you, and you want to argue that you were just that sure he didn't have a pair, and you were willing to risk all your chips on a coin flip, I can give you that. I'm not saying it's the smartest play (given that you're at the final table where the money is going up exponentially with each player going out, and the fact that your stack is such that you have plenty of time to play and find better situations, and the fact that if you're wrong about him not having a big pair, you're screwed, and this wasn't a blind battle, I'd say it's a pretty bad play anyway) but if someone wanted to take a stand, I'd say, ok. But if you're going to take a stand..calling and checking in the dark is truly a maniac play.

[Paul Phillips]

I'm sure I'll regret this...

[ QUOTE ]
Greg checked before the next cards was dealt. [...]
Josh signaled that was was strong with the check in the dark, either AA, KK or AK. [...]


[/ QUOTE ]

OK, so far we have both greg williams and josh williams checking in the dark on this hand, although I'm not sure I can parse that second sentence.

[ QUOTE ]

I dont think i could have played it like william's did


[/ QUOTE ]

May I suggest a book for you: it's called "Eats, Shoots, and Leaves" (http://tinyurl.com/696dz), and it discusses the proper role of punctuation in our lives. Especially, it articulates the various uses of the apostrophe.

[ QUOTE ]
I think some of these other pro's are just jealous. I really lost respect for Darden after reading his blog.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now darden's in this group too? Is that josh darden or greg darden? Do you have a link to his blog?

[ QUOTE ]
And philip's is good, but there is more than one way to skin a cat, that dude sure doesnt play like Cloutier.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you mean philip ivey, philip gordon, or philip hellmuth? And what of his is good? I hope you don't mean philip darden. The very notion makes my head swim.

[aces961]

I never said he would call on the turn, I stated that if Williams thought he would call on the flop if he missed that delaying the bet to the turn, since he would fold then, would have been a safer play in terms or risk of elimination from the tourney.

Now it is not necessary that the read be exact down to the ranks of the overcards if williams thinks he can get a tell off arieh on the flop as to if he flopped a pair or not. If williams thought he could do this and was sure arieh had overcards I am stating for a fact he played the hand correctly up until the check in the dark.

Now the check in the dark doesn't do anything for his expected chip value in the hand, in fact it decreases it in all likelihood, but if arieh would call a push on the flop by williams if he misses his overcards, but not call one on the turn the check in the dark may reduce the risk of elimination for williams while stlll keeping it a plus ev play.

I'm not saying you could ever consider a call like this in a internet tourney because you can't get such a tell off an opponent, but in a live tourney if you are good at reading peoples hands this has to be a play you at least think about making regularly.

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
I never said he would call on the turn, I stated that if Williams thought he would call on the flop if he missed that delaying the bet to the turn, since he would fold then, would have been a safer play in terms or risk of elimination from the tourney.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry if I misread what you wrote and put words in your mouth.

If his biggest concern was risk of elimination from the tourney, he should have folded to the reraise in the first place. IMHO, if you're not going to go all in for your last million when there is a million plus in the pot, you hold a pair of fives, and you are very confident you are ahead, but against two overcards, then you should not be playing no limit hold em tournaments.

[ QUOTE ]
Now it is not necessary that the read be exact down to the ranks of the overcards if williams thinks he can get a tell off arieh on the flop as to if he flopped a pair or not. If williams thought he could do this and was sure arieh had overcards I am stating for a fact he played the hand correctly up until the check in the dark.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I'll grant you that - I don't believe it, but IF he could read Arieh like a book, and flat out know if he was ahead on the flop, he could call with his hand. I'd even give him the check in the dark.

[fnurt]

[ QUOTE ]
If Williams thought that Arieh would call him on the flop if he pushed in with the fives, in a ring game he would obviously bet out. Again in a ring game if he though Arieh would push in with the ak on the non a or k flop again he would check normally and then call the all in. However this is not a ring game and your risk of elimination in a hand does need to be evaluated.
If Arieh would fold on the flop to the bet out by williams every time then obvious betting out like this would be the correct play on a flop without a, k, or 5. However if Williams thinks he will get called here(It would be minus ev for Arieh, but not as minus ev as calling the same bet on the turn when no a or k hits) He may have tried the check in the dark to delay this bet out to the turn in that situation. This allows for a much lower risk of being eliminated something from over 15 percent to under 2 percent.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't mean to discount this idea, but I felt the result was kind of obvious. Let's take a look at it.

If you're Williams, you are already into the pot for 1/3 of your stack. Your choices are (a) wait for the turn, then pick up the pot, increasing your original stack by 33%; or (b) push now, get called, and be a 3-1 favorite to double up.

The EV is actually kind of close between these two choices and I probably wouldn't criticize anyone who chose the guaranteed survival route. But in the real world, there are two factors that I think make the check bad: (1) you aren't playing with the cards face up, so you don't know what overcard is bad for you; and (2) by giving the free card, you will lose an extra 12% of the time.

Survival is great but, especially when you're a short stack like Williams was, being a 3-1 favorite to double up is pretty cool too.

[Beavis68]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure I'll regret this...

[ QUOTE ]
Greg checked before the next cards was dealt. [...]
Josh signaled that was was strong with the check in the dark, either AA, KK or AK. [...]


[/ QUOTE ]

OK, so far we have both greg williams and josh williams checking in the dark on this hand, although I'm not sure I can parse that second sentence.

[ QUOTE ]

I dont think i could have played it like william's did


[/ QUOTE ]

May I suggest a book for you: it's called "Eats, Shoots, and Leaves" (http://tinyurl.com/696dz), and it discusses the proper role of punctuation in our lives. Especially, it articulates the various uses of the apostrophe.

[ QUOTE ]
I think some of these other pro's are just jealous. I really lost respect for Darden after reading his blog.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now darden's in this group too? Is that josh darden or greg darden? Do you have a link to his blog?

[ QUOTE ]
And philip's is good, but there is more than one way to skin a cat, that dude sure doesnt play like Cloutier.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you mean philip ivey, philip gordon, or philip hellmuth? And what of his is good? I hope you don't mean philip darden. The very notion makes my head swim.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is quite possibly the worst thing I have ever posted - maybe I need to change me name on here!

This is just what I get for multi-tasking and not proof- reading. Wasn't Greg Williams one of the Brady bunch?

The reason I mentioned Darden is that someone stated that he critisized David's play in the hand.

I think I did have a couple of points buried in there.

1. Williams had a playable stack if he had to fold post flop.
2. He could pick up the pot with-out making a set.
3. He needed take some chances if he had any hope of taking on (Greg) Raymer.

I do not understand the check in the dark except to mess with Josh's head. I do not understand Marcel Luske's check in the dark either.

Was this play really worse than calling an all-in with 7-7?