When Greg doubled up Annie Duke with 98o

[durron597]

5 handed. Blinds 10000/20000/a2000. Greg makes a UTG raise to 60000, Annie moves in from the CO with ATo, else fold, Greg calls.

Alright, let's do some pot odds. 40000 dead money. 60000 raise. Anne was left with 456000 after the hand. So that means that Annie doubled up from her 208000 chips, which means that Greg was calling a 148000 bet to win 308000, which means he had correct odds to make the call against two overcards (though it's close).

Once again, a play that at first seems bad turns out to be good in the end; the only questionable part of the hand is the initial raise.

[Bigwig]

This is the second one, correct? That's the one I was wondering about. His first 98s hand seemed like a no brainer call.

[durron597]

Yes, this was the second one. The one right before he busted.

[Bigwig]

Personally, I hate the UTG raise. But it is more Greg's style, to open raise with a wide range of hands. At least, it appears that way. I just think that if it's a 'close' call, why not lay it down, and wait for a point when you have a little bit better odds?

I'm sure Fossil will explain his reasoning in a post. And I'm sure it will be good.

[jwvdcw]

I don't think pot odds matter a lot in a tourney when your entire tourney life is on the line. I would rather get to the final few people than to make a risk earlier. I didn't like at all how he pissed away his chips near the end.

[durron597]

My analysis: OK, let's assume for the moment that the table was running tight (if true, the UTG raise was fine for the chip leader to make). Now Greg made a comment saying something like "I was hoping you had like A4", so the range of hands he put her on was clearly wide enough to make the call; assuming that his read was correct.

However, I think the problem with the call is an issue of "whose chips are more valuable". He calls and loses, and he's down to only 10xBB. He folds, he still has like 18xBB and quite a bit more breathing room. He wins, and he has about 38xBB and a commanding position.

The more I think about it, the closer I think it is. I think that Greg had the winner-take-all prize structure in mind when he decided to make this call, a perfectly good reason for him to do this.

[Bigwig]

[ QUOTE ]
My analysis: OK, let's assume for the moment that the table was running tight (if true, the UTG raise was fine for the chip leader to make). Now Greg made a comment saying something like "I was hoping you had like A4", so the range of hands he put her on was clearly wide enough to make the call; assuming that his read was correct.

However, I think the problem with the call is an issue of "whose chips are more valuable". He calls and loses, and he's down to only 10xBB. He folds, he still has like 18xBB and quite a bit more breathing room. He wins, and he has about 38xBB and a commanding position.

The more I think about it, the closer I think it is. I think that Greg had the winner-take-all prize structure in mind when he decided to make this call, a perfectly good reason for him to do this.

[/ QUOTE ]

'If' his read was correct. She could have also had 99 and he's dead.

Also, I don't think at this point he was the chip leader. He lost that on the previous big hand with Duke.

[fnurt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My analysis: OK, let's assume for the moment that the table was running tight (if true, the UTG raise was fine for the chip leader to make). Now Greg made a comment saying something like "I was hoping you had like A4", so the range of hands he put her on was clearly wide enough to make the call; assuming that his read was correct.

However, I think the problem with the call is an issue of "whose chips are more valuable". He calls and loses, and he's down to only 10xBB. He folds, he still has like 18xBB and quite a bit more breathing room. He wins, and he has about 38xBB and a commanding position.

The more I think about it, the closer I think it is. I think that Greg had the winner-take-all prize structure in mind when he decided to make this call, a perfectly good reason for him to do this.

[/ QUOTE ]

'If' his read was correct. She could have also had 99 and he's dead.

Also, I don't think at this point he was the chip leader. He lost that on the previous big hand with Duke.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're wrong about this. A "read" is not ESP; it doesn't tell you exactly what hand someone holds. "I figured him for 2 big cards, so I called with 22" is not a read, it is wishful thinking.

When you make a read, you put someone on a range of hands. Here, Greg put her on a range that included hands like A4. Now, he could have been completely wrong, maybe she never would have raised with something like A4. But the fact that she turns over AT, or 99, or AA for that matter, does nothing to prove it either way. Even if you are completely correct about what range of hands someone is on, they still might have a hand at the very top of that range. There's nothing you can do about it.

I have no idea if he was correct about the range of hands; but if he was, then the call was a must, even if she ends up turning over AA.

[lastchance]

18x BB isn't chip lead. He did lose a lot though.

Coming in to a heads up race, I think you want to be chip lead. I think it's a great reason to call instead of fold.

It's a very close decision. If Duke has overpair, he's gone. If Duke has underpair, it's an instant call.

Just how much you want to gamble there. I think 18x BB is a LOT better than 10x BB, so I think I lay it down.

[Nottom]

I think the fact that this was a winner take all event played a big part in gregs decision to call in the 98o hand. He's getting 3-1 on his call which are good odds if she doesn't have an overpair.

If he folds he is in last place (or very close to it). If he calls and loses he is in last place. If he wins he is the chip leader. With the payout structure the way it is, you have to have some gamble in you when you fall behind.

[Jake (The Snake)]

Why not do it early? If its +EV you have to make the call.

Two reasons:

1. Everyone in the tourney is extremely good so every +EV event is important.
2. It's winner-take-all so you have to make some moves.

[Tom Bayes]

Well, the first time Fossilman had 98, it was an obvious call. The second one is debatable-he probably had the pot odds to call and the tourney does have a winner-take-all format. I don't recall the size of his stack and the blinds exactly to be sure. I probably don't make that call, but I probably don't get involved with 98o in the first place.

What I am sure about is that Norman Chad seems to be completely unfamiliar with the concept of "pot odds"; I've seen him trash a lot of plays that are actually correct calls taking the pot odds into consideration. At least Mike Sexton takes this into consideration in his commentary.

I also notice Chad trashed FossilMan for going all-in with the T9. If I recall correctly, Greg was short-stacked at that point and was pretty much in all-in/fold mode

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]

I also notice Chad trashed FossilMan for going all-in with the T9. If I recall correctly, Greg was short-stacked at that point and was pretty much in all-in/fold mode

[/ QUOTE ]

Note that Doyle went out exactly the same way: raising allin with a short stack from the small blind. Though Greg's cards were a lot better than Doyle's....

[West]

I'm thinking the main reason was the fact that it was winner take all. Still a pretty bold call I think.

[durron597]

I think it was a really ballsy play, even when you have a lot of chips UTG 5-handed. This is especially true if you factor in that he may have been playing really aggressively; I really think he could have gotten in his chips in a better spot.

[Bigwig]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My analysis: OK, let's assume for the moment that the table was running tight (if true, the UTG raise was fine for the chip leader to make). Now Greg made a comment saying something like "I was hoping you had like A4", so the range of hands he put her on was clearly wide enough to make the call; assuming that his read was correct.

However, I think the problem with the call is an issue of "whose chips are more valuable". He calls and loses, and he's down to only 10xBB. He folds, he still has like 18xBB and quite a bit more breathing room. He wins, and he has about 38xBB and a commanding position.

The more I think about it, the closer I think it is. I think that Greg had the winner-take-all prize structure in mind when he decided to make this call, a perfectly good reason for him to do this.

[/ QUOTE ]

'If' his read was correct. She could have also had 99 and he's dead.

Also, I don't think at this point he was the chip leader. He lost that on the previous big hand with Duke.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're wrong about this. A "read" is not ESP; it doesn't tell you exactly what hand someone holds. "I figured him for 2 big cards, so I called with 22" is not a read, it is wishful thinking.

When you make a read, you put someone on a range of hands. Here, Greg put her on a range that included hands like A4. Now, he could have been completely wrong, maybe she never would have raised with something like A4. But the fact that she turns over AT, or 99, or AA for that matter, does nothing to prove it either way. Even if you are completely correct about what range of hands someone is on, they still might have a hand at the very top of that range. There's nothing you can do about it.

I have no idea if he was correct about the range of hands; but if he was, then the call was a must, even if she ends up turning over AA.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand the concept. I'm just saying that the range of hands also must include ones in which he is a large underdog. I assume he did think this through -- he's clearly too good not to. But at 18BB, he's still got a fighting chance, and several orbits. I'd rather wait.

[durron597]

In case some people misunderstood, I am saying that Greg was getting 3:1 on his call, not 2:1.

[citanul]

I'm reading this very quickly and all, but didn't you say (in the parent of the thread) that he's calling a 150k bet to try to win a pot with 300k in it prior to his call? Isn't that 2:1?

citanul

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm reading this very quickly and all, but didn't you say (in the parent of the thread) that he's calling a 150k bet to try to win a pot with 300k in it prior to his call? Isn't that 2:1?

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

If he actually were to call, there would be 450k in the pot, and he would have just put in 150k to make that call. Isn't that 3:1? Now I'm confused. Can someone please clarify this?

[Ionphore]

2:1 = 300,000:150,000

Pretty complicated...

When he makes the call he is risking 150k to win 300k, again - 2:1 to call...

[CrisBrown]

Hi durron,

[ QUOTE ]
If he actually were to call, there would be 450k in the pot, and he would have just put in 150k to make that call. Isn't that 3:1? Now I'm confused. Can someone please clarify this?

[/ QUOTE ]

When calculating pot odds, the chips that you would be betting/calling do not count toward the current pot size. Yes, if I call $500 into a $1000 pot, there will then be $1500 in the pot. But that $500 doesn't count toward the size of the pot for pot odds calculations. I'm risking $500 to win the $1000 that's already out there, thus the pot is giving me 2:1 on my call.

I think where you may be confused is that, if the pot is giving you 2:1 on your call, then you are correct to call if your chance of winning that pot is 1-in-3. Note that 1-in-3 is 2:1, not 3:1.

Cris

[Bigwig]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi durron,

[ QUOTE ]
If he actually were to call, there would be 450k in the pot, and he would have just put in 150k to make that call. Isn't that 3:1? Now I'm confused. Can someone please clarify this?

[/ QUOTE ]

When calculating pot odds, the chips that you would be betting/calling do not count toward the current pot size. Yes, if I call $500 into a $1000 pot, there will then be $1500 in the pot. But that $500 doesn't count toward the size of the pot for pot odds calculations. I'm risking $500 to win the $1000 that's already out there, thus the pot is giving me 2:1 on my call.

I think where you may be confused is that, if the pot is giving you 2:1 on your call, then you are correct to call if your chance of winning that pot is 1-in-3. Note that 1-in-3 is 2:1, not 3:1.

Cris

[/ QUOTE ]

For some reason, I had a total brain freeze a couple of weeks ago and made the mistake of including my chips in the calculation. It was a fatal all-in call.

I really beat myself up over it, too.

[durron597]

Ah ha! Now this makes a lot more sense. When I play poker, I do the math to get the right number without knowing the terminology for the probability calculation. So I know that a 75/25 call is exactly zero EV when the pot is double the bet, but I wasn't sure if that was 2:1 on the call or 3:1 on the call. Thanks CrisBrown!

[AJo Go All In]

make a post lecturing us about pot odds when you don't even know how to calculate pot odds yourself.

[durron597]

I DO know how to calculate pot odds; as I said in another post in this thread I just don't know the terminology for it, and that's why I asked for clarification. Now I know the terminology.

Please don't beat me up when I make a semantic mistake.

Also, for the record, the point of my original post in this thread was to give the numbers on that hand, since ESPN made it unclear. I was just doing the work for everyone else so others didn't have to.

I apologize if my attempt to be helpful offended you, AJo.