Annie and "play poker like the pros"

[Buckmulligan]

If i am not mistaken, Annie wrote the omaha 8/b section of Hellmuth's book; this must indicate that Hellmuth, who didn't show annie much respect, and annie, who didn't show ole' phil much respect, must really actually be fans of one another...

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
If i am not mistaken, Annie wrote the omaha 8/b section of Hellmuth's book

[/ QUOTE ]
Where'd you hear that?

[lastchance]

Actually, I have the E-Book of that right now. During the book, Phil actually notes that Annie is his editor when he writes it.

[aphoward]

[ QUOTE ]
this must indicate that Hellmuth, who didn't show annie much respect, and annie, who didn't show ole' phil much respect, must really actually be fans of one another...

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you missed the part where Phil consoled her when she was clearly emotional after busting Howard out? Or when they hugged at the end?

Just because you go to war at the poker table, doesn't mean you can't be friends in "real life".

[twankerr]

yah she was the editor, checking the odds and stuff. he even said that they disagreed about the best starting hand. i think phil likes a a 2 3 double suited and annie likes something like a a j 10 (i forgot where i read that) or a 2 3 x

[kmvenne]

Firstly, congrats to Annie, she made an impressive run from low stack many times, and made the most of the break she got, unlike Hellmuth. Two points, however...

1) The deck really did seem to hurt Phil heads up from what I saw. I give Phil a good amount of credit for getting away from some hands, Annie cagely limped with good heads up holdings and had a couple positions a lesser player would have went home. He did well to stretch it out as long as he did.

2) I would really like to know how Annie felt after seeing Phil say that she had to be 30-1 to win this thing. This really stuck out at me. I'd honestly venture to say a lot of 2+2ers would have been between 30-1 and 50-1 at that table. Giving Annie only credit under 67k in equity at this event was a huge insult. Anybody against Phil heads up has a great shot, just let him maryter himself out of chips /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[Annie Duke]

I said this in another post but will repeat it here. When Phil doubled through me with the 333 against my 333 he had a chip lead of about 2 to 1. I got the lead back without ever showing down a hand--check raising him out of the BB on bluffs and semi bluffs about 4 hands in a row (that is what Phil was ranting about at the end of the show). Then the K9 happened and when he called my check raise I was pretty sure he had top pair and was thinking he was pretty frustrated by all my check-raises. That was the reason I moved in on the turn. Phil made an amazing laydown considering the way I had been playing.

I don't really care what Phil thought my odds were. I knew I wasn't the best player at the table but obviously 30-1 is beyond ridiculous. But that's Phil--ya gotta love him!

Annie

[kmvenne]

Thanks for the info Annie, with that information I tip my cap to you even more. You handled youself with a lot of class winning IMO, Raymer and yourself winning the ESPN featured events can only propel poker to further heights. Congrats on an even more impressive win.

And yes, you do gotta love Phil. He's good for poker, a black sheep that nobody can really get too angry at...hard to ask for a better person to put the bad face of the game on. Phil reminds me of the words of Douglas Adams, "Mostly Harmless."

[vulturesrow]

There is way too much handjobbing on 2+2 recently..although in this case maybe the term isnt quite apropos.

[Francis Begbie]

Wow! I just saw this on ESPN.. You played him like a bitch (him being the bitch of course) and I loved every second of it /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I loved it when you just showed him the 9, I thought his head was going to explode! "I thought I had the nuts"

[OPJayhawk]

Just my opinion here, but I think top internet SnG players would be just about even money vs all those pros at that table.

Now if we are talking about a big money side game obviously these guys would have a huge edge.


But One table freeze outs? How many of these have most of these pros played in? Probably not a whole lot.

I have played in probably 1000 of them. I kinda enjoyed playing along with most of them during tonights broadcast. I would put myself in their postion and 90% of the time the play I made was the same they made.

One question for Annie if she is still reading.

Why not check call vs Phil heads up on some of those monster hands you had instead of the check raise? Isn't the object here to get as many chips as possible in on these hands as you can ?

Check call the flop
Check call the turn
Then lead with a reasonably large bet that makes it tough for Phil to get away from seems to be the best way to get the most in on those hands where you are a big favorite.

It sounds like you outplayed Phil nicely and I was wondering how the stacks got back to even after the you lost the monster pot with the trip 3's. I wish they would have showed more of those hands where you check raised Phil and made him lay down.

A bluff check raise is not a play that you see often and it would have been nice to see you pull it off vs Phil.

Anyway nice win and it played out alot like alot of PP Sng's the final 2 people both hitting 2 outters to make to the final spots.

PacmanKS

[PokerSlut]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't really care what Phil thought my odds were. I knew I wasn't the best player at the table but obviously 30-1 is beyond ridiculous. But that's Phil--ya gotta love him

[/ QUOTE ]
Well you did come back from being short-stacked a few times in coinflip situations to win. I dunno how many coinflips actually you had to win to stay in but it would only take five coinflips where you are the short stack to give you 30-to-1 odds of winning, right? Or maybe my math is a bit off...I never did have a textbook for that class. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[PokerSlut]

[ QUOTE ]

One question for Annie if she is still reading.

Why not check call vs Phil heads up on some of those monster hands you had instead of the check raise? Isn't the object here to get as many chips as possible in on these hands as you can ?

[/ QUOTE ]
Clearly I'm not Annie Duke, but I believe she already answered this. ESPN did not show several hands where she check-raised Phil on bluffs. The whole point of running plays like that is ruined if you change your flop play when you actually hold a good hand, as any decent player (which Phil is despite the ragging he receives) will pick up on this.

[OPJayhawk]

What are you talking about PokerSlut?

You are saying that once you make one play then you must continue to make that same play ?

Check call
Check call
Then a good sized bet with a probable winner is a very tough hand for your opponet to read.

Get em to fold when you dont have it and get em to pay when you do.

PacmanKS

[sdplayerb]

Congrats Annie.
It was great how you did not become flustered by the hand you mentioned. While he lets himself get upset all the time.
It looked like he could only win a midsize pot against you, while at some point you would get a big hand and he'd pay you off, which happened.
You also had a great gameplan in that you were completely willing to gamble due to your humility that you weren't the best player at the table (which few would be willing to say and take into account).
My guess is maybe Greg thought the same thing, thus willing to gamble some as well.

2+2 karma i think it is.
And nothing better than seeing Phil come in 2nd in a winner take all event.

[PokerSlut]

[ QUOTE ]
What are you talking about PokerSlut?

You are saying that once you make one play then you must continue to make that same play ?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I'm saying that by using the same play again, Annie had a much better shot at being paid off when she had the winner than if she had changed it up at that point. Dramatic changes in betting patterns are the biggest "tell" in poker, unless you have a maniac image.

It appears you don't agree. I'm not going to bother arguing the point with you any further.

[OPJayhawk]

PokerSlut

This is a poker message board. The idea is to discuss things here and we dont need to necessarily agree.

I personally mix it up with regard to my betting patterns. I'll play the same hand different ways just to try and keep my opponets off guard. I don't see this as a "tell"

One of Doyle's comments he made during the coverage of this years WSop with regard to playing AK. He mentioned that he had limped in with it - raised with it - and pushed in with it. Thus varying his play. I'm sure he didnt see this as a "tell"

PacmanKS

[PokerSlut]

Ok, fine I'll continue the debate.

I still think that my point stands. Yes, good players vary their play, but Annie made it clear that she had been very aggressive and check-raised Hellmuth 4 times consecutively in unaired hands. Then this hand comes up where she flops two pair. I think suddenly check-calling in this situation after being so aggressive is more likely to be looked upon with suspicion than just contuing to do what you've done the past 4 hands in a row.

I think check-calling in this situation is the worst thing you can do. If Phil has no hand the sudden change in style isn't likely to induce a bluff (certainly nothing that will pot commit him) IMO because he will suspect Annie of trying to trap him. If he does have a hand he will likely try to make a stand, and call or quite possibly even push in out of frustration.


Yes varying your betting patterns is important. But think about the situation here; put yourself in Phil's shoes. You are playing heads-up, where aggressive play is standard practice. Your opponent has been extremely aggressive with you for the last several hands, forcing you to lay down each time, and suddenly on this hand turns into a calling station. Your opponent either has a holding that they don't even want to take a stab at it on the flop, but for some strange reason think it's good enough to call with, or they want to build a pot and keep you in the hand. Are you likely to commit all your chips in this spot, or would you rather wait for a better opportunity?

[xrongor]

[ QUOTE ]
You played him like a bitch

[/ QUOTE ]
i certainly didnt see the whole thing, and i know there was editing, but this is exactly what i saw too.

at the risk of 'handjobbing', annie IS the best. or as close to being such an ellusive thing as the 'best' as you can expect from a game like poker. she is a top player to be respected, and has the credentials to back it up.

there were a couple times during the show i sensed that she didnt believe that. whats better is that i think it was not only done on purpose, but that it worked.

showing phil the 9 was PURE GENIUS! i bet he's still muttering to himself over it.

[xrongor]

[ QUOTE ]
30-to-1 odds of winning

[/ QUOTE ]

i think it was completely clear that phil meant BEFORE the tournament annie was a 30-1 dog (in his estimate). it had nothing to do with her position at the table at any time.

[nothumb]

Actually the person who Phil acknowledges disagreeing with on the best starting hand is TJ Cloutier. I think. Haven't read it in a long time but I have a damn good memory for that kind of stuff.

And I have seen/heard Phil compliment Annie on both her playing and her priorities (i.e. family life) a number of times. Aren't they still both part of the UB team or whatever? I think they have a healthy respect for one another.

NT

[plaid]

If the check-raise antagonizes the competition to the extent that he will eventually make a mistake, I like the idea of continuing (and doing it more with the best hand than the worst).

What I wonder is whether showing weakness in that check-raise (maybe with a fairly low raise, or maybe a really fast all-in full of faux confidence)...would work?

I’ve seen these types of tactics work at my level of competition. Do you think such tactics would work against Phil (or anyone at his level) in that situation?