Phil Ivey: 3 Final Table Exits holding AQ [Archive]

HamJam

03-18-2005, 03:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
um... nh?

[/ QUOTE ]
Nice first post. Did you register just to make that reply?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. I read this topic, had a thought of such wit I wrote it down, and registered so I could post it and impress people like you. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

flyingmoose

03-18-2005, 03:43 AM

AQ isn't a very big hand at a full table, but Ivey wasn't going broke at full tables. One of his hands was 3-handed. You would need a very strong read to fold AQ 3-handed.

legend42

03-18-2005, 04:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
AQ isn't a very big hand at a full table, but Ivey wasn't going broke at full tables. One of his hands was 3-handed. You would need a very strong read to fold AQ 3-handed.

[/ QUOTE ]

He moved in with it.

flyingmoose

03-18-2005, 04:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
AQ isn't a very big hand at a full table, but Ivey wasn't going broke at full tables. One of his hands was 3-handed. You would need a very strong read to fold AQ 3-handed.

[/ QUOTE ]

He moved in with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, he did. If I remember correctly, The button raised to 100k, Allen called and Ivey moved in for 700k.

He was looking to increase his stack by >30% against a standard button raise and a call by the loosest player at the final table.

What would you have done? AQ is strong 3-handed, but if he misses the flop (which he will 2 times out of 3) he'll be out of position with overcards. If he re-raises to 350k, he'll be pot-stuck.

I think that Ivey's play is the highest possible EV play versus the range of hands his opponents would have, and he got unlucky. If you feel that there is a better play, please share.

lighterjobs

03-18-2005, 05:26 AM

all three times were pretty weak, too.

foxwoods.. moved in with AQs after howard had been playing tight all night and reraised phil with KK.

bellagio.. tried to steal the pot three (maybe four?) handed by moving in and kirill called with AKs

and the borgata hand.. he was shortstacked so moving in with AQs was a pretty case play. the only thing i didn't like was that the tightest player at the table raised UTG and josh a called. he was just wanting to double up, and wanting to play this hand, so he definately couldn't call with his stack.

my $.02

Rianna

03-18-2005, 06:40 AM

Thank you for the thread..wish we could get more activity with it /images/graemlins/frown.gif

I think Phil's play was not terribly out of line but was really disappointed that Phil didn't last...it could have been a truly classic match up.

As for the final two, David and Daniel, good show. I actually thought David could win the thing until he got cute against the two kings...ug (no point IMHO) /images/graemlins/smirk.gif maybe they had made a deal and agreed to put on a show.

I personally would LOVE to see a fair, ie 3 out of 5 (or something where the cards can break even) for some real money head up Daniel against Doyle. I'd pay good money to watch that one.

Any comments, opinions please?

Rianna /images/graemlins/wink.gif

sammysusar

03-18-2005, 10:25 AM

bad coincidence thats all

Goodie54

03-18-2005, 11:43 AM

The foxwoods play is debatable, but that's the only one.

At Bellagio, he was not attempting to "steal" this pot. I would say with 99% certainly that he either thought he had the best hand or was a coin flip. This was a very standard play three handed.

This past wed. show, how do you know that the amatuer was the tightest player at the table? You saw him play three hands, and lets not forget that he raised with 98suited all in after a raise. Doesn't sound very tight to me. Ivey's play was very standard here as well. This is a clear move in every single time.

Peace

Goodie

Beavis68

03-18-2005, 12:46 PM

Lets not forget that he got busted out the WSOP in 2003 by Moneymaker and AQ.

cwsiggy

03-18-2005, 01:00 PM

Phil Ivey is the best player and made more $ in 2004 than anyone who posts on twoplustwo including Paul Phillips

Discuss...

jojobinks

03-18-2005, 01:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Phil Ivey is the best player and made more $ in 2004 than anyone who posts on twoplustwo including Paul Phillips

Discuss...

[/ QUOTE ]

the best player in the world? on tv the other night? i don't understand the question.

discuss...

DesertCat

03-18-2005, 06:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Phil Ivey is the best player and made more $ in 2004 than anyone who posts on twoplustwo including Paul Phillips

Discuss...

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt it. First of all, he can't see into other player's souls since he never wears adequate UV protection. Also he needs to value call his nuts more...

AceHigh

03-18-2005, 06:25 PM

Barry Greenstein posts on 2+2.

legend42

03-18-2005, 06:32 PM

I wasn't criticizing the all-in, I think it was definitely the best play there. I was referring to your comment about possibly folding it 3-handed, but I now realize that you were responding to the previous post that said AQ is a vulnerable hand. So never mind.

Sponger15SB

03-18-2005, 06:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
discuss

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't forget he got knocked out of the 2003 WSOP ME against AQ.

lighterjobs

03-18-2005, 07:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The foxwoods play is debatable, but that's the only one.

At Bellagio, he was not attempting to "steal" this pot. I would say with 99% certainly that he either thought he had the best hand or was a coin flip. This was a very standard play three handed.

This past wed. show, how do you know that the amatuer was the tightest player at the table? You saw him play three hands, and lets not forget that he raised with 98suited all in after a raise. Doesn't sound very tight to me. Ivey's play was very standard here as well. This is a clear move in every single time.

Peace

Goodie

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't seen the bellagio tourn. since it first aired. I thought he was the button and moved in trying to steal the pot. I guess phil saw more hands than I thought he did at borgata. I thought he was around for a while and I just remember the six seat playing tight. oops.

cwsiggy

03-18-2005, 07:15 PM

forgot about that

bobby rooney

03-19-2005, 03:03 AM

Yes, AQ is normally not that great, but 5-handed and less, it becomes a pretty big hand. It's just unfortunate that ever time he gets it, AK or a mid-pair is out. You can't play it weak short-handed, even KQ and AT and the like are pretty big short, hell even give me a pair of 77 or 88.

wray

03-26-2005, 10:02 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Barry Greenstein posts on 2+2.

[/ QUOTE ]

I may very well be wrong but I thought Barryg1 said P Ivey has made more than anyone in the past couple years.

That guy

04-07-2005, 10:53 AM

Daniel Negreanu on ESPN the other day said he calls AQ "2.7" because he's lost over $2.7mm on this hand alone. DN said 'I am done with it'....

betgo

04-07-2005, 11:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Daniel Negreanu on ESPN the other day said he calls AQ "2.7" because he's lost over $2.7mm on this hand alone. DN said 'I am done with it'....

[/ QUOTE ]

DN will stick to stronger hands like Q4s.

Talus2112

04-07-2005, 02:03 PM

I forget who it was, but someone said AQ offsuit is a drawing hand to two different flushes...That is on way to look at it, I guess. I think statistically it is a better drawing hand to a nut straight, since you have already two cards to it, instead of only one to a flush with either card.

Short handed it is a pretty good starting hand. There are only two profitable ways to play that hand (3handed)if the pot has already been raised, all-in or toss it.

betgo

04-07-2005, 02:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Short handed it is a pretty good starting hand. There are only two profitable ways to play that hand (3handed)if the pot has already been raised, all-in or toss it.

[/ QUOTE ]

3-handed, the only way to play AQ is all-in, unless you have 2 players allin in front of you. If the blinds are really small, you might just raise or reraise, but this is a hand you like to push with.

DaSpade

04-07-2005, 04:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I forget who it was, but someone said AQ offsuit is a drawing hand to two different flushes...That is on way to look at it, I guess. I think statistically it is a better drawing hand to a nut straight, since you have already two cards to it, instead of only one to a flush with either card.

[/ QUOTE ]

I play AA strongly for that same reason, that I can draw to two different nut flushes /images/graemlins/tongue.gif