09-11-2005, 05:39 PM
(sorry, unable to get the hand converter to work)
This isn't a bad beat story. What I'm trying to figure out is if there is any way in the world for UTG to be making a sound play by cold calling two all-in bets with what turned out to be a very marginal holding.
A couple of people have told me that the Villain is reputed to be a very good online player who has a big following of "students" that he gives advice to. It sort of reminds me of the page 53 essay in John Feeney's book "The Best Player I've Ever Seen."
I'm unconvinced from some of his play that I've seen while clocking him and other players. His play in this hand seems to indicate that he is a poor player.
The only rationale I can think of is that he has both me and the other player covered and can afford to risk some chips in an effort to pad his stack. But that is so thin in this scenario, where I cold called his raise and then went all in on the reraise. The cases are very rare at this level of play, where one or both of the reraisers does not have a big pair, which would make his hand a huge dog.
For what it's worth, the hand played out exactly as I hoped it would. In these loose online NLTs, I rarely slow-play big pairs from EP. In this case I did, because I noticed that the Button was short-stacked and would likely reraise all in with any kind of hand. This would allow me to hopefully further trap the Villain and extract maximum yield from the hand. This all worked really well, right up to the flop.
Aside from the beat, any strategic comments are the real reason for the post. Is there any valid rationale for the Villain to play the way he did?
PlayerA is at seat 0 with 1105.
PlayerB is at seat 1 with 1825.
ShortStack is at seat 2 with 490.
PlayerD is at seat 3 with 3340.
PlayerE is at seat 4 with 2030.
Villain is at seat 5 with 3715.
Hero is at seat 6 with 1665.
PlayerH is at seat 7 with 5630.
PlayerI is at seat 8 with 905.
PlayerJ is at seat 9 with 3865.
The button is at seat 2.
PlayerD posts the small blind of 30.
PlayerE posts the big blind of 60.
PlayerA: -- --
PlayerB: -- --
ShortStack: -- --
PlayerD: -- --
PlayerE: -- --
Villain: -- --
Hero: Kd Kc
PlayerH: -- --
PlayerI: -- --
PlayerJ: -- --
Pre-flop:
Villain raises to 120. Hero calls. PlayerH
folds. PlayerI folds. PlayerJ folds.
PlayerA folds. PlayerB folds. ShortStack
goes all-in for 490. PlayerD folds. PlayerE
folds. Villain calls. Hero goes all-in for
1665. Villain calls.
Tournament all-in showdown -- players show:
ShortStack shows As Jh.
Villain shows 9h Th.
Hero shows Kd Kc.
Flop (board: Ts Td Js):
(no action in this round)
Turn (board: Ts Td Js 6d):
(no action in this round)
River (board: Ts Td Js 6d Qs):
(no action in this round)
Showdown:
ShortStack has As Jh Ts Td Js: two pair, jacks and tens.
Villain has Th Ts Td Js Qs: three tens.
Hero has Kd Kc Ts Td Qs: two pair, kings and tens.
This isn't a bad beat story. What I'm trying to figure out is if there is any way in the world for UTG to be making a sound play by cold calling two all-in bets with what turned out to be a very marginal holding.
A couple of people have told me that the Villain is reputed to be a very good online player who has a big following of "students" that he gives advice to. It sort of reminds me of the page 53 essay in John Feeney's book "The Best Player I've Ever Seen."
I'm unconvinced from some of his play that I've seen while clocking him and other players. His play in this hand seems to indicate that he is a poor player.
The only rationale I can think of is that he has both me and the other player covered and can afford to risk some chips in an effort to pad his stack. But that is so thin in this scenario, where I cold called his raise and then went all in on the reraise. The cases are very rare at this level of play, where one or both of the reraisers does not have a big pair, which would make his hand a huge dog.
For what it's worth, the hand played out exactly as I hoped it would. In these loose online NLTs, I rarely slow-play big pairs from EP. In this case I did, because I noticed that the Button was short-stacked and would likely reraise all in with any kind of hand. This would allow me to hopefully further trap the Villain and extract maximum yield from the hand. This all worked really well, right up to the flop.
Aside from the beat, any strategic comments are the real reason for the post. Is there any valid rationale for the Villain to play the way he did?
PlayerA is at seat 0 with 1105.
PlayerB is at seat 1 with 1825.
ShortStack is at seat 2 with 490.
PlayerD is at seat 3 with 3340.
PlayerE is at seat 4 with 2030.
Villain is at seat 5 with 3715.
Hero is at seat 6 with 1665.
PlayerH is at seat 7 with 5630.
PlayerI is at seat 8 with 905.
PlayerJ is at seat 9 with 3865.
The button is at seat 2.
PlayerD posts the small blind of 30.
PlayerE posts the big blind of 60.
PlayerA: -- --
PlayerB: -- --
ShortStack: -- --
PlayerD: -- --
PlayerE: -- --
Villain: -- --
Hero: Kd Kc
PlayerH: -- --
PlayerI: -- --
PlayerJ: -- --
Pre-flop:
Villain raises to 120. Hero calls. PlayerH
folds. PlayerI folds. PlayerJ folds.
PlayerA folds. PlayerB folds. ShortStack
goes all-in for 490. PlayerD folds. PlayerE
folds. Villain calls. Hero goes all-in for
1665. Villain calls.
Tournament all-in showdown -- players show:
ShortStack shows As Jh.
Villain shows 9h Th.
Hero shows Kd Kc.
Flop (board: Ts Td Js):
(no action in this round)
Turn (board: Ts Td Js 6d):
(no action in this round)
River (board: Ts Td Js 6d Qs):
(no action in this round)
Showdown:
ShortStack has As Jh Ts Td Js: two pair, jacks and tens.
Villain has Th Ts Td Js Qs: three tens.
Hero has Kd Kc Ts Td Qs: two pair, kings and tens.