Another interesting hand from the game's "smartest player"

[Gramps]

I don't like to hate on people like this, but when Sklansky "annoits" you, you just can't make plays like this...

....Pusher was a tad on the aggressive side (for a Step 5), but nothing unreasonable - maybe top 1/8 hands or so here....

***** Hand History for Game 2877657745 *****
100/200 Tourney Texas Hold'em Game Table (NL) (Tournament 16590976) - Fri Oct 14 21:15:04 EDT 2005
Table Step 5 1068697 (Real Money) -- Seat 2 is the button
Total number of players : 7
Seat 2: StraightPair (960)
Seat 3: Herodotus (1945)
Seat 5: wchen (910)
Seat 7: dedragon_fly (1845)
Seat 8: picilsinsope (1500)
Seat 9: s87l91k (1060)
Seat 10: MustSeeFlops (1780)
Herodotus posts small blind (50)
wchen posts big blind (100)
** Dealing down cards **
dedragon_fly folds.
picilsinsope folds.
s87l91k raises (1060) to 1060
s87l91k is all-In.
MustSeeFlops folds.
StraightPair folds.
Herodotus folds.
<font color="blue"> wchen calls (810) </font>
wchen is all-In.
Creating Main Pot with $1870 with wchen
Creating Side Pot 1 with $150 with s87l91k
** Dealing Flop ** : [ 8c, Js, Tc ]
** Dealing Turn ** : [ 4c ]
** Dealing River ** : [ 9c ]
** Summary **
Main Pot: 1870 | Side Pot 1: 150
Board: [ 8c Js Tc 4c 9c ]
StraightPair balance 960, didn't bet (folded)
Herodotus balance 1895, lost 50 (folded)
wchen balance 0, lost 910 <font color="blue"> [ 2h 2d ] </font> [ a pair of twos -- Js,Tc,9c,2h,2d ]
dedragon_fly balance 1845, didn't bet (folded)
picilsinsope balance 1500, didn't bet (folded)
s87l91k balance 2020, bet 1060, collected 2020, net +960 [ Th As ] [ a pair of tens -- As,Js,Th,Tc,9c ]
MustSeeFlops balance 1780, didn't bet (folded)

...Anyone want to make an arguemnt that a call here is at least close?

[applejuicekid]

Yuck...

[ QUOTE ]
...Anyone want to make an arguemnt that a call here is at least close?

[/ QUOTE ]

Could someone please do this? This call just looks horrible in my opinion.

[axeshigh]

Who's this wchen guy? I don't play the step 5s but I fail to see how this can be a good call.

[Nicholasp27]

horrible call

someone overvalues low pps...

[JudoGirl]

just curious, who is wchen and can you provide me a link to where sklansky commented on him? thx.

[applejuicekid]

Here's the link for sklansky's top ten (http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=&amp;Number=1435626&amp;page=&amp;view =&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;fpart=)

[Gramps]

Anyone have the link to the "Ten Smartest Poker Players" thread? I guess Sklansky's arrogance in parts of that thread rubbed me the wrong way, and when his "#1 smartest poker player" makes plays like that, it makes me smile.

[applejuicekid]

[ QUOTE ]
horrible call

someone overvalues low pps...

[/ QUOTE ]

There must be more to it than that. I don't know who William Chen is, but if Sklansky says he is the smartest player he is not just some donk who likes pairs. There must be some reasoning behind this call.

[Nicholasp27]

why must there be some reasoning?

22 is barely a favorite to random cards...it's beaten by so many holdings it isn't funny

he overvalued 22 or got impatient when he had 8bbs left and decided to gamble

[Gramps]

[ QUOTE ]
why must there be some reasoning?

22 is barely a favorite to random cards...it's beaten by so many holdings it isn't funny

he overvalued 22 or got impatient when he had 8bbs left and decided to gamble

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing is, the times I've played with the dude in the 215s, he's not loose or impatient at all - he'll fold down his stack quite a ways. My guess is it's a case of CEV analysis gone wrong (pot odds), or a misclick of sorts...but that AJo hand that ZJ posted a while back makes me think the former...

[Gigabet]

I can justify this play with logic, as well as give you a legitamate line of reasonign that he used when he made this play. However, I don't have time right now. It will take a bit to type it up, and I am in about 10 thousand games. I will post the reasoning in a few hours.

Aside from the shaky play, I have played thousands of hands with Bill, and I also believe he is one of the games greatest thinkers.

[applejuicekid]

LOL...why did this hand make me think of gigabet? I have the feeling I'm not going to understand the explanation, but am eagerly anticipating it regardless.

[Big Limpin']

i can only presume wchen has decided people view him as "smart", so he chose to make a image-"dumb" play?/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Seriously though:

Take this in context, as i play for like 1/20th of these stakes...but you ask if anyone can argue that call is "at least close"...well, isn't it?

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif What we call "races" are usually closer to 55/45, favor the PP
/images/graemlins/diamond.gif The t100 BB he posted also must matter to some degree.

With the merits of these factors, i can see call being reasonable, especially if he had a very good line on the pusher (something like...he wouldnt push with JJ/QQ/KK/AA, and he wouldnt even play 22/33/44/55/66/77), so perhaps you know that the hand range for the push is only a pp 5-10% of the time.

*IF* this were the case, that you knew it was unlikely the push came from a PP..then an arguement could be made that this was even a +EV call. It would almost certainly be +chipEV, and perhaps the "image" value would allow even marginally -$EV calls to be the right move.

BL'

oh, and Mr. Chen is closing the action.

EDIT: Also, never forget outside influences. Maybe he had to piss really bad? Or his car was being broken into? Or house on fire? (im semi-serious here too). If im in the last remaining game of my last quad of the night, im often willing to take a little more risk, just so i can double up or bail.

[Gramps]

Yikes, I can see how it gives you a stealing edge of sorts, and the relative position of the stacks is such that there's value in getting to 2k and having a shot at opening up an additional gap on the other stacks. And, I can see the value of making a borderline call, that will make people think twice about pushing on you.

But...c'mon, you're like 40% at best to win that hand vs. the pusher's range (unless there's something about the pusher that I don't know). It's not worth it to make that call with 22. Especially given that a fair % of the time you'll be able to make it into the top-4 (vs. top-3 payout structure) without having to win an all-in, taking an unneccessary crappy confrontation at this point just blows all the way around IMO.

Not saying there couldn't be some very solid, logical thinking behind it, just that (IMO, IME) it's misapplied here. I'm taking off for the next 24 hours, but I'll be very interested to see the (correctly applied to the variables present) logic behind this one.

And FWIW, I've read the dude's sutff in the Conjelco letter, I do think he's very smart. My point is more about taking into proper account all the proper tournament/SNG variables that actually exist when making plays vs. one's ability to do high level analysis given a fixed set of established variables.

[applejuicekid]

[ QUOTE ]
but you ask if anyone can argue that call is "at least close"...well, isn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't think so. Not only is this a poor call according to ICM, but in terms of chipEV as well. 22 is most likely behind the pushers range.

[ QUOTE ]
What we call "races" are usually closer to 55/45, favor the PP

[/ QUOTE ]

Not when the PP is 22. The best it can be over two overcards is 52/48 and can even be behind two unsuited overcards.

cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
2c 2d 839324 49.02 843273 49.25 29707 1.73 0.499
8s Th 843273 49.25 839324 49.02 29707 1.73 0.501



[ QUOTE ]
With the merits of these factors, i can see call being reasonable, especially if he had a very good line on the pusher (something like...he wouldnt push with JJ/QQ/KK/AA, and he wouldnt even play 22/33/44/55/66/77), so perhaps you know that the hand range for the push is only a pp 5-10% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a stretch. That would be a very weird range, and an amazing read to be able to narrow his range down that much.

[ QUOTE ]
EDIT: Also, never forget outside influences. Maybe he had to piss really bad? Or his car was being broken into? Or house on fire? (im semi-serious here too). If im in the last remaining game of my last quad of the night, im often willing to take a little more risk, just so i can double up or bail.

[/ QUOTE ]

This makes a little bit more sense. It seems from reading your post that you don't agree with his call, but are trying to think up some logical explanations. I applaud your efforts since you did way better than I could have, but I disagree with most of your points and will have a tough time believing that this is a close not to mention good call.

[Big Limpin']

yeah man, you are bang on about me not truely liking/understanding, but attemting to justify (as was Gramps request)

with respect to [ QUOTE ]
This is a stretch. That would be a very weird range,

[/ QUOTE ]for sure it is a little ambitious, but i think its plausable ,(for reads on the right player) to eliminate some PPs based on what you know about how they would play them. My stated hands were pulled from my ass, but would it be reasonable to eliminate *some* of the highest and lowest (or maybe just the lowest)?

Oh, and about me saying its better than a race, yeah you're right, i brain froze a little there, seeing as its 22, which is the most likely to be counterfeitted by a double paired board. Still, it ought to fare better against AK than 8To, no?

So, call it a 50/50 on a pot laying 11:9 if push is indeed not a PP. But certainly, as much as you discount likelyhood of overpair, its a risk still of significant proportions.

BL'

[applejuicekid]

I thought about it a bit more, and think you may have a good point about the range. And yes 22 does fare better against AK than T8, but it isn't one of those pairs where you will be 56/44 or something.

I think this play has value at the highest buyins. When all the other players are very aware of one another's games there could be a definite advantage in a call here. Not only does the pot offer odds for a coinflip or near-coinflip, but it also announces to the rest of the table that the caller has a looser range of calling hands than they would normally assume.

If the caller doubles up he will be less likely to have his blinds pushed over. Given these circumstances, the caller has two choices and three outcomes:

1) fold - gain nothing
2a) call - lose
2b) call - double up and gain blinds later from narrower opponent pushing ranges

Under this reasoning a call is clearly +EV.

But what do I know? I push bot the 22s and fold pocket deuces here every time because I can just steal blinds later from my too-tight opponents.

[Exitonly]

Don't think theres much defending this..

I'm going to say, he had to run out to make an appointment, and this call is less -EV than blinding out.

edit: well there is defending this, 1.3:1 isn't sooo bad. But without doing more math, i don't think this is the best play.

[stupidsucker]

In many ways this post alone is evidence that the play was an excellent long term play.

I am just sticking my nose in where it doesnt belong , /images/graemlins/grin.gif but he obviously has some people scratchign their head.

There are more, maybe even stronger, arguments for calling.

wchen also has no fold equity on future pushes if he folds here. He would be left with 3xBB. If he pushed from the button next hand BB's calling range would be huge because BB would only have to call 400 to take a shot a 900 pot.

This might also be a move based on, "the best hand I'm likely to have before it doesn't matter what hand I have" principle.

Likewise, if wchen doubles up he has more fold equity to exploit against the other players. His pushing range can become wider and he can take blinds more agressively than he can as the small stack.

Also, pushing hands like KQ or AT are much more likely simply because they're more numerous than pairs, making the call a coinflip a great deal of the time.

Overall, I think this is a situation where the likely way in which future hands will play out dictates what decision has to be made in a current hand.

[Gramps]

[ QUOTE ]
There are more, maybe even stronger, arguments for calling.

wchen also has no fold equity on future pushes if he folds here. He would be left with 3xBB.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, I lied, I'm back before 24 hours (but just briefly, and semi-drunk at that).

Stakes are 100/200, which means the blinds are only 50/100. So...this call was made with lots of BB/FE left...if this was 100/200 blinds, it would be a completely different story...

Well, then I'm back to my "opponents change their pushing range argument."

I just honestly can't see an accomplished high stakes player not having some sort of defensible line for calling with 22-44 in the BB here.

[microbet]

Very -$EV for this hand anyway. I suppose it was an image play.

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]
Very -$EV for this hand anyway. I suppose it was an image play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or he put a very high value on the chips he stood to gain.

[applejuicekid]

[ QUOTE ]
Very -$EV for this hand anyway. I suppose it was an image play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do people keep saying this? How can this be an image play? Will you honestly change your pushing range if you know the BB will call with 22? Actually, you don't even know that he is calling with 22 just that he has done so in the past in a -EV situation.

[Exitonly]

I can't think of a range that he's +cEV against here (he's a 2:1 dog vs anything i can put together) So unless he thought he was outclassed mightily (gigabet is at the table /images/graemlins/tongue.gif ) and he needed to gamble to get a big stack to play with, this is bad.

I stand by that he must of had to go somewhere.

Was just reading Jerrod Ankenman's LJ, and saw something in reference to Chen:

Seems Jerrod, Bill, et. al. got into a debate on what Bill would score on the LSAT with no studying. Needless to say it ended up with a wager and they had him run through the offical 4 hr practice test.

Jerrod says Bill, "without even really knowing what the format would be or what to expect, scored 176."

Not too shabby. (tis out of 180..)

Does anyone know when Chen and Ankenman's book is supposed to be out? Mathmatics of Poker??

[Jman28]

I would suspect it's a combination of things already said.

a) A bigger stack on the bubble is important in STEP 5s as bubbles are correctly tight-aggro. Winning this hand will allow him to outchip the two stacks he's pushing into, and have enough chips to threaten the stack pushing into him.
b) He plays with a lot of these guys often, so image matters. If he shows he will defend his BB, people will notice, and their adjustments will be good for him in the future.

[microbet]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Very -$EV for this hand anyway. I suppose it was an image play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do people keep saying this? How can this be an image play? Will you honestly change your pushing range if you know the BB will call with 22? Actually, you don't even know that he is calling with 22 just that he has done so in the past in a -EV situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I will change my pushing range. If I see someone do this once, I will write a note that says "loose caller." This will affect my pushing range in the future. If it were someone I played with a lot, I might be able to figure out whether they always call loose or just sometimes.

[microbet]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Very -$EV for this hand anyway. I suppose it was an image play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or he put a very high value on the chips he stood to gain.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I know, Band of Chips and such, but IMO this is too far gone to make it to +$EV without image considerations.

Any system of valuing additional chips more than ICM does still has a contraint that all the chips are only worth 1/2 the total equity.

[Oluwafemi]

i took Sklansky's fingering of Bill Chen to exactly what it was:

Sklansky sees Bill as the smartest person who plays poker. i honestly don't think he meant that Bill is the smartest poker player , which most would argue translate into being the best or among the most successful.

Sklansky even says in his OP that in letting the newbies know who the smartest players are, " that doesn't always mean the best players, but again there is a correlation ". he then goes on to say that no one on the list would have trouble making a pretty good living playing poker if they had to.

if you go back and take a look at the Top 10 list, at least [4] players already make a nice living playing poker . Paul Phillips, although he's already financially well off, lead all tourney players in money won in 2003 [outside of Chris Moneymaker's $2.5 million WSOP ME win].

up until he [Sklansky] made the list, i had never even heard of
William Chen, Mark Weitzman, Tom Weideman, and Jimmy Warren. Jim Geary is the only other one that sounds vaguely familiar and i strongly emphasize vaguely ! if you were to google Chen and Weideman, you'll see exactly why the key word is SMARTEST .

when ZeeJustin came in thread and posted Bill's hand, it almost seemed as he intended to [negatively] show the guy up and make him look bad. Bill Chen certainly may not be on Giga's or Zee's level in playing SNGs online but from what i've gathered, he does make a good deal of money playing poker and it's definitely probably something he doesn't [i]solely have to rely on.

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 34.0281 % 33.74% 00.29% { 22 }
Hand 2: 65.9719 % 65.68% 00.29% { QQ+, AKs, AKo }

Just about any pushing range above 50% of hands is the equivalent to this range for 22 because all of those ranges have roughly 50% PPs and 50% high cards.

There's 910+100+50 = 1060 in the pot, and it costs him 810 to call, meaning he's getting 1.3:1. So the play is definitely -cEV, but not horribly so.

Maybe he was considering metagame concepts. Maybe he thought a being a big stack would be very +EV at this table. Maybe he had to take a piss.

I think the most likely explanation is that it's very hard to always make the correct play, especially when you're playing really intense, thinking poker in which you consider every play every hand.

[KingDan]

I assume he thinks these chips will allow him to run over the table and regain (through stealing) whatever he loses in Chip EV this hand.

But for me this is an instamuck.

[JudoGirl]

ZeeJustin seems to like the move too. This is from the Monte Carlo Satellite. About 13 players left. Top 2 get the package. Justin in about 5th place in chips:


PokerStars Game #2811866698: Tournament #13510423, Hold'em No Limit - Level VII (100/200) - 2005/10/15 - 18:31:05 (ET)
Table '13510423 8' Seat #3 is the button
Seat 2: yoorl (18930 in chips)
Seat 3: HangManRoper (9095 in chips)
Seat 4: PULAS (16714 in chips)
Seat 5: dgrimreaper (13403 in chips)
Seat 7: Giiant (5050 in chips)
Seat 8: ZeeJustin (13630 in chips)
Seat 9: atwttp (3100 in chips)
yoorl: posts the ante 25
HangManRoper: posts the ante 25
PULAS: posts the ante 25
dgrimreaper: posts the ante 25
Giiant: posts the ante 25
ZeeJustin: posts the ante 25
atwttp: posts the ante 25
PULAS: posts small blind 100
dgrimreaper: posts big blind 200
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Giiant: folds
ZeeJustin: raises 400 to 600
atwttp: raises 2475 to 3075 and is all-in
yoorl: folds
HangManRoper: folds
PULAS: folds
dgrimreaper: folds
ZeeJustin: calls 2475
ZeeJustin said, "doh"
*** FLOP *** [Ks Kh Qd]
*** TURN *** [Ks Kh Qd] [6c]
*** RIVER *** [Ks Kh Qd 6c] [8h]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
ZeeJustin: shows [2h 2s] (two pair, Kings and Deuces)
atwttp: shows [Td Tc] (two pair, Kings and Tens)
atwttp collected 6625 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 6625 | Rake 0
Board [Ks Kh Qd 6c 8h]
Seat 2: yoorl folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 3: HangManRoper (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 4: PULAS (small blind) folded before Flop
Seat 5: dgrimreaper (big blind) folded before Flop
Seat 7: Giiant folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 8: ZeeJustin showed [2h 2s] and lost with two pair, Kings and Deuces
Seat 9: atwttp showed [Td Tc] and won (6625) with two pair, Kings and Tens

[Apathy]

This hand is completely different then the one in the OP.
TOTALLY diferent spots.

[JudoGirl]

True. He wasn't calling off all his chips there. But the comments about this being a race *at best* still apply, no? I don't think I make this call.

[FlyWf]

The upside of 22 is that while it's often a slight dog and never a big favorite, it's relatively rarely a huge dog. Given the payout structure and how ZJ will still have an effective stack if he calls and loses, I think ZeeJustin's call there is entirely reasonable.

[JudoGirl]

[ QUOTE ]
The upside of 22 is that while it's often a slight dog and never a big favorite, it's relatively rarely a huge dog. Given the payout structure and how ZJ will still have an effective stack if he calls and loses, I think ZeeJustin's call there is entirely reasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a huge dog whenever it is up against a bigger pair. So I'm not sure if I buy the *relatively rarely* comment. I do agree that it doesn't put a huge dent in his stack, but it doesn't give him a big lift if he wins either.

(I aplogize for hijacking the thread)

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
ZeeJustin seems to like the move too.

[/ QUOTE ]

ZJ's hand has absolutely nothing to do with the hand discussed here.

[Gramps]

[ QUOTE ]
i took Sklansky's fingering of Bill Chen to exactly what it was:

Sklansky sees Bill as the smartest person who plays poker. i honestly don't think he meant that Bill is the smartest poker player , which most would argue translate into being the best or among the most successful.

Sklansky even says in his OP that in letting the newbies know who the smartest players are, " that doesn't always mean the best players, but again there is a correlation ". he then goes on to say that no one on the list would have trouble making a pretty good living playing poker if they had to.

if you go back and take a look at the Top 10 list, at least [4] players already make a nice living playing poker [i'm including Ed Miller because he also makes money from his poker authoring thru 2+2, as well as, his play at the tables]. Paul Phillips, although he's already financially well off, lead all tourney players in money won in 2003 [outside of Chris Moneymaker's $2.5 million WSOP ME win].

up until he [Sklansky] made the list, i had never even heard of
William Chen, Mark Weitzman, Tom Weideman, and Jimmy Warren. Jim Geary is the only other one that sounds vaguely familiar and i strongly emphasize vaguely ! if you were to google Chen and Weideman, you'll see exactly why the key word is SMARTEST .

when ZeeJustin came in thread and posted Bill's hand, it almost seemed as he intended to [negatively] show the guy up and make him look bad. Bill Chen certainly may not be on Giga's or Zee's level in playing SNGs online but from what i've gathered, he does make a good deal of money playing poker and it's definitely probably something he doesn't solely have to rely on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that makes more sense. And I didn't in any way mean to show this guy up by posting this hand - I kind of regret that I didn't just block out the names, b/c I just don't like to do that sort of thing - I've made a number of mistakes that people could post and critique. I guess my point is that just because you're "smart" or "brilliant" in one sense, that doesn't at all mean that you're the best poker player out there - in fact, since the point of poker is to make the most $$ you can, the "smartest" poker players are the ones who can do that - not work some crazy number/theory magic in their own world of fixed variables and assumptions (which definitely has it's own validity/value, but is qualitatively a bit different from actually playing poker and deriving results therefrom, etc.).

However, people that can do the number/theory magic but are lacking a bit on the practical application still get put up on a pedastool, while people that have a sick earn (practical application skills) but don't have the ability/spend the time to work the number/theory magic (i.e. Phil Ivey) don't get labelled as "smart" or "brilliant" as often. That just doesn't make sense to me, I took issue with the Sklansky thread (and the way he defines "smart"/intelligence), I guess this is a 12 month-later manifestation of that.

Yada-yada, etc., etc....

[imported_cocarondelle]

hi!
could you give a link to that "interesting stuff" in the conjelco letter?
thanks.

[Sciolist]

Misclick? :]

[KingDan]

Bump, because I want to see the reasoning.

Was I even close with "I assume he thinks these chips will allow him to run over the table and regain (through stealing) whatever he loses in Chip EV this hand.

But for me this is an instamuck. "

[ QUOTE ]
I can justify this play with logic, as well as give you a legitamate line of reasonign that he used when he made this play. However, I don't have time right now. It will take a bit to type it up, and I am in about 10 thousand games. I will post the reasoning in a few hours.

Aside from the shaky play, I have played thousands of hands with Bill, and I also believe he is one of the games greatest thinkers.

[/ QUOTE ]

[raptor517]

just because he's smart doesnt mean he is immune to a bit of tilting. there is little doubt in my mind chen knows this is a -ev play. other factors we cant know are clearly present here. holla

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
This hand is completely different then the one in the OP.
TOTALLY diferent spots.

[/ QUOTE ]

not even in the same ballpark. not even the same sport. holla