Moneymaker vs Boyd

[me454555]

Why is everyone insisting that he made the wrong call post flop? He had a pair of 3's against 2 over cards. If moneymaker correctly read boyd to have 2 over cards, hes more than a 3:1 favorite. Boyd is drawing to 6 outs regardless of what those 2 overcards were. That gives him only a 25 percent chance of hitting 1 of those 2 outs. IMHO, you have to call that all in.

[TimTimSalabim]

Well, there's a lot we don't know. We didn't get to see how Boyd was playing all of his hands. If MM read him for overcards, he'd have to be pretty doggone sure of it before making a call like that, if he's gonna put all his chips at risk. There are much better spots to try and double up, and MM was clearly not desperate for chips at that point.

Boyd's play is questionable to me as well, because if he had been observing MM at all, he'd see that MM likes to gamble with all his chips, and shouldn't have made an all-in move with nothing. A lot depends on how long the two had been playing at the same table. On the surface, it looks like bad play on both sides to me. Chalk it up to fatigue perhaps. I'm sure I wouldn't be mistake-free playing 15 hours a day under that kind of pressure.

[Dynasty]

I forget the exact suits each player held and don't remember the exact board. However, this should be good enough to discuss the situation.

Moneymaker: 3/images/graemlins/diamond.gif3/images/graemlins/heart.gif
Boyd: K/images/graemlins/club.gifQ/images/graemlins/spade.gif

If the flop is: 9/images/graemlins/heart.gif5/images/graemlins/club.gif2/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, then this is the EV of going all-in on the flop for each player.

cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
3d 3h 728 73.54 262 26.46 0 0.00 0.735
Qs Kc 262 26.46 728 73.54 0 0.00 0.265

When Moneymaker has made the wrong read and Boyd has some pair, let's say T/images/graemlins/club.gif9/images/graemlins/spade.gif, this is the EV for each player:

cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
3d 3h 119 12.02 871 87.98 0 0.00 0.120
9s Tc 871 87.98 119 12.02 0 0.00 0.880

So, in order for Moneymaker's all-in call to be profitable, he has to be right 61.8% (not showing "fancy" math) of the time. Risking nearly your entire stack when you have to be right so often is just too risky.

[sucka]

yeah, well too bad Binion's didn't have wireless ethernet on hand so he could bring his laptop and figure that out real quick online.

I know dudes take a long damn time to make some calls sometimes but I would seriously doubt he's trying to figure out the exact % of times he has to be correct to make that call.

He said he thought he had overcards - he was sitting right next to him and had certainly been watching his play. Let's face it - you aren't going to win that tourney playing everything 100% mathematically correct.

[Wake up CALL]

If moneymakers sole reason (at this point in the tournament) for calling was to improve his chances of winning the tournament then he only needs to be correct 30.9% of the time.

[Darvcus]

I agree with the theme of a comment above: I see a lot of precise mathematical analysis posted in response to questions here, which is mostly USELESS when you are playing the hand in the heat of battle. I believe players generally consider the size of the bet, the size of the pot, the number of outs, but there is nothing even close to mathematical precision when people make decisions at the table, unless their brain works like Rainman.

This hand was one of the two or three turning points for the WSOP champ this year, and its great to discuss. At the heart of it, however, Moneymaker's 33 vs KQ call was probably based on what we've all experienced at the table -- he just had a feeling (using analysis, logic, reading tells, whatever it takes) that his pocket pair beat his opponents shot at hitting a higher pair. It was unlikely a mathematical analysis of the percentage chance of winning against a series of possible opponent hands.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe players generally consider the size of the bet, the size of the pot, the number of outs, but there is nothing even close to mathematical precision when people make decisions at the table, unless their brain works like Rainman.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guessed you missed the scene where Howard Lederer was talking to himself about how big a favorite he was in the previous hand.

Of course, players like Moneymaker and Boyd aren't working things like this out in their head. They're just making plays like pushing all-in with King-high and calling all-in bets with 33. Then they hope their hand is the best on the river.

[Jedi Poker]

I made a post about this hand a few hours after it happened several months ago. The post is entitled "Play of the Day". Simply click on my name and point and click on that post. I posted it when I came home after watching the 4th day of the WSOP. As you will notice from my post, that brilliant play by Moneymaker was 100% tell based. It was pure art and psychology. I'm glad it has made it on TV. I'm looking forward to watching it on tonight's repeat.

[Ed Miller]

I disagree with you guys about Moneymaker. I think the guy understands the keys to playing winning poker. Look at all the hands that he played well... like his AQ vs. A9 hand against Sammy Farha... I was impressed by his value bet on the river. He raised Paul Darden's bluff on fourth street with a small pocket pair instead of just calling. He pushed allin on the flop against Johnny Chan with his Aces and flush draw. The bad players just don't play that way.

Moneymaker very much understands how aggression brings home the bacon. I watched all 14 hours of the final table when I was in Vegas, and I was quite impressed by Moneymaker's play (of course, I couldn't see the cards). He seemed to be aggressive at all the right times.

And on the hand in question, did you notice (how could you not) what a turkey Boyd was acting like before he raised allin? He was staring Moneymaker down and asking him to take off his glasses... as if he had a mediocre hand and was considering calling an allin bet. While I was watching, I was like, "WTF are you doing, dude? There's a lot more money left in front of Moneymaker." That allin raise was very strange... I was shocked. I think Moneymaker's call was just fine. Yes, if he's behind, he's more behind than he is ahead if he's ahead. But so what... he's still significantly ahead if he's ahead (ridiculous was the guy who called Farha's allin semibluff with AK unimproved... now that was a bad call... as even he's right and he's ahead, he's still probably going to be an underdog to win the hand). Moneymaker had already made a big bet on the flop, and if you just lay down every time some jackass comes over top of you... well, you just can't.

Moneymaker may make a few loose calls, but I haven't seen him make an atrocious call... and he is relentlessly aggressive and is capable of making strong reads. I think the guy is better than 95%+ of poker players I've played against.

[TimTimSalabim]

No atrocious calls? Did you see the hand that knocked out Humberto Brenes? The flop came down K9x. Brenes had AA and went all-in. Moneymaker called him with 88, with what I believe was a large percentage of his chips (although it's hard to tell with ESPN's coverage), and only the miracle 8 on the turn saved him. Was his read so great then?

It looks to me like he figured he was not one of the better players at the tournament, so why not gamble it up and call whenever someone puts a lot of chips in the pot, figuring the only way to beat all these top pros is to get lucky. Which is the correct strategy, but it doesn't make him a great player. He got very lucky. Robert Varkonyi Part Deux.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
No atrocious calls? Did you see the hand that knocked out Humberto Brenes? The flop came down K9x. Brenes had AA and went all-in. Moneymaker called him with 88, with what I believe was a large percentage of his chips (although it's hard to tell with ESPN's coverage), and only the miracle 8 on the turn saved him. Was his read so great then?

It looks to me like he figured he was not one of the better players at the tournament, so why not gamble it up and call whenever someone puts a lot of chips in the pot, figuring the only way to beat all these top pros is to get lucky. Which is the correct strategy, but it doesn't make him a great player. He got very lucky. Robert Varkonyi Part Deux.

[/ QUOTE ]

Were you watching a different WSOP than the rest of us? Moneymaker went all in with his pocket 8's and Humberto naturally called, did his little finfer shake and the "I told you so" song and dance, then hit the pavement like a good little Costa Rican when the 8 came on the turn.

[TimTimSalabim]

I stand corrected then. It was a bad read followed by an atrocious all-in.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
But so what... he's still significantly ahead if he's ahead (ridiculous was the guy who called Farha's allin semibluff with AK unimproved... now that was a bad call... as even he's right and he's ahead, he's still probably going to be an underdog to win the hand

[/ QUOTE ]

You've got it backwards. I'd much rather make the all-in call with AK. With either 33 or AK, you're ahead of all non-pair hands. But, if you're behind, you've got a much better chance of outdrawing your opponent with AK.

[Ed Miller]

[AceHigh]

Dynasty, do you have any idea what the stack sizes where at the time and the size of the pot?

I don't remember ESPN showing this. So maybe MM was getting like 2-1 on his money or something. Also, I'm guessing MM had a decent read on Boyd. With the big stack, MM can concentrate on EV and not be so concerned about survival.

Remember when Layne Flack had the big stack in that WPT event and he called an all-in reraise with KTo, it might of been agaisnt Tony Ma? He knew he was behind but figured the price of the pot was right if his hand wasn't dominated. Turns out his opponent had AQ or AJ and Flack caught a King and won the hand. So MM might have been in a situation like that, guessing the size of the pot, times the number of times he is ahead made it a +EV situation.

[cosmo kramer]

The only problem with the discussion of this hand is we don't know the preflop action. That could help understand some of the following actions. I think Moneymaker could safely eliminate weak hands such as 109o from the preflop action, I'm guessing Dutch raised. Also, by the way Boyd was acting like a jacka$$, by taking his glasses off and acting like a goofball, it was obvious he didn't have a monster hand.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
do you have any idea what the stack sizes where at the time and the size of the pot

[/ QUOTE ]

Both stack sizes were very big and the pot was comparatively tiny. I think Boyd was actually the chip leader at the time. At the very least, Boyd was very close to the chip leader. Moneymaker called all-in and it looked like the call cost him more than 2/3 of his pre-hand stack.

[AceHigh]

[ QUOTE ]
Moneymaker called all-in and it looked like the call cost him more than 2/3 of his pre-hand stack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't Boyd go all-in on this hand? So Moneymaker had the bigger stack right?

I don't understand MM's call if the pot isn't that big.

[Dynasty]

Boyd raised all-in. Moneymaker called. But, Boyd had more chips so when he lost the hand, he wasn't knocked out of the tournament. Moneymaker would have been knocked out of the tournament if his 33 didn't hold up.

[AceHigh]

Doesn't make much sense to me. Guess MM felt like gambling.

Moneymaker also made a big all-in bet on the flop vs. Brenes where Brenes was the preflop raiser on K-x-x flop. MM had 88, Brenes had AA. MM sucked out with an 8 on the river. So maybe he's a make a read and go with it type of player.

[Darvcus]

Dynasty, you're correct. Lederer is one of the few that qualifies with the the Rainman-like brain for poker.

kong's observation is probably dead on. I've played at tables where guys do the hard stare, against me and others. From my experience, every time its almost exactly like the "Book of Tells" predicts -- the stare and glare is a strong sign of a weak, or at least a drawing, hand. The stare should scare the opponent and make him go away. That's exactly what Boyd did -- textbook. If Boyd had MM beat, Boyd wouldn't have been showing off and staring.

[M.B.E.]

[ QUOTE ]
So, in order for Moneymaker's all-in call to be profitable, he has to be right 61.8% (not showing "fancy" math) of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm resurrecting this thread because Dutch Boyd recently posted on the Tournaments forum providing the preflop action for this hand. It turns out there was significant money already in the pot before Boyd moved all in. By my calculations using the revised pot-size figures, Moneymaker only has to be right 35.4% (not 61.8%) of the time.

Moneymaker started with 700K in chips and called 100K preflop then bet 100K on the flop. So he had 500K left. The pot had 1000K in it by my calculations (300K preflop including blinds and antes, MM's 100K flop bet, and 600K from Boyd on the flop).

This changes the math as MM was getting 2:1 pot odds to call. Of course I'm approaching it as if it were a ring game (or to put it another way, I'm assuming the goal is to maximize your EV in tournament chips).

If Moneymaker is "right" that Boyd has overcards, then he will win 1000K 0.735 of the time (using the twodimes.net (http://twodimes.net/h/?z=59606) numbers in Dynasty's post) and lose 500K 0.265 of the time, so his EV when he is "right" is +602.5K.

If Moneymaker is "wrong" and Boyd actually has a pair, then he will win 1000K 0.12 of the time and lose 500K 0.88 of the time, so his EV when he is "wrong" is -320K. Again this is based on the numbers in Dynasty's post, showing that if Boyd has top pair, for example, then Boyd is a 7.3:1 favourite. But there's also a slim possibility that Boyd has a set in which case he is a 29:1 favourite (Moneymaker would need a runner-runner straight to win). However Boyd would be unlikely to move all in with a set, so we only have to adjust the numbers a little bit, let's say to -330K (instead of -320K) when Moneymaker is "wrong".

Obviously if you're in Moneymaker's shoes and you think it's really a coin-flip as to whether Boyd currently has you beat, you should call. You're risking 330K to win 602.5K if it turns up heads.

Let p be the probability, from Moneymaker's point of view at the time he's deciding whether to call Boyd's all-in, that Boyd has overcards only (no pair). Then the "0 EV" point is where 602.5p - 330(1-p) = 0. This works out to 932.5p=330 or p=0.354.

So, if the goal were to maximize his EV in tournament chips, Moneymaker needs to call even if he thinks the probability he's currently ahead is as low as 36%. If the goal were to maximize real-dollar EV then the computation might be a bit different and in order to calculate it we'd have to make a bunch of assumptions as well as take into account the different percentage paybacks of 1st, 2nd, 3rd place etc., less the prize he'd get if he were eliminated immediately.

Now if his goal were to maximize the probability of winning the whole tournament, then p would be higher than 0.354 if Moneymaker thought he was one of the better players remaining, but less than 0.354 if Moneymaker thought he was below-average among the players remaining.

By the way, according to Boyd the flop was 9-4-2, not 9-5-2, but that doesn't change Moneymaker's chance of winning with 33 against either KQo or T9o.

[Yeknom58]

The 8 on the river is what you get when you start dancing before all the cards are down.

[slamdunkpro]

Dutch Boyd has started his own thread on this hand under tournaments. (FYI)

[OffTilt]

I can't believe anyone would insist he made the "wrong call". He properly called out a bluff, (you can barely call it a semibluff) it was his best play of the tournament in my opinion. Lucky guess? Maybe, but most NL tournaments seem to distintegrate into a series of coin flips by the end anyway. Wrong call? Don't be ridiculous.

OffTilt

------------------------------------------
Start winning hundreds at Texas Holdem with Power Holdem+
http://www.online-pokerguide.com

[OffTilt]

[ QUOTE ]
No atrocious calls? Did you see the hand that knocked out Humberto Brenes? The flop came down K9x. Brenes had AA and went all-in. Moneymaker called him with 88, with what I believe was a large percentage of his chips (although it's hard to tell with ESPN's coverage), and only the miracle 8 on the turn saved him. Was his read so great then?

It looks to me like he figured he was not one of the better players at the tournament, so why not gamble it up and call whenever someone puts a lot of chips in the pot, figuring the only way to beat all these top pros is to get lucky. Which is the correct strategy, but it doesn't make him a great player. He got very lucky. Robert Varkonyi Part Deux.

[/ QUOTE ]

Show me one WSOP champ who hasn't gotten lucky before winning. Why do you think even the best players in the world have trouble winning it more than once even over 25 years? Because it takes a lot of luck. The end of big NL tournament is all luck for the most part, it's all a bunch of all-in coin flips, with the occasional tough call which is basically a coin flip as well. The skill part is getting down to the end to give yourself a chance to get lucky. There's no way Moneymaker could have gotten lucky all week long, he's obviously a very good player.

OffTilt

------------------------------------------
Start winning hundreds at Texas Holdem with Power Holdem+
http://www.online-pokerguide.com