Hellmuth Article--Chan made a bad bet

[George Rice]

David Sklansky recently posted a question regarding the recent Cardplayer in which Phil Hellmuth bets Johnny Chan regarding the hand Erik Seidel held against Phil.

David later pointed out that if Chan has even a close bet, then Phil's fold was terrible. Phil's geting 760:200 on calling the bet but only even money from Chan. They bet $1,000.

What David failed to point out, if he even realized it, is that no matter whether Phil made a bad lay down or not, or a bad bet with Johnny or not, Johnny made a bad bet! Can anyone point out why this is so? If no one gets it I'll post the reason in a couple of days.

[George Rice]

[Nottom]

I don't think anyone disagrees with you.

[George Rice]

I was asking why it was a bad bet.

[Nottom]

I agree with you, Chan made the bad bet. I think its certainly better than 50/50 that Eric had Phil beat, Chan could have probably gotten at least 2-1 and still been taking the worst of it.

[George Rice]

Well since Hellmuth turned down 3.8:1 in the hand with Seidel, Chan should have asked for at least 3.8:1. Hellmuth probably would have gone for it, or something close. So even if Chan's bet is close, he should have gotten 3.8:1 on it if he was thinking when he made the bet.

[daryn]

i don't understand your post.. basically you're saying the same exact thing david said, but you're putting in numbers.

[Nottom]

I think the difference is that David seems to be saying Helmuth made a bad bet, while George is saying Chan is the sucker.

[daryn]

i don't know... i think david is saying that phil should have called in the tourney if he thoght the bet he made was any good

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]
i don't know... i think david is saying that phil should have called in the tourney if he thoght the bet he made was any good

[/ QUOTE ]

But the counter-argument is that if he thought that his tourney fold was right, then Chan made a sucker bet. If Phil thinks his hand is good less than 1 time in 3 (or else I would assume he calls) then taking even money on the fact that his hand is no good is an easy bet.

[daryn]

correct.


it seems as though we're just going back and forth agreeing with each other. let's end this thread!

if you agree, don't reply! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Nottom]

[George Rice]

The point is that Chan missed an oppotunity to get odds on this bet. It has nothing to do with whether or not Hellmuth made a good laydown. It has to do with that Hellmuth THINKS he made a good laydown and Chan should have taken advantage of it. And this is true even is Chan's even money bet has positive expectation.

Oh where is David when I need him. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Bozeman]

You got no responses because this is effectively what David said, except that he focused on the (important) tourney play instead of the (relatively unimportant) side bet.

If Phil didn't make a horrible play, Johnny made a bad bet

or conversely

If Johnny didn't make a horrible bet, Phil made a horrendous play

Craig

[David Sklansky]

Phil's mistake in the article was implying that his decision was close and that the bet is also close.

[George Rice]

And I was focusing on the side bet, as the tourney bet had already been discussed in a different thread. Johnny's could have made a better bet under the circumstances.