ben mo
05-29-2004, 04:32 PM
Apparently during interviews after the WSOP, Fossilman questioned his own river play of the final hand. He apparently said something along the lines of "maybe I should have checked, because he can only call if he has me beat." This brought a chuckle from the crowd.
To recap the action, the flop was 245 with 2 diamonds. Greg check-raised, and Williams quickly called. The turn was another 2 - Greg bet and Williams quickly called again. The river was a 3rd 2, Greg bet out, and Williams quickly called with A4 for 2's full of 4's. Greg had 2's full of 8's.
First of all, it was obviously badly played by Williams, I think. He should have either moved in on the flop when he had a pair, an ace, and a gutterball, or folded to Greg's check-raise. However, I'm not as convinces as others that Williams river call was poor -- sure he could only beat a bluff, but he had very few chips left (less than 3 million) in a very large pot - and it was definitely possible that Greg was bluffing (if for no other reason than the fact that the Greg's pot odds on the river made bluffing mandatory).
But the interesting question is whether Greg should bet or check on the river (obviously with the intention of calling).
If it were true that Williams would ONLY call if he had Greg beat, then obviously a check would be in order (hoping for a bluff), but that seems unlikely to me given the size of the pot. As per above, I think Williams has to call with virtually any hand.
On the other hand, Williams would also be very likely to bluff if he had missed a draw, since his bluff-odds would be so high.
The only other relevant factor I see is the probability that Williams "pussies out" and checks a BETTER hand behind (like 99, etc). I think this is unlikely, but not impossible. I will assume that Williams will call with any better hand.
So if the probabilities are:
B: Probability that he has a worse hand, and will bet/bluff off his chips if checked to (when he wouldn't have called a bet).
C: Probability that he will call with a worse hand if bet into, when he would have checked the worse hand behind.
P: Probability that he pussies out and checks a better hand behind (where he would not have folded to a bet).
So the simple solution is:
If B+P > C, then check.
If C > B+P, then bet.
Note that we're not really worried about the situations where he has a monster - those will end up the same regardless.
The problem with this hand is that Williams play doesn't give us a particularly good read - what could he possibly be smooth-calling like that with? I tend to discount a monster, since the board was very scary on the flop, and I think he would have wanted to raise to drive out draws (particularly since he knows greg is capable of semi-bluffing). But since monsters are irrelevant, let's just assume he doesn't have one - then what?
Now for the sake of analysis, let's say he will bet a full house every time if it is 99 or higher (optimal play for him). Aha - now hands of 99 or above join the "monster category" that can be ignored.
Now all that matters is whether it is more likely that he has a bluffing hand or a calling hand.
This is of course where it becomes more art than science, and things like "reads" come into play, but to me, his quick calls on the flop and turn suggest that he wasn't on a pure draw - calling a big bet with just a draw is agonizing. Therefore, I think it's reasonable to put him on likely having a medium-strength hand - either an overpair or a pair and a draw of some sort.
Specifically, I think it's more likely that he has a pair lower than 88 than that he has a draw.
Recap:
Assumptions:
He will not bet a worse full house if checked to. (edge: bet)
He will bet a better full house if checked to. (edge: bet)
He will bet with a drawing hand that missed. (edge: check)
He will call with any full house. (edge: bet)
Impression:
More likely to have low pair than draw.
Therefore: Bet.
These assumptions are stacked in the favor of betting, but presuming a neutral, fairly rational opponent, I think they are reasonable.
I guess I chuckle along with the rest.
Well played, and congrats Fossil. You deserve it.
I hope you can handle us all gunning for you on tuesdays...
b
To recap the action, the flop was 245 with 2 diamonds. Greg check-raised, and Williams quickly called. The turn was another 2 - Greg bet and Williams quickly called again. The river was a 3rd 2, Greg bet out, and Williams quickly called with A4 for 2's full of 4's. Greg had 2's full of 8's.
First of all, it was obviously badly played by Williams, I think. He should have either moved in on the flop when he had a pair, an ace, and a gutterball, or folded to Greg's check-raise. However, I'm not as convinces as others that Williams river call was poor -- sure he could only beat a bluff, but he had very few chips left (less than 3 million) in a very large pot - and it was definitely possible that Greg was bluffing (if for no other reason than the fact that the Greg's pot odds on the river made bluffing mandatory).
But the interesting question is whether Greg should bet or check on the river (obviously with the intention of calling).
If it were true that Williams would ONLY call if he had Greg beat, then obviously a check would be in order (hoping for a bluff), but that seems unlikely to me given the size of the pot. As per above, I think Williams has to call with virtually any hand.
On the other hand, Williams would also be very likely to bluff if he had missed a draw, since his bluff-odds would be so high.
The only other relevant factor I see is the probability that Williams "pussies out" and checks a BETTER hand behind (like 99, etc). I think this is unlikely, but not impossible. I will assume that Williams will call with any better hand.
So if the probabilities are:
B: Probability that he has a worse hand, and will bet/bluff off his chips if checked to (when he wouldn't have called a bet).
C: Probability that he will call with a worse hand if bet into, when he would have checked the worse hand behind.
P: Probability that he pussies out and checks a better hand behind (where he would not have folded to a bet).
So the simple solution is:
If B+P > C, then check.
If C > B+P, then bet.
Note that we're not really worried about the situations where he has a monster - those will end up the same regardless.
The problem with this hand is that Williams play doesn't give us a particularly good read - what could he possibly be smooth-calling like that with? I tend to discount a monster, since the board was very scary on the flop, and I think he would have wanted to raise to drive out draws (particularly since he knows greg is capable of semi-bluffing). But since monsters are irrelevant, let's just assume he doesn't have one - then what?
Now for the sake of analysis, let's say he will bet a full house every time if it is 99 or higher (optimal play for him). Aha - now hands of 99 or above join the "monster category" that can be ignored.
Now all that matters is whether it is more likely that he has a bluffing hand or a calling hand.
This is of course where it becomes more art than science, and things like "reads" come into play, but to me, his quick calls on the flop and turn suggest that he wasn't on a pure draw - calling a big bet with just a draw is agonizing. Therefore, I think it's reasonable to put him on likely having a medium-strength hand - either an overpair or a pair and a draw of some sort.
Specifically, I think it's more likely that he has a pair lower than 88 than that he has a draw.
Recap:
Assumptions:
He will not bet a worse full house if checked to. (edge: bet)
He will bet a better full house if checked to. (edge: bet)
He will bet with a drawing hand that missed. (edge: check)
He will call with any full house. (edge: bet)
Impression:
More likely to have low pair than draw.
Therefore: Bet.
These assumptions are stacked in the favor of betting, but presuming a neutral, fairly rational opponent, I think they are reasonable.
I guess I chuckle along with the rest.
Well played, and congrats Fossil. You deserve it.
I hope you can handle us all gunning for you on tuesdays...
b