Keep It Simple Stupid

[Trainwreck]

Nah that is exactly how Dan Action Man got to final tables 2 years in a row, get image and then deviate.... I won a tournament doing the exact same thing...

Showdown all BIG hands.... then AI with not so great junk like 22, 33, T6s, A7s, you get the idea.... but it's when I do it that counts too.... if you've played too fast, before in the $ you will often fail miserably...

>TW<

[TwoNiner]

At some point I think these guys are tired of people trying to push them around with subpar holdings and take a stand with 99, AJ etc. You really need to see all the action from that table to be able to tell.

[Trainwreck]

That and hour after hour of intense pressure packed poker is NOT easy.

I recall being sleepy after 6.5 hour tournaments, I'd definitely have to warm up with 14 hour poker days for 2 week before WSOP...

Also, it favors youth a little bit if all else is equal... as Dan (58) mentioned.

Damn I am getting old!

>TW<

[Beavis68]

That is why half the field is eliminated the first day. People let their egos take over, and they want to show off their superior poker skills.

[Subby]

Mostly a lurker here, but thought it worth mentioning that MrDannimal's post is one of the best I have ever read on an Internet message board...

Thanks.

[NUReedy]

I don't understand why someone would open raise with T [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]8 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], get raised, and push.

[MrDannimal]

Wow. Thanks for that.

[Greeksquared]

I think you are missing the whole point of my post. Can you imagine a poster going to the multi tournament area and posting the following.

I haven't gotten any cards in 2 orbits and the blinds were about to increase to 4k and 8k, I have 250k left and on the button. EP player who is pretty aggresive comes in for 162k. I look down and see AQo. I thought along time and finally decided. What would you have done in this position?

There are just so many unnecessary risks that people take. Im not saying you can sit there and get run over...I just wouldnt take the chances that these guys are taking. Especially calling most of your stack away. I dont have as a problem with betting your stack as I do calling a tough decision. I suppose that maybe Raymer and perhaps most everyone had been ultra aggresive and had not given slack to anyone and so maybe I could see people calling their stacks away with such mediocre hands.

The hand with Matusow...the only hands he has a 3-1 advantage are the non diamond AK,AQ,AJ ....Any over pair and any ten and matusow is 4-1 dog. Say he thinks 50 percent raymer is a 3-1, 20 percent its 2-1 20 percent its 1-1 and 10 percent 1-4. So hes got about 58 percent chance at winning. But he of course has no idea what the percentages are. I just think there are better places to get your money in when it means if you lose you will be close to helpless. And of course Matusow would have called seeing Gregs hand...he definitely had pot odds to call...which I dont think automatically warants a call.

I am still waiting on an ultra aggresive player to go all in with the nuts and get called. Ive seen it on other shows just not this year.

Anyways its 22-AA for me when im at a full table...I dont see why everyone doesnt play this way at any of the 200NL tables and below. It even works well at the 6 player max.

[MrDannimal]

To follow up on my own post, with Jesus' one hand, when the cards were flipped over, he said something to the effect of:

"Wow, he's got a lot of redraws, man I'm in *bad* shape."

He knew and was admitting that he made a mistake on his read. That's the other big thing. A lot of calls make sense given a read a player has. Unfortunately, reads can be wrong and when they are, they make plays look bad.

I don't remember the details of the Jesus hand, but the Matusow hand against Raymer is a good play if he's right that Greg has overcards and not a flush draw + overcards (that is, he thinks Raymer is just bullying him) as he's a 3:1 favorite.

He looks stupid because we know what Greg has before and after the call. You can argue that he should have known it was more than just naked overcards, but then we get back into the whole "You don't see enough of the time at the table" argument. Later on, it becomes clear that the table is aware that Greg has been very aggressive, so maybe it's not such an unreasonable call given more context.

[MrDannimal]

I'm not missing your point. You're now choosing one point from the many that you made before (some of which contradicted themselves).

Just because you think a risk is unnecessary seeing both hands after the fact and in isolation doesn't make it so. Not to mention, what you consider unnecessary might not seem that way to someone else.

You left out KQ, KJ, QJ from the hands that Matsuow is a big favorite over (actually, he's 50/50 against QJ because of the OE draw). You're right that he doesn't know the exact percentages, but you're making up a set of percentages that makes the call bad. That's unfair. He obviously came up with a different set of percentages, that led him to the conclusion that Greg was playing aggressively enough that he could have a lone diamond or just overcards on a bluff. I could re-distribute those percentages you listed to make it an easy call for Mike.

As for saying Mike would "obviously call" if he saw Greg's hand, that's silly. In fact, you contradict yourself in that same sentence. You say he'd call, that he had pot odds to do so, and that doesn't automatically warrant a call. Which is it?

He very likely wouldn't have called, IMO. Pot odds don't matter for the reasons you've been championing all along, that even if he's getting 2:1 on a 52:48 call you wouldn't call off 80% of your stack because you can't reload like you can in a cash NL game.

Another thing is that Mike could be thinking that he's ahead, and that there are other benefits from knocking Greg out. Greg's been bullying the table, and in particular raising Mike's blind almost every time (which he comments on during the show). If Mike knocks him out, HE can bully the table. Not to mention any joy he'd get out of busting Greg given their history (granted, this isn't a good thing to be taking into consideration, but it might be there).

Your comments about the NL cash games are a totally different beast. Not everyone plays that way because a) there are other ways to play and make a profit, b) People aren't 100% dedicated to maximum profit, they're playing to have fun and if they win, great. c) People get bored folding 85% of their hands so they play more.

I'm not sure why you would want everyone to start playing pairs only in NL cash games anyway, because you'd find that your strategey no longer works.