What I still don't get

[Greeksquared]

This is heads up. It is very hard to put your opponent on any two cards. If this was 10 handed then it is much easier to put your opponent on a hand, where the number of hands played are greatly reduced. There is no way you can put him on a missed draw enough of the time to call with K high. Maybe he calls there so he can verbally complement himself like he did when he called the greek guy with 53o.

Also, alot of pros are so aggresive and willing to gamble that alot of their good reads are just pure luck. They are involved in alot of hands and played back alot because of it. They are bound to catch people bluffing their fair share.

Again...not bashing of the pros, just simple obsrevation.

[legend42]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is Daniel N. calling 500,000 on the river with king high on a paired board.

[/ QUOTE ]

What difference does the paired board make? You lose the same amount whether it's to quads or ace-high. If anything, the paired board gives more reason to call there.

I went through this in another thread, but you're being typically results oriented. Williams could have very well had anything there, knowing he could push Daniel off anything but a 6 or 9. Honestly, imagine Williams has J5o there, and makes a move on the turn- like he had done over and over again- sensing weakness from Daniel's flop check+ small turn bet on a draw-heavy board. On the river, he can't beat anything, but he puts Daniel on an ace-high spade draw. You don't think he might pot it to move him off that hand?

And if it worked, he'd be a genius here. And if Daniel snapped it off with King high, it'd be the greatest read ever. Well, these guys don't have X-ray vision. They put each other on a range of hands. And a significant part of that range in Daniel's mind included a stone cold bluff.

[aggie]

[ QUOTE ]
This is heads up. It is very hard to put your opponent on any two cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually i think this is exactly what DN did when he made that call. He put DW on "any two cards" (and sensed weakness)...Since his K-high can beat a random hand often enough to make that call, he called....Of course this is just pure speculation.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, alot of pros are so aggresive and willing to gamble that alot of their good reads are just pure luck. They are involved in alot of hands and played back alot because of it. They are bound to catch people bluffing their fair share.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree...good things happen to aggressive players when playing cards...What seperates the greats from the maniacs is knowing when to put on the brakes. They are also allow maniac players to bluff off chips and are confident enough in their reads to make very big calls with seemingly small hands...

[Greeksquared]

I was just describing the hand when I said the board paired. You are right, paired boards are less likely to hit someone. I am not being results oriented, just logical. How many king high calls of a quarter of your stack have you seen or heard about. He only beats queen high.

This is what got him in trouble...thinking williams could have had j5. Remember he must be bluffing with queen high or worse about 40 percent of the time to break even. Just to break even he must be right that much.

You are basically proving my point. The pros call stuff like this alot, so you think they had a great read. Alot of the time they are right, and alot of the time they just get lucky and make a great "read".

Golf analogy

Say I have a ten percent chance at hitting the green from the forest and a 90 percent chance at losing my ball if I decide to go for the green. Or I can chip out and have a 40/60 at par or bogie. But I am stubborn and want to make birdie and ignore the percentages and give it a go at the green. There is no way I should ever try this shot barring it being the last hole of a major. Just be a man, chip out and play another hole.

Why would you jeopardize your stack with the ridiculously hard bluff-call manouver.

[aggie]

DW would not be bluffing here with A-high (because he would probably feel that A-high was good)....DN beats almost all the random hands that DW was bluffing with....

the great calls DN makes are not by accident....He didn't get to where he was by calling everything (although if he did call everything he would surely snap off lots of bluffs)...He has the ability to laydown big hands and the ability to call with verey small hands....ANd he has a reputation at doing all this very accurate....He's not lucky, he's just that good.....

[legend42]

[ QUOTE ]
Why would you jeopardize your stack with the ridiculously hard bluff-call manouver.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your golf analogy changes a 2-1 underdog spot into a 9-1 spot. And I think you are being results-oriented.

If there were no hole card cameras, and Daniel did fold king high there, we would all be speculating about what Williams had. And I guarantee most of us would conclude it was either a huge hand or a stone cold bluff. And 9s full would be almost completely discounted in a lot of minds.

I said it in my other response, but there just aren't very many hands Williams would play like that. And I think a bluff is at least 33% likely.

[Greeksquared]

You missed the point of the analogy.

Try and do the impossible-make a great golf shot with very little chance at doing so. Doing this will cause people to think how great a golfer you are if you make the shot. Like someone said...."it would be the greatest read of all time." Yes, the golf shot would be the greatest shot of all time but in reality it was a poor decision.

Just fold, stop trying to make the greatest read of all time. You dont get extra chips from the audience for winning a huge pot with king high. Your read will only be correct very few times, and even if he was bluffing he could beat your bluff. So, I am just saying it was better to not make this ridiculously tough call.

I think critiquing the pros is good. Just like it is in any other sport. We don't hesitate to ridicule Allen Iverson when he makes a poor decision on the court.

[aggie]

[ QUOTE ]
Your read will only be correct very few times, and even if he was bluffing he could beat your bluff.

[/ QUOTE ]

I totally disagree....Let's agree to disagree

[ QUOTE ]
We don't hesitate to ridicule Allen Iverson when he makes a poor decision on the court.

[/ QUOTE ]

I only ridicule AI off the court....On the court he can take whatever shot he wants to (because he makes many of the rediculous shots we see him take)...He's earned the right to throw up a few miracles...

[otnemem]

[ QUOTE ]
There is nothing wrong with trying to "outplay" your opponent....As a matter of fact I think that is the point of the game [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, thanks for the misquote. I didn't say you're not supposed to outplay your opponents. I meant that calling off 10% of your stack on a bad read, and then saying this is an attempt to outplay your opponents is nonsense. If your read is that confident, that you're willing to call off that many chips, then maybe it's good enough to push all in and really go with it. Calling down with king high, in my opinion, is not a good way to outplay opponents.

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]
If your read is that confident, that you're willing to call off that many chips, then maybe it's good enough to push all in and really go with it. Calling down with king high, in my opinion, is not a good way to outplay opponents.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is an absurd arguement. If his read is that he thinks DW is bluffing 35% of the time and his K-high will be good and he is getting 3-1 on his money then he should call.

Going all-in when the only hands you can beat is a bluff that won't call would be an absolutely awful play.