Read of the Year?

[J.A.Sucker]

That may not be true; it depends on the antes. I don't know what the antes were in the tournament, but they may have been pretty high.

As for the hand, I would take issue with the lack of a raise by Forrest at any point in the hand (fifth street).\

Edit: This analysis is oversimplified, though. A huge part of how the hand should be played deals with the chip stack sizes, the different payouts, and the two players' goals in the event (i.e. if winning has a lot higher value than the financial gain). I have no idea of any of these.

[Beavis68]

I would think that Men folding his Queens had to be a pretty close second.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
I would think that Men folding his Queens had to be a pretty close second.

[/ QUOTE ]

When Men paired his doorcard Queen after raising on 3rd street) and Forrest called his 4th street bet, I'm sure Men was already thinking he might be in big trouble. Men had to be thinking that Forrest could beat a pair of Queens at that moment. When Men doesn't improve and gets raised on the expensive street, it's all over. Men had to be worried that Forrest had him crushed with trips or better (I think a straight was possible on the board even if unlikely).

It's interesting that by playing the hand the way Forrest did, Forrest got Men to make an incorrect fold. So, it couldn't even be considered for "Read of the Year". If Men knew Forrest had pocket Kings, he would have called immediately.

[J_V]

[ QUOTE ]
find it strange that 7CSFAP actually reccomends that if your opponent raises with an 8 doorcard (what I think Forrest's opponent had) and you think that he has only a pair of 8's, it reccomends you play T,8,7 with no two-flush and yet you want to fold a pair, an overcard, and a two-flush.


[/ QUOTE ]

Find the passage. This is flat out awful stud and surely taken out of context. If you opponent shows you eights this hand must be folded. It might help to run this in a sim. You couldn't find a high enough ante game to make this playable.

[ QUOTE ]
Forrest's situation was basically the same except his two-flush made the hand better.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. This situation is not the same. The difference between (28)2 and (2K)2 is huge. The value of the kicker comes from when you hit it, your opponent has a hard time retrumping it w/ a higher two pair. Duh.


[ QUOTE ]
The idea of playing a smaller pair with an overcard is just pounded over and over in 7CSFAP.


[/ QUOTE ]

No [censored]. The word "big" overcard kicker is pounded through the book too if I remember correctly. Why do people break this stuff out like its new information? If you don't know what's the deal w/ a straight flush kicker or an overcard kicker, you aren't a stud player. Can we just assume that we are passed that?

[ QUOTE ]
You play too tight.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know nothing about how I play stud. I've played and beaten some very high stud games and consider stud to have been my best game. I spent 2-3 years making a living playing it. I've done more work w/ my stud game then HE, so let's not explain the basics back and forth.

The overcard was not high enough, plain and simple - I think you are understimating the importance of having not only a higher overcard, but a big kicker in general.


Ted Forrest would with 100% WITHOUT A DOUBT have folded his hands had his opponent shown him sixes. If you disagree, we can make a bet on it and go ask him.

Also, I remember Forrest folding (A6)6 in spot where you might continue in a side game. In tournament syle play, he made an obvious, yet good fold. He was against hidden Q's and a three flush I believe. Certainly these borderline EV spots are not worth tangling with in a tourney.


Stud is a much better game than hold em, so much more interesting.

[J_V]

It think the fold is close. You'll have to prove to me the pot was big enough to make this call certain.

[J_V]

I don't know much about stud tournaments, but I know in a cash game you won't find ante's large enough even at the highest of limits.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
It might help to run this in a sim. You couldn't find a high enough ante game to make this playable.

[/ QUOTE ]

7-card Stud Hi: 500000 sampled outcomes
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
2c Qd 2d 223063 44.61 276932 55.39 5 0.00 0.446
8s 8h 4h 276932 55.39 223063 44.61 5 0.00 0.554

The 2s are not that much of an underdog.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
Find the passage. This is flat out awful stud and surely taken out of context.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason has gotten mildly annoyed at me twice for putting up 2+2 material but I'll risk it. The page # is 70.

The game is 30-60:

A player wiht an eight raises, you have (Th,8d)7c and think that he only has a pair of eights. First, notice that there are many cards that you can catch that will scare him. This includes all cards above an eight. In addition, you know that one of his eights is out. If no one else is in and you are in a late position, you can play this hand. If it comes out badly on the next card, for example, you catch a trey and he catches a suited nine, you should fold. But, if it comes out good, you can become the aggressor. However, you neeed to be heads-up. If someone else has called his third street raise, you should throw this hand away.

Mason, I really hope that's not too much reprinted material.

J_V, you play to tight.

[J_V]

This play is really bad against anyone anywhere near your skill level. The fact that you have one of his eights doesn't matter much. It just hurts your hand. The player needs to be very weak tight. I'd say this is a losing play against 95% of high limit stud players.

As for me playing too tight, perhaps you would want to play some high limit heads up stud and capitalize.

I see you've conveniently avoided my other questions.

[J_V]

22Q....nice try. Took the real results and were afraid to post them? We are talking about small kickers remember?

Are we gonna think for ourselves or try to recite old S&M material?