Re: Huck Seed Bluffs Into Dry Side Pot, Etc.
 

[ QUOTE ]

On the 2nd point you are changing your statement now. The argument was you said many players would RATHER move in with 107 off than A6. So instead of saying ok maybe i was wrong there. You instead divert from that and say. Well you dont want to get called with either. That wasn't the point or statement you were making. The point was which would you RATHER have. Do you see this? But then you say the A6 would be a value push and the other a pure bluff. So if the A6 is a value push and the other is a pure blure which do you think players would rather have? Anyway not meaning to attack but your statement was wrong and trying to discuss that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was trying to clarify my statement - not change it.

Sorry - it's been a long day at work today.

Re: Huck Seed Bluffs Into Dry Side Pot, Etc.
 

[ QUOTE ]
But even if it was for less, unless the side pot was very significant, which it didn't seem to be. There is no way he should be betting there. It is much more important to eliminate greenstein and pick up more points than to give greenstein a good chance to win, as he only has a 7 high to show down agianst him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although everything you say here is true, it doesn't quite capture the inanity of the situation.

There is essentially NOTHING in the side pot. There is NOTHING Sklansky puts any more money in with aside from a king (there were no draws, IIRC). It was a classic lose-lose situation from a guy who we might assume should know better.

If I made that play on TV, it would be "What a donk." When former WSOP champion Huckleberry Seed makes the play, it seems like nobody wants to take him to task.

Re: Huck Seed Bluffs Into Dry Side Pot, Etc.
 

[ QUOTE ]

If I made that play on TV, it would be "What a donk." When former WSOP champion Huckleberry Seed makes the play, it seems like nobody wants to take him to task.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps, like me, people were going to comment then remembered his name is Huckleberry Seed and either starting laughing or felt bad about the amount of punishment he has allready taken growing a goofy looking guy with that name.

Re: Huck Seed Bluffs Into Dry Side Pot, Etc.
 

I have not seen the episode in question (I've given up on PSI 2 after 2 episodes), but the only rationale I can see would be to "clean up/buy outs" to give him a maximum chance of winning the pot. He was more worried about having the maximum chance of winning the pot than eliminate the player.

Huck could put Sklansky on a wide range of hands, and as long as that King didnt hit him it is possibly Sklansky would fold 2nd or bottom pair so if a 3 or 7 fell he would get the pot (or even if he had no pair, but a 3 or 7 fell later and Sklansky paired one of his better cards).

It appears that eliminating the other player wouldnt be a factor in his decision just maximizing his chance for that pot, possibly Huck was short stacked or in some other desperate situation?

Re: Huck Seed Bluffs Into Dry Side Pot, Etc.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have not seen the episode in question (I've given up on PSI 2 after 2 episodes), but the only rationale I can see would be to "clean up/buy outs" to give him a maximum chance of winning the pot. He was more worried about having the maximum chance of winning the pot than eliminate the player.

Huck could put Sklansky on a wide range of hands, and as long as that King didnt hit him it is possibly Sklansky would fold 2nd or bottom pair so if a 3 or 7 fell he would get the pot (or even if he had no pair, but a 3 or 7 fell later and Sklansky paired one of his better cards).

It appears that eliminating the other player wouldnt be a factor in his decision just maximizing his chance for that pot, possibly Huck was short stacked or in some other desperate situation?

[/ QUOTE ]

Every word here would be true if only for the fact that there's no chance in hell that this was his rationale, because not a single one of these factors was in play.

You really ought to check it out--it's really inexplicable.

Re: Huck Seed Bluffs Into Dry Side Pot, Etc.
 

[ QUOTE ]

Every word here would be true if only for the fact that there's no chance in hell that this was his rationale, because not a single one of these factors was in play.

You really ought to check it out--it's really inexplicable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said, I didnt see it (and you didnt post stack sizes and blinds for the relative hand so it is hard to tell). But I think maximizing the chance to win that pot is a valid play. If he gets a better hand to fold and a 7 falls people would be on here calling him a genius.

Just out of curiosity, what did BG have? How did the rest of the hand play out?

Re: Huck Seed Bluffs Into Dry Side Pot, Etc.
 

BG had rags, 62 off, I think.

There was only the three of them. Seed and Sklansky each had decent stacks, with Sklansky leading by maybe 3:2, IIRC.

The blinds, while high throughout this ridiculous structure, were not yet at a point where the chips in the pot were substantial enough to justify thinking about such a bold play as Seed might be given credit for dreaming up.

When Seed bet, Sklansky raised and took it when BG didn't see a miracle.

Re: Huck Seed Bluffs Into Dry Side Pot, Etc.
 

Ok fair enough. No harm no foul.

Re: Huck Seed Bluffs Into Dry Side Pot, Etc.
 

Very true. Fame clouds peoples minds very often.

Re: Huck Seed Bluffs Into Dry Side Pot, Etc.
 

[ QUOTE ]
1.) A third player (Greenstein?) is allin preflop for less than the big blind, Sklansky (Kx off) and Seed (73 off) on the side, dry side pot, not one thin chip in it.

Flop come Kxx, rainbow.

Seed bets into Sklansky.

Huh????!! Can someone explain this bet to me, please? I'd hate to think that I have absolutely no idea what the hell is going on, but a good explanation for this play would certainly have me re-thinking my supposed poker accumen.

2.) Headsup with Sklansky. Blinds $30/60K. Sklansky limps sb. Seed (450K) has A6, and...limps???! Then goes into check mode when the flop misses him.

Huh??!

3.) Shortly after hand #2, blinds still 30/60K, Seed, with 400K, pushes allin with T7 off.

I suppose you could make an argument for #2 and/or #3, but there's certainly something debatable about #2, if you know that at this point, Sklansky will be calling an allin bet with a LOT of hands weaker than A6.

#1 is mystifying to me. If that one is rationally explainable, I'd be surprised.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the case of #2, I think maybe he put Sklansky on a weak hand, since he limped. He figured that if Sklansky flopped something like middle or bottom pair on an Axx flop, he might give some action, since he couldn't put Seed on an Ace, given the preflop check.

In the case of #3, I think maybe he just wanted to make a move, and figured T7 was a good hand to do it with, since he'll likely have 2 live cards if he gets called.

As for #1, I have no clue what he was thinking. I was totally baffled by that play, especially given Huck's comments that he wanted to play a conservative game, in order to move up the ladder and increase his point total.