Re: WSOP last night and Sam Farha
 

[ QUOTE ]
They mentioned him doubling up the first hand, can someone give me the details?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it went like this. Sam (A T), Goldie Hawn's son (T T). Guy bet about 5BB, Farha called. Flop came A A T. Both checked. Flop came rag. (Q maybe) Other guy bet I think 300, Fahra raised to 1300, other guy shoves all in, Fahra called. River, rag. Other guy out in 90 seconds. This is pretty close I think.

Re: WSOP last night and Sam Farha
 

Sammy had A-10 against another guy's 10-10, the flop came A-A-10, and Sammy doubled up

Re: WSOP last night and Sam Farha
 

Sam Farha went from 10,000 to 156,600 chips on Day 1:
http://ctnassau.com/wsop/results.asp

For most of that Broadcast, throwing 1,000 chips in the pot had close to no effect on his stack. It's very easy to be a LAG with a big stack and very hard with a small stack.

ESPN focused on D. Negreanu for TV ratings purposes.

Re: WSOP last night and Sam Farha
 

"The implied are are huge with small pairs, even in raised pots. Farha had position and was confident that if he made a set he would stack the guy. He probably also figured he could outplay him post flop (either bet him off a bigger pair, or bet him off two overcards if the guy missed the flop)."



I think there is a problem with this statement. If the reason for Farha's call is implied odds if he hits his set, then implicit in the rationale for calling is that the guy will lose his whole stack with AA. You can't have it both ways, though---Farha couldn't call hoping to bet him off the bigger pair, if the very reason the call with 33 is marginally profitable is because the guy will give you his whole 10G stack.

Re: WSOP last night and Sam Farha
 

I get it. I thought about his play after the show. The conclusion I came up with is basically what you all posted. He's a LAG wants chips, is a better player than the dead money at the table. He knows with the dead money his implied odds are larger than they are. But I wanted to be sure. I've learned that vs amateurs play conservative and not tricky since they will call with so many worse hands.

I also want to learn his style. While the analytical side of me feels warm and cushy with the Harrington style of play my ESP side wants to play like Sammy. I read players well in live tournaments. I hate online tournaments because I can't see the players. I don't like relying on a single hand to determine my tournament destiny after 2 hours of crappy cards. I'd much rather play the player and gamble some. I feel it more evens out the luck and you get more action for your money. I also think you have more chances to get a big stack for later.

Better to burn out then to fade away....

Re: WSOP last night and Sam Farha
 

[ QUOTE ]
Calling with 33 vs an UTG raiser is a no-no in every book.

[/ QUOTE ]

I only know of one book (HOH) which explicitly deals with this. I don't see how calling w/33 is a no-no whereas 77 isn't. The chances of getting set vs. set are only slightly higher w/33 and you have to assume UTG is raising w/44-66 to make you prefer calling with 77 over 33. So the very slight possibility of set over set only comes into play more with 33 than other pps in very few situations (loose UTG raiser).
This is actually one of the main things I disagree with Harrington on. I forgot the hand, but he says somewhere "this is a safe flop for top pair top kicker-the only set they could have is middle because nobody would play 22 here." It seems as though, if Harrington is right, then 22 goes up in value because of the deception. But I think this is irrelevant as people (correctly) play 22 to hit a set more often than Harrington thinks.
I should also qualify that I'm only talking about deep-stack situations in tourneys.

Re: WSOP last night and Sam Farha
 

[ QUOTE ]
He probably also figured he could outplay him post flop (either bet him off a bigger pair, or bet him off two overcards if the guy missed the flop).

Fine play IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]



I assure you that Farha would have NO intention of bluffing somebody of an overpair if that person was donkish enough to raise to 20xBB in the first place. These are not the types of players that tend to make laydowns. Farha was ONLY playing for a set.

Furthermore, if you are right that he is planning on this then his preflop call actually gets worse because now he has to factor in his reverse implied odds when he tries bluffing on a low board and his opponent has an overpair. The bluff would have to be big because the pot is now huge, so now Farha's getting paid when he hits his set but losing chips when he doesn't. In other words, Farha has to decide if he's calling for implied odds or to bluff but he can't decide both are good reasons.

Re: WSOP last night and Sam Farha
 

[ QUOTE ]
I notice that the amateur players in the smaller tournaments here in Florida ($150-$200) tend to call all ins more with lessor holdings or just top pair. I have even seen them go all in on lessor holdings.


[/ QUOTE ]

PLEASE let me know where these games are at!!! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: WSOP last night and Sam Farha
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how calling w/33 is a no-no whereas 77 isn't. The chances of getting set vs. set are only slightly higher w/33 and you have to assume UTG is raising w/44-66 to make you prefer calling with 77 over 33. So the very slight possibility of set over set only comes into play more with 33 than other pps in very few situations (loose UTG raiser).


[/ QUOTE ]

black 7s are 7.3% more likely to beat red aces than black 3s are.

i don't think it changes much in the hand analysis, but it does mean that 77 is marginally better than 33 (or 22, 44, 55, for that matter).

obviously the reason is that a 3 helps AA make a straight whereas spiking a 7 has no impact.

Re: WSOP last night and Sam Farha
 

Sammy's plays may seem amazing, but honestly, he's a fish in the "big game". Unless it's Omaha, he usually is pissed off and tries to weasel out of playing Holdem or get them to add more Omaha to the lineup, lol. Not to mention, he's one of the biggest stuck on himself a$$holes I've ever met.