Re: Paul Phillips WSOP Hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
Villain could have an overpair or high cards, but he could also easily have a wired pair below a 9, reading PP for high cards.

We can formulate a range of hands with some kind of program and determine our equity, but with an estimation I would put Paul's chance of winning this hand somewhere around 35 to 40 percent, given villain's (probable) hand range.

The fact that Paul has already 2.4k of hs 13k stack should be reason enough for the call, when you determine $EV and real EV, if that makes sense.

This is the kind of decision you wabt to make if your objective is winning the tournament versus moving up in pay structures. Correct me if I'm wrong, but PP's strategy is the former, I believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just his flush draw gives him 35%. If his pair outs are good even a small % of the time he is closing in on 50% equity. With the entire hand range, I would bet that he's close to 50%. The call is stupidly easy, the only real debate on this hand should be in regards to the bet out the flop vs. checkraise all in on the flop line. (and possibly folding preflop)

Re: Paul Phillips WSOP Hand
 

I'd push on the flop.

Re: Paul Phillips WSOP Hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
How can he put his tourney life on the line with just a draw here? Shouldn't he fold and look for better spots later?

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't know Norman Chad had joined the forum.

Re: Paul Phillips WSOP Hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's an uber-donkey call. At best you're around 50%-50%, at worst 20%-30%. According to PP the pot odds meant that he needed 38% so let's be generous over the range of hands the opponent might have had and accept that it was break-even. However when criticised PP flies into a rage about giving away fistfuls of +EV. THERE WAS NO +EV OVER THAT RANGE OF HANDS. And using the post-event known equity of 49.6% to justify the play is crazy as we don't have that useful piece of information when making decisions.

However there's a far more fundamental error in all this analysis - this was a tournament. In a cash game you can evaluate each and every hand on its merits and accept that this call was borderline OK. However in a tournament the additional chips gained, together with an increased expectation of prize money, do not balance the very real, in fact likely, outcome of being busted. Having more chips at that early stage is good, but not that good. And if you're a superior player than the field then that superiority should translate to creating better situations than 50-50 (at best) to get all your money in.

[/ QUOTE ]


"but the response on his blog was pretty unsurprising and points to a lot of the misconception that seems to permiate intermediate players' thinking:"


Don't say I didn't warn you.

Re: Paul Phillips WSOP Hand
 

As you said, it becomes a clear call when villain pushes.

I'm not going to dispute the preflop call of the button raise. What kind of message does it send that you will fold for 1200 more in that spot? Do we want villains thinking we are that weak-tight?

Going for a checkraise, to me anyways, seems like FPS. I couldn't tell you why, it just looks that way. Expose the folding equity you have against villain's range of hands and push right there.

Re: Paul Phillips WSOP Hand
 

Woodguy, he only knew he was 50-50 after he called. He couldve been a lot worse. So it's intellectually bankrupt to use that as the justification. Suppose the guy had 99 and PP was drawing dead. Then it's a bad decision right?

The only analysis that makes any sense is over the RANGE of hands the the villain might have. Using that measure you might come up with a 35%-40% chance.

Re: Paul Phillips WSOP Hand
 

[ QUOTE ]

Just his flush draw gives him 35%. If his pair outs are good even a small % of the time he is closing in on 50% equity. With the entire hand range, I would bet that he's close to 50%. The call is stupidly easy, the only real debate on this hand should be in regards to the bet out the flop vs. checkraise all in on the flop line. (and possibly folding preflop)

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely. The check-raise(push) attempt was a bit unfortunate. No one here would assume he would come guns-a-blazing after the minraise raise preflop when that flop hits right???? You can't expect him to have caught any of it.. so a check-raise seems appropriate after the last minraise. The +EV here is somewhere around 3000 chips making this a pretty standard call.

Double Eagle...
[ QUOTE ]
You can't come back from zero.

[/ QUOTE ]
PP is not trying to eak ITM here.. he wants to win! And to win you have to acummulate.. accumulate.. accumulate.. Nuff Said!

Re: Paul Phillips WSOP Hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's an uber-donkey call. At best you're around 50%-50%, at worst 20%-30%. According to PP the pot odds meant that he needed 38% so let's be generous over the range of hands the opponent might have had and accept that it was break-even. However when criticised PP flies into a rage about giving away fistfuls of +EV. THERE WAS NO +EV OVER THAT RANGE OF HANDS. And using the post-event known equity of 49.6% to justify the play is crazy as we don't have that useful piece of information when making decisions.

However there's a far more fundamental error in all this analysis - this was a tournament. In a cash game you can evaluate each and every hand on its merits and accept that this call was borderline OK. However in a tournament the additional chips gained, together with an increased expectation of prize money, do not balance the very real, in fact likely, outcome of being busted. Having more chips at that early stage is good, but not that good. And if you're a superior player than the field then that superiority should translate to creating better situations than 50-50 (at best) to get all your money in.

[/ QUOTE ]


Agreed.. This call is absolutely hideous.. People condoning it because "Hey It's Paul Phillips, I must be the right play" are complete morons.

I don't know what Paul was thinking but his head wasn't in the right place on this hand.. A player of his ability risking his entire tournament on a 50-50 coin toss.. When he's capable of outplaying half the field.. Big Time Donk Call!! BIG TIME!!

Horrible, Horrible Call!

Re: Paul Phillips WSOP Hand
 

The important thing to consider is what your average villain here is capable of doing with likely overcards on that kind of flop.

Methinks there is no continuation bet with high cards here, as it makes a more difficult decision for hero who would just rather take the pot down or get to showdown with all the chips in the pot. Either a check behind or a push.

Re: Paul Phillips WSOP Hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
Agreed.. This call is absolutely hideous.. People condoning it because "Hey It's Paul Phillips, I must be the right play" are complete morons.

I don't know what Paul was thinking but his head wasn't in the right place on this hand..

Horrible, Horrible Call!

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to elaborate? Or are you just a bandwagon poster?

And I don't just say this because you disagree with Paul, it's that you make these kind of comments without saying much more than "Oh, what he said".