Huck Seed Bluffs Into Dry Side Pot, Etc.
 

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.

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

i dont see how he can be all in for less than the Big blind and the sidepot still be dry

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 ]

If the guy was all-in for LESS than the big blind, then there had to be a side pot.

His A6 move, Daniel has discussed limping with A-crap too, because he says it is hard to play post flop.

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

[ QUOTE ]


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.



[/ QUOTE ]

What range of hands does he call a bet almost 7x the BB, with only 1 BB in the pot already?

a reasonable range would be: with Mid- High Pocket Pairs, A10+, and KJs+??

So from that range, Seed is either barely ahead, or way behind. Since David just called, why not see the flop? and if you don't hit, no need to bluff cause you didn't put any extra money in.

For the 10-7 off, he pushed to try and pick up the blinds, I didn't see the hand, but if he got called, that's poker.

Many players would rather push on a bluff with 10-7, than A-6

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

[ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the issue here isn't that the side pot isn't really dry; I doubt there was so much in there that that was the reason for the play. I can think of two good reasons to consider making the play:

1) You have a large enough stack that you're not really losing significant $EV by increasing the chances that the short stack stays in, but are perhaps increasing your $EV by reducing the chances that a particular opponent gets the short stack. It seems difficult for me to think of a place where these events are all going to come to a head, so I think a more likely explanation is . . .

2) . . . if it's known that you will completely bluff at dry sides, this also means that you can expect to get called at least sometimes with legitimate hands here as a result of your advertising. In other words, it's an image play.

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

No offense but this anlaysis is way off. Almost every one you went through you go ti it wrong. Don't mean to attack but say it like you know what your talking about and its way off. He should definately move with A6 off! there's 90k in there, not sure if there was antes too also, but either way with only having 450k he had to be aggressive here. And Sklansky woulda raised with any of the holding that beats him. Of course once in a blue moon he could have the monster. But being shortstacked he needs to take a chance here and move it in. The chances of a monster are remote. And the statement that many players would rather push with 107 off rather than A6 is silly.

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

I agree on everything you said except the part about the dry side pot. As others have said there must be something in there if greenstein was in for less. 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. All the other plays you point out are bad too. You got this post on the money. Only thing Huck did well was not play in the beginning. And if he's gonna play like he did later, maybe that is his best play, to never play!

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

The fact that is hard to play postflop is just anotherreason to move in. Huck played that hand awful. He checks it down giving David every chance to win then value bets the river when he probably wont get called unless he's beat. Yuck!

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

[ QUOTE ]
No offense but this anlaysis is way off. Almost every one you went through you go ti it wrong. Don't mean to attack but say it like you know what your talking about and its way off. He should definately move with A6 off! there's 90k in there, not sure if there was antes too also, but either way with only having 450k he had to be aggressive here. And Sklansky woulda raised with any of the holding that beats him. Of course once in a blue moon he could have the monster. But being shortstacked he needs to take a chance here and move it in. The chances of a monster are remote. And the statement that many players would rather push with 107 off rather than A6 is silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay - on the A6 hand, there are a few things we are missing here.

How often has each player been pushing? what have then been limping with etc?

I agree that A6 is a pushable hand, but we don't know the text around the push so much. How long ago was it that he just double up anyways? Was he agressive so that David's limp smelled like a trap?

and yes I know that A6 is a better hand than 10-7, but if your sole point of pushing is to steal blinds, I guess it doesn't matter what hands you have. one would be a true steal, the other more of a value push. But I don't tink you really wanna get called in either case.

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

On the first point about wheter he should puch the A6. Granted its possible there may have been factors that brought him to that decision. But the standard play is to move in and is sounded like you were defending his play. So when you aswered you must have been thinking of the standard play as well. I'm not looking at your reply right now so can't say for sure. But in general you better be pushing most of the time in that spot. The factors must be pretty severe not to move in. And knowing a littel about how sklansky play i doubt he was rasiing every hand up to that point. But can't say for sure.

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.

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.

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

No he wasn't depserate or any of those things. Why would you defend him if you don't know what even happpend? Because his name is Huck Seed? No offense but not a good reason to defend when you don't know how it went down.

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

What Hucks supposed to be thinking about is eliminating the other player. That is most important.

BG had like an A8 i think Sklansky had k4 and moved in on hucks bet then the k held up. He flopped top pair king. Barry was eliminated.

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

[ QUOTE ]
No he wasn't depserate or any of those things. Why would you defend him if you don't know what even happpend? Because his name is Huck Seed? No offense but not a good reason to defend when you don't know how it went down.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF? (nice vitriol for no reason) I dont care if it was Huck Seed, Huck Fin, or Huck Yu. Some "Pro" makes a play nobody understands so I tried to explain the play based on the info provided (unless you think he is just a complete idiot and betting absolutely and random for no purpose).

With the info provided I came up with a scenario where the play make some sort of "sense". I wouldnt call it a good play (it is play you'd see in a limit cash game), but it makes a little bit of sense within the total confines of maximizing his chance to win that pot.

If you dont like it, fine, I dont care. But I dont see you actually coming up with a scenario which can explain the action.

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

I think i was explaining it. He made a bad play. You want to argue he didn't make a bad play because he is a "pro". That is not a good argument. We are not stupid and need you to tell us what he was thinking. I know what he thought he was accomplishing. I just think his thinking was wrong here. No need to get upset. I was just pointing out that you shouldn't try to justify his play if you don't know what happened is all. And you are saying well i don't know what happend but he is Huck seed so i will tell you all why it was a good play, although i don't know what hapeend. But it must be a good play because Huck Seed did it. And he's a "pro". You see where i'm coming from?

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

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

If what you say is true, he's making an awful bad play, because in the real world, you can't make plays depending upon the "flop coming Axx," etc., and because there are relatively few hands/scenarios in NL holdem that you can legitimately slowplay preflop.

The last thing you want to do with A6 headsup is to give QJ a free look at the flop, especially if he'd just as soon call preflop anyway.

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

[ QUOTE ]
I think i was explaining it. He made a bad play. You want to argue he didn't make a bad play because he is a "pro". That is not a good argument. We are not stupid and need you to tell us what he was thinking. I know what he thought he was accomplishing. I just think his thinking was wrong here. No need to get upset. I was just pointing out that you shouldn't try to justify his play if you don't know what happened is all. And you are saying well i don't know what happend but he is Huck seed so i will tell you all why it was a good play, although i don't know what hapeend. But it must be a good play because Huck Seed did it. And he's a "pro". You see where i'm coming from?

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, you are WAY too quick to bark at people. There's no argument here. The poster certainly never said anything to justify your tone, and believe me, any objective person would say that you are being an instigator.

FWIW.

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

The OP asked "why", I came up with what *I* thought was a reasonable explanation for the action. I never EVER said it was a good play. But *I* have found that as a poker player you learn a lot by looking at situations that dont make sense and trying to explain them.

I've still not seen one explanation from you as to what you think Huck was trying to accomplish with his bet. You just say "He made a bad play". I wont argue the merits of the play (since we dont disagree), but you have not put forth a reasonable explanation for the play yet. You just said it was a bad play.

So outside of Huck just betting randomly, what is your explanation for his flop bet?

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

What? he got all pissed and said wtf am i talking about. When i originally said no offense. He took offense anyway. Only reason i got harsh is because he did saying wtf am i talking about. Just because i pointed out that saying huck made the right play because he's a "pro" not knowing what even happened. So dude, relax. Just like he should relax.

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

First off i'm sorry if i came off harsh in my response. In my original response to you i did say no offense. As i was trying to say please don't take offense to this criticicsm. But you took offense anyway so then i barked a bit as you barked first. Mr' rushmore should be able to see this but i think he wears glasses that only let him see what he wants to see. Anyway i wasn't trying to get into a war with you. Was just trying to point out that it is hard for you to comment on a hand you have not seen or know the details let alone try to explian Huck's reasons. Is that such an outrageous statement? Anyway sorry for barking but i have a tendency to bark back when barked at. But trying to work on it and let people bark and ignore the barking.

Anyway onto the explanantion of what Huck may have been thinking. He was thinking (imo) that he can bet and win the side pot. And may think sklansky wouldn't think he would bluff into the side pot. As he thinking sklansky should think Huck wants to eliminate Barry and why would he bet nothing into a meaningless side pot. Which sklansky might think as that would be proper play. But while hucks thinking is correct that it looks less likely for him to bluff here, there is a reason for that. Because it is a big mistake to bet unless the blinds were much more than what Barry had which i don't think they were.

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

And yes he did say stuff to justify my tone. He said wtf wtf are you tlkaing about. I don't care what you think and stuff like that. To me this seemed like barking to me as i said in my orignal response to him no offense. Was i correct in saying it is hard to defend hucks or any views on a subject that he has not seen or known many of the details to? What made that deserve all the barking? So dude open your eyes and stop getitng on my back. I'm not the bad guy. As i said to him. I just look like one because i bark when barked at. But trying to learn to let people bark and ignore it. Even though they are wrong i will only look like the bad guy if i defend myself so its better to just let them yell til they get tired.

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

[ QUOTE ]
If what you say is true, he's making an awful bad play, because in the real world, you can't make plays depending upon the "flop coming Axx," etc., and because there are relatively few hands/scenarios in NL holdem that you can legitimately slowplay preflop.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, especially given the way the hand played out postflop. It doesn't make much sense to slowplay before the flop, then check it down when your opponent shows absolutely no strength. If I recall correctly, Sklansky won the pot with a pair of 2's, so Seed probably could have won the pot with even a small flop bet.

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

This is the worst "serious" poker show I have ever seen. It's like watching a $5 Turbo on Party. All ins with K5 every other hand??? Who the hell designed the blind structure for this piece o' crap??

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

I agree.

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

[ QUOTE ]
Who the hell designed the blind structure for this piece o' crap??

[/ QUOTE ]

I might be wrong, but wasn't it, um, Barry Greenstein?

sidepot?
 

I keep reading replies that there must have been a sidepot if Greenstein was all-in for LESS than the big blind. But wasn't Barry the big blind himself? So if he's all-in for less than the big blind, but more than the small blind, Sklansky and Seed only have to call his all-in, NOT the big blind. This explains why Seed, from the small blind, is in there with 73o in the first place.

Re: sidepot?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I keep reading replies that there must have been a sidepot if Greenstein was all-in for LESS than the big blind. But wasn't Barry the big blind himself? So if he's all-in for less than the big blind, but more than the small blind, Sklansky and Seed only have to call his all-in, NOT the big blind. This explains why Seed, from the small blind, is in there with 73o in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've seen the rule go both ways before. Usually if the BB is all in, if someone wants to limp in then they have to call the full big bet. Some tournys I've played you only had to call what the BB had up. Don't know what the rule was for this tourny, prolly the 1st.

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.

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

[/ QUOTE ]

I just choked through watching the episode and you have the hand COMPLETELY wrong. That is the rational explanation for the hand.

Sklansky calls on the button with K [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 9 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]
Huck in the SB calls with A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 4 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]
BG in the BB all-in with 6 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 2 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

Pot is 97.5k with a side pot of 15k

Flop comes down 7 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] j [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] T [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]
HS checks, DS checks
Turn J [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]
HS checks, DS checks
River Q [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]
HS checks, DS fires min bet (40k) into the pot with his straight, HS folds.

The hand as it played out was nothing like the hand you posted.... No K on the flop, no betting until the river where DS has 2nd nut and tries to get some value for it. HS just check/folded...

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

Greenstein wrote the rules on how much time the players have to act and what they'd be penalized if they didn't. He didn't design the blind structure.

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

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

[/ QUOTE ]

I just choked through watching the episode and you have the hand COMPLETELY wrong. That is the rational explanation for the hand.

Sklansky calls on the button with K [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 9 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]
Huck in the SB calls with A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 4 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]
BG in the BB all-in with 6 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 2 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

Pot is 97.5k with a side pot of 15k

Flop comes down 7 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] j [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] T [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]
HS checks, DS checks
Turn J [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]
HS checks, DS checks
River Q [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]
HS checks, DS fires min bet (40k) into the pot with his straight, HS folds.

The hand as it played out was nothing like the hand you posted.... No K on the flop, no betting until the river where DS has 2nd nut and tries to get some value for it. HS just check/folded...

[/ QUOTE ]

That was a different hand. There was another hand where Sklansky hit top pair on the flop and Huck bluffed into a small side pot. Sklansky then raised him allin and Huck folded. The one you've picked out was a separate hand, played much more reasonably.

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

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

[/ QUOTE ]

I just choked through watching the episode and you have the hand COMPLETELY wrong. That is the rational explanation for the hand.

Sklansky calls on the button with K [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 9 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]
Huck in the SB calls with A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 4 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]
BG in the BB all-in with 6 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 2 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

Pot is 97.5k with a side pot of 15k

Flop comes down 7 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] j [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] T [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]
HS checks, DS checks
Turn J [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]
HS checks, DS checks
River Q [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]
HS checks, DS fires min bet (40k) into the pot with his straight, HS folds.

The hand as it played out was nothing like the hand you posted.... No K on the flop, no betting until the river where DS has 2nd nut and tries to get some value for it. HS just check/folded...

[/ QUOTE ]

That was a different hand. There was another hand where Sklansky hit top pair on the flop and Huck bluffed into a small side pot. Sklansky then raised him allin and Huck folded. The one you've picked out was a separate hand, played much more reasonably.

[/ QUOTE ]

No sht? Wow, I was fast forwarding through TIVO saw 62o and BG all-in and figured that had to be it. How did BG survive an all-in in the BB when DS had TP?