WSOP last night and Sam Farha
 

Was watching WSOP and the table where Sammy and Daniel were at (man poor Daniel). Anyways I follow the Dan Harrington system of NL. Suits my style best. Read his books, his plays make sense to me.

Then I see Sammy playing all sorts of cards facing raises from EP amatuers. Then he hits and doubles then triple ups.

My question is with his loose play vs these amateur players I have to assume he assumes that if he hits his implied odds are much greater than if he played against a good player. Amateur players will call more often all ins than a better player. Am I right in his thiking and play?

Like the AA (UTG) raiser and he calls with 33. Flops the set and takes the guys cash. Calling with 33 vs an UTG raiser is a no-no in every book. But he got way more than the implied odds hitting the set. With Daniel he bet more stratigically vs him.

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.

So is that how Sammy was thinking for the early rounds? Or am I thinking too deep?

Re: WSOP last night and Sam Farha
 

Sammy is a LAG and a great one at that with excellent hand reading capabilities. After doubling up his stack he had the chips and odds to try and hit his set versus the 20xbb raiser with AA. He knew the guy had AA and would get his stack if he hit.

LAGs need to build a big stack early so they can continue to see lots of flops as the blinds increase. Sammy knows that if he doesn't take chances to gamble early then he can't play his style which he feels gives him the best chance to make a deep run.

Honestly the worst thing for Daniel was having Farha at his table. After DN's WSOP troubles last year in trying to bluff amatuers, he wanted to play TAG ABC mode against the ametuers early on before switching to his normal, more laggy play. But the worse thing for a TAG in ABC mode is to have a great LAG at your table. They can kill you just as Farha did to DN.

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).

Fine play IMO.

Re: WSOP last night and Sam Farha
 

[ QUOTE ]
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).

Fine play IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Farha called out of the BB, therefore not having position....this shouldn't change whether or not its a correct call (because it is), just correcting.

Re: WSOP last night and Sam Farha
 

[ QUOTE ]
Farha called out of the BB, therefore not having position....this shouldn't change whether or not its a correct call (because it is), just correcting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this a correct call, or is this being results orientated? What makes it a correct call, especially knowing the guy 90%+ has a bigger pair? Is it because Sam knows what the guy has and that the raise isn't that large in relation to his stack, and the implied odds of putting the guy out is worth the call? Not being a smart@$$, I'm just trying to learn.

Re: WSOP last night and Sam Farha
 

[ QUOTE ]
Was watching WSOP and the table where Sammy and Daniel were at (man poor Daniel). Anyways I follow the Dan Harrington system of NL. Suits my style best. Read his books, his plays make sense to me.

Then I see Sammy playing all sorts of cards facing raises from EP amatuers. Then he hits and doubles then triple ups.

My question is with his loose play vs these amateur players I have to assume he assumes that if he hits his implied odds are much greater than if he played against a good player. Amateur players will call more often all ins than a better player. Am I right in his thiking and play?

Like the AA (UTG) raiser and he calls with 33. Flops the set and takes the guys cash. Calling with 33 vs an UTG raiser is a no-no in every book. But he got way more than the implied odds hitting the set. With Daniel he bet more stratigically vs him.

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.

So is that how Sammy was thinking for the early rounds? Or am I thinking too deep?

[/ QUOTE ]

the problem is that you're using Harrington's book as a basis. He's a very conservative player, plus he's writing a book on the basics.

Farha is a consumate pro who's style is see alot of flops and use your read skills to make the good decisions. When you say it was a no-no in everybook, realize that most books are geared towards ABC poker, while most pros make 'wrong' decisions because they trust thier reads more than the math.

Re: WSOP last night and Sam Farha
 

My bad on position. Now that I think back on it, I guess he did check the flop and then raise after AA bet. Here's my logic on why it is a correct call.

Set flops about 1 in 7 times. AA has about $10,000T, Farha calls about $1,500 knowing that if he flops a set he wins the 10K. Even if he doesn't flop a set, he could still outplay after the flop (Villain could have AK, miss the flop and get passive?), or fold if he truly believes he is beat.

That coupled with the fact that the call does not cut into Farha's already big stack make the play justifiable IMO.

Re: WSOP last night and Sam Farha
 

Getting casino boy's money before Daniel Negreanu gets it two seats to your left if nice as well.

Re: WSOP last night and Sam Farha
 

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

Re: WSOP last night and Sam Farha
 

Thats really interesting I see what you mean on all counts. Makes sense.

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.

Re: WSOP last night and Sam Farha
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure the bigger reason is that you can make more straights with 77 than with 33, which is more important than blocking a wheel draw.

Either way, this only matters if you're planning on playing back at your opponent if you flop an oesd so the 7.3% only makes 77 more playable if you're going to put a move on. Obviously, in the Farha case as he was looking just to flop a set 33 is almost identical to 77.

Re: WSOP last night and Sam Farha
 

or 'rust away', heard neil's new album is just out...............b

Re: WSOP last night and Sam Farha
 

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this the general feeling about him? He's seemed cool to me on television for the times he has been on.

Re: WSOP last night and Sam Farha
 

They might have said Curtis is an amateur but he aint no freaking amateur id call him a b list pro considering his extensive gambling career i also thought he had a plan to play his hands to the extreme considering u do need 56 million chips in front of u by the end

Re: WSOP last night and Sam Farha
 

I really don't think Sam played anything better than Daniel.
Sam just got lucky.
Daniel played great but just got terribly unlucky.

If luck tilted a little to Daniel's side, the story will be different.
Both Sam and Daniel are great players.

Like Fossilman said: do you need luck to win, yes 100%.

You cannot win any sizable tourney without being lucky.

Re: WSOP last night and Sam Farha
 

BELIEVE ME. Seen people call with Ax crap high all ins, King high, bottom pair, called reraises with 33, reraise an obvious made hand to the table with nothing but an obvious bluff. call all ins with just a draw..no odds or overs of course.

Its there man. But in these tournaments there are probably 15% pretty good players. I actually feek nore relaxed at a table with good players (as strange as it sounds) because I can read them better. I have never gone broke to a good player. I always get busted by "your bluffing I call" and they hit their 3-5 outer, lol. Just a run of bad luck, but still annoying.

Hard Rock Casino Tuesday and Saturday 4000 chips 25/50 blinds go up every 30 mins. You can fold for 90 mins and still have plenty of chips to win the tournament. $150 and $200 buy ins.

Re: WSOP last night and Sam Farha
 

More than Poker Brat? Wow

Re: WSOP last night and Sam Farha
 

I know that for sure. I placed top 3 in my 1st live $200 tournament winning $5k and I was lucky to double up on the 3rd hand. It allowed me to play....a little more loose. I also won every important all in and folded every important fold.

Compared to the next 6 tournemnts where I go in with the best hand and come out with a beat stick for the other player.

I would really love to know how often some of these pros place in the money, 10%, 20%, 30%? 5%?

Re: WSOP last night and Sam Farha
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure the bigger reason is that you can make more straights with 77 than with 33, which is more important than blocking a wheel draw.

Either way, this only matters if you're planning on playing back at your opponent if you flop an oesd so the 7.3% only makes 77 more playable if you're going to put a move on. Obviously, in the Farha case as he was looking just to flop a set 33 is almost identical to 77.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah you are right. I just tried running 77 v 33 when you strip the deck of eights and sixes and they perform basically identically.

Re: WSOP last night and Sam Farha
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?

cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
7s 7c 343300 20.05 1364608 79.69 4396 0.26 0.202
Ad Ah 1364608 79.69 343300 20.05 4396 0.26 0.798

cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
3s 3c 319884 18.68 1384984 80.88 7436 0.43 0.189
Ad Ah 1384984 80.88 319884 18.68 7436 0.43 0.811


Anyway, it's very simple: Farha is playing to flop a set because the implied odds are so huge. (Not as huge as they could be with that donk open-raise to 20BB, but still.) With very deep stacks early in tournaments, making loose preflop calls based on implied odds, if you feel you can outplay the other players on later streets, is a very good strategy.

Re: WSOP last night and Sam Farha
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]
Huh?
7s 7c 343300 20.05 1364608 79.69 4396 0.26 0.202
3s 3c 319884 18.68 1384984 80.88 7436 0.43 0.189


[/ QUOTE ]
0.189 * 1.07 = 0.202

Re: WSOP last night and Sam Farha
 

Oh. Yeah, I can't do math. Or I wasn't thinking of it in those terms.

Re: WSOP last night and Sam Farha
 

The best part about this hand was how the UTG donkey bet 6,000 on the flop. LMAO. 6k. Nice bet.

Re: WSOP last night and Sam Farha
 

your standard 20 times the big blind raise.

Re: WSOP last night and Sam Farha
 

[ QUOTE ]
My bad on position. Now that I think back on it, I guess he did check the flop and then raise after AA bet. Here's my logic on why it is a correct call.

Set flops about 1 in 7 times. AA has about $10,000T, Farha calls about $1,500 knowing that if he flops a set he wins the 10K. Even if he doesn't flop a set, he could still outplay after the flop (Villain could have AK, miss the flop and get passive?), or fold if he truly believes he is beat.

That coupled with the fact that the call does not cut into Farha's already big stack make the play justifiable IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this logic is very wrong. I don't think the big blind was 500--it was much smaller (like 50, i think). The guy raise to 2k!!! Calling that does not pay off even if Farah stacks him the times he hits his set and it holds up.

Re: WSOP last night and Sam Farha
 

I think I read somewhere that the guy making the 20bb raise actually had a stack of 14,000 not 10,000, Farha knows that if he hits his set he can stack the guy so his implied odds are huge.

Re: WSOP last night and Sam Farha
 

I like the raise to 1k PF with blinds at 50/100 even better. The blinds may have even been at 25/50, not sure.

SGS

Re: WSOP last night and Sam Farha
 

[ QUOTE ]
Like the AA (UTG) raiser and he calls with 33. Flops the set and takes the guys cash. Calling with 33 vs an UTG raiser is a no-no in every book.

[/ QUOTE ]
You obviously know absolutely nothing about deep stacked big bet poker.

Re: WSOP last night and Sam Farha
 

If farha called 15% of the stack of whoever was shallower, heads up with 33 and no means of outplaying the tard, it was a bad call. Farha cannot possibly come out ahead playing this same matchup over and over. If you don't see why may god have mercy on your soul.

Re: WSOP last night and Sam Farha
 

[ QUOTE ]
But he got way more than the implied odds hitting the set.

[/ QUOTE ]

13% to hit set on flop and to make things simple about 1% chance they both hit sets. Not to mention once they get it AI on a flop where farha makes a set and the other doesn't, he has to dodge an ace on the turn and river.

Making the numbers really easy we'll say this all works out and farha stacks him 11% of the time there. So calling 1000 to win 10000 11ish% of the time is "way more than the implied odds" you say?