Paul Phillips WSOP Hand
 

Link to PP Blog


I think that this hand is pretty ho-hum, but the response on his blog was pretty unsurprising and points to a lot of the misconception that seems to permiate intermediate players' thinking:

Try to formulate an opinion on the hand before reading the responses.

here's the hand....

They are in the first orbit after the dinner break. Blinds 200-400 a50.

Seven handed due to busting 3 players in the first orbit.


Folded to PP in the CO who makes it 1200 to go w/ T [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]J [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]. PP starts the hand with t13k.
Button raises to 2400. Button is unknown as he was recently moved to the table a few hands ago. Button starts the hand with approx t16k.
Blinds fold, PP calls.

Flop is 9 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]9 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]2 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

PP checks with the intention of checkraising all in.

Button takes that as an obvious sign of weakness and pushes.

PP thinks for a bit and calls.

Pretty standard, right?

Re: Paul Phillips WSOP Hand
 

I think planning to c-raise doesnt leave you enough FE, but yes the call is pretty standard.

Re: Paul Phillips WSOP Hand
 

don't you think the SOP for a preflop minraiser is to underbet the pot? if he bets half pot, then PP's checkraise is 3x his raise and cripples him. Even a 5k bet can have FE in a big live tourney (if the guy has overcards)

Re: Paul Phillips WSOP Hand
 

I actually disagree with that read somewhat. I think that scared players make those minraises, and those are the same players who maker overbet all-ins on the flop because they are afraid of making decisions later in the hand. However, im obviously more than willing to accept pps read in that situation.

Re: Paul Phillips WSOP Hand
 

Well if villain has a big ace that missed PP isn't too far behind and if he has a smaller pair than PP is also fine.

He isn't getting awful pot odds either (around 1.5:1 if I read it right) and PP shouldn't be less than 50% to win this hand a large percentage of the time.

Re: Paul Phillips WSOP Hand
 

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?

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 ]

if I never hear the term "tourney life" again, I would be a happy man

Re: Paul Phillips WSOP Hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think planning to c-raise doesnt leave you enough FE

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if the Villan pots it he will still have 7kish behind I think that is good enough to keep behind for someone who is min-raisng p-flop.

The call is a no brainer. I surprised he even thought about it.

Re: Paul Phillips WSOP Hand
 

You can't come back from zero.

Re: Paul Phillips WSOP Hand
 

PP is likely to have 12-15 outs, getting roughly 1.6:1, so a call looks good. Only something like AKh really has him in trouble here.

Against an aggressive player with a lot of gamble in him, it might be better to just open push. But it sounds like the button wasn't that kind of guy.

Re: Paul Phillips WSOP Hand
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

you are on the wrong forum

Re: Paul Phillips WSOP Hand
 

Can I take my tongue out of my cheek now?

Re: Paul Phillips WSOP Hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
Can I take my tongue out of my cheek now?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I want to see if Soss can find some more absurd links. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Re: Paul Phillips WSOP Hand
 

tourney life tourney life tourney life tourney life tourney life tourney life tourney life tourney life tourney life tourney life tourney life tourney life tourney life tourney life tourney life tourney life tourney life tourney life tourney life tourney life tourney life tourney life tourney life tourney life [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Re: Paul Phillips WSOP Hand
 

Time to play devil's advocate: I would need to think for a while before calling, and that alone is a good reason to open push in the first place.

With 4800 in the pot PP has to expect a button push a pretty decent portion of the time and a pot committing bet most of the rest. He wants AK to fold, as well...I think this is a push if he's going to play this hand for all his chips.

edit: Looked at the results and realized I forgot the blinds/antes so there's actually 6K there. Yeah, I think he has to push.

Re: Paul Phillips WSOP Hand
 

The responses on his blog gave me mixed emotions.

I feel like a backup QB who finally gets a chance to start, but only b/c the starting QB broke his neck. Yes, it is better for my long term financial health that players think like that, but it is just so depressing to read.

Re: Paul Phillips WSOP Hand
 

Unless he is up against an overpair or a 9 or a bigger flush draw he's a favorite here. (ok, 50/50 against something like AJ, no heart). I would much rather have gotten the FE from the c/r, but otherwise it is close. Against AA-77, AKs-AJs, AKo-AQo, KQs this is just minus EV from a TEC standpoint I think. The fact that villain open pushed the flop probably means he does not want a call, which means pp is probably ahead here.

I don't think either option is that bad really. Far from the money I favor calling, otherwise I think I need more situational info (players remaining, payout schedule, etc) to decide.

After reading the blog, I may have done my EV calculation incorrectly (I had a baby on my lap.) If his number of 38% win to break even is right this is an easy call.

Re: Paul Phillips WSOP Hand
 

PP's comments here should be a sticky post in this forum.

[ QUOTE ]
I can fold and have 10K or call and have 26K 50% of the time and 0 50% of the time. For me to fold I have to believe that my tournament equity with 26K in chips is less than double my equity with 10K in chips.

I dunno about anyone else's chip->equity functions but mine more than doubles from 10K to 26K.

[/ QUOTE ]

Regards,
Woodguy

Re: Paul Phillips WSOP Hand
 

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.

Re: Paul Phillips WSOP Hand
 

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.

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".

Re: Paul Phillips WSOP Hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
I can fold and have 10K or call and have 26K 50% of the time and 0 50% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]


Problem is, the 50% is not accurate. If you're playing versus an average player, then this is a call since the range of hands he could probably have makes the play +EV. But this is the WSOP, and the players are not "average". I have made this play myself many times, that is overbeting a flop like 992 when I have a big pair like AA-QQ, especially against the pros that can read into your soul, they put you in AK and since they "are playing to win" (whatever that means), they call your big bet with their medium pair, or flush draw with "overcards". I think this is one of the adventages we (the not well known players) have against the "well-known pros".

Re: Paul Phillips WSOP Hand
 

I thought I was insane reading some of the posts saaying, "Oh.. It's a good call!"

Paul Phillips easily has more talent than 80% of that field, and he risks his tournament on a coin-flip (at best)?

HE HAS 30 BIG BLINDS YET IN HIS STACK AND HE'S RISKING IT ON A 50% SHOT (AND POSSIBLY LOWER!)

Absolutely Horrible.. Something you would see early on in Poker Stars Freerolls.

Re: Paul Phillips WSOP Hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can fold and have 10K or call and have 26K 50% of the time and 0 50% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]


Problem is, the 50% is not accurate. If you're playing versus an average player, then this is a call since the range of hands he could probably have makes the play +EV. But this is the WSOP, and the players are not "average". I have made this play myself many times, that is overbeting a flop like 992 when I have a big pair like AA-QQ, especially against the pros that can read into your soul, they put you in AK and since they "are playing to win" (whatever that means), they call your big bet with their medium pair, or flush draw with "overcards". I think this is one of the adventages we (the not well known players) have against the "well-known pros".

[/ QUOTE ]

just because you 'would' make the play with KK doesn't mean that you are more likely to have it than say 55-88, AK, AQ.

You have to believe that he has more than the 38% that he needs, right?

Re: Paul Phillips WSOP Hand
 

This isn't a cash game Sossman! It only takes one loss of a coinflip and you're out of the tournament!

Phillips has piles of chips yet and instead of trying to outplay his opponents, he gambles on a ridiculous coin flip?

It sounds like he had a hot date or something and wanted to get the hell out of there.

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very rigorous. Why don't you name this "generous" range and actually calculate the EV? No, you're right, handwaving is much better.

[ QUOTE ]
However when criticised PP flies into a rage about giving away fistfuls of +EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

Flies into a crazy, blood-soaked rage! At least we can see there's no risk that your "analysis" was in any way influenced by the identity of the caller.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Duh.

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

For your own sake I hope you're just hating on me as opposed to believing your own words.

Re: Paul Phillips WSOP Hand
 

Great Call BTW.. LOL.. What a freaking joke.

Re: Paul Phillips WSOP Hand
 

If you don't agree with the call you need to justify it with a handrange that puts PP at less than 38% equity....here I'll get you started...

Re: Paul Phillips WSOP Hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
You have to believe that he has more than the 38% that he needs, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I think so, I just wanted to point out that this is not as a clear call as some of you think.

Re: Paul Phillips WSOP Hand
 

Even in a cash game, the call is borderline.

In a tournament, with as many chips as Paul had (2 1/2 dozen BB's), the call is absolutely terrible. Big time DONK!

Re: Paul Phillips WSOP Hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
Problem is, the 50% is not accurate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed, I think it was higher. I was unlucky that he had the ace of hearts in his hand.

[ QUOTE ]
If you're playing versus an average player, then this is a call since the range of hands he could probably have makes the play +EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

The call is +EV if AK is in the hand range no matter what other hands you surmise.

I admit I get a lot of pleasure out of seeing people use such a wide range of superlatives to characterize the incredible horribleness of the call. This is really just a math problem and not one that requires an advanced degree.