[troymclur]

[ 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.