![]() |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
mcevoy article
here's what this article is saying to me: - it is correct to put your opponent on a big pair here, meaning you will fold on the flop unless you hit a set, or an open-end straight draw. even if you hit a set, your opponent may hit a bigger set. - your pot odds are 3.5:1, implied odds are 6.17:1, and the odds of winning the hand and sticking around to see it are about 7.5:1. also, there is a ~2% chance that you will lose all your chips to a set-over-set or by flopping a straight draw and missing. - nevertheless, you should call here. i won't even get into conserving chips and avoiding close gambles in a tournament. card player really needs to either proofread some of these articles or hire some authors that properly consider a question before writing an entire article on it. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
He won his entry via a satelite. And then he got lucky at the right times.
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[ QUOTE ]
He won his entry via a satelite. And then he got lucky at the right times. [/ QUOTE ] Like Moneymaker did? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
What, exactly is your problem with the article? He clearly states that the hand was played correctly by the "hero" with the sixes?
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[ QUOTE ]
What, exactly is your problem with the article? He clearly states that the hand was played correctly by the "hero" with the sixes? [/ QUOTE ] Are you faulting his lack of a re-raise with sixes pre-flop? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
if mcevoy says "reraise all-in and hope he throws away his hand", fine. if he says "your opponent probably has overcards, so call here and let him bluff at the flop, but perhaps fold if it contains an ace or king", fine. what he is telling you to do, however, is assume your opponent has a better hand than you, and call even though you are not getting the odds to draw out. i can't understand the strategy behind that.
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Crockpot,
Although I normally enjoy your responses to many questions posed about pot limit and no limit hold em and the forum should be thankful to have such a thoughtfull and frequent poster, I have always thought that your responses were a bit on the weak-tight side. This post confirms that. To win tournaments, actually win them, not make the money, these are the types of gambles that absolutly HAVE to be taken. I wouldn't even mind if he had raised all in pre-flop with the sixes given the description of the player in question. But with the blinds so high in relation to the stacks, to not call an extra three thousand pre-flop would be a huge mistake in this type of tournament. As for Tom McEvoy as a player, I can't comment completly on this since I have never played with him for any long period of time. From what I've seen, he seems pretty solid, albeit somewhat overly tight at times. But as for his advice in this hand, it's seems to me to be dead on. Gambles such as this are imperative it you are going to make a run at the big money. Peace Goodie |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
i cannot see how calling this bet possibly improves your chances of winning a big prize, if you think that the raiser most likely has a big pair. if mcevoy didn't explicitly state that, then the merits of calling or reraising can be argued. but why bother making a read if you aren't going to adjust your play because of it?
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I have re-read the article and I understand your point now, crockpot. McEvoy clearly states that he believes the reader was correct to assume the raiser had a big pair. If this is the read, then there is a very good case for throwing the sixes in the muck. My take on this is different though. I believe this may be one of the times where math should be thrown out the window. It is impossible to KNOW that the raiser has a big pair and this, coupled with the fact that you'll almost certainly double through if you flop a set and he has a big pair, makes the call correct even if you read the raiser as having that big pair.
Although this is my stance, I see how you can fault McEvoy for the way he wrote the article. This sounds as if it's coming from a fairly small buy-in tourney (hence the large blinds compared to stack size) and it has been my experience that in these tourneys a mini-raise is more likely to indicate weakness than strength. So, McEvoy was clearly wrong to say that the reader was correct to assume that the raiser had a big pair. This is thinking coming from a player who plays mostly large tournaments with very aggresive and tricky players. I believe that McEvoy's only mistake here was not putting into context the nature of the tourney and situation. Peace Goodie |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Are we to expect Chris Moneymaker to submit any articles? :-)
|
![]() |
|
|