Read of the Year?

[FeliciaLee]

I played in this event with Ted. We were at the same table for over eight hours, until I was eliminated. We were the only two original players left at our table.

I wish I could get deep into Ted's head and tell you why he makes certain plays and is one of the best Stud playes in the world, but I simply can't. He is the best Stud player I have ever played against in my life. He does things I have never seen other players do, and is almost always correct.

I was completely in awe watching him play. We rarely tangled, but we were both the tightest players at the table, so that isn't odd.

The next week he and I played in the Stud 8 tourney. I wasn't at his table, but he was relocated to the table next to mine, and Glenn (my husband) said that Ted played so well there that he wanted to take notes! He could sweat Ted's table better from the bleachers than he could mine.

A couple of weeks later, Ted once again was relocated to the table next to mine. This time the game was Razz. In one hand, I was all-in against Howard Lederer and Ted came over to sweat us. Ted predicted I would win the hand, even though I started out with KQJ (don't ask), and Howard started with three to a bike. Ted even predicted the way the hand would turn out, card after card. He was exactly right, and that was the first time I've seen Lederer actually gape in awe.

Looking back, his prediction made a lot of sense, in all probability, but no one was thinking that at the time, we just didn't think that deeply, not even Lederer. All Ted had to do, however, was take a quick glimpse at the table, and he had it all figured out.

I posted a more complete version of these stories in my journal, but this gist of what I'm trying to say is that if anyone could make "incredible reads," or "incredible laydowns," it would be Ted. I haven't seen this episode, and I was long gone by the time Ted got to the final table, but I am not surprised by this read at all. Even if he had no accurate read of his opponent whatsoever, like Dynasty said, late in a tourney, shorthanded, with those many chips, he wasn't off the mark.

Felicia [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
www.felicialee.net

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
22Q....nice try. Took the real results and were afraid to post them? We are talking about small kickers remember?

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't Forrest have a Queen kicker? Or did he catch that on 4th street? If you insist on another simulation, here it is. I kept the pair of 2's and gave it a "weak" overcard 8 kicker. Therefore, I had to give the other hand a smaller pair, 6's instead of 8's.

I don't actually remember the exact starting hands. Can somebody post it?

7-card Stud Hi: 500000 sampled outcomes
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
2c 8d 2d 222639 44.53 277359 55.47 2 0.00 0.445
6s 4c 6h 277359 55.47 222639 44.53 2 0.00 0.555

Note: I accidentally gave Forrest's opponent a two-flush in the first simulation (22Q) and took it away for this one.

J_V, did you really expect something significantly different than 55/45? You only need an overcard kicker. It doesn't need to be "big".

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
I see you've conveniently avoided my other questions.

[/ QUOTE ]

They sounded rhetorical.

If you're so gung-ho about a simulation, go to twodimes.net and do it yourself. It should take one minute.

[Glenn]

"As for me playing too tight, perhaps you would want to play some high limit heads up stud and capitalize."

Let's make this happen people. There is a nice 200-400 heads up stud table on UB that you guys can use. If 200 is too big for you let other posters buy some of your action. For example, I'm sure the legion of 1/2 players that worship Dynasty would buy him up $50 at a time. I WANT TO SEE SOME HEAD UP YOU NANCIES.

[turnipmonster]

now you've got me curious, so I'm going to ask. how did you get allin with lederer, and what was ted's prediction?

--turnipmonster

[daryn]

yeah me too. i am sick of all the challenges and no action.

[ShipItToPapa]

I'll buy half of JV in this heads up match

[SlyR]

There's been a lot of analysis in this thread regarding the relative strength of Q22 vs. 884. I'm not doubting the Stud experts' observations regarding whether it might have been right to chase. I do, however, stand by my original premise that Forrest had a read and was not playing the odds, for three reasons:

1. Heads-up odds are one thing. Betting patterns are another. If Forrest really suspected that he faced an overpair, he might have tried to play back.

2. A strong player like Forrest does not limp-call on every street unless he feels that it will make him more money. I believe that he knew that a raise would slow down the hand. These were "value calls."

3. Wasn't there a bet on the river? Even if you have odds to chase, calling on the river when you aren't improved only means you suspect that you have the best hand.

[Beavis68]

This was only the second time I had seen Ted play. It amazed me how solid he was, he was never aggressive with-out a hand.

[Michael Davis]

"1. Heads-up odds are one thing. Betting patterns are another. If Forrest really suspected that he faced an overpair, he might have tried to play back."

In this situation, there's no way his opponent is folding a pair, so there's no sense in playing back. The fact that Brown would not have folded a pair but would keep firing at the pot with nothing is what makes Forrest's play correct.

"2. A strong player like Forrest does not limp-call on every street unless he feels that it will make him more money. I believe that he knew that a raise would slow down the hand. These were "value calls.""

If here you mean that Forrest didn't want to raise because he risked his opponent folding, that's wrong. He only has deuces. Even if he has the best hand, he wants him to fold. If that's not what you mean, what do you mean by "slowing down the hand?"

Solid players will often just call all the way against aggressive players with mid-to-weak hands in heads up pots. If they are behind, they lose the minimum. If they are ahead, they encourage their opponents to keep bluffing. Sometimes they get drawn out on, but sometimes they draw out on their opponent who started with a legitimate hand.

Of course Forrest knew that there was a chance his deuces might be good, but if he had a read and really knew that they were, why would he not raise at some point and represent a stronger hand? This would probably force his opponent to fold, something Forrest would have wanted.

"3. Wasn't there a bet on the river? Even if you have odds to chase, calling on the river when you aren't improved only means you suspect that you have the best hand."

Yes, there was a bet on the river, but calling on the river does not mean you suspect you have the best hand. You might think you have the best hand only 5% of the time but call when the pot is laying 30-1. I don't think you can say that a player suspects his hand is good in this situation.

-Michael