Paul Phillips WSOP Hand

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
Is risking your tournament life for a coin flip a good bet when there's a bunch of Donks at your table who you can outplay and get a 70% edge or greater to double up??

Nope.. Absolutely Terrible!

[/ QUOTE ]

I like these concepts of survival and tournament life. I will have to add them to my guide.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...mp;o=&vc=1

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
PP has an edge over the field because he recognizes and takes 50% equity when the pot dictates that he only needs 38%.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to be serious in this discussion you should not insist in the 50% figure. Just because PP was right in his read this time, didn't make the number 50%. I have been playing poker for some years now, with many great players. And I still to know a player such that every time he reads a person as having a unique, specific hand like AK after an all in bet in the flop, he's right 100% of the time.

[maddog2030]

[ QUOTE ]
Surely, no good player has less than a 50% chance of doubling. Thus, no good player increases his equity more than 2x by doubling his stack.

Where is the flaw in this proof?

[/ QUOTE ]

Think about what Z means in X = Z * Y. Say your $X=5 and $Y=$9. Then Z=55.5%. Should you take a 60%/40% gamble for all of your chips? How about a 51%/49% gamble?

So Z here is the minimum edge you should be taken given your equity now and your equity after double up. Obviously then its easy to see why Y > 2X works. Essentially it's $EV pot odds.

I don't think you've defined Z as a seperate variable. I think it's entirely a product of a given $X and $Y from some equity model. What does Z say about your equity without an X or a Y?

[Voltron87]

WTF is this thread 140 replies long for? This is a bad play, and Paul reasoning is poor. When he says he's going to CR that's a joke, I actually laughed.

If Paul was making this play against a limper it would be different. Think about button's hand range. Paul P can post stats about how he's +EV against 77 and other hands the opponent is not going to have, but that's misleading. Button has a pretty specific range, and we are forced to put him on one without reads here.

And it's pretty elementary that if you are going to call all in you should be pushing.

note- I haven't read any of the replies.

[Yeti]

[ QUOTE ]
WTF is this thread 140 replies long for? This is a bad play, and Paul reasoning is poor. When he says he's going to CR that's a joke, I actually laughed.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

note- I haven't read any of the replies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, read some.

[bugstud]

[ QUOTE ]
WTF is this thread 140 replies long for? This is a bad play, and Paul reasoning is poor. When he says he's going to CR that's a joke, I actually laughed.

[/ QUOTE ]

why? Why wouldn't a typical tourney player make a continuation bet of 3k or so rather than a push a great deal of the time?

[Voltron87]

yeah, i have been now. its a mess.


i think a lot of people are giving the button way too large a hand range. button is not minraising (its actually not a minraise, technically) with AA-77, paul even included AJ and KQ at .5. And if youre calling, you should be pushing.

[Voltron87]

pot odds. thats all. anything button is reraising with will call after betting. anything.

[pokergripes]

Well, for that to work, the opp has to be capable of both the terrible under-bet, and then also a pretty big laydown (in light of the pot size, remaining stacks, etc.)...totally agree that it's always easy to second guess with the benefit of hindsight, but that being said, I think this hand illustrates a point that lots of people (myself included) don't necessarily think of, which is that the product of "chance my read is correct", multiplied by "chance he does what I expect on that read", multiplied by "chance my CR play then works", is a whole lot smaller than it might feel at the time of initiation in the heat of battle...might be an illustration of "too clever a move for the situation", all things considered here, making the straight forward play (i.e., I put him on a big ace, and therefore am taking down the pot with an initial push) the significantly better play on a risk-adjusted basis.

[pokergripes]

LOL! Not having read any of the replies, you're still sure enough that a post that PP bothered to put on his blog, and that somebody bothered to post here for discussion, which has at least two relatively interesting questions in it (the initial check, and what to do once the opp pushes), wasn't worthy of this much discussion, and at such a level of certainty that it merits a "WTF?"? That's kind of cute, actually [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I mean, this thread obviously can't hold a candle to a thread that follows a scorching troll-post about somebody's table manners, or a three hundred post thread about whether a particular player is more or less secure than another particular player that nobody on the chain has actually ever met or spoken to, or a two-week discussion of whether vince lepore and smoothcall are the same person, but that being said, the discussion in this chain might actually be of some benefit to the people involved...

Not you, obviously, since you are far too strong a player to make what might (or might not, since it depends on the read to a large extent) have been a "bad" play by a player of merely PP's level...however, guys like me might wind up re-thinking the point about risk-adjusted chances of a play working, given that PP made the play.

In other words, the fact that it WAS a PP play is why it merits this much discussion, because if it's a "bad play", that is obviously saying something, and worth thinking through why.