Read of the Year?

[Easy E]

before a raise becomes almost mandatory at some point?

[banditbdl]

You have to remember this is a tournament, and its heads-up on 3rd street. Also, the attempt to steal the antes is pretty standard by Ted's opponent on 3rd street. The possibility of Ted's smaller pair catching up combined with the fact there is a very strong chance Ted is ahead already make it automatic for him to play the hand as he did.

This aspect is what makes a stud tourney like this rather unexciting, a lot of the decisions are simply automatic.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
I hope you have more to add to this, about overcards or reads or playing against a habitual bluffer, or something

[/ QUOTE ]

He had a two-flush in diamonds. Didn't he have a Queen on third street? At the very least, he had it on 4th street. While Forrest's opponent didn't appear to be a habitual bluffer, the raise of the bring-in was automatic and Forrest has little reason to believe his 22 isn't good on 3rd street.

I'll play a smaller pair against a possible bigger pair as long as my opponent's board doesn't becomes threatening.

[J_V]

It's a standard play for a very good player that understands how pot odds and poker works. Ted Forrest is that player.

[J_V]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't intend to be smug

[/ QUOTE ]

Good work Ed. We could use more this kind of tact around here when suggesting "You should read xxx"

[jwvdcw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I hope you have more to add to this, about overcards or reads or playing against a habitual bluffer, or something

[/ QUOTE ]

He had a two-flush in diamonds. Didn't he have a Queen on third street? At the very least, he had it on 4th street. While Forrest's opponent didn't appear to be a habitual bluffer, the raise of the bring-in was automatic and Forrest has little reason to believe his 22 isn't good on 3rd street.

I'll play a smaller pair against a possible bigger pair as long as my opponent's board doesn't becomes threatening.

[/ QUOTE ]

So which one is it: a possible pair or 100% certain that his opponent has a pair?

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
So which one is it: a possible pair or 100% certain that his opponent has a pair?

[/ QUOTE ]

First, I answered the question by saying that Forrest should not fold his 22 even if he was 100% certain that his opponent held a bigger pair. That was because Forrest had the 2-flush and the overcard to his opponent's door card.

Then, I added that I would play a smaller pair against a possible bigger as long as my opponent's board doesn't become threatening. That was a general comment about being behind in a hand but continuing on.

[J_V]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if Forrest was 100% sure his opponet had a bigger pair, he would be wrong to fold his 22. The big difference in stud vs. hold 'em is the lack of communtity cards. That means a smaller pair isn't nearly as big a dog against a bigger pair. It's very possible, and common, for the smaller pair to make two-pair while the bigger pair goes unimproved.

[/ QUOTE ]


This is flat wrong. You need other factors to continue on which he didn't have.

[J_V]

The overcard was not high enough and you need more than a 2 flush to play against a KNOWN bigger pair.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
This is flat wrong. You need other factors to continue on which he didn't have.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find it strange that 7CSFAP actually reccomends that if your opponent raises with an 8 doorcard (what I think Forrest's opponent had) and you think that he has only a pair of 8's, it reccomends you play T,8,7 with no two-flush and yet you want to fold a pair, an overcard, and a two-flush.

7CSFAP specifically reccomends playing (5,Q)5 with no two-flush against a raise from a Ten doorcard when heads-up. Forrest's situation was basically the same except his two-flush made the hand better.

The idea of playing a smaller pair with an overcard is just pounded over and over in 7CSFAP.

You play too tight.

[ QUOTE ]
The overcard was not high enough...

[/ QUOTE ]

That's funny.