Don't think you slid it past us, Fossilman.....

[37offsuit]

Good post.

[Greg (FossilMan)]

[ QUOTE ]
We noticed the fish shirt. You ain't fooling anyone. Didn't see the raise amount you made with the 2nd 89, but were the pot odds there?

P.S. Love ya man, but you blew all your chips off with 2x 89 and T9. Pot odds only go so far, and I'm not sure you had them in every instance for the standard opposing hands. Actually kinda disappointed in yer performance, but hey, WTF do i know.

P.P.S. I gotta admit, seeing her on tonight's show, if I met up with Annie, it could be a bit delicate....

[/ QUOTE ]

This was a winner-take-all event. Pot odds are everything. The only thing is, you have to make a good read of what the opponent has before you can figure out what pot odds you need for the call to be correct. In the case of the first 89s hand, the pot odds were huge, such that even if Annie held an overpair the call would barely be wrong. In the second 89o hand, the pot odds were slightly less than 3:1 as I recall, so again the call is right by a large margin against unpaired overcards, just about right if she has a better 8 or a better 9, and off by a goodly margin if she has an overpair. And I sensed that she didn't want me to call, and that tipped the balance of what was otherwise a close call. As for the T9 final hand, well, I felt that it was too good to fold, and that if I limped, Annie would likely raise and I would have to fold. I also thought that a smaller raise would be the less desirable than all-in, as a 3x raise would've been over 30% of my stack. Finally, I figured she would fold a lot of hands (probably 80% of so), and that I'd be no worse than a 2:1 dog against the range of hands with which she would call. I may have been wrong about these particulars, but once we take them as a given, I like the play. So, either I played it perfect, or the data I gathered and processed was flawed.

Overall, I'm happy with pretty much every decision I made the whole tourney. Then and now.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[Greg (FossilMan)]

Annie,

Thanks for the kind words. They are appreciated.

And not just to turn this into a mutual admiration society, but I thought you also played well. In fact, I did not see a single decision at the entire table that I thought was clearly wrong. There were some debatable plays, but none that were slam-dunk mistakes. THAT is why this table is different than what you see on most poker shows. You can argue about who played great and who just played well, but nobody played poorly.

I don't think anybody was more than a 12:1 dog to win this thing, nor was anybody better than an 8:1 favorite. 7:1 maybe, but certainly no better than that.

In a sense, the skill level was high enough that it became a bit like an amateur game, in the sense that luck made almost all of the difference. I don't disagree with any of Annie's plays, but she was unlucky to find herself in a lot of bad spots, and then lucky to catch the cards she needed, especially against Howard and myself.

However, I wasn't there to watch the play after I was eliminated. It is quite possible that Annie really outplayed Phil, and the show made it look like she mostly caught cards against him instead.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[Bigwig]

[ QUOTE ]
In the second 89o hand, the pot odds were slightly less than 3:1 as I recall

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[/ QUOTE ]

That was impossible to know from ESPN's broadcast. From where I sat, it looked like 2:1. That changes everything, of course.

[Greg (FossilMan)]

In another thread on this hand, it was posted that given Annie's chip count after the hand ended, I must have been getting almost exactly 2:1 on the call. However, I recall it was significanlty better than 2:1, though not 3:1. Either I was wrong, or the chip count ESPN showed wasn't immediately after the hand ended. They've been known to do that, you know. ;-)

And, it's not like I've been sitting here for weeks stewing about this hand. It's possible I've forgotten some of the details.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[NorCalJosh]

in skimming through that post the first time, i would have sworn that you said the dia came from diarrhea.

[MrGo]

Makes me realize how important pot odds are. Obviously they are important and all tournament play, but are they more important in a winner take all event?? From what you said - "This was a winner-take-all event. Pot odds are everything." I am guessing yes. Can you explain?

Thanks.

[Cleveland Guy]

You and Annie were in the hand, and I was not. But IIRC - you raised to 60K, she re-raised all in to about 137K.

So it's 67K more for you to call. There is your 60K, her 137K, plus the blinds and antes. I think you were getting at least 3.1 if not better.

I'm sure the shot of the chip stacks with annie over 400K was taken a bit later on, not right after the hand.

[aces961]

[ QUOTE ]
Makes me realize how important pot odds are. Obviously they are important and all tournament play, but are they more important in a winner take all event?? From what you said - "This was a winner-take-all event. Pot odds are everything." I am guessing yes. Can you explain?

Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming all players are of equal skill or very close to it. Your chances of winning, getting first, are equal to the percentage of total chips in play you have. So for a winner take all tourney since all that matters is getting first. Chip EV is the same as tourament EV so pot odds are all matters. In a non winner take all tourney this is not the case since part of your ev for the tourney comes from places other than first.

[bobby rooney]

A few weeks back when the WPT Bad Boys of Poker aired, there was great controversy over a call Gus made with T8s and I argued that the winner-take-all format encouraged gambling and aggression. Similarly, I'm wondering if this affected some of Greg's decisions. If you are aware that your opponents thinking is along the same lines, you know that they will be making more aggressive moves as well, so you don't always give as much credit to your opponents as having what they are representing.

In addition, the upside of building a monster stack is huge; whereas the downside of finishing in 2nd is the same as finishing dead last.

Maybe Annie or Greg can post something explaining some of the strategic changes they made based on the winner-take-all format and their thinking behind those changes.