Phil Ivey play-by-play

[memphis57]

[ QUOTE ]
I've actually been doing posts like this daily from the wsop for pokerwire. 33 in the last month and a half.

Jay Greenspan

[/ QUOTE ]


http://www.pokerwire.com/daily.php

This link will (hopefully) get you to a frames page with Jay's latest report and at the bottom are numbers that call up prior reports. Just briefly looking through them, I don't see anything exactly with quite the focus and completeness of the Ivey piece (and there is not, unfortuantely, an Ivey Part 2 piece), but check out July 12 for a rookie-eye's view of that awesome Ivey-Juanda-Bonyadi-Hua table.

For some reason frames links seem to get broken pretty fast - hopefully pokerwire will set these up in an archive somewhere.

[stigmata]

LOL, all worked out for the best then [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]. I wasn't annoyed at you personally, I just wanted to know who wrote it. Anyways thanks for clearing that up.

[cadillac1234]

First of all...Very nice reporting by Jay Greenspan. I wish more poker writers reported like this.

On Ivey's strategy:

[ QUOTE ]
At his first table, Ivey could be counted on for at least one raise per orbit, sometimes two, and that raise was always three times the big blind.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like this strategy a lot. Randomizing raises during orbits, for the same amount each time. Disguises pre-flop hands except against a large raise in which the non-playable hands can be dumped easily. Limpers are always in 10-20% danger of being nailed by a random raise by Ivey in any position. Mechanical in the way The Terminator is mechanical.



[ QUOTE ]
As he picked up a number of small- and medium-sized pots, Ivey equipped himself with a stack that could withstand both episodes of bad luck and the occasional bad play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Acquiring chips without having to risk complete ruin on one hand while being ready to pounce if sitting on a monster, lurking right about average stack and isolating weaker opponents.

I think he might have this tournament stuff figured out [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[SpeakEasy]

Continuing with the "Ivey Strategy" (note: no longer the "Ivey Loose Aggressive Strategy") --

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Pre-flop action:
1. Open raise if all have folded to me, 3xBB; or
2. Call a raise in cutoff or on button.

Hand requirements for pre-flop action:
1. Open raise if all have folded to me: any two cards.
2. Call a raise in cutoff or button: any pocket pair, any Ace, any two big cards (KQ, KJ, KT, QJ, QT, JT.), any suited connectors or medium suited one-gap connectors.

Flop action:
1. If first to act or checked to me, 2/3 pot bet.
2. If bet before me, call (or raise) if:
A. Sense weakness/fear/steal by opponent, or
B. Top pair or better, or
C. Draw with correct odds, or near correct odds.


[/ QUOTE ]


Yeah, you're bound to get a lot wrong, but the act of doing it would be educational.

On the details, I have to disagree with HR#1 - he's not raising any two cards. Jay's article says once or twice per orbit, so assuming a 9-handed orbit that's roughly a PFR between 11-22% (and always keeping in mind that with a small sample size he might have been getting especially good or bad cards), not at all out-of-line with a very aggressive LHE TAG style (I'm more familiar with limit), where several guys have PFR ratios that are 2/3rds of their VPIP ratio. It's basically saying, "if it's good enough to call, I might as well raise it." But you can play this style and still fold 75-80% of the hands you see.

Also, I would guess his decision to raise would depend on how many of the players yet to act he would perceive as being strong players.

So, I'd change HR#1 to

Hand requirements for pre-flop action:
1. Open raise if all have folded to me: tier 1 hands against all comers; tier 2 hands with predominantly weak players yet to act

...where tier 1 and 2 would be his own defintions, but roughly correspond to the stronger and weaker halves of the starting hands in Malmuth's SSHE "loose" starting-hands table.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like this addition. His read of the players yet to act behind him is likely a very significant part of his decision. From the Cardplayer video snippets, he seems very focused on getting a read on all of the unknown players that he is facing. Of course all the (good) players are observing their opponents and acting accordingly, but Ivey's more aggressive strategy is probably very dependent on his reads to be continually effective. This ability does not lend itself to a script, it comes with thousands of hours of practice.

Establishing a script of rules obviously has lots of other flaws and variables, and the biggest variable that cannot be scripted is his read of the other players generally (how they've played previous hands), and his specific read on that very hand (opponent is anxious, ready to bet, ready to fold, loading up with chips, other tells, etc.). He is likely operating on an instinctual level here that most of us rarely experience.

[ QUOTE ]
Right or wrong, I'd like to your interpretation of Phil's turn and river play. [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Way too many variables to script, although I would like to learn more about this, also. Maybe Jay can give us some additional thoughts. My script above was just an exercise to outline the apparent strategy that wins lots of small pots PF with raises or regular opening bets on the flop, based on the original article written by <font color="red">JAY GREENSPAN</font>.

[jayg]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, nice article Jay. I was rather annoyed that OP didn't credit someone, so thanks for clearing that up. Only problem -- where is part 2? We want more, it's great stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

Getting reasonable access to the tables has been very hard the last few days.

ESPN guys have us all at a distance.

thanks for the kind words.

-j

[Kyo Souma II]

[mlagoo]

beautiful