Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > General Poker Discussion > Televised Poker
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #541  
Old 07-15-2005, 04:38 AM
dealer_toe dealer_toe is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 297
Default Re: Harrington\'s 10:1 rule

[ QUOTE ]
I think he should fold and continue to abuse this bubble situation. He wants that short stack there so he can keep stealing pots.

[/ QUOTE ]
Reply With Quote
  #542  
Old 07-15-2005, 04:40 AM
TeeEffDee TeeEffDee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 38
Default Re: Harrington\'s 10:1 rule

That's a really good point. If it was me though, I'd want to get it over with.
Reply With Quote
  #543  
Old 07-15-2005, 04:41 AM
Nottom Nottom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Hokie Country
Posts: 4,030
Default Re: Harrington\'s 10:1 rule

In addition to any sort of bubble preservation that may be going on, its pretty likely Black had nothing and is just doing a bit of big stack bullying. Kondracki's all-in also is going to usually be a very strong hand to be reraising the person at the table most likely to call.

I'm not sure whats Harrington's 10:1 rule is (haven't read HOH2 yet) but I'd imagine it doesn't really apply here.
Reply With Quote
  #544  
Old 07-15-2005, 04:42 AM
TimTimSalabim TimTimSalabim is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nevada
Posts: 660
Default Re: Harrington\'s 10:1 rule

[ QUOTE ]
What hands would you fold there getting 2:1 with a huge stack?

[/ QUOTE ]

A hand that you're certain is more than a 2:1 dog.
Reply With Quote
  #545  
Old 07-15-2005, 04:43 AM
Bill Murphy Bill Murphy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 530
Default Re: Chip counts, five minutes ago, 10 handed

?

Sorry if I did; hard to keep track of everything right now, esp. w/this thread so stretched out.
Reply With Quote
  #546  
Old 07-15-2005, 04:45 AM
housenuts housenuts is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Victoria, BC
Posts: 357
Default Re: Harrington\'s 10:1 rule

as i said, and acidreign said before me, there could be other factors than just pot odds.
Reply With Quote
  #547  
Old 07-15-2005, 04:48 AM
TimTimSalabim TimTimSalabim is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nevada
Posts: 660
Default Re: Harrington\'s 10:1 rule

[ QUOTE ]
as i said, and acidreign said before me, there could be other factors than just pot odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doubtful. I think Nottom nailed this one.
Reply With Quote
  #548  
Old 07-15-2005, 05:02 AM
acIdREIGN462 acIdREIGN462 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 80
Default Re: Harrington\'s 10:1 rule

Raymer basically won the tournament at this point last year. He says he went from 5mil in chips to 8mil while they were on the "TV bubble". These chips allowed him to run over the final table and maintain a healthy lead to apply pressure. Black seems to be a knowledgable tournament player and I would imagine he is aware that he is wasting a lot of potential by calling in this marginal +cEV situation. I think you may be underestimating how much can be gained by the big stack in a situation like this.
Reply With Quote
  #549  
Old 07-15-2005, 05:07 AM
dealer_toe dealer_toe is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 297
Default Re: Harrington\'s 10:1 rule

Black has put on about 1.5 or 2mil in chips since they went to 10.
Reply With Quote
  #550  
Old 07-15-2005, 05:07 AM
TheCroShow TheCroShow is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Victoria, BC Canada
Posts: 114
Default Re: Harrington\'s 10:1 rule

yeah but how many tackles did raymer have for losses?
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.