What was Phil Ivey thinking? - Page 6

kleos · #51 07-20-2005, 12:49 PM

So basically you just regurgitated what I said but had to add your coment in bold? You could have just answered yes to my question (which was pretty rhetorical).

Is agreement beyond you?

I've wracked my brain over this and I can't think of any 4/5 way scenario where I would push 92 into the agressive chip leader who has been getting cards all night (with probably 8x as many chips as me) and just limped.

does it matter what you put him on? or what who stole the last 3 blinds between TV hands?

from the reverse angle is there any situation where JR would not have called Ivey's all in with AT or even lower cards?

I can't believe Ivey didn't think he would get called, and since he was pushing weak cards, that is why i say it was a bad play.

Please create a context that was edited out that makes Ivey's push the right play. keep it plausble.

Salva135 · #52 07-20-2005, 01:06 PM

Ivey was relatively short-stacked (as he was from the beginning of the telecast) so he needed to pick up some pots wherever possible. He didn't sense any strength at the table on that particular hand, as he had seen Bellande play a lot of pots and fold to pre-flop pressure, and decided it was time to make a move. A lot of players would'nt make this play because they don't make a lot of final tables with the chance to win a few hundred grand, so naturally they don't want to go out on a hand like 95o. The money means nothing to Ivey, though, so he's not afraid to attempt a bold play. His read was a little off, and Bellande made a better read and called him and busted him.

It's as simple as that. Why is there all of this debate? What makes a daring attempt based on information he felt was relevant a donkey play?

AngryCola · #53 07-20-2005, 01:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So basically you just regurgitated what I said but had to add your coment in bold?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not at all. You acted as if context wasn't important, I reiterated that it's extremely important. Never underestimate the value of actually being at the table.
Oh, and I worded my post much more effectively. I had to read yours over a few times before I understood (I think) what you were trying to say.

[ QUOTE ]
You could have just answered yes to my question (which was pretty rhetorical).
Is agreement beyond you?

[/ QUOTE ]

How could I say yes when my answer was basically no?

Agreement is beyond me when I believe the other person is incredibly wrong and/or misguided. Should I just pretend that I agree to make other people feel better?

[ QUOTE ]
Please create a context that was edited out that makes Ivey's push the right play

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't even have to create a context, I can just refer to the hand in which Ivey held pocket 5s against the same opponent. That isn't enough context for me, but it's still a decent example.

I could also create a fantasy context in which Ivey's opponent folded to his raises after limping in from EP a few times in a row. They would be fairly boring hands that wouldn't make the final cut.

The bottom line is we don't know the manner in which more than a few of the hands were played, and I think it's foolish to assume those hands are somehow insignificant. For all I know, Ivey could have made a stupid play.

See, I know that I can't know because I know that I don't know enough. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

You asked a question, and I answered it. I'm sorry you don't like my answer, but the world is a tough place. Based on your previous responses, I have no desire to discuss this with you further.

augie00 · #54 07-20-2005, 01:52 PM

This is the problem with discussing any hands on the internet:

Nobody here is qualified to judge whether or not Ivey's play was bad or not because none of us saw the entire final table. You can speculate all you want, but for christ's sake, we barely even know the chip counts. To judge a play like this you need INFO people.

SOMETIMES in poker the person making a play is the only one qualified to pass judgement on it. Maybe if you asked Ivey what he though of the hand he would say he made a mistake. But I doubt it.

Nobody knows anything about Bellande was playing or how the table was playing out.

Oh, and about the idea that maybe Ivey wanted to go play a cash game is complete rubbish. Yeah, Ivey plays for a few days, bothers to make the FT, and then decides to dump and go play a cash game? Get real.

Smoothcall, you have the free will to question any great poker mind that you want. But that doesn't mean that you won't look like an idiot in the process.

AngryCola · #55 07-20-2005, 01:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Nobody here is qualified to judge whether or not Ivey's play was bad or not because none of us saw the entire final table. You can speculate all you want, but for christ's sake, we barely even know the chip counts. To judge a play like this you need INFO people.

[/ QUOTE ]

I tried going over that a few times in this thread.
It did not go very well. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

augie00 · #56 07-20-2005, 01:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nobody here is qualified to judge whether or not Ivey's play was bad or not because none of us saw the entire final table. You can speculate all you want, but for christ's sake, we barely even know the chip counts. To judge a play like this you need INFO people.

[/ QUOTE ]

I tried going over that a few times in this thread.
It did not go very well. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

The WPT forum isn't known for brains. I was reading the thread and just had to throw in my .02 because I can only take so much idotic banter before I snap, and I don't have a punchingbag.

kleos · #57 07-20-2005, 02:26 PM

You guys do know this is a message board, right? Someone posts someting and it gets disscussed. The topic is why would Ivey made the push, not who is qualified to discuss it. What is the point in discussing poker at all with anyone if only the player playing is qualified to discuss it?

If you guys can't make a decision on that, don't post. At least I finally got AngryCola on track for part of his post by coming up with a situation where it might have made sense to push. That is all you would have had to post originally, to be part of the discussion.

Noone expects you to be 100% right, we all know none of us were there. Why should that prevent anyone from brainstorming reasons that hand went that way?

[ QUOTE ]
The WPT forum isn't known for brains. I was reading the thread and just had to throw in my .02 because I can only take so much idotic banter before I snap, and I don't have a punchingbag.

[/ QUOTE ]

On every message board I've ever been to, it's the same thing everywhere. Egos and the desire to belittle others abound.

CLOSE THE 2+2 FORUM ASAP, BY ORDER OF AngryCola AND Auggie00 IT IS STUPID TO DISCUSS OTHER PEOPLE'S PLAY...

how have the 2 of you made so many posts combined without ever discussing someone elses play? do you guys really just complain about qualifying the right to answer in every thread?

PS - I'm not saying you can't qualify your answer [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

AngryCola · #58 07-20-2005, 02:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
BY ORDER OF AngryCola AND Auggie00 IT IS STUPID TO DISCUSS OTHER PEOPLE'S PLAY...[/b]

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said that. I was only trying to point out that there are certain situations where it is very difficult to judge a hand if you weren't at the table. The TV editing just compounds that issue.

There have been more than a few discussions on 2+2 about instances of people seemingly making weird pushes on televsion. Generally what comes out of it eventually is that the person in question had a specific read or some previous experiences that were heavily influencing their actions. This aspect of poker shouldn't be overlooked when trying to ascertain the value of a play you saw on television.

The discussion went something like this -

We think it was a bad play.

I think it's hard to tell without more information.

We think we have all the information we need!

[/i]I disagree.[/i]

Well, we still think we're right.

Ok.

When are you going to admit that we're right?

Umm... I'm not going to.

You suck! We don't need no stinkin' information, and we think those of you who do need it are FASCISTS!

augie00 · #59 07-20-2005, 03:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The topic is why would Ivey made the push, not who is qualified to discuss it. What is the point in discussing poker at all with anyone if only the player playing is qualified to discuss it?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no point in discussing a play like this from Ivey. That IS the point.

[ QUOTE ]
IT IS STUPID TO DISCUSS OTHER PEOPLE'S PLAY...

[/ QUOTE ]

In most of the cases posted on the WPT forum, it is.

[ QUOTE ]
how have the 2 of you made so many posts combined without ever discussing someone elses play?

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't speak for AngryCola, but I have made many posts discussing other people's play. Most, if not all of them have some sort of information regarding the table, chip counts, and the players.

[ QUOTE ]
do you guys really just complain about qualifying the right to answer in every thread?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that's what I do. Yep.

In conclusion, I am right, so get bent.

kleos · #60 07-20-2005, 03:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I never said that.

[/ QUOTE ]
you agreed to it in your post before this.... do i need to quote you quoting it?

[ QUOTE ]
I was only trying to point out that there are certain situations where it is very difficult to judge a hand if you weren't at the table. The TV editing just compounds that issue.

[/ QUOTE ]
Noone is arguing this point except you, and I'm sure everyone is in agreement that it is "difficult," but why else do we discuss things? If it was easy and we all knew, we would not have to have this discussion. Just because something is 'difficult' doesn't mean it should be off limits, or subject to your ridicule.

Everyone is not here to put words in other peoples mouths, call each otehr names, toss out accusations, belittle each other, and act like an ass in general. How do you make 4k+ posts with that kind of attitude, did you start out like this, or did you degrade to this?

[ QUOTE ]
There have been more than a few discussions on 2+2 about instances of people seemingly making weird pushes on televsion. Generally what comes out of it eventually is that the person in question had a specific read or some previous experiences that were heavily influencing their actions. This aspect of poker shouldn't be overlooked when trying to ascertain the value of a play you saw on television.

[/ QUOTE ]
If I checked your post history, how many hands could I find you discussing with maybe 1 or two sentences of commentary and a hand history (no more no less)? Why is it so taboo here?