Problem with Hellmuth's latest column

[David Sklansky]

I'm speaking of the one where he bets Johnny Chan about Eric Seidel's hand. I wouldn't actually call it an error. Rather it is the fact that he implies something he shouldn't and omits something important. (I'm not talking about the way he played his hand.) Who can tell me what that is?

[MaxPower]

He omits the fact that the people who are doing the television production know what Seidel had as well, so you shouldn't bet with them.

He implies that Seidel would not bluff the river because he did not in the WSOP. Its just possible that Seidel did bluff the river in the WSOP but was never called. Also, maybe Seidel knows that Phil has that perception of him.

That is my best shot at it.

[hazeelnut]

Ok, ill try.

He implied that both he and Chan are super good players just because they have 9 WSOP-bracelets each.

He also implied that if he was right and Seidel actually had the better hand he was automatically correct to lay down his hand. Not thinking about pot odds and stuff.

He omitted the fact that this sentence

"I folded because I thought Erik had A-Q, but he more likely had A-J, A-10, or a set."

doesnt make any sense. If he thought he had AQ, how could he think the other hands were more likey?

Is there any prize if im right? Like $200 and that your next book is titled something like "Hazeel and David on sidebets and envelope paradoxes"?

Hazeel

[CCass]

This may be a dumb question. Where would I find Hellmuth's column?

[TobDog]

Cardplayer article

[slavic]

What is the size of the third stack?

[slavic]

The bet sizes up to the river were Phil is finally put to a test, just seem to say please call me. I know a lot of reverse psychology goes on here, but this hand just seems too easy for Phil to call and too much money unless they are the short stacks.

[George Rice]

He implied that Erik had never bluffed the river in the WSOP because:

[ QUOTE ]
I folded because I thought I was beat, and my read has been very good to me for a long time.


[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? Of course he thought he was beat, that's what a bluff is supposed to accomplish. He doesn't really know if he was bluffed or not.

He ommited the possibility that Erik had Kings and also that Erik could sense weakness on his part, perhaps putting him on a weak ace, and kept betting into this weakness (just like he did at the WSOP-lol). Also Erik knows if he didn't bluff Phil on the river at the WSOP or not. If he didn't he might figure that he could now, having set Phil up for it (especially if he sensed Phil held a weak ace).

[yardley]

I'll try - first post!

Phil can't say "the fourth point for Chan’s side is that Erik saw that I could be bluffed, when he watched Toto bluff me twice before." For all Erik could've known, Toto could've had pocket rockets each time and Phil could've been making wonderfully sharp laydowns. Unless, of course, Toto showed Phil and Erik his cards after the hands and Phil confirmed to Erik that he had been successfully bluffed - probably by complaining about the bluff. If that's how it went down, no wonder Phil neglected to mention it - giving that much information away makes him his own gravedigger.

So, am I right? [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[Bozeman]

I believe Toto showed these two, though Erik may not have seen what Phil had, he still should infer from the play that Phil had had a hand each time.

I think the glaring incongruence is that whether or not Phil was beat this particular time is inconsequential: obviously there is some chance he is beat and some chance he wasn't, and what Erik shows does not justify in itself either play. I think Johnny made a sucker bet, since even if the odds were such that Phil should have called, he still could have been less than 50-50 to win it.

Craig