What was Phil Ivey thinking?

[kleos]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not?

[augie00]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because, unless someone witnessed a significant portion of the action at a table, they are just speculating. If you think anybody actually has enough context to justify Ivey's push for one side or another, you are wrong. Sorry to be so blunt, but it's the truth.

[augie00]

[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not difficult as in "man, I really don't know if I should 3-bet with TT in here" it's difficult as in "wow, I realy have no idea what I'm talking about, but here it goes..."

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but understand that I was just quoting the general sentiment of his post. Rest assured, you guys can talk about whatever the hell you want. But to expect others not to point out flaws in the logic of whatever you're talking about is being a bit silly. That's pretty much what goes on here, especially if it's about poker.

[ QUOTE ]
Just because something is 'difficult' doesn't mean it should be off limit

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to say this one last time.

I never said it should be off-limits, but you can't seriously expect me to not use logic or reasoning in a thread started to bash the play of a particular hand. You can speculate all you want. I'm sure it's fun. But this thread was started to make a point.

The point:
Phil Ivey played this hand badly

Now, how is it that using logic and reasoning skills to refute the original assertion's merit is somehow wrong? Somehow it is okay for you guys to speculate all you want, yet it's not okay for people to come into the thread and refute your points. If you only want to discuss things with people who agree with you on 2+2, you're in for some fun.

[ 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

[/ QUOTE ]

You guessed wrong. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
You would probably find only one of my own, and it was posted in jest.

Hand histories are great, but I've always felt the converter made it too easy to get into these, "What's your line?" types of discussions. They are boring and increasingly lacking in situational awareness.

[ QUOTE ]

Everyone is not here to put words in other peoples mouths, call each otehr names, toss out accusations, belittle each other

[/ QUOTE ]

That's true for some people, but not me.
It doesn't really matter to me if you believe that or not.

[ QUOTE ]
and act like an ass in general

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I AM an ass. That much was true about me long before I joined 2+2. If you aren't trolling, you'll come to find 2+2 has many people who are far worse than I am.


[ QUOTE ]
How do you make 4k+ posts with that kind of attitude?

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps this isn't a good time to bring up Dead...

Have a nice day.

[TheKnife]

[ QUOTE ]
WSOP circuit that was on tonight. I didn't see the beginning but the first hand i see is Phil Ivey moving in from what appeared to be the button with 95 off and very little chips against the chip leader's bb who is loose as a goose Bellande. Did i miss somthing? I really must have as i never seen Phil make a total donkey play until this. So maybe i saw it wrong? What actually happened?

[/ QUOTE ] youre like a kid who wanders into a movie in the middle and wants to know whats happening so you start asking dumb questions. Phil obviously made a play to pick up what appeared to be a weak pot, which it was. Not to mention, you have absolutely no idea what is going on at that table that could bring him to that decision.

[kleos]

I don't see how you can take this stance on this hand/broadcast. Could you not apply the same logic to playing poker online? You don't know what your opponents situation/'context' is and you might bet into a slow play, call down a monster, or get sucked out.

You don't make decisions based on the information you have? Do you use a ouijia board?

[jojobinks]

why carry on this conversation?

i respect you guys, and think your posts are always worthwhile. this thread is the sort of sinkhole that kills this forum, though. do you feel like you're getting anywhere?

people that don't get it just aren't gonna get it.

[wyoak]

I've not seen this hand, but I'll just go off incomplete second hand information.
Apparently: Ivey was going for the bracelet, moving up a place or two didn't concern him. He was shortstacked. Other guy had limped in from EP, so probably didn't have a high pocket pair. Other guy had also shown that he could fold after a limp.
Thus, Ivey pushes, thinking other dude will fold, and even if he doesn't he is at worst a 2-1 underdog. This doesn't really seem terrible at all.

[DyessMan89]

[ QUOTE ]
why carry on this conversation?

i respect you guys, and think your posts are always worthwhile. this thread is the sort of sinkhole that kills this forum, though. do you feel like you're getting anywhere?

people that don't get it just aren't gonna get it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.

[nate_king1]

Phil Ivey was thinking i'm better than everybody at the table and their scared of me. I'm going for it! Simple as that, he was shortstacked throughout the final table, easy in my opionon.