WSOP $1500NL - Hand vs. Scott Fishman

[MarkD]

Jason,

I don't have time to fully respond atm (on the way out the door) but the posts you are referring too where I made the
comments you are referring to were well founded.

[ QUOTE ]
Skimming your responses, it seems you cant stop saying that "He's not bluffing here, yadda yadda". Well no crap.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, no one else was getting that and were trying to justify turn based on the assumption that he was bluffing. It appeared people thought Fishman was bluffing a large percentage of the time in this spot and that he designed the entire hand around bluffing me off the pot. I had to respond to that didn't I? I didn't just brush off the posts and I have given every response my due attention as I really want to learn from this hand. That's why I posted it. Now, I know that all sounds defensive but it's my explanation for responding as I did.

OK... I'm already this far in I'll make time to respond. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
That being said, you played this hand poorly IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good. I suspected as much. The more I thought aboutt he hand the more I suspected it - but I'm not good enough at NL or tournaments to know where my mistakes began. I appreciate that you actually took the time to disect this hand and give reasons backing up your argument. I can gain from this.

[ QUOTE ]
I prefer leading out

[/ QUOTE ]
So do I, but I do not fully appreciate your pot manipulation ideas at the moment. Controlling the pot in relation to my stack is something I will openly admit I am not good not.

[ QUOTE ]
You need to maximize your value against hands you beat, and that involves keeping the pot a certain size.

[/ QUOTE ]

What size is that and more importantly how do I determine what size that is?

[ QUOTE ]
Now, I expect you to respond and tell me "Well both those lines don't charge him enough for a draw!".

[/ QUOTE ]
It actually never enetered my mind at all until you wrote it. I think you have a misconception that I am a close minded defensive person. I really am not.

[ QUOTE ]
This is a common mistake most tourney players have in mind, and if you wander over to the nlpl forum you will see that in MOST cases, charging someone for a flush draw here is one small thing to consider, but one of MANY things to consider. Something more important then charging him for a draw is keeping him in the pot with a worse hand, and also giving you flexibility in the case you are behind.


[/ QUOTE ]
I also understand this reasoning... I am just not very good at doing it.

[ QUOTE ]
You can completely write this post off, but the reality is MarkD, you really could've played this hand much, much better.


[/ QUOTE ]

I know I could have and thank you for trying to help. I didn't realize the CR was a mistake here - although I had considered that betting out may be better and was almost surely simpler.

[trevor]

Hey Mark,

To me the biggest factors in this hand are that you are OOP and you are up against a very good player. Everyone knows how important position is, more so w/ SF behind you. Given the default check/raise 2pr from the blinds, you need to have a game plan for the action on the turn if it's a [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] or a J [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] or whatever if he calls. Regardless, your decision will most likely been an uncomfortable one.

Given these factors, why not just check/raise all-in? I don't like the 'charge the draws, maximize value' yada yada argument. You are OOP against a player who is capable of taking the pot away from you regardless of the turn (outside of J or 8 I guess [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]). I think it's all or nothing on the flop because too many things can go wrong on the turn. Either check/raise all-in or lead(then play poker) or check call. Make the hand as easy on yourself as possible.

[locutus2002]

If you have the best hand then you want villain to continue for more chips.

I agree with you about the c/r all in but for different reasons: I just don't think you have the best hand by much when villain continues. And the positional factors are in his favor.

[The Student]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

**if you can't see the distinction then this post is too advanced for you and you deserve to lose all your money and for your life to go to crap***

[/ QUOTE ]

Easy there, Sossman. Notice that I only quoted the "overthought", then I said that I thought that he folded the winner - not that you (Soss) thought that he folded the winner. However, now that I've re-read the entire thread, I don't know why I thought that you had said that he overthought the hand and folded when he should not have. I have been reading a lot of threads today, and I think I just got confused in which thread I was following. Sorry for misquoting you, but thanks for the kind wishes at the end of your post [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img].

ts-

[/ QUOTE ]

just messin around...it was an homage to sklansky from TPFAP where he indicates that if you cannot figure out how to determine the number of hand combinations in a certain situation "you deserve to lose".

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahh - thanks for the explanation. Given what I've read of your other posts, I was definitely surprised by the harshness, but now I gotcha. I've been studying Harrington recently and the fact that I didn't recognize this line from TPFAP indicates that I need to re-read it. The only line I can remember is the one where he says that if a re-raise makes you want to yack, then you shouldn't have raised in the first place. Sklanksy may be brilliant, but he sure is cranky sometimes.

ts-


btw- how do you like the new NL all-star voting update? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Go Blue!

[jgodin]

I think the very reason you are PC'ed (or very close to it) is the very reason you DON'T call (does that make any sense?) Sure Fischman is an aggressive player who can semi-bluff, but I don't think he uses one here. He absolutely must assume, despite your kinda weak turn, bet that you have a real hand. I must agree with your previous comment that I don't believe IMHO that the steal-resteal-reresteal action would be very common, at least at this point in the tourney (I could be mistaken). The reason 90% of the people in this forum say you should call is the very reason I fold. So either I'm a genius or an idiot.

[jgodin]

Maybe I am just naive, but do you really think Fischman would call off what I'm assuming to be 1/5 or 1/6 (the original post said "he had me covered", so I'm assuming by a thousand or two) of his chips JUST IN CASE a scare card comes off so he MIGHT be able to bluff you off this hand? That seems a bit risky at this point in the tourney.

[Masquerade]

No - I think Fischman had AJ with the Ace of hearts. That way he can call as he might legitimately have the best hand - with plenty of chances to improve or take the pot if he doesnt.

[mlagoo]

[ QUOTE ]
No - I think Fischman had AJ with the Ace of hearts. That way he can call as he might legitimately have the best hand - with plenty of chances to improve or take the pot if he doesnt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, this is whats bothering me about the OPs responses to a lot of the repliers. It's not necessarily that we think Fischman is bluffing... its that he honestly may think he has the best hand, and if not, he knows he has a great draw to a better hand. I don't think it's outside of the realm of possibilities, and certainly is the case enough, in my mind, to justify a call.

[locutus2002]

I think AJ is an unlikely hand for Scott to be limping in mid-late position BTF.

Although most two hearts can continue, I think this hand is about str8s and flushes, if he doesn't have 44 then he must consider hero for 44 and will want to be drawing to str8 and flushes rather than pairs.

I like to think that Scott has T9h because the hand is going to guarantee him implied odds to call the flop reraise, and any non-push turn with 15 outs. I also like QTh as any Ace or K, or Q will be a scary card for hero to stack off into, and it will give him more outs.