D'Agostino's antics - Page 8

drewjustdrew · #71 07-07-2005, 12:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It was his own fault. Terrible call there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sometimes I think people just post nonsense to rile people up. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty certain this was the sole intent of this post. It was his fault because he called with an overpair to two unders and got sucked out on brutally? You can't even make an argument here for what Corkins could have had, because what he did have was 78o, and D'Agostino got very unlucky. SO HOW CAN IT BE HIS FAULT???

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you make all decisions regardless of tournament considerations?

TheMainEvent · #72 07-07-2005, 12:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Do you make all decisions regardless of tournament considerations?

[/ QUOTE ]

He's a 3-1 favorite over a random hand, which is apparently what he read Hoyt for. If he wins he has a massive chip lead and a great shot to roll into 1st. If he folds he's still in OK shape but he goes back to having his blind run over by Hoyt every round.

drewjustdrew · #73 07-07-2005, 01:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you make all decisions regardless of tournament considerations?

[/ QUOTE ]

He's a 3-1 favorite over a random hand, which is apparently what he read Hoyt for. If he wins he has a massive chip lead and a great shot to roll into 1st. If he folds he's still in OK shape but he goes back to having his blind run over by Hoyt every round.

[/ QUOTE ]

So Hoyt rolled into 1st with his monster chip lead? I agree that Hoyt will continue to push, but as the other dominant stack at the table, I would wait to be the aggressor. Potentially someone else will risk their tournament life against him and take away his power.

He wasn't in "OK" shape if he folded. He was still 2nd in chips by a long shot IIRC, and just behind Hoyt. That is great shape at that point as well.

This is similar to the Jack Strauss story where he dominated the final table and afterward said his only mistake was playing KK for a monster pot preflop. He said he would have had a better chance of winning by chipping away at his opponents.

Ilovephysics · #74 07-07-2005, 01:54 PM

my thoughts:

I think it is reasonable to suggest that D'ags had to call. I think at worst he's in a race, and I believe it is a mistake to be backing down to races even now simply because you think you may be able to move up a spot. I don't like the fact that it is for all of his chips, but if he loses to a better hand, well, it just wasn't his tournament. And if D'ags even for a moment thought Hoyt was the better player of the two, this seems to be the type of situation a younger player would want to take their chances with against a tricky world class player...

Pov · #75 07-07-2005, 02:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This is similar to the Jack Strauss story where he dominated the final table and afterward said his only mistake was playing KK for a monster pot preflop. He said he would have had a better chance of winning by chipping away at his opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

No comment on anything else, I'm just disagreeing with this. In the story you are referring to, the tournament was at the bubble stage and Strauss stole his way from the basement to the penthouse. He said he should have folded the KK to avoid busting his opponent thus perpetuating the bubble he was exploiting. He thought he could have had even more chips that way. This in no way had anything to do with avoiding a big pot.

otnemem · #76 07-07-2005, 02:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is similar to the Jack Strauss story where he dominated the final table and afterward said his only mistake was playing KK for a monster pot preflop. He said he would have had a better chance of winning by chipping away at his opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

No comment on anything else, I'm just disagreeing with this. In the story you are referring to, the tournament was at the bubble stage and Strauss stole his way from the basement to the penthouse. He said he should have folded the KK to avoid busting his opponent thus perpetuating the bubble he was exploiting. He thought he could have had even more chips that way. This in no way had anything to do with avoiding a big pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

otnemem · #77 07-07-2005, 02:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It was his own fault. Terrible call there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sometimes I think people just post nonsense to rile people up. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty certain this was the sole intent of this post. It was his fault because he called with an overpair to two unders and got sucked out on brutally? You can't even make an argument here for what Corkins could have had, because what he did have was 78o, and D'Agostino got very unlucky. SO HOW CAN IT BE HIS FAULT???

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you make all decisions regardless of tournament considerations?

[/ QUOTE ]

You obviously aren't reading very well. My exact point is that even if it was a questionable call, you still can't say it's his fault because he made a questionable call and just happened to be right. The only absolute here is that he was a huge favorite and was dished a bad beat. You can't say it was his fault that he lost because he called with a huge favorite. This defies all logic.

drewjustdrew · #78 07-07-2005, 02:10 PM

This was where I got that from. Maybe I'm misinterpreting it, but DN later discusses risking chips, moreso than keeping players at the table. Maybe neither of us (me and Daniel, that is) have our facts straight???

Poker Quiz

drewjustdrew · #79 07-07-2005, 02:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You obviously aren't reading very well. My exact point is that even if it was a questionable call, you still can't say it's his fault because he made a questionable call and just happened to be right. The only absolute here is that he was a huge favorite and was dished a bad beat. You can't say it was his fault that he lost because he called with a huge favorite. This defies all logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was going to give a long boring explanation, but it dawned on me that now we are talking semantics. I just happen to blame myself for decisions, good or bad, that doesn't go my way at the poker table. Last night I was eliminated from a tournament on a worse beat than this, but I don't blame the other guy for misplaying his hand and getting lucky. I guess if you don't blame Dags on this hand, you have to claim nofault. That's what I did last night. (I actually blame myself for not taking more chances to not put myself in a position to be eliminated at that stage. But don't blame my actions on that hand.)

TheMainEvent · #80 07-07-2005, 02:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This was where I got that from. Maybe I'm misinterpreting it, but DN later discusses risking chips, moreso than keeping players at the table. Maybe neither of us (me and Daniel, that is) have our facts straight???

[/ QUOTE ]

Read it again. According to Daniel, Jack says "I shouldn't have called with those KK because I could have gone to the final table with even more chips than I did had I folded."

Remember, Jack *won* the hand. He says that even though he called the all-in and WON he would have ended up with more chips if he had folded. Obviously he is talking about folding to preserve the bubble, not folding because of the risk of losing a big pot.