Anyone have Exact Chip Counts of the Raymer vs. Kanter hand?

[SoloAJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The odds of him hitting a flush with one card to come is not 5 to 1. It's almost 4 to 1(High 3.) If he thinks Raymer doesn't have a heart then it's almost 3 to 1 (Low 3.)

[/ QUOTE ]

9 outs, 46 cards in the deck, he doesn't know Raymer's cards. 1/5 cards are a heart, not that hard.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's actually just OVER 4:1, not just Under...

[A_C_Slater]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The odds of him hitting a flush with one card to come is not 5 to 1. It's almost 4 to 1(High 3.) If he thinks Raymer doesn't have a heart then it's almost 3 to 1 (Low 3.)

[/ QUOTE ]

9 outs, 46 cards in the deck, he doesn't know Raymer's cards. 1/5 cards are a heart, not that hard.

[/ QUOTE ]


Right. And 1/5 equates to 4 to 1. It will hit 4 times and miss 1 time out of 5. 4 to 1. Not 5 to 1.

[A_C_Slater]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The odds of him hitting a flush with one card to come is not 5 to 1. It's almost 4 to 1(High 3.) If he thinks Raymer doesn't have a heart then it's almost 3 to 1 (Low 3.)

[/ QUOTE ]

9 outs, 46 cards in the deck, he doesn't know Raymer's cards. 1/5 cards are a heart, not that hard.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's actually just OVER 4:1, not just Under...

[/ QUOTE ]


Yes, sorry my mistake. But it ain't 5 to 1. Kanter was getting correct odds to call is my point. Which makes me wonder why he didn't just push the turn to begin with and increase his fold equity.

[A_C_Slater]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The odds of him hitting a flush with one card to come is not 5 to 1. It's almost 4 to 1(High 3.) If he thinks Raymer doesn't have a heart then it's almost 3 to 1 (Low 3.)

[/ QUOTE ]

9 outs, 46 cards in the deck, he doesn't know Raymer's cards. 1/5 cards are a heart, not that hard.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's actually just OVER 4:1, not just Under...

[/ QUOTE ]


Actually any 4 makes a split so it's closer and Kanter has more outs to a split than just a straight flush draw. (I don't have pokerstove so I don't know the exact numbers)

[A_C_Slater]

"So you're saying you should never call on the flop intending to bet on the turn, really? Wow." --Jordon Berkowitz responding to an announcer's results oreinted commentary that said his flop call with nothing and failed turn bluff was "stupid" during the WCOOP Main event.

I strongly agree that Raymer's play was fine. There really is no defense for when your opponent plays very poorly and lucks out. Then again the luckiest thing in the world is to never have that happen to you for all your chips in a several thousand person tourney, regardless of how well you are playing. Raymer ALMOST pulled that off twice.

At the beginning of the hand LM said Raymer had over 4 million chips. LM even made a point to say that Raymer had more than twice the average stack. Obviously this wasn't true since he was down to 400k after losing this 3.5 million chip pot. I wonder how they could have screwed up the chip count that badly without being edited.

[Greg (FossilMan)]

[ QUOTE ]
He should fold the turn because it's a dangerous board and he has one pair. Why even push the turn? He knows he's going to get called since Kanter raised 600k. Yes, Kanter had two hearts, but that's results oriented thinking.

At teh same time, I think Kanter made a bad play by not pushing the turn. If he is going to raise, just push.

If Raymer is pot commited, ok. If he's not, I'd get out. Most times he's beat on the turn against a strong raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

It sounds like you only play online, which is basically the weakness in Kantor's game. You mention that 1 pair is usually beat by a turn raise, which is true. But, you don't seem to be willing to give me credit for making a good read of a relatively transparent opponent. If we were playing online, I would give Aaron's play a lot more credit. But, since we were playing live, he should have been thinking about me, and what cards I was holding, and how I would play them, rather than just looking at the cards on the table and in his hand. Or, instead of just thinking I might have AK, he should have been looking at me and trying to figure out how likely a hand AK was for me at that time. And I don't mind, I'm glad I was able to get millions of dollars in the pot as a 9:2 favorite; I'm only disappointed that I lost.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He should fold the turn because it's a dangerous board and he has one pair. Why even push the turn? He knows he's going to get called since Kanter raised 600k. Yes, Kanter had two hearts, but that's results oriented thinking.

At teh same time, I think Kanter made a bad play by not pushing the turn. If he is going to raise, just push.

If Raymer is pot commited, ok. If he's not, I'd get out. Most times he's beat on the turn against a strong raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

It sounds like you only play online, which is basically the weakness in Kantor's game. You mention that 1 pair is usually beat by a turn raise, which is true. But, you don't seem to be willing to give me credit for making a good read of a relatively transparent opponent. If we were playing online, I would give Aaron's play a lot more credit. But, since we were playing live, he should have been thinking about me, and what cards I was holding, and how I would play them, rather than just looking at the cards on the table and in his hand. Or, instead of just thinking I might have AK, he should have been looking at me and trying to figure out how likely a hand AK was for me at that time. And I don't mind, I'm glad I was able to get millions of dollars in the pot as a 9:2 favorite; I'm only disappointed that I lost.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[/ QUOTE ]

Since I first posted, I went through the play over and over, used pokerstove, reviewed Kanter's bets, etc, and you are right (I'm not being results oriented here either). Good play, good read, good all around by you.

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
It sounds like you only play online, which is basically the weakness in Kantor's game. You mention that 1 pair is usually beat by a turn raise, which is true. But, you don't seem to be willing to give me credit for making a good read of a relatively transparent opponent. If we were playing online, I would give Aaron's play a lot more credit. But, since we were playing live, he should have been thinking about me, and what cards I was holding, and how I would play them, rather than just looking at the cards on the table and in his hand. Or, instead of just thinking I might have AK, he should have been looking at me and trying to figure out how likely a hand AK was for me at that time. And I don't mind, I'm glad I was able to get millions of dollars in the pot as a 9:2 favorite; I'm only disappointed that I lost.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[/ QUOTE ]

Greg, I am willing to give you credit for a good read, but I think a lot of the criticism of Kantor's play of the hand is unjustified. Calling behind with the intention to bluff or semibluff most turns is not as bad a play as many people are making it out to be. Obviously it looks donkish cause you happened to have KK, but most of the time you do not have JJ-AA, which is probably the minimum that you would call against a raise on the turn. And even if you did have JJ-AA (which is certainly not that high of a probability given what I've heard about your open-raising standards) he might be able to get you to lay those down as well. Maybe he didn't have a read on you, but he doesn't need a read for his play to be correct in the long run because there is a good chance that you call there with very few hands, and even if you do call he has 9 outs.

Anyway, I'm not saying that Kantor's play was optimal, but I am pretty sure that if a big name pro had made the same play he would not be criticized as much. I would like to point at that Kantor's play on the QJ hand was very similar to your call-to-bluff with 22 earlier in the tournment, which was arguably more questionable considering that you were out of position.