Pot Limit Stud8 Hand from Barry Greenstein's Book

[Bill Murphy]

This article, "Chan Is Bluffing(We Think)", was originally published in the ~6/89 issue of Esquire. We had a long thread about Chan's "error" years ago; prolly buried deep in the ancient archives.

I think the article was included in a recently published omnibus of poker articles. Can't recall the name, but I seen it at all the book stores. The description of the hand is fascinating, as are Chan's comments.

Chan does make a significant(albeit completely understandable) analysis "error", see if ya can spot it. But like Ray Zee said in our old thread, by no means does the "error" mean that Chan played the hand wrong.

Edit: Fuggit, just found it, here ya're: http://www.seiyuu.com/okamoto/poker/misc/chan.htm

[barryg1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but I still would probably bet the professor's hand, even though a check could induce a bluff. You often get paid off by a player who thinks his weak high, e.g., a pair on the river, might get half the pot.

The people who think check is right seem to be result merchants to me.



[/ QUOTE ]

Barry,

How often are you (or any other good player for that matter) calling a pot-sized bet from 3-wheel cards on the river in the hopes of winning the 1/2 the pot with a pair.

The reason I think a check on the river is right is that I assume you would checkraise the river big if you caught the K [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] the Q [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] the T [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] the 9 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] the 8 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] the 7 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (or any wheel or 6 high straight if you started with 2345) in addition to your scooping hands in attempt to blow your opponent off 1\2 the pot. I don't think that anyone would argue that potting a smooth 7 with no high on the river would be right here, and given your board and your call vs. his board on 6th, I don't think the 2 hands are all that different. I think that bet is hard-pressed to extract value on the river against a good player and it could easily open the door to a nasty high varience situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many of these questions are mainly poker questions, not math questions. My familiarity with how each particular player bets certain hands (missing a high, but having a good low) is a big factor.

Since I would only call his sixth street bet with a two-way draw, I knew the professor would only bet this big with a genuine two-way hand. I gave him a minumum of a six high straight for high and also for low on my read of his bet. I was also sure that he would call any raise with a hand this strong.

Given this poker read on my part, think for a little before scrolling down to decide what hands should I raise with.


You should come to the conclusion that it is really only right for me to raise with a flush AND a six for low. Otherwise, I will be putting a raise in for scare value on, let's say, an Ace-high flush without a good low, hoping he doesn't have a better flush.

Therefore, it really was a lock that I had what I had, as I stated in the book. (I was holding off posting this because I was comtemplating putting this discussion in the second edition, since many players told me that it was far from a lock that I had a six low and a straight.

So that begs the question: Should the professor have folded when I raised him?

Barry

[Bartholow]

[ QUOTE ]
So that begs the question: Should the professor have folded when I raised him?

[/ QUOTE ]

Since your decision to raise was predicated on him never folding, don't we get into some circular logic here? Or rather, if he is capable of folding here then you should raise with more hands, in which case he should call more. If he knew that you would deem him incapable of folding a 6-high straight, then he should do so I guess...

[barryg1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So that begs the question: Should the professor have folded when I raised him?

[/ QUOTE ]

Since your decision to raise was predicated on him never folding, don't we get into some circular logic here? Or rather, if he is capable of folding here then you should raise with more hands, in which case he should call more. If he knew that you would deem him incapable of folding a 6-high straight, then he should do so I guess...

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly right. This is a typical game theoretic scenario.

Notice that pretty much everyone agreed that they wouldn't have folded his hand either. This scenario doesn't come up often enough to give the raiser (me) credit for having the perfect hand. It's normal to think, on the professor's part, that I didn't analyze the situation perfectly, which leads him to the conclusion that he should call, essentially based on the fact that I don't play perfectly.

[mmcd]

How do you reconcile these two statements?

[ QUOTE ]
I still would probably bet the professor's hand

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Since I would only call his sixth street bet with a two-way draw, I knew the professor would only bet this big with a genuine two-way hand. I gave him a minumum of a six high straight for high and also for low on my read of his bet.


[/ QUOTE ]

Where's the value in potting the river with the professor's hand?

[barryg1]

[ QUOTE ]
How do you reconcile these two statements?

[ QUOTE ]
I still would probably bet the professor's hand

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Since I would only call his sixth street bet with a two-way draw, I knew the professor would only bet this big with a genuine two-way hand. I gave him a minumum of a six high straight for high and also for low on my read of his bet.


[/ QUOTE ]

Where's the value in potting the river with the professor's hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was hoping you would understand that the right play for one player is not necessarily the right play for another. The problem with the professor's bet is not his bet per se, but the fact that I was able to read him because he was a player who had rigid qualifications for his bets.

I will also bet some hands that would have had no little or chance of scooping. I see poker more as a game of plays than of cards. Against me the professor should not bet in a way that gives away his hand, but he cannot help it. That is his nature. Taking it further, you could say he shouldn't have been playing at all.

Barry