sam farha vs. (unknown) day1 wsop

So my brother and me were talking about this hand.. and we couldn't figure it out.. so i came here [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Basics:
1. Farha has 22,000 chips approx. and uknown has 10,000 chips approx.
2. Uknown makes it 1,000 to go when blinds are 25-50 (20x the BB) hes in EP (he makes it fairly obvious he has AA/KK)
3. sammy calls in MP with 33

Normally you would call a normal raise with a small pocket pair and hope to catch a set or maybe just sneak in MP/LP with a call. There are a lot of ways to play medium pocket pairs.. im not here to discuss that.

What im wondering is do u think sammy's call was correct? The way sammy plays.. it probably was fine in his eyes...

The question to everyone who doesn't see like every flop like sammy does, is was this an ok play?

Some of the points that we stated are as follows:
although the preflop odds are 7.5-to-1 against flopping a set... assuming farha knows(he probably does know..) that this idiot(is he?) just told everyone he has AA or KK. Farha called about 5% of his stack to try and connect on a 7.5-1 chance he would flop a set... assuming farha wouldnt call another bet after the flop... since the guy did bet fairly large(maybe pot size? or 75% of the pot.. i dont remember..) So implied odds come into play here because the unknown is most likely not folding his aces to any flop with a small exception to like 10JQ all suited and not his suit. So sammy put in 1,000 chips to win 10,000 chips i think.. and in my opinion i think his play was fine with me... because not only does he know what the unknown is holding.. he has the right implied odds to make the call... Anyone else add on anything here or correct some stuff?

[DonkeyChip]

I thought Sammy had 33? I thought it was a bad call but I guess that's Sammy's style.

If you think about it, Sammy fell right into the guys trap...but the poker gods would have none of that.

But what about the implied odds here?

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought Sammy had 33? I thought it was a bad call but I guess that's Sammy's style.

If you think about it, Sammy fell right into the guys trap...but the poker gods would have none of that.

[/ QUOTE ]

that was a pretty easy call by sammy so long as he had the read that the guy would go broke w/ AA-QQ on a ragged flop.

[Jedster]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I thought Sammy had 33? I thought it was a bad call but I guess that's Sammy's style.

If you think about it, Sammy fell right into the guys trap...but the poker gods would have none of that.

[/ QUOTE ]

that was a pretty easy call by sammy so long as he had the read that the guy would go broke w/ AA-QQ on a ragged flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't Sammy 8.9:1 to flop a set without Curtis also flopping a set?

And he'll still lose about about 9% of time on the safest flops (no backdoor draws) and 41% of the time on the scariest flops (gutshot with flush and set draws).

My guess is that is a marginally minus EV call. However, about 10% of the time he should flop big enough that he knows he can go all-in as a 90% favorite, and given his big chip stack plus meta-game considerations, it's a fine gamble.

I think he just has to be willing to fold a set if Curtis shows strength when an A, K, Q flops or a 3-flush flops.

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]

Isn't Sammy 8.9:1 to flop a set without Curtis also flopping a set?

And he'll still lose about about 9% of time on the safest flops (no backdoor draws) and 41% of the time on the scariest flops (gutshot with flush and set draws).

My guess is that is a marginally minus EV call. However, about 10% of the time he should flop big enough that he knows he can go all-in as a 90% favorite, and given his big chip stack plus meta-game considerations, it's a fine gamble.

I think he just has to be willing to fold a set if Curtis shows strength when an A, K, Q flops or a 3-flush flops.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Sammy can make a good read on this board and get away from the hand if Curtis shows strength here. If we believe that Curtis isn't some donk who raises 20xBB with any 2 cards just to play LAGGish, then Sammy will be really careful. Remember, he just doubled up. No reason to throw it all away when you might be beat with set over set (if the A or K flops).

I think Farha played this well, got lucky and stacked off someone overplaying AA.

[Exitonly]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Isn't Sammy 8.9:1 to flop a set without Curtis also flopping a set?

And he'll still lose about about 9% of time on the safest flops (no backdoor draws) and 41% of the time on the scariest flops (gutshot with flush and set draws).

My guess is that is a marginally minus EV call. However, about 10% of the time he should flop big enough that he knows he can go all-in as a 90% favorite, and given his big chip stack plus meta-game considerations, it's a fine gamble.

I think he just has to be willing to fold a set if Curtis shows strength when an A, K, Q flops or a 3-flush flops.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Sammy can make a good read on this board and get away from the hand if Curtis shows strength here. If we believe that Curtis isn't some donk who raises 20xBB with any 2 cards just to play LAGGish, then Sammy will be really careful. Remember, he just doubled up. No reason to throw it all away when you might be beat with set over set (if the A or K flops).

I think Farha played this well, got lucky and stacked off someone overplaying AA.

[/ QUOTE ]


If sammy flops a set here, theres no way he's getting away from it, i think this was a bad call (or atleast -cEV) he doesnt hit his set enough, ,and when he does he gest drawn out on enough to make this suck.

Also, sincec when is a huge raise always AA/KK... i'd say more often than not a big raise like that means AK or maybe JJ.. people think they dont want to see flops with those hands or overbet it.

[mittman84]

wow, you really are a donkey huh. Sam knew what he had (AA/KK) and called with implied odds to try to flop a set and bust the guy. To say he fell into a trap is ignorant. He was hoping to spike a set and bust the guy, or else just fold and be done with it. He knew he wasnt shead at all but also knew if a three came he would win 9k more. Putting in 1K to win 9K with a 8-1 shot of hitting his set, and a 0% chance of losing any more chips if he misses is barely falling into a trap.

[TomHimself]

arnt reverse implied odds a bad thing??????


i dont mind sammys call neway because he had implied odds

[mittman84]

reverse implied odds only come into play if he was to continue after the flop without making a set on the flop, because reverse implied odds take into consideration bets you will have to call on later streets to make your hand. I am sure his plan was to see the flop for 1k with the chance to make 9k more if he hits his set, and if not to get out, and if that is the case there are no reverse implied odds, just implied odds.