sam farha vs. (unknown) day1 wsop

[Bigdaddydvo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
sidenote: if you ever watch the Travel Channel's Vegas shows, that was the guy who claims to be an expert video poker player, and knows all the odds. He's written some gambling books. I'm sure someone remembers his name, but I don't...

[/ QUOTE ]

i've seen it. his on a bunch of shows about gambling on the travel channel. his name is stanely wong or steven lee or some sh1t like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anthony Curtis...a former BJ card counter.

[DonkeyChip]

I see your points about implied odds. I agree.

[ QUOTE ]
the reverse implied odds are huge

[/ QUOTE ]
But I don't understand this one.

Sammy's call was decent simply because he had 20,000. But that guy did not need to raise 1,000. That is a ridiculous overbet, even with two Aces. Whatever happened to a standard raise?

[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

By overraising as he did, Curtis was essentially announcing to the world that he had KK or better. Even a total noob would know that.

Sammy, having position and being an excellent post-flop player, knew that he was only a 4.5 to 1 dog against these hands. Since he probably thought the opponent would be pot committed he probably counted his entire stack in his implied odds number crunch. Since it was very early in the tournament, he was probably getting 8 to 1 or so. The only kind of board that would keep his opponent from being pot committed would be something along the lines of a 4 to a straight flush of other than his suits on fourth street. Otherwise, he's in for all he's got.

Another benefit which I'm sure Sammy recognized was that with three times more chips at the outset, he would then be able to bully the table, a practice he has mastered.

[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.

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
arnt reverse implied odds a bad thing??????


i dont mind sammys call neway because he had implied odds

[/ QUOTE ]

The reverse implied odds became huge when unknown "announced" his hand with AA. Remember, he also led out with a bet of 6K on that flop. Sammy probably isn't calling with TPTK here, just a set or better, though 2 pair would probably call here as well.

The bet is 6K, leaving unkonwn with 3 K left in his stack. He's pot committed, but Sammy is far from committed. Sammy folds if he doesn't hit, reraises if he did. The reverse implied odds here being that AA won't get paid off, but will get stacked here vs. a beter hand.

[DonkeyChip]

When I originally read OrangeKings post I thought he was saying that Sammy's reverse implied odds were huge which I didn't agree with (his implied odds are huge). But upon re-reading it, I might have had the perspective wrong (i.e. he wasn't talking about Sammy).

And no I'm not a donkey, I'm a donkey chip. donkey chip < donkey. Some of us actually realize where we are in poker food chain and don't need to berate others to falsely elevate ourselves.[img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[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.