WSOP last night and Sam Farha

[winky51]

Was watching WSOP and the table where Sammy and Daniel were at (man poor Daniel). Anyways I follow the Dan Harrington system of NL. Suits my style best. Read his books, his plays make sense to me.

Then I see Sammy playing all sorts of cards facing raises from EP amatuers. Then he hits and doubles then triple ups.

My question is with his loose play vs these amateur players I have to assume he assumes that if he hits his implied odds are much greater than if he played against a good player. Amateur players will call more often all ins than a better player. Am I right in his thiking and play?

Like the AA (UTG) raiser and he calls with 33. Flops the set and takes the guys cash. Calling with 33 vs an UTG raiser is a no-no in every book. But he got way more than the implied odds hitting the set. With Daniel he bet more stratigically vs him.

I notice that the amateur players in the smaller tournaments here in Florida ($150-$200) tend to call all ins more with lessor holdings or just top pair. I have even seen them go all in on lessor holdings.

So is that how Sammy was thinking for the early rounds? Or am I thinking too deep?

[swarm]

Sammy is a LAG and a great one at that with excellent hand reading capabilities. After doubling up his stack he had the chips and odds to try and hit his set versus the 20xbb raiser with AA. He knew the guy had AA and would get his stack if he hit.

LAGs need to build a big stack early so they can continue to see lots of flops as the blinds increase. Sammy knows that if he doesn't take chances to gamble early then he can't play his style which he feels gives him the best chance to make a deep run.

Honestly the worst thing for Daniel was having Farha at his table. After DN's WSOP troubles last year in trying to bluff amatuers, he wanted to play TAG ABC mode against the ametuers early on before switching to his normal, more laggy play. But the worse thing for a TAG in ABC mode is to have a great LAG at your table. They can kill you just as Farha did to DN.

[AaronO]

The implied are are huge with small pairs, even in raised pots. Farha had position and was confident that if he made a set he would stack the guy. He probably also figured he could outplay him post flop (either bet him off a bigger pair, or bet him off two overcards if the guy missed the flop).

Fine play IMO.

[A_Junglen]

[ QUOTE ]
The implied are are huge with small pairs, even in raised pots. Farha had position and was confident that if he made a set he would stack the guy. He probably also figured he could outplay him post flop (either bet him off a bigger pair, or bet him off two overcards if the guy missed the flop).

Fine play IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Farha called out of the BB, therefore not having position....this shouldn't change whether or not its a correct call (because it is), just correcting.

[Miggo]

[ QUOTE ]
Farha called out of the BB, therefore not having position....this shouldn't change whether or not its a correct call (because it is), just correcting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this a correct call, or is this being results orientated? What makes it a correct call, especially knowing the guy 90%+ has a bigger pair? Is it because Sam knows what the guy has and that the raise isn't that large in relation to his stack, and the implied odds of putting the guy out is worth the call? Not being a smart@$$, I'm just trying to learn.

[troymclur]

[ QUOTE ]
Was watching WSOP and the table where Sammy and Daniel were at (man poor Daniel). Anyways I follow the Dan Harrington system of NL. Suits my style best. Read his books, his plays make sense to me.

Then I see Sammy playing all sorts of cards facing raises from EP amatuers. Then he hits and doubles then triple ups.

My question is with his loose play vs these amateur players I have to assume he assumes that if he hits his implied odds are much greater than if he played against a good player. Amateur players will call more often all ins than a better player. Am I right in his thiking and play?

Like the AA (UTG) raiser and he calls with 33. Flops the set and takes the guys cash. Calling with 33 vs an UTG raiser is a no-no in every book. But he got way more than the implied odds hitting the set. With Daniel he bet more stratigically vs him.

I notice that the amateur players in the smaller tournaments here in Florida ($150-$200) tend to call all ins more with lessor holdings or just top pair. I have even seen them go all in on lessor holdings.

So is that how Sammy was thinking for the early rounds? Or am I thinking too deep?

[/ QUOTE ]

the problem is that you're using Harrington's book as a basis. He's a very conservative player, plus he's writing a book on the basics.

Farha is a consumate pro who's style is see alot of flops and use your read skills to make the good decisions. When you say it was a no-no in everybook, realize that most books are geared towards ABC poker, while most pros make 'wrong' decisions because they trust thier reads more than the math.

[AaronO]

My bad on position. Now that I think back on it, I guess he did check the flop and then raise after AA bet. Here's my logic on why it is a correct call.

Set flops about 1 in 7 times. AA has about $10,000T, Farha calls about $1,500 knowing that if he flops a set he wins the 10K. Even if he doesn't flop a set, he could still outplay after the flop (Villain could have AK, miss the flop and get passive?), or fold if he truly believes he is beat.

That coupled with the fact that the call does not cut into Farha's already big stack make the play justifiable IMO.

[TwoNiner]

Getting casino boy's money before Daniel Negreanu gets it two seats to your left if nice as well.

[KingDan]

They mentioned him doubling up the first hand, can someone give me the details?

[winky51]

Thats really interesting I see what you mean on all counts. Makes sense.