Daniel Negreanu says O8 is Barry Greenstein's worst game - Page 5

steamboatin · #41 11-04-2005, 11:22 AM

You have a lot of class. I wish more poker players followed your example instead of all the trash talking and showboating that we see now.

FeliciaLee · #42 11-04-2005, 12:32 PM

I was hoping you would stop in here one day. It seems you are doing well. Sorry I'll miss this year at Foxwoods, but I'm sure you, Joe and Alex will score. I'll write you soon.

beset7 · #43 11-04-2005, 01:45 PM

I think a lot of this probably seems more foreign to those posters here who have played, or currently do play, exclusively online due to the relatively large player pool. Though, in Omaha games, especially at the medium/high limits, the player pool does start to get smaller and ignoring Shania would be perilous. When playing live against the same gamblers day in and day out plays like this have the potential to be priceless.

The hard part for me is not over-doing it or making sure it's an integrated part of my game as opposed to some pointless -ev anomaly.

Wintermute · #44 11-04-2005, 02:09 PM

nice avatar

many fine books were written in prison

gergery · #45 11-04-2005, 03:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2) How did my hand get shown?

I didn't have to show the hand, but I did it voluntarily after the winning hand was shown. Even though I had a few winning cards, my hand looked pretty sick against the hands I was up against, so I thought it might encourage some of the weaker players to see it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand what you mean by this. According to Negreanu you had the winning low hand. Are you suggesting that there is a situation in which you would hold the winning hand at showdown and muck it?

Would you have shown the hand if no low had come, for "advertising" purposes?

Thank you for taking the time to respond to this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

This whole “advertising purposes” is a bit misleading.

Good players don’t actively try to put money in as a big dog solely because they want to generate action on future hands.

Usually they put money in when the pot odds and their opponents RANGE of hands dictate that the play is EV+ or perhaps EV neutral.

When it turns out that their opponents had a hand that was at the worse end of the range, then the hand becomes an advertising hand after the fact. Semi-bluffs gone wrong will generate all the ads you need without having to consciously invest money poorly.

-g

Mendacious · #46 11-04-2005, 04:10 PM

This is dead on correct, IMO. Do you understand what Barry meant by this?

[ QUOTE ]
2) How did my hand get shown?

I didn't have to show the hand, but I did it voluntarily after the winning hand was shown.

[/ QUOTE ]

beset7 · #47 11-04-2005, 05:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This is dead on correct, IMO. Do you understand what Barry meant by this?

[ QUOTE ]
2) How did my hand get shown?

I didn't have to show the hand, but I did it voluntarily after the winning hand was shown.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought this forum got over the "Do you see why?" thing a while ago. If you see something here that isn't explicit just state it in your post.

Wintermute · #48 11-04-2005, 05:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is dead on correct, IMO. Do you understand what Barry meant by this?

[ QUOTE ]
2) How did my hand get shown?

I didn't have to show the hand, but I did it voluntarily after the winning hand was shown.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought this forum got over the "Do you see why?" thing a while ago. If you see something here that isn't explicit just state it in your post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Relax, beset. Mendacious is not making a "do you see why" comment, it's a genuine question.

Mendacious, I think Barry just misspoke with that comment. Perhaps he meant that if he had not saved the low he would've thrown his hand face up just for the hell of it. The advertising aspect of the hand is of course more valuable when showing the hand actually has a purpose (otherwise it comes off as "look everyone, I am trying to advertise").

BTW, Mendacious, I find it peculiar that you're now agreeing with Gergery, when he's essentially saying exactly what I was saying earlier (and what Barry confirmed). I claimed (and again, Barry confirmed) that his play had semibluffing quality in addition to advertising; you claimed it was a stone-cold bluff that was "retarded". I think this is clearly what we were arguing about, which makes it weird to me that now you're suddenly on board with my line of thinking.

Whatever.

gergery · #49 11-04-2005, 05:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Mendacious, I think Barry just misspoke with that comment. Perhaps he meant that if he had not saved the low he would've thrown his hand face up just for the hell of it

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW, I think Benyamine’s UTG raise with A69J in a full ring game is a worse play than Barry’s flop semi-bluff, which rates to have better equity than the pot odds he is offered there given his read of Eli.

But again, great players playing frequently against each other becomes all about frequencies, current image, tilt, etc. and is much less about standard correct lines with specific hands.

-g

Ironman · #50 11-04-2005, 05:41 PM

You might be right. But I know when we play a similar dealers choice set up, we are very specific about calling a game. When the dealer calls Omaha hi/low...I play a very aggressive low card game (as I think you mentioned). When the dealer calls O8...that's a different ball game. By the way, the pots are much larger when we play Omaha hi/low (no qualifier).

I'd really like to know the answer for sure from someone who plays in the game.

Dave