Raymer's River Woes - Page 3

RowdyZ · #21 07-07-2005, 06:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Case in Point:

The button raised to $275, the small blind called, and Chris "Jesus" Ferguson reraised $1,000 more to go. The button came over the top for $3,500 more, forcing the small blind to fold, but when the action got back to Ferguson, he pushed all in for his last $4475. The button called. Ferguson showed A-A, and the button flipped up K-9. That's right, K-9. The flop was devastating for Ferguson when it came K-9-4 making the button two pair. There were two diamonds on board giving Ferguson, who held the ace of diamonds, a backdoor flush draw to go with two remaining aces, and 3 remaining fours that would give him the lead in the hand. The turn brought a non-diamond queen. Ferguson needed a 4, a Queen, or an ace on the river for the win. The river brought a 4. Ferguson hit his bigger two pair, and left his opponent on the short stack

[/ QUOTE ]

This actually isn't outrageous.
Ferguson could have been re-raising with a wide variety of hands and the orginal raiser put Chris to the test. Once Chris goes all-in the original raiser must call as he is pot committed.

The main problem with the play is the size of the third raise, since he left himself pot committed.

[/ QUOTE ]

You might want to reread what you just posted. The first part of your post says that it wasn't that bad a play but the 2nd part points out excatly why it was such a horrible play.

RZ

scott8 · #22 07-07-2005, 07:02 PM

Sigh.

Someone else will have to explain the difference btw outageous and "the main problem".

I can also make the argument that the play works more effectively when you raise to 3500 b/c you tell your opponent that you like your hand enough to go all-in.
This may lead to the opponent laying down JJ, AK, etc.
In this case, running into AA is unfortunate.

SC

RavenJackson · #23 07-07-2005, 07:07 PM

I agree with the call once he is pot committed...by why commit yourself with the reraise?

The play is read dependant; however, with blinds being 100-200 the initial raise on the button looks really weak [it says the button raised to $275, which is confusing]. Maybe the button wants it to look like he is inviting action.

Ferguson might be protecting his blind; however, if that is the read, why reraise to $3500.00 [into a $1575.00 pot]? A smaller reraise should tell you where you are at and allow you to get away from the hand.

3rdEye · #24 07-07-2005, 07:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
that's poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate when people say that. When someone kills your girlfriend, do you say, "That's life?"

[/ QUOTE ]

No although if I lost her in a poker game I'd say "That's poker".

[/ QUOTE ]

Touche.

Sponger15SB · #25 07-07-2005, 07:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Sigh.

Someone else will have to explain the difference btw outageous and "the main problem".

I can also make the argument that the play works more effectively when you raise to 3500 b/c you tell your opponent that you like your hand enough to go all-in.
This may lead to the opponent laying down JJ, AK, etc.
In this case, running into AA is unfortunate.

SC

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah its always great to try to bluff re-reraise a 7x (?) bracelet winner on the 3rd level of the first day of the WSOP.

3rdEye · #26 07-07-2005, 07:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
that's poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate when people say that. When someone kills your girlfriend, do you say, "That's life?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes cause the proprotion of people who had there girlfriend murdered to people who have taken a bad beat in poker is probably about the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your response would matter to me if it indicated that you understood the point I was making in the first place--which is that while we all know that bad beats happen, it's completely idiotic when they are dismissed on the basis that, "that's poker."

scott8 · #27 07-07-2005, 07:19 PM

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah its always great to try to bluff re-reraise a 7x (?) bracelet winner on the 3rd level of the first day of the WSOP.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right. If he is a pro, he must always have it.

FWIW, one of the biggest pots I won in the WSOP 5k event was picking off a re-raise bluff by Lee Watkinson.

Sponger15SB · #28 07-07-2005, 07:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah its always great to try to bluff re-reraise a 7x (?) bracelet winner on the 3rd level of the first day of the WSOP.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're right. If he is a pro, he must always have it.

FWIW, one of the biggest pots I won in the WSOP 5k event was picking off a re-raise bluff by Lee Watkinson.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok fine, respond to just this then...

Yeah its a good idea to bluff re-reraise someone on a blind steal for ... was it 50% or 100%... of your chips on the 3rd level of the first day of the WSOP with just K9.

scott8 · #29 07-07-2005, 07:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah its always great to try to bluff re-reraise a 7x (?) bracelet winner on the 3rd level of the first day of the WSOP.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're right. If he is a pro, he must always have it.

FWIW, one of the biggest pots I won in the WSOP 5k event was picking off a re-raise bluff by Lee Watkinson.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok fine, respond to just this then...

Yeah its a good idea to bluff re-reraise someone on a blind steal for ... was it 50% or 100%... of your chips on the 3rd level of the first day of the WSOP with just K9.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol. Where in San Diego? I'll just come over and talk about it over coffee. Or if you want to come to PB?

Sponger15SB · #30 07-07-2005, 07:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
lol. Where in San Diego? I'll just come over and talk about it over coffee. Or if you want to come to PB?

[/ QUOTE ]

How about I come over right now and take all the cash you've got on you in a HU freezeout! Lets dooo this.

Seriously though, I live in Carmel Valley / Del Mar area, right off the 56. I am not much interested in discussing actual poker or drinking coffee, I just post in OOT while playing online.