Abe's play criticized by Mike Sexton

[tewall]

One hand Abe had K9 unsuited and the flop came:

6JK 2 diamonds (Abe didn't have a diamond)

There was around T500k in the pot. Abe had T 1,160k and Paul had T 1,345k. Paul had A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 5 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

Flop: J [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] K [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 6 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

Abe checked and Paul bet T100k. Abe called.

Turn: J [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

Abe checked. Paul bet T300k. Abe folded.

Abe was strongly critized for his play. I think that criticism was unwarrented. He was critized for not raising on the flop or betting on the flop. I think Abe played the hand in a logical manner, and would likely have been in good shape had the board not paired. I don't see what leading out would have gained Abe. He's got top pair/lousy kicker. Why would he want to lead with that? He was criticized for having the pot taken away because he didn't take the lead, but with a mediocre but not very good hand, taking the lead seems to me to be on the average a poor play.

The next hand he had A [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 7 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] and Dwewy had Q [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] Q [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]. They quoted Abe as saying that he plays the percentages and playing the player is over-rated. He was criticized for that comment. I think his comment is correct. Abe called with his A7 after Dewey went all-in with around T550k, and was strongly criticized for that (that is, Abe was criticized for calling).

Dewey had previously gone all-in with A4. If Dewey had had the A4 this time when Abe called, Abe would have had him dominated. Considering the range of hands Dewey could have had with his all-in, calling could well have been correct.

It's very easy to criticize the players' plays when you can see their cards. He's got the best hand! He should bet or raise! He's got the worse hand. He should fold!

At any rate, I'd be interested in any comments regarding these hands, if y'all think Abe's play was poor.

[1800GAMBLER]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see what leading out would have gained Abe

[/ QUOTE ]

Value. Protection. Not getting thrown off a hand.

You don't include if this was heads up or a ring game or how many people saw the flop, if this was heads up Ab played the flop very poorly. I'm guessing it is heads up since Paul bet A5 here.

Turn is easy.

Hand 2.

Calling all in with A7 is a clear example of being a small favourite large underdog.

Edit: After reading that he thrown in with A4 i'd still fold. You're still dominated a hell of a lot more times. I'd have to known he wouldn't play AA KK QQ JJ like this, to even think the call is close.

You as have to be able to play the player to be able to run the percentages, people's betting ranges/styles change, you have to have those right before you can even analyse the hand.

[thetman]

I agree with Mike on both hands. He totally let Paul outplay him and steal the pot on the 2nd hand.

[tewall]

Hand 1

There were probably 6 players at this time. Just 2 saw the flop.

Having watched many of these WPT events, I'm quite sure that a majority of the time, probably at least 2/3 of the time, most of the players would have checked the flop, as Abe did. It's important not to play hands the same way of course, so occasionally you see someone lead out here, but usually they don't.

If he had led out, Paul most likely would have folded, and Abe would have won a small pot. Playing it the way he did gave him a good chance to win more, which he very likely would have done, had the board not paired. Once the board paired, he had to make a read, and he was wrong. Many of the times the turn bet by Paul would have been called (by other players), but then maybe Paul had a read on Abe, that he wouldn't call, and he wouldn't have bet the turn against someone else.

I'm not sure what "turn is easy" means. Easy bet? Easy call? I don't see what's easy about it. The opponent could easily have a K with a better kicker, or a Jack. Playing K9 out of position against a good player doesn't seem easy to me.

On Hand 2 (next hand) I'm inclined to agree with you. But the analysis was poor (not yours, the TV commentary). But then again, they don't have much time to make their comments. For the A7 call to be incorrect, one would have to consider the range of hands that the player could have. When you take into account that the player that Abe called was a world class player (Dewey Tomko), that argues more for the call (given that he could have a close to 50/50 shot of being ahead of a much better player argues for taking the chance).

If he had had the good fortune to have made the call when Dewey had raised with the A4, then the commentary would have been what a great call it was, blah, blah, blah.

I wouldn't want to call with an A7 myself, but taking all things into consideration don't think the play was necessarily too bad. Dewey was going in with all sorts of hands, including T9, 53, and others. The circumstances had changed when he started doing that, but the point remains that to know if A7 was a bad call, you'd have to know what he would go all-in with.

Regarding the percentages quote, what Abe said was that playing the player was over-rated, and I agree with that. That isn't to say it isn't important, but that people give it too much weight. Poker is a complex intermingling of percentages and psychology. Both are important.

A lot of times Mike Sexton's comments are excellent, but I thought he went overboard regarding Abe. The other guy is clueless.

As long as I'm rambling here, I'll return to Dewey's play. Dewey managed to survive to 2nd place (I think he started in 5th) by going all-in with 2 hands. Once was a successful steal with A4 and the 2nd was the one where he had QQ and got called by Abe with A7 and his Queens held up. Gus Hansen got beat in a race with Paul (AQ hit on the river against a pair of tens), which knocked him out. So it was just Paul and Dewey.

I'm going from memory. I think the cost of playing a hand was $50k. Paul had about T5M and Dewey maybe a third of that.

Dewey's strategy was to go all-in every hand. He won about 6 pots in a row where Paul folded. The last fold Paul had QTs and Dewey had T9. Paul thought for a very long time before folding. The very next hand Paul got a pair of 7's. I forget what Dewey had, but it was nothing special, and Paul's 7's held up.

I thought Dewey's strategy was very interesting and unusual. I would have thought he would try to out-play Paul rather than just risk everything on the luck of a race. Perhaps he was hoping to win a race and then revert to a more strategic line of play. Or maybe he would have slowed down had Paul folded a couple of more hands. The blinds weren't so high that the all-in play was forced, and Paul had time to be patient and go all-in when he could be pretty sure to have an edge (since Dewey was going in with anything), so I thought Dewey's strategy was questionable. But then, Dewey is a world class player, so I just may not be understanding it.

[crockpot]

i disagree with your A7 analysis. having A7s against a hand like A4 is not the same as holding AKs against AQ. you will often split the pot because several high cards hit on board. and if an opponent has as little as JTs he will be almost even money with you. meanwhile you are an underdog to pocket pairs and bigger aces - the types of hands your opponent usually has when he moves all-in.

bottom line, this is not the kind of hand you want to call an all-in with unless the blinds are quite big in relation to the stacks. if the blinds were something like 50k-100k, this call might be justified, but i wouldn't make it if they were smaller.

[tewall]

I agree in general and wouldn't want to make the call myself, but was questioning whether the call was terrible or just slightly bad. Maybe I'm underestimating how bad the call was. Myself I'd like to have a premium hand to call an all-in in the situation where Abe called, but given the hands Dewey was actually going all-in with, and given that Abe was probably the weakest player at the table, the all-in call didn't seem so bad to me.

[crockpot]

you brought up a good point that i forgot to address. if i found myself at a table full of pros at the end of the tournament, i would certainly consider making a marginal call like this to avoid getting outplayed later. but i would still like to see something better than A7s.

[1800GAMBLER]

[ QUOTE ]
It's important not to play hands the same way of course

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll vary my play with top pair when it's heads up, but i'm not varying the play on this very board. I hate too many turn cards.

[ QUOTE ]
Abe would have won a small pot. Playing it the way he did gave him a good chance to win more, which he very likely would have done, had the board not paired.

[/ QUOTE ]

He wants to win a small pot. On half of the turn cards his hand can't stand any aggression at all.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure what "turn is easy" means. Easy bet? Easy call?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's an easy fold, there are way too many hands that beat him right now, shame the one he can beat is the one he saw in this case. Same as David's thread in WPT forum.


Hand 2. If he was throwing in with 53 i'm calling.

Playing the player:


[ QUOTE ]
you'd have to know what he would go all-in with.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
playing the player was over-rated, and I agree with that

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why i think playing the player (moreso in NL) is very important. You have to know the player here before you can play percentages.

[jen]

I didn't like Abe's play here either. I think a flop check-raise would've been best. If Paul called, then Abe could have been done with the hand.

Interestingly enough, I thought it was strange that Abe was willing to lay down top pair against Paul but later went all-in vs Gus Hansen with second pair on an ace-high board.

[tewall]

I think the check-raise would have been a good play. Calling would make sense if the opponent would charge ahead no matter what. I don't know if Paul would have made the same bet on the turn if a Jack hadn't fallen.