Anyone have Exact Chip Counts of the Raymer vs. Kanter hand?

[legend42]

The difference between a big name pro making that move and Kantor doing it is the pro would almost certainly make himself tougher to read. Like Greg said, the kid was transparent (and that is pretty much validated by Greg's near-immediate all-in after Kantor's raise).

Which means he doesn't need just AA-JJ to play back at him. He probably makes the same play with any pocket pair from AA down to 33 (given the board), plus other hands.

While I agree it wasn't the ultra-donk move that some have suggested, it was definitely very bad, given the situation (he wasn't shortstacked), the opponent (if you're going to cite Greg's loose opening requirements as a reason to make the play, you also have to consider his strong reading ability as a reason NOT to make it), and his own transperency (the raise looked too quick, too deliberate).

As has been said, it's the difference bewteen live and online play. But thankfully for him, luck finds its way into both.

[pindawg]

Kantor made a horrible call on the river. He may have had the odds with one card to come to hit the flush but that doesn't make it a must call, especially when its for all your chips and you'll still have a slightly workable stack if you fold. Kantor

[legend42]

Of all the plays he made in that hand, the river call was definitely the best.

[tpir90036]

[ QUOTE ]
It sounds like you only play online, which is basically the weakness in Kantor's game. You mention that 1 pair is usually beat by a turn raise, which is true. But, you don't seem to be willing to give me credit for making a good read of a relatively transparent opponent. If we were playing online, I would give Aaron's play a lot more credit. But, since we were playing live, he should have been thinking about me, and what cards I was holding, and how I would play them, rather than just looking at the cards on the table and in his hand. Or, instead of just thinking I might have AK, he should have been looking at me and trying to figure out how likely a hand AK was for me at that time. And I don't mind, I'm glad I was able to get millions of dollars in the pot as a 9:2 favorite; I'm only disappointed that I lost.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[/ QUOTE ]
Is it not possible that he had a hand range/betting pattern read that he went with? I don't think it's that unreasonable to call behind here with the intention of firing a shell on the turn if he had some sort of logical read on the situation. You might not have any tells at all!

In any event, I agree 100% with what you are saying about him probably having no read and just picking a random situation to go with... but in most spots against an aggreesive player's likely hand range, his idea to go for the delayed steal is not that bad. Saying it was a bad play just because he didn't pick up a tell on you rings a little hollow. You can't possibly have a reliable tell on someone for every situation you end up in.... (can you? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img])

-tpir

[pindawg]

[ QUOTE ]
Of all the plays he made in that hand, the river call was definitely the best.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know what I mean... Turn, whatever

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He should fold the turn because it's a dangerous board and he has one pair. Why even push the turn? He knows he's going to get called since Kanter raised 600k. Yes, Kanter had two hearts, but that's results oriented thinking.

At teh same time, I think Kanter made a bad play by not pushing the turn. If he is going to raise, just push.

If Raymer is pot commited, ok. If he's not, I'd get out. Most times he's beat on the turn against a strong raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

It sounds like you only play online, which is basically the weakness in Kantor's game. You mention that 1 pair is usually beat by a turn raise, which is true. But, you don't seem to be willing to give me credit for making a good read of a relatively transparent opponent. If we were playing online, I would give Aaron's play a lot more credit. But, since we were playing live, he should have been thinking about me, and what cards I was holding, and how I would play them, rather than just looking at the cards on the table and in his hand. Or, instead of just thinking I might have AK, he should have been looking at me and trying to figure out how likely a hand AK was for me at that time. And I don't mind, I'm glad I was able to get millions of dollars in the pot as a 9:2 favorite; I'm only disappointed that I lost.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[/ QUOTE ]

Greg,
I disagree. I think you played this wrong. You opened yourself up to getting drawn out. That's the cardinal sin of big pocket pairs? First, you made a low standard raise for this table, and get called. You then make a half pot bet that simply looks like a continuation bet. Then another heart and pair comes on the board. At this point, you have to move in, or check/fold. Instead, you make another half-pot bet. You're really just keeping the guy alive. Keeping him in the pot. Letting him draw.

You made the correct read, but from Kanter's point of view it just looks like you're not confident in your hand. I realize that this is the whole point, but why even try this at this point in the tourney? You only have one pair, and you're giving the guy the entire board to beat you. Why not shut him down, and take the 750k/1 mill pot? You had a good stack, and there was no need to play large pots. Kanter played this hand terribly, but it was FAR too late in the tourney to mess around. You didn't deserve to go out like that.

- Joe

[Jbrochu]

[ QUOTE ]
First, you made a low standard raise for this table, and get called.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is a "low standard raise"? Are you suggesting that if Greg has been raising 2.5 BB at this level, he should suddenly raise more because he has a big pocket pair?




[ QUOTE ]
You then make a half pot bet that simply looks like a continuation bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

So he should only make half-pot bets as continuation bets when he misses the flop, and bet a lot more when he hits the flop? Jeez, nobody will pick up on that tell...

[troymclur]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He should fold the turn because it's a dangerous board and he has one pair. Why even push the turn? He knows he's going to get called since Kanter raised 600k. Yes, Kanter had two hearts, but that's results oriented thinking.

At teh same time, I think Kanter made a bad play by not pushing the turn. If he is going to raise, just push.

If Raymer is pot commited, ok. If he's not, I'd get out. Most times he's beat on the turn against a strong raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

It sounds like you only play online, which is basically the weakness in Kantor's game. You mention that 1 pair is usually beat by a turn raise, which is true. But, you don't seem to be willing to give me credit for making a good read of a relatively transparent opponent. If we were playing online, I would give Aaron's play a lot more credit. But, since we were playing live, he should have been thinking about me, and what cards I was holding, and how I would play them, rather than just looking at the cards on the table and in his hand. Or, instead of just thinking I might have AK, he should have been looking at me and trying to figure out how likely a hand AK was for me at that time. And I don't mind, I'm glad I was able to get millions of dollars in the pot as a 9:2 favorite; I'm only disappointed that I lost.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[/ QUOTE ]

Greg,
I disagree. I think you played this wrong. You opened yourself up to getting drawn out. That's the cardinal sin of big pocket pairs? First, you made a low standard raise for this table, and get called. You then make a half pot bet that simply looks like a continuation bet. Then another heart and pair comes on the board. At this point, you have to move in, or check/fold. Instead, you make another half-pot bet. You're really just keeping the guy alive. Keeping him in the pot. Letting him draw.

You made the correct read, but from Kanter's point of view it just looks like you're not confident in your hand. I realize that this is the whole point, but why even try this at this point in the tourney? You only have one pair, and you're giving the guy the entire board to beat you. Why not shut him down, and take the 750k/1 mill pot? You had a good stack, and there was no need to play large pots. Kanter played this hand terribly, but it was FAR too late in the tourney to mess around. You didn't deserve to go out like that.

- Joe

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a question for you. If you want to win the tournament, that is, get all the chips, would you rather take 300 grand with a fold, or 1.5 million with a call as a 9:2 favorite?

Point being, if you want to win, you have to place your chips at risk. The best you can hope for is to place them as a favorite. This wasn't the good end of a coin-flip, this was a large lead for a knockout. If i coudl play the hand knowing Kanters hole cards, i'd play the same way. i can't believe people are still debating this.

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree. I think you played this wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, just, man, wow.

You don't want to chase someone off with KK, especially late in a tourney, that's your chance to double up with a huge advantage. Greg's not looking to slink up in the money chart at this point, he's got a good hand against a guy that made it pretty clear he was trying to push Greg off a hand.

Great hand, tough beat. If Raymer made any misplays, I can only hope I learn to misplay it like that as well.

Granted, I know the cards watching on TV, but the guy certainly didn't play like he had any kind of serious made hand.

[DesertCat]

[ QUOTE ]


Greg,
I disagree. I think you played this wrong. You opened yourself up to getting drawn out. That's the cardinal sin of big pocket pairs? First, you made a low standard raise for this table, and get called. You then make a half pot bet that simply looks like a continuation bet. Then another heart and pair comes on the board. At this point, you have to move in, or check/fold. Instead, you make another half-pot bet. You're really just keeping the guy alive. Keeping him in the pot. Letting him draw.

You made the correct read, but from Kanter's point of view it just looks like you're not confident in your hand. I realize that this is the whole point, but why even try this at this point in the tourney? You only have one pair, and you're giving the guy the entire board to beat you. Why not shut him down, and take the 750k/1 mill pot? You had a good stack, and there was no need to play large pots. Kanter played this hand terribly, but it was FAR too late in the tourney to mess around. You didn't deserve to go out like that.

- Joe

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to read the Theory Of Poker. Greg was able to induce Kantor to make many mistakes in this hand, which is how you win. Don't be results oriented, in poker you can never stop people from drawing out on you, you can only make sure they pay too much for the option.

Greg's problem is that in order to win any tournament, it's not as simple as getting your money in as a 82% favorite. You also must be lucky. Get all your chips in at 82% five times and you are usually watching the final table from the rail. The short run, i.e. tournaments, are never all skill.

Ask Greg if he could rewind the clock so he could go back and replay the hand. Tell him if he makes a huge all-in overbet into the pot on the flop that Kantor would fold. Or he can replay the hand from the turn with the same betting, and be dealt random river card. Which option do you think Greg will choose?

I'm pretty sure he'll want to re-run the river. If the river doesn't complete Kantor's flush, Greg's going to double up and be in great shape for the final table. If Kantor folds the flop, Greg only increases his stack about 13%.

The EV of the flop allin is +260k chips. My estimate (based on guestimated stack sizes) of playing out the hand is +1358k chips. It's not a close decision. So do you want a 100% guarantee of increasing your stack 13%, or an 82% chance of increasing it 100%? I'll take the latter.