Our own SHANIAC on TV tonight. Hopefully he gets some good air time!

[Quake1028]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No offense, but I thought you came off as a bit of a tool.

[/ QUOTE ]

How could I possibly be offended by that? Actually, I tend to agree, but chalked it up to self-conscousness.

[ QUOTE ]
Everything you did seemed to me to be forced for the camera

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll have to go with the Dan Druff Defense--the producers made me do it.

Anyway, I appreciate your candor and I'm relieved that most people don't seem to share your feelings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, as I said, no offense. You certainly weren't anywhere near as bad as DanDruff [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

[shadyridr]

I dont really know you as I dont post here often and I know you are a much better player than me but I thought your All-In looked like an obvious steal. Still I have no clue how he called you with only A high. I look forward to watching you on TV again hoepfully soon. Good stuff.

[Army Eye]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even if he reads me for a bluff, most of the hands I'll be bluffing with will notch AT.

[/ QUOTE ] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

by that you mean AJ, AQ and AK?

[/ QUOTE ]

Or any PP. or Ax that paired the kicker.
There's not much AT beats here.

[/ QUOTE ]

How would those be bluffs?

[illegit]

Unfortunately the 99 hand against Pham looked to be more interesting than 100% of the hands in which they show the entire hand. From what i remember of the Milwaukee segment I thought the flop was KXX, 2 clubs, and the river was the Ac and Gracz check-called a river bet. Which is either really wreckless, a pretty insane read or a little bit of both. Nice job on not showing that whole hand ESPN. Would have probably bored people since no one got all-in.

When Ferguson said 'Hold Em' I was like 'WTF?!'

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even if he reads me for a bluff, most of the hands I'll be bluffing with will notch AT.

[/ QUOTE ] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

by that you mean AJ, AQ and AK?

[/ QUOTE ]

Or any PP. or Ax that paired the kicker.
There's not much AT beats here.

[/ QUOTE ]

How would those be bluffs?

[/ QUOTE ]

True, I meant something like a low PP that's still a made hand but a crappy one.

[Daniel Hoerr]

Shane,

Thanks for taking the time to explain for the sake of reality. ESPN has obviously left a lot to be desired to us poker players in their telecasts and it's an absolute pleasure to have some of the "horses mouths" around here to discuss situations and hands with.

First of all, let's face it, while Gracz' calls at point are pretty tough to make, the reads really aren't. Meaning, the overbet is on the short list of pretty basic player reading skills. Now, like I said, going with that read for all, or most of your chips is certainly another story.

One question, given your experience up to that point with Gracz and the determination of the reads he had put on CT and Pham, do you think he would have called a bet size that smelled more of a value bet rather than a push? Do you think it's possible that his mind was seeing a classic pattern with all the overbets and that his instict in those situations was identical?

I'm thinking obviously from a 20-20 hindsight situation, but if his reading ability is so basic as "if there is an overbet, I should have them beat with a smallish pair or even A high". Barring any splicing or time adjustment from ESPN, that look on his face when you declared "all-in" was almost immediate and the call was relatively quick as well. I'm wondering if it would have challenged him to call any more if the bet size looked more in line with basic poker strategy as it seems the reads were?

Thanks,
Daniel

[shaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
One question, given your experience up to that point with Gracz and the determination of the reads he had put on CT and Pham, do you think he would have called a bet size that smelled more of a value bet rather than a push? Do you think it's possible that his mind was seeing a classic pattern with all the overbets and that his instict in those situations was identical?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, the CT Law hand took place after I was long gone, and the call vs Pham was different. Pham bet an amount that sure looked like a value bet but Gracz went with the 99 anyway.

At the time of my push, betting 120K into an 80K pot didn't seem like that much of an overbet. I took it for granted that ace-high would fold. And yes, obviously I believe I could have won the hand by betting on the flop, but the way Gracz was executing his reads and playing, I don't see why he necessarily would have folded ace-high on the flop either. I could easily see myself having bet, say, 50K, him calling, then check-calling the rest on the turn. Who knows, but if he thought his ace was good in the situation I created, it's possible he would have gone with me after firing off a more-reaosnable looking continuation bet on the flop. Hard to say.

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
gotta admit though gracz was pretty impressive

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Gracz is an interesting--and possibly great--player, but I wasn't impressed, per se, by those calls. They were remarkable calls made in the midst of very marginal situations.

Despite ESPN showing his AT vs. my KJ hand as the first one he played, in reality he had been rather active--and his stack seemed to fluctuate between 100-275K up to that point.

In the hand that made the Milwaukee light segment for the show, he played the 99 in a way that I would never dream of playing it. He called Pham's raise preflop, called a bet on the flop with one overcard, the turn got checked by both players, and when a king came on the river, Gracz called off 80K--most of his chips at that time--with 99 on a KJXXX board. Granted, 99 vs a David Pham raise is a huge hand, and with his stack I would have pushed allin preflop in a heartbeat, but he put himself in a dangerous spot by the time the river peeled. He mentioned in his interview that he gets his most sincere thrill from executing big bluffs, and I'm pretty sure he derives a similar satisfaction from making huge, improbable calls and being right.

Vs. Law with 22, he again made a huge read and put a lot on the line for it. Many players, even with the read, would wait for a better spot (see Ferguson vs Prahlad). Ditto vs me--he made a perfect read and I give him credit for going with it, but it was remarkable to me that he would risk most of his stack on it.

When I pushed, I remember that look on his face--it came off prety accurately onscreen and was the same nonplussed look he gave CT when he pushed--and it was clear he thought I was on an absurd move. Next time, hopefully I'll have quads.

I learned a lot from watching Gracz; his style really played contrary to most of what I take for granted about NL tourneys. He played hands passively and forced himself to make big decisions on all streets. His success certainly speaks to a finely-tuned ability to make such decisions, but I'd like to think that I'll be able to exploit his tendencies next time I face him. It was a learning experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

nice post.

[kutuz_off]

You were a bike messenger in Manhattan? Now THAT is cool. Respect. You're elite.

[huntsky]

I made the samw move in the wsop this year late in the tourney. ( We were down to 150). I thought exactly along your lines, if he doesnt have a pair he will fold, even if its ace high. I guess the overbet pot gave it away.

Guy calls and takes 150k.

Anyway, Gl in the future shane. See you at a final table someday.