2004 World Series for the 1 Millionth Time on ESPN...A hand w/ Murphy.

[curtains]

You make valid points of course, I'm referring to all the people who talk about how ridiculous the play is. Honestly I don't like his play at all, but poker is not as easy as everyone on this forum often makes it sound.

Sometimes you open allin for 15x the BB with AA when it seems like you should raise less to at least give someone a chance to come over the top. People watching on TV could say that your play is stupid. What they might have missed is that you've moved allin preflop many times in the last few orbits and noticed a few pepole talking to each other about how they couldn't wait to get anything remotely decent to pick you off with, all of which was edited out of course. At this point it might be more suspicious if you suddenly come out of the weeds with a non allin raise.

Basically I feel that unless the play is purely technical in nature, it's okay to criticize, but not to go overboard and just call a play ridiculous when there are many factors in play that we aren't made privy to.

[DonkeyChip]

I agree that it was a great fold by Arieh. I think Murphy didn't think of it as if he were in Josh's position. The flop was raggy, Jack-high, but with 2 hearts. Then the board pairs on the end with the third heart. Arieh knows Murphy isn't an idiot and likely wouldn't move-in there unless he had an A-high flush or better. What did Murphy think Josh was calling with on the turn? Josh knows this and yet Murphy STILL pushes.

If I had to guess the most likely hand that Josh put him on, I would guess Qs full-of Js (meaning he thought Murphy just had top pair on that raggy flop and just kept improving).

Josh has made other impressive laydowns too IMO.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Most people are far too hard on Murphy for this hand. I think well over 90% of players would have called an all-in bet with a King-high flush.


[/ QUOTE ]

...but 99.9% of players would have bet after Murphy checked ...

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're going to exaggerate, your analysis isn't going to be any good.

Murphy's play may not have been optimal. But, it certainly wan't bad. If he doubles through 90% of the time, it's well worth picking up a smaller pot the remaining 10% of the time and not having to show your hand.

In the long run, I think he'll accumulate more chips with the all-in push than he will with a smaller bet hoping his opponent will raise a flush (not necessarily king-high) on a paired board.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]

If you're going to exaggerate, your analysis isn't going to be any good.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not quite fair, unless you are telling me that the "90% of players will call a push in this spot" figure that you put out has some scientific or mathematical basis.

[ QUOTE ]

Murphy's play may not have been optimal. But, it certainly wan't bad. If he doubles through 90% of the time, it's well worth picking up a smaller pot the remaining 10% of the time and not having to show your hand.

In the long run, I think he'll accumulate more chips with the all-in push than he will with a smaller bet hoping his opponent will raise a flush (not necessarily king-high) on a paired board.

[/ QUOTE ]

That depends on what percentage of players would lay down the king-high flush to an all-in check-raise or reraise.

Like I said in the other post, it seems to me that in this spot there's not a whole lot he can do wrong here, so the "that play was ridiculous and donkified! If you need me, I'll be at $1/$2" comments are just trolls, but at the same time I personally would put pushing behind a probe bet, with checking being the least optimal imho (my guess is Arieh would be too smart for that)

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If you're going to exaggerate, your analysis isn't going to be any good.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not quite fair, unless you are telling me that the "90% of players will call a push in this spot" figure that you put out has some scientific or mathematical basis.


[/ QUOTE ]

My 90% number is an estimate based on playing experience.

You created a number as close to 100% simply to give yourself an exaggerated number to make a point.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If you're going to exaggerate, your analysis isn't going to be any good.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not quite fair, unless you are telling me that the "90% of players will call a push in this spot" figure that you put out has some scientific or mathematical basis.


[/ QUOTE ]

My 90% number is an estimate based on playing experience.

You created a number as close to 100% simply to give yourself an exaggerated number to make a point.

[/ QUOTE ]

My 99.9% number is an estimate based on playing experience.

You created that 90% number simply to make a point.

Do you see the flaw in that reasoning?

[TheJackal]

I remember reading an article from Josh saying that it was a matter of Josh knowing that Murphy put him on a flush draw the way the hand played out. Since Josh can feel with some certainty that Murphy has him on a flush draw and the heart hits on the end, when John moves in, he is saying I can beat a flush. I'm not saying John made a bad play here, but I think checking or betting something smaller would have been better. I mean Josh really cant raise on the end because the board is paired, and if John checks he puts some doubt in Josh's mind whether or not John actually has his flush beat. I think Josh makes a value bet on the end if John checks most of the time. It is also a tough fold if John bet half the pot because he could be betting something worse than Josh's hand. But I'm sure his judgement in the heat of battle is probably better than any of our opinions since hindsight is 20/20.