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

[ 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 ]

Yes

[ 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...

[/ QUOTE ]

Tell? He didn't hit the flop. He needs to protect his position. Period.

[Jbrochu]

[ QUOTE ]
Tell? He didn't hit the flop. He needs to protect his position. Period.

[/ QUOTE ]

I consider flopping an overpair to be hitting the flop. And BTW, half-pot continuation bets only work when you regularly provide cover for them by making half-pot bets for value. Otherwise, you might as well yell "I HAVE NOTHING" when making a continuation bet.

[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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone here needs to stop thinking that this is some type of cash game, and regular poker strategy applies. Why do you think Greg was sweating Tiffany's call with AJ so much? Did he not think Kanter had at least that type of a hand. He was trying to push her off the hand because he didn't want a call. He should've done the same ON THE TURN here. Your math is all wrong. You say he would've only picked up 260k? At the turn, I believe he's getting 700k. He's looking at a little over double that playing the way he did. That puts him at 3mill instead of 4mill. Please.

Would you take a fairly certain 3 mill stack, or 20% chance of being busted on the river? You don't need to put yourself in that position. Did anyone notice Hachem push all-in with trip Jacks when Ivey was making a play? I guess this was a bad play, and he should've kept Ivey on the string to increase his stack. Then he might have had a better chance to win.

Oh wait.........

[Brad F.]

[ 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 ]

Nice third post.

You first disagree with the 2004 World Champion by saying he shouldn't make the standard raise with a high pocket pair. The best poker players make the same move with a wide variety of hands (for example, Greg makes the same play with J-10 of spades or 3-3). It makes it difficult for the opponent to read his holdings.

I also might point out that you WANT people to try and outdraw your high pocket pair.

Greg then on the flop made the standard continuation bet on the flop. Think of the theory behind this. Greg is not scared at all of Aaron's hand, and doesn't want to push him out of the pot. If he takes it down with the normal continuation bet, that's fine. But because of the 1/2 pot bet, Kanter senses weakness and therefore calls with air to try and push Greg off of his hand. If Greg makes a pot-sized bet here, he wins the hand, but only wins about 300k in chips.

So at this point Greg has convinced Aaron that he is weak due to the standard raise and standard continuation bet. Greg makes another standard bet on the turn, which sets Kanter up nicely for what he wants to do. Aaron raises, thinking that he will take down the pot right here.

Why should Aaron suspect Greg has a hand here? Wouldn't Greg bet harder with 10-10 to push away overcards? Wouldn't Greg slowplay AA or KK in this situation hoping that Aaron bluffs at the pot?

By the time Greg suckers Aaron in to more or less give Greg an 80% chance to take his stack, it is too late to turn back.

Winning these types of hands are key to winning tournaments. But you have to get your money in these spots with the knowledge that you might get sucked out on. It's poker.

You have to realize that you are arguing that Greg shouldn't have allowed Aaron a 20% chance of winning the hand. He should've been happy just taking a 300k pot instead of being an 80% favorite to win a 3.5 million dollar pot?

Greg would've been able to steamroll his way to the FT and maybe another championship if he won this hand. This is what he did to win in 2004. He built a large stack and bullied those who wanted to go up a level in the money.

Sorry if I'm ranting, but I get tired of folks seeing that Greg made a post here and try and tell him he played poorly just because they can.

When should Greg have gotten all of his money in? As a 95% favorite? Would that have been acceptable?

Brad

[grandgnu]

Well, Mike Matusow called Greg an Internet Donkey on TV. I mean, it must be true, right?

Remember to only get your money in with the nuts, NEVER try to force your opponents to make mistakes that potentially cost them all their chips.

Gotta love these new posters that pop up with single-digit posts and start trying to tell the 2004 WSOP champion and the guy who fought through 5600 players again this year and finished 25th that he played it wrong. Ugh.

I agree with everything you've said. He played it perfectly to setup Kanter, and take his stack. My point is that this late in the tournament, after having outlasted 6k people, you don't NEED to make this play. You don't NEED to put yourself in a position to get outdrawn. Why even take that chance?
I respect Greg, and I know he got a terrible beat. But, he knows as well as anyone that one pair to the river is NOT a great play for ALL your chips. You absolutely positively DON'T want a pot going to the river at this stage in the tournament. Greg could've taken close to half of Kanter's stack, and STILL be in great position to win the tourney without having to go to a showdown.

[DesertCat]

[ QUOTE ]

Everyone here needs to stop thinking that this is some type of cash game, and regular poker strategy applies.

[/ QUOTE ]

We are talking tournament strategy. Have you read any of the posts on this stite about it? Including some of the best by Raymer himself? There were no real "bubble" considerationss here, ChipEV couldn't be far from TEv.

[ QUOTE ]

Why do you think Greg was sweating Tiffany's call with AJ so much?


[/ QUOTE ]

He was all-in with Kings, she had an ace. Once again, he's thankful for the call. But that doesn't make it any less stressful when your tournament life is on the line.

[ QUOTE ]
He should've done the same ON THE TURN here. Your math is all wrong. You say he would've only picked up 260k? At the turn, I believe he's getting 700k.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I misread your post. Still, on the turn the pot was 600k (300k on flop + 150k bet/call). If you know Aaron will lay down his hand 100% (and doesn't already have a set or straight) the best possible ChipEV is +600k. That's still much less than +1.35M, so it's still not a close decision.

[ QUOTE ]
Would you take a fairly certain 3 mill stack, or 20% chance of being busted on the river? You don't need to put yourself in that position. Did anyone notice Hachem push all-in with trip Jacks when Ivey was making a play? I guess this was a bad play, and he should've kept Ivey on the string to increase his stack. Then he might have had a better chance to win.

Oh wait.........

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I didn't see it. My guess is that he thought Ivey had a stronger hand than he did, and was hoping for a call to trap Ivey for all his chips right then.

Your viewpoint is a common one, but not among top players. It's often stated as "survival" vs. "accumulation". On the MTT forum there have been many great discussions on it. Top theorists like Raymer, Paul Phillips come down strongly in the "accumulator" camp. You do have to "survive" to the end to win. But you also have to "accumulate" all of the chips before you can win.

The basic accumulator view point is that you almost always need to always take +ChipEV gambles if you want to win. There are exceptions, and clearly if you are going to gamble you prefer the biggest +EV edge possible when you do. But in general, that's the rule. The alternative is frequently being short stacked and blinded off.

I clearly can't do justice to the many arguments for the "accumulator" camp, so I suggest you checkout the MTT forum and try to include Phillips and Raymer's archived posts. Once you better understand this viewpoint, even if you still disagree with it at least you'll be better armed for the discussion.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
Would you take a fairly certain 3 mill stack, or 20% chance of being busted on the river? You don't need to put yourself in that position. Did anyone notice Hachem push all-in with trip Jacks when Ivey was making a play? I guess this was a bad play, and he should've kept Ivey on the string to increase his stack. Then he might have had a better chance to win.

Oh wait.........

[/ QUOTE ]

RESULTS ORIENTED THINKING AGAIN!!!

I have a hard time believing this isn't a troll, no one can be this friggin stupid.

If Hachem had twice as many chips going into the final table, do you think that increases his chance of winning? Just because he happened to run well enough to win, doesn't mean he could have had a better chance at winning if he had more chips.

[ QUOTE ]
Well, Mike Matusow called Greg an Internet Donkey on TV. I mean, it must be true, right?

Remember to only get your money in with the nuts, NEVER try to force your opponents to make mistakes that potentially cost them all their chips.

Gotta love these new posters that pop up with single-digit posts and start trying to tell the 2004 WSOP champion and the guy who fought through 5600 players again this year and finished 25th that he played it wrong. Ugh.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, I didn't know there was a post count qualification that you had to meet before responding to a hand strategy discussion. I also didn't know that the 2004 World Series Champ was beyond review. (someone should tell this to the Moneymaker haters)

No wonder everyone gets run off this board. I posted my opinion, and forget that this is Raymer, and just think about the hand logically. All you guys seem to think it's great that Raymer put his tournament life in jeopardy on one pair (he didn't know what Kanter had, btw) at this stage in the tourney.
Why isn't there any posts yelling at Hachem for his absurd move of pushing all his stack in when Ivey made a play at the pot. He had trip Jacks. He should've sucked more chips from Ivey, right? I mean, it would've put him in a great position to win. Oh yeah, he did win. My bad.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Would you take a fairly certain 3 mill stack, or 20% chance of being busted on the river? You don't need to put yourself in that position. Did anyone notice Hachem push all-in with trip Jacks when Ivey was making a play? I guess this was a bad play, and he should've kept Ivey on the string to increase his stack. Then he might have had a better chance to win.

Oh wait.........

[/ QUOTE ]

RESULTS ORIENTED THINKING AGAIN!!!

I have a hard time believing this isn't a troll, no one can be this friggin stupid.

If Hachem had twice as many chips going into the final table, do you think that increases his chance of winning? Just because he happened to run well enough to win, doesn't mean he could have had a better chance at winning if he had more chips.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am a troll.

That was sarcasm by the way. Which the post you quoted was full of. Thanks.