Play a Hand With the Masters #2 Results and Panel Comments - Page 7

ClaytonN · #61 10-17-2005, 04:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
AJo is a poster that I'd ignore if I didn't derive some pleasure from reading the idiocy that spews from his keyboard.

[/ QUOTE ]

tad harsh there chuck. like it or not, he's successful at higher limits than you. if anything, look past his crap spewing and find his occasional nuggets of wisdom [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

CardSharpCook · #62 10-17-2005, 04:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Getting a little caustic today?
[img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

HA! yeah I guess so. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] AJo has always struck me as a jerk, and that BBP - well, I usually reply with more humor, don't I? Thanks for pointing it out.

edit: Clayton, I'll take that under advisement.

mjm · #63 10-17-2005, 05:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Every decision made in this hand was to extract the maximum number of chips from a worse hand/bluff until the river when it shifted to the gambler's ruin concept - it was more valuable to leave with 900 chips if behind then win another 900 chips if ahead.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think this is also Villian's thinking on the river? I am finding it difficult to understand why Villian does not push on the river. It's also interesting to see that despite many claims that this hand was boring, virtually all the field recommended a line that would have busted them, at least hero still has a short stack to try to get back in the reckoning with! Thanks Lloyd and panel.

AJo Go All In · #64 10-17-2005, 05:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]

oh please. there's nothing wrong with thinking about a hand and being encouraged that your opinion jives with other good players.

[/ QUOTE ]

i just thought it was funny. when i am playing good i don't give a [censored] what "giga" thinks because i know i played it right. this should especially be true for a fairly elementary hand with shallow stacks.

not to mention the fact that your opinion didn't even match his? am i missing something, or didn't you recommend a different play on the turn?

AJo Go All In · #65 10-17-2005, 06:07 PM

yes i am a jerk, but i'm not an idiot.

#66 10-17-2005, 06:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Every decision made in this hand was to extract the maximum number of chips from a worse hand/bluff until the river when it shifted to the gambler's ruin concept - it was more valuable to leave with 900 chips if behind then win another 900 chips if ahead.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think this is also Villian's thinking on the river? I am finding it difficult to understand why Villian does not push on the river. It's also interesting to see that despite many claims that this hand was boring, virtually all the field recommended a line that would have busted them, at least hero still has a short stack to try to get back in the reckoning with! Thanks Lloyd and panel.

[/ QUOTE ]

Villain played poorly.

betgo · #67 10-17-2005, 06:50 PM

The amazing thing about this hand is that Gigabet flopped top 2 pair against villain's straight and Gigabet didn't bust out. This probably indicates that villain played poorly and Gigabet played well, although this may be somewhat result oriented.

Villain's flop and turn bet both were strange and indicated either the nuts or a complete bluff. This is undoubtably why Gigabet flat called. The minicheckraise and the 45% of remaining chips bets are both classic nuts or pure bluff plays, particularly on a dangerous board. It was bad to play in a way that gave too much information about villain's hand, particularly against Gigabet.

I don't like villain's minicheckraise on the flop. I would lead into the raiser, as Brunson recommends.

The villain's check on the river may not be that bad. I don't think villain was stupid enough to check because he was afraid of the jack. If hero has trips or a boat, he is going to call a push and is going to push. In this case hero saved his chips by checking behind, but it is clear from the discussion that most $100 players would have pushed with AK. The check may induce more bluffs from weaker hands than a push would get additional calls.

A_PLUS · #68 10-17-2005, 07:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]

If villian is afraid of the flush or the boat (reasonably obvious given his check after leading the whole way) then I believe it is possible he will fold to our push. Otherwise, why check? Does he expect us to check the flush or the boat? If he's going to check-call, he might as well push.

[/ QUOTE ]

This thinking is commonly quoted and rarely correct.

You just advocated a line that would make check-calling with QT a perfect play, then asked why you would ever check-call.

A_PLUS · #69 10-17-2005, 07:57 PM

I dont think the check-call with QT is the right play here. But there are situations only slightly different than this where it is. If we both had a few more chips behind, the fact that the Jd completed draws, puts a lot of the villan's range into the "beats us" category, where it doesnt matter what we do, we are losing all of our chips. But it also puts quite a few hands now into the "fold to a push, but bet if he checks" category.

Lets say we had 1500ish behind, I think it is reasonable to think that someone with AT would fold to a push, but may bet the river. I am not saying a good player would do that, but you see these value bettish bluffs all time, when you show weakness after a scare card.

#70 10-17-2005, 07:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Villain's flop and turn bet both were strange and indicated either the nuts or a complete bluff. This is undoubtably why Gigabet flat called.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why did he flat call? Because he thought he was up against the nuts? or Because he thought it was a bluff? If he thought it was a bluff, wouldn't he put him all in?