Chan/Liebert: Wow. How Bad Can They Play?

cero_z · #1 03-14-2005, 12:59 PM

Hi everyone,

This is sick. Liebert has Chan out-chipped 1.1 mil to .3 mil (3 to 1). Blinds 20-40k. She moves all-in with QJs, He folds K7o. How can he fold here? Next hand, he raises to 140K, leaving himself with ~200K. He has 54s. How can he not move in with this hand, if he chooses to play? What's he gonna do, fold if she comes over the top, getting 2.5 to 1? Maybe he's trying to lure her into calling with his 5 high. Then comes the best part: she picks up KJ, and just calls the raise. Luckily for her, she flopped a J, because she was gonna fold to an all-in on the flop.

Sick, I tells ya.

riffraff · #2 03-14-2005, 01:41 PM

I was taping that via DVR but as soon as it ended I deleted it. Too bad, I was looking forward to it. Instead it was 40 minutes of Leibert bitching about a 15k penalty for taking too long to decide to call with AQ vs Barry's all-in.

Rushmore · #3 03-14-2005, 01:54 PM

I hate to be one of these internet forum guys who second guesses the bigtime pro's and all, but here goes anyway...

I agree.

Now, the K7 is not so cut and dry, so we'll take the 54s.

They both played the hand exactly incorrectly. Any of the following would be preferable:

1.)Chan mucks 54s, giving up the blind.
2.)Chan moves in with 54s, giving himself a better chance to win the blinds.
3.)Liebert reraises putting him all in.

What was NOT an acceptable choice was 4.) Exactly what happened.

I would really be surprised if someone showed up and convinced me otherwise, but it's happened before, so we'll wait and see, I guess.

P.S. How badly did Seed play his 77? Even in his exit interview it seemed like he had no clue what he was doing or why he was doing it when he smooth called. He actually said the words, "I'm not really sure why I did it, etc etc."

Of course, I think he was on some heavy pain meds, so I guess we gotta cut him some slack.

P.P.S. In this particular format, you can't make a good argument for Greenstein moving in preflop with his last raggedy ass hand, not with Tomko about to bust out.

BellyBuster7 · #4 03-14-2005, 02:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Too bad, I was looking forward to it. Instead it was 40 minutes of Leibert bitching about a 15k penalty for taking too long to decide to call with AQ vs Barry's all-in.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. That annoyed me so much, I turned it off. A wonderful display of classlessness and pettiness by Kathy Liebert.

betgo · #5 03-14-2005, 02:08 PM

I think it is reasonable to fold to a big overbet push with K7o. He would have been criticized more if he called. If those were the stacks, I would think the big stack might make a smaller open raise rather than pushing.

The raise for half his stack with 54s may have been for deception. It looks like he has a big hand and wants a call. 54s is not that bad a hand heads up, and he pretty much has to raise with it.

Huck Seed was trying a stop and go with 77. He was probably getting some pot odds and thought the raiser was likely to have two overcards. The raiser could have a smaller pair, although a larger pair was more likely. You have to look at the pot odds to see if this was a reasonable play.

TripKings · #6 03-14-2005, 02:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I agree. That annoyed me so much, I turned it off. A wonderful display of classlessness and pettiness by Kathy Liebert.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed - 100%. That really made the show come off as 2nd rate as far as what tv audiences have become accustomed too recently.

Furthermore, I found it interesting - and maybe even questionable - that ONE of the participants(Barry) apperntly wrote out the penalty structure/rules? Is he the one person that decided the *entire* tournament structure? I certainly understand getting player input on how to run things under tv constraints, etc., but I felt that what was discussed, and shown on the final cut, was odd.

BellyBuster7 · #7 03-14-2005, 02:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Is he the one person that decided the *entire* tournament structure? I certainly understand getting player input on how to run things under tv constraints, etc., but I felt that what was discussed, and shown on the final cut, was odd.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know about who wrote the rules, but I would assume they were all given the rules in advance. I did notice Barry trying to explain the rules to Kathy, so maybe he was involved in writing then, or maybe he just bothered to read them. When "time" got called on Tomko, he made his decision, then asked for clarification on the rule- with Liebert sitting right next to him. She could have learned a few things from that conversation.

Second, yeah, it was very odd to show what they showed. The TD seemed to have no control of the situation, and when they showed the producer coming out to enforce the rules on Kathy and keep the show moving, it really did make both the show, and her, look very second rate.

betgo · #8 03-14-2005, 02:38 PM

They think it makes good TV, particularly for people who don't understand much poker. That's why they show and Hellmuth acting up, as well as Arieh and Matsow being obnoxious, and various characters, like the guy who disapeared for a while and was fighting with McManus at a WSOP side event.

zaxx19 · #9 03-14-2005, 02:42 PM

What are you guys watching...?? Am I a moron for asking?

TripKings · #10 03-14-2005, 02:42 PM

While Dewey was trying to cool Kathy down he actually asked a few questions himself - regarding the time rule... Barry gave him a reponse - to which Dewey said something like, "that sounds right, you may be correct" at which point Moneymaker spoke up and said, "he should be right he's the one that wrote the rules".

Not only did Kathy come off as, well, terreble... why didn't she make her objections known at the time all the rules were discussed? They all agreed that that particular rule was covered with everyone present just the day before.