Ribbo and Me

[Wintermute]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the play with 2 pair is thoughtful, but I still don't like it, mostly because it is paying 2-1 to get the pot. I think the odds are going to be terrible if there is a caller, and the odds are pretty good that one person has a low draw with clubs, and table image was not working in Ribbo's favor, in that I in particular-- and probably most others-- know that he is capable of making huge moves at pots on draws. (Admittedly this move will get him paid more often when he actually HAS the nuts, so it may be +EV from that standpoint, although I would want to have a better draw than he had to make this move)

[/ QUOTE ]
I completely disagree. This looks like a near-ideal spot to take a stab at the dry-ace bluff. You fired a weak-looking bet into a raised pot; he can push all his chips in and expect you to fold *most* of the time (range of hands), unless you are allergic to money. In addition, he has very STRONG draws to both high and low. Speaking of which, why is everyone calling 2nd nut low draw a weak low draw? It's not weak at all. Only the perfect hand--flush w/ A2--has Ribbo in bad shape here, and even then he's not drawing anywhere near dead (almost 20% equity here). Now, consider how this play looks if you're holding ONLY the Q-high flush, with no low draw. Or ONLY the low draw, but with a much weaker flush. The action easily could've progressed as it did in this hand, and his bet would pick up the pot frequently. When it didn't, he'd have much greater equity than 20%, perhaps even enough to make the move +EV. Also, what happens if he does turn up the Ax suited, and the turn and river brick for you? Playing this hand in the manner he did allows him to get maximum payoff in the situation where he does hold nut flush to your second-nut.

[ QUOTE ]

This play falls into a category of play that I would call fancy, but dubious. In otherwords, the logic of the play is very advanced, but in the real world it is flawed.

Raising a flush board because you have the Ace, or raising because you have blocker cards to the hand you are afraid of usually means you are heavily discounting the information that the better in front of you is telling you, and that the fold that you are hoping for is probably NOT coming.

[/ QUOTE ]
The most significant determining characteristic for whether this dry-ace bluff is going to work is the quality of your opponent. I am not surprised that you underestimate the strength of that play given that you only play against the weakest players at $100 level (according to your blog). At the 200 level, even, against a number of opponents, it probably isn't that wise, but in this case Ribbo had STRONG BACKUP.

[ QUOTE ]

Other than bad beats, this is probably the number 1 way for good players lose money.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, overestimating the quality of your opponent (so that you can attempt bluffs) is a costly mistake. I don't think it's number 1, however; I think number 1 way good players lose money is playing better players for higher stakes.

[Mendacious]

[ QUOTE ]
So is calling out a 2'er for 'sucking out' on you without attemping any strategic content.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really did not see this as calling Ribbo out at all. The fact that he was way behind in both of these hands does not make his play bad per-se, just wrong under the circumstances. I did not berate him in any way, I even said "cheers".

The two pair hand two me is very interesting because of Ribbo's huge raise. This is certainly not a "low content" hand in the slightest, and posting it is not calling anyone out.

The flush draw out hand is another interesting situation. I think most players would have played that hand as Ribbo did, but again, he was a huge dog. Less content to this one, I agree.

Both hands have gotten divurgent commentary. Is it really necessary for me to pre-digest the hands for you to consider it "content"?

[Mendacious]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, what happens if he does turn up the Ax suited, and the turn and river brick for you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying you would have folded my hand to Ribbo's raise? If not, then all of the crap about quality of opponent is just a pointless dig. Moreover, the quality of opponent analysis is severely limited when you are up against 4 people. Nor can you really discount Ribbo's table image in your analysis of what he should expect from his opponents.

So, I don't think 4 people fold their hands often enough to make this the right play when you paying twice the pot to steal it. I don't give that play much fold equity relative to the bet size under the circumstances. But obviously this is a totally subjective thing.

As for the quality of the draws, you are right, he does have draws both ways, and his bet does maximize his prospects for getting his money back. However, I think if he gets a caller, a nut low draw with clubs is the most likely bet to stand up to that sized raise. In this case it was a nut low with counterfit protection and the 2nd nut flush.

[ QUOTE ]
Playing this hand in the manner he did allows him to get maximum payoff in the situation where he does hold nut flush to your second-nut.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is merit to this, but without the nut low draw and counterfit protection I fold this hand to his raise easily.
His raise just felt wrong for the situation if he held the nut flush.

Out of curiousity, how would you have expected Ribbo to play the nut flush in this situation? How about the nut flush with a "Strong" low draw? I'm on the fence on this point with evidence in both directions.

[FeliciaLee]

I think these little rivalries are funny. So juvenile, yet so hilarious at the same time.

Usually it's me that everyone loves to hate, so it's interesting to see the flaming focused on someone else for a change.