First Post

[DaveWilliams]

Hey, whats up guys. This is my first post here. I have been lurching around here for some time. As most of you might be aware, that of late, I have been playing mostly Live events. Things have been going very well. However in the next few months I'm going to concentrate and spend lots of time playing online big buy-in events at stars. Also thinking about playing some at party poker. I heard from a few freinds that the Daily Supers and weekend tourneys are worth looking into. So with that being said, I just wanted to make a few freinds here, and maybe add some things to these forums, and at the same time learn from many of you. So, don't be surprised if you see me around quite a bit. Thanks, and good luck to all.

[Shilly]

Congratulations on your success so far and welcome to the forum.

[DaveWilliams]

Thanks for the welcome. YES I'm THE Dave WIlliams. He is I. Im sorry, I could not respond sooner, but I got busy last night with some school work. I'm taking 3 course (tues/thurs). My goal is to make those my study days, and that should leave the rest of the week open to poker, mostly online tourneys as I said before.

I want to make clear that the reason I have come to these forums is to improve my online MTT game. I'm not much interested to discuss personal issues about my past, or about other poker players. Feel free to fire away about certain hands that you have seen on TV or have heard about. Hence, this is why im posting here and not on the WPT forum.

My stars handle is RugDoctor. I'm still in the process of opening my PP account. I will let you know my handle when I do. THanks for the welcome and support. Later -DWilli

[durron597]

Okie doke.

Can you explain your thought process behind the 55 vs. AK hand with Josh Arieh when you checked in the dark?

[DaveWilliams]

[ QUOTE ]
Okie doke.

Can you explain your thought process behind the 55 vs. AK hand with Josh Arieh when you checked in the dark?

[/ QUOTE ]

I figured this hand would come up. The check in the dark is basically a move that helps you pick up "tells" on your opponent, without comprimising position. Mainly I want to see how he comes out, is he betting, is he checking, does he look weak, strong, etc.. So by me auto-checking, im now putting the ball in my opponents court without him having any clue as to what I could be holding. I figured if I don't flop a set, im not really sure where I stand. So basically, I was going to defer my move, and then counter any move made by Josh. A check in the dark works the best with medium to low pairs and suited connectors. In this situation the check in the dark did work out wonderfully. It's not a play that I highly suggest, its just something that I did because I think I did get caught up in the moment. It was by no means me trying to show off or be cocky.

[deuces09]

[ QUOTE ]
Mainly I want to see how he comes out, is he betting, is he checking, does he look weak, strong, etc.. So by me auto-checking, im now putting the ball in my opponents court without him having any clue as to what I could be holding.

[/ QUOTE ]

This certainly has been a highly debated hand, but the fact of the matter is that a lot of people didn't like your play. Obviously kudos for playing so well in that event (and finishing 2nd in that WPT event), but the 55 hand and the A4 hand has lead TV viewers to see you as a lesser player than you really are, sadly (since a large majority of your other hands on ESPN were all-in hands).

My argument is that a dark check could work much more efficiently against a more tighter player, because I have to believe Arieh would have fired on the flop representing any hand. So if you miss, you're potentially looking at overcards, Arieh making another large sized bet that will obviously pot commit you, and you looking at a multitude of different hands Arieh could have that have you beat. But I digress...

What I am more interested in is the A4 play, final hand. You guys had humongous stacks relative to the blinds, and I was surprised to see you calling down each of Raymer's bets. You said you thought he had overcards, I believe. Surely there must have been some point where you thought "This isn't the best time"? Given Raymer's aggression, you had to have had a helluva read that he had high cards, because just about every other possible hand to put him on has you beat.

[remen]

Out of curiousity, what would you have done if the board came three high cards, lets say 8 J Q, and he put you all in? Also, what hand did you put him on at the time if you don't mind me asking?

[Philuva]

I don't think against an aggressive player this is the best play. HE will be betting most flops with a 99% chance of overcards, so unless you hit a set you are facing a very difficult decision rather than forcing josh to a difficult decision, with 1/3 of your stack already involved, this seems less than ideal.

I don't mean to be a jerk, but it is OK to say you misplayed a hand rather than trying to rationalize it after the fact. Again, a lot of people do this, so I am not trying to call you out or anything.

-Phil

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Okie doke.

Can you explain your thought process behind the 55 vs. AK hand with Josh Arieh when you checked in the dark?

[/ QUOTE ]

I figured this hand would come up. The check in the dark is basically a move that helps you pick up "tells" on your opponent, without comprimising position. Mainly I want to see how he comes out, is he betting, is he checking, does he look weak, strong, etc.. So by me auto-checking, im now putting the ball in my opponents court without him having any clue as to what I could be holding. I figured if I don't flop a set, im not really sure where I stand. So basically, I was going to defer my move, and then counter any move made by Josh. A check in the dark works the best with medium to low pairs and suited connectors. In this situation the check in the dark did work out wonderfully. It's not a play that I highly suggest, its just something that I did because I think I did get caught up in the moment. It was by no means me trying to show off or be cocky.

[/ QUOTE ]

this analysis is very incomplete without knowing stack sizes...that makes a huuuuuuge difference in whether or not the dark check was a good play or not. I suspect that you had too high a percentage of your chips in the pot preflop for the dark check to give you enough implied odds to hit a perfect flop (which you did...A5x, Josh holding AK).
The fact that he put you all in on the flop leads me to believe that the pot represented somewhere in the neighborhood of at least a quarter of your stack, if not more (since Josh probably doesn't overbet the pot the pot there with TPTK).
By checking in the dark, you gave up your only other way to win the hand...by firing on a flop that had only 1 or 2 non-face card overcards (assuming you put him on unpaired Face-face or Ace face).

As far as the A4 final hand....if you put him on unpaired overcards, you really should have put a raise in there on the flop or at a minimum, on the turn....your hand is much, much too vulnerable to allow him to keep peeling off cards.

Again, without a good idea of stack sizes, all this analysis is pretty useless.

Again, welcome...


-SossMan

[sketchy1]

dave, i don't think anyone is questioning the check in the dark. i like the move given the situation. i don't generally check dark, just because it takes my option of betting first at the pot. also, if this flop came favorable but not great for you, say... 3 rags, you would probably want to fire out here. if you feel you had the best hand on a favorable flop, i don't think with 3 rags up josh is going to fire into a pot when you're 1/3 of the way in with just AK.

the real question is why you called the hand to begin with. i am not a seasoned pro nor do i even claim to be as good as you (hell, i have no idea how good you are, because i have yet to play with you, i've only seen a few dozen hands on tv), but i don't like calling 1/3 of my chips with a hand that is at best a cointoss favorite. you know that josh is a very aggressive player, but he could easily be firing back with any pair, or any big ace. so, i would have had no problem getting away from 5's when he reraised. i would either want to pick up the blinds, or get a call and flop a set and hope to double up.

when you called 1/3 of your chips off, let's say you don't flop a 5. the flop is the same, and josh has top pair top kicker, and all you have is 3rd pair to the board. now what do you do? you've committed 500k of your 1.5m, and you're now looking at an ace high flop with pocket 5's. if he bets all-in, you're getting 3-1 to call with your 5's i believe, if my rough math in my mind is right. obviously you could fold them on that flop, but why would you have called off that many chips instead of either just moving them all-in or folding? all-in or fold to me is the only way to play this pot.

maybe i am off base and you can explain it to me better, but that's my thoughts.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Okie doke.

Can you explain your thought process behind the 55 vs. AK hand with Josh Arieh when you checked in the dark?

[/ QUOTE ]

I figured this hand would come up. The check in the dark is basically a move that helps you pick up "tells" on your opponent, without comprimising position. Mainly I want to see how he comes out, is he betting, is he checking, does he look weak, strong, etc.. So by me auto-checking, im now putting the ball in my opponents court without him having any clue as to what I could be holding. I figured if I don't flop a set, im not really sure where I stand. So basically, I was going to defer my move, and then counter any move made by Josh. A check in the dark works the best with medium to low pairs and suited connectors. In this situation the check in the dark did work out wonderfully. It's not a play that I highly suggest, its just something that I did because I think I did get caught up in the moment. It was by no means me trying to show off or be cocky.

[/ QUOTE ]