|
|
#3
09-08-2004, 10:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Gus calling Esfandiari\'s all-in 7s with 10 8
[ QUOTE ]
We have to explain to you how it was +EV? [/ QUOTE ] you sure do, especially when a guy raises pf...you reraise...and he reraises back all-in...and you call with the worse hand. 
|
|
#5
09-08-2004, 11:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Gus calling Esfandiari\'s all-in 7s with 10 8
Hi Desdia,
Okay, it was clearly a correct call. And pushing KJo vs. Phil Laak's KQs was also correct.... * T8s vs. Antonio Esfandiari's 77 -- Antonio opens. Gus raises to ~100K. Antonio has about 400K left. Antonio thinks, and quite obviously is having a tough time making a decision. Then he pushes in. Now, if he has a big pair, he doesn't need this long to decide, and he'd probably make a smaller reraise to try to get Gus to come along. If he has big overcards (like AK, AQ), against Gus Hansen, he'd be pretty sure he was in good shape, and again he'd be wanting to get Gus to come along. This looks a whole lot like a bet that doesn't want a call. So what is Antonio holding? Probably a middle or small pair. Gus has at least one overcard, and probably two, and a suited connnector. He's getting 5:4 on his call. It's clearly the correct decision. * KJo vs. Phil Laak's KQs -- Phil opens from EP and it's around to Gus in the BB. Gus probably figures he's either a 2:1 dog (vs. Ace-under), or a coin-flip dog (vs. a small pair), although he might also be slightly ahead (vs. a small suited connector). If he is a 2:1 dog, and he pushes all-in, then he needs .33 steal equity for it to be a break-even play. As it turns out, he's a 3:1 dog, but that's not much different in terms of the steal equity (.35) he needs to break even. He probably figures he has that, and makes the big all-in move. As it turns out, Phil doesn't fold -- although he seriously considers it -- and Gus has a 3-outer that hits. Keep in mind that this was a winner-take-all table, which means there's no benefit to finishing 2nd over 6th. He has to get all of the chips on the table to win, so it plays as a cash game, where even marginally +EV decisions are the correct plays. Here he made +EV decisions -- in the first case based on his read of Antonio's hand, and in the second based on his evaluation of the steal equity -- then "got lucky" when he hit the cards he needed. Sorry ... that's not "luck." It was sound poker. Cris
|
|
#7
09-09-2004, 12:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Gus calling Esfandiari\'s all-in 7s with 10 8
Didn't see this myself, just going on what I'm reading...
[ QUOTE ] * T8s vs. Antonio Esfandiari's 77 -- Antonio opens. Gus raises to ~100K. Antonio has about 400K left. Antonio thinks, and quite obviously is having a tough time making a decision. Then he pushes in. Now, if he has a big pair, he doesn't need this long to decide, and he'd probably make a smaller reraise to try to get Gus to come along. If he has big overcards (like AK, AQ), against Gus Hansen, he'd be pretty sure he was in good shape, and again he'd be wanting to get Gus to come along. This looks a whole lot like a bet that doesn't want a call. So what is Antonio holding? Probably a middle or small pair. Gus has at least one overcard, and probably two, and a suited connnector. He's getting 5:4 on his call. It's clearly the correct decision. [/ QUOTE ] Seems to me if you're going to call a huge reraise with T8s, you'd better be feel REAL damn good about your read. And if you had AK, would you really want to make it easy for Gus Hansen to come along, with all the crap he could be holding, and 100k for the taking? Did you mean 5:4 on his call? What if he's against a pair of 8s or 9s? Hey, if Gus Hansen is just that good at reading opponents hands that he truly knows what he is against there, well ok, but can you really say that "it's clearly the correct decision"?? Maybe for him it is....
|
|
#8
09-09-2004, 12:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Gus calling Esfandiari\'s all-in 7s with 10 8
Easy for you to come up with all the fancy reasoning behind Gus calling Antonio after the fact. but the first guys answer of gamboool is much more accurate. Antonio could have easily had AA or KK and acting just the same in his slow deciding of what to do just to throw Gus off. Just a loose call gambling to the max as I see it and as you seen Antonio, the professional, also seen it that way!!!
|
|
#9
09-09-2004, 12:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Gus calling Esfandiari\'s all-in 7s with 10 8
Hi Gary and West,
This probably goes to different ways of viewing televised poker. When I see someone whom I know to be a world-class player make a decision that seems bizarre, my first thought is to ask myself what I missed (or would have missed in the same situation) that he picked up on. I take it for granted that Gus Hansen, Howard Lederer, Phil Ivey, Barry Greenspan, etc. are much better players than I am. So when they do something that seems odd to me -- and especially when they make that decision with confidence and certainty -- I assume that they made what they felt was the right choice, albeit for reasons I don't (yet) understand. Then I try to deduce what those reasons might be. If I can find a logic in their actions -- after the fact -- then I'm likely to learn a little something here or there, if for no other reason than because I'm challenging my own knowledge and assumptions about the game. By contrast, if I simply assume that they made a dumb play and got lucky, then I learn nothing at all. And that would be hardly surprising. If I simply assume that they made a dumb play and got lucky, then I'm assuming I already know as much as there is to know about this game, that there's no way they might be acting on knowledge or experience that I don't yet have. I will leave it to each reader to decide which approach is most conducive to learning the game, or even if learning the game is a reasonable objective in watching TV poker. Cris
|
|
#10
09-09-2004, 12:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Gus calling Esfandiari\'s all-in 7s with 10 8
[ QUOTE ]
Hi Desdia, Okay, it was clearly a correct call. And pushing KJo vs. Phil Laak's KQs was also correct.... * T8s vs. Antonio Esfandiari's 77 -- Antonio opens. Gus raises to ~100K. Antonio has about 400K left. Antonio thinks, and quite obviously is having a tough time making a decision. Then he pushes in. Now, if he has a big pair, he doesn't need this long to decide, and he'd probably make a smaller reraise to try to get Gus to come along. If he has big overcards (like AK, AQ), against Gus Hansen, he'd be pretty sure he was in good shape, and again he'd be wanting to get Gus to come along. This looks a whole lot like a bet that doesn't want a call. So what is Antonio holding? Probably a middle or small pair. Gus has at least one overcard, and probably two, and a suited connnector. He's getting 5:4 on his call. It's clearly the correct decision. * KJo vs. Phil Laak's KQs -- Phil opens from EP and it's around to Gus in the BB. Gus probably figures he's either a 2:1 dog (vs. Ace-under), or a coin-flip dog (vs. a small pair), although he might also be slightly ahead (vs. a small suited connector). If he is a 2:1 dog, and he pushes all-in, then he needs .33 steal equity for it to be a break-even play. As it turns out, he's a 3:1 dog, but that's not much different in terms of the steal equity (.35) he needs to break even. He probably figures he has that, and makes the big all-in move. As it turns out, Phil doesn't fold -- although he seriously considers it -- and Gus has a 3-outer that hits. Keep in mind that this was a winner-take-all table, which means there's no benefit to finishing 2nd over 6th. He has to get all of the chips on the table to win, so it plays as a cash game, where even marginally +EV decisions are the correct plays. Here he made +EV decisions -- in the first case based on his read of Antonio's hand, and in the second based on his evaluation of the steal equity -- then "got lucky" when he hit the cards he needed. Sorry ... that's not "luck." It was sound poker. Cris [/ QUOTE ] Sound poker.. It is easy to go back and build a defense for Hansen after the fact but that 108 play was horrible. period. Dress it up all you want but it was a stupid and typical Hansen play. I know I know I just don't understand the genius that is Hansen. Start as a dog, sometimes a small sometimes huge but always behind and suckout on key hands, yep that is a master allright.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
