Greg Raymer hand last night on P-stars..what do you think?

[KKsuited]

A table and about 20 railbirds had a discussion with Greg about how he
played a hand in the $100 rebuy tourney on P-stars. Here it is:

About 37 people left (18 get paid), Greg has about $25k (about average
stack) either one or 2 off the button. Greg raises to 2k, button calls
(has about 30k), small blind pushes in for a total of $5k. Greg
reraises all-in for a total of 25k. Button goes in the tank, then
folds.

Raymer shows KQs vs K7s. The guy hits his 7 and wins the pot. Now the
big blind is pissed b/c she had 99. She says she would have won and
eliminated the other player.

Raymer says he knew the girl would fold unless she was trapping with her
first call. About 10 railbirds start questioning Greg's move.

I understand wanting to isolate the player and hoping for 2 overs, but
what was confusing was someone asked why he would do that with a weak
hand. Greg said it would be even more correct to do with 2,3s.

Why is that? I understand the KQ, but not 2,3. I guess it has to do
with not potentially being dominated by AK and also having a better str8
draw. To high a chance the KQ str8 would be beat by a bigger str8?

Any thoughts on either situation? This type of play is discussed in SS,
but I'm not sure I understand.

[fnurt]

That's hilarious, Greg isolates an utterly dominated hand, with a nice overlay of bonus money from the button to boot, and he gets bitched at because he played the hand with his own best interests in mind, instead of someone else's?

This play is actually pretty standard. As for doing it with 23s, the concept is that if you have odds to call the all-in, you'd rather be heads up than let another live player, with a better hand than yours to boot, join the party.

[KKsuited]

I understand getting the other person out, but I don't get the having a 2,3 would be better than KQ. I guess he was getting about 4-1 and he was saying 2,3 had a better chance of being 4-1 or less? If your KQ was dominated by AK, you'd be worse than 4-1? That's what I think he meant, but not sure. Maybe he'll come on here and help us out.

[La Brujita]

I agree with fnurt that this is pretty darn funny. Perhaps Greg should have just checked it down to the river to make sure he eliminated the other opponent. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Basically to answer in other words, it wouldn't necessarily be better to do this with 2-3 if you didn't know the other big stack was going to fold. It would depend on folding equity (given that you have odds to make the call in the first place). The reason he said it was better was the likelihood of button folding.

The other reason it is potentially better is (depending on stack sizes) the better your hand the less you want your opponent to fold-especially if opponent plays pretty straightforward. That is basically because you may well be in a situation where the call is unprofitable for them so you don't want a fold.

In other words you would be less likely to move in with AA than kqs.

[betgo]

If the initial caller with 99 had a big hand, she probably would have initially raised, so I think it is a good move. I love these people criticizing the play of a world champion.

The small stack push with K7 seems questionable. I think he could wait for a better opportunity. He is almost certain to be called. Of course, if he knew Raymer would push, then he is getting decent pot odds, so it might be a cleaver play.

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]
To high a chance the KQ str8 would be beat by a bigger str8?

[/ QUOTE ]

Please give an example of this.

[fnord_too]

This is a very good play. For a discussion of a rather similar play, see this davidross thread.

Raymer isn't getting quite the odds on his hand that david got (assuming the button folds, which is a safe assumption,) but still hes getting over 3:1 on the money he is actually risking. If he had a 23 suited or un instead, it is a lot closer in my book. 23o is about a 11:2 dog against an over pair and about 2:1 dog against overcards. (23s is about a 4:1 dog against an overpair). I'm not sure that is +EV on the 3k you are really putting at risk if you are certain the button folds every time. (I'd say a random button folds here ~80% of the time, because some people will just go ahead and call anyway. Against a specific opponent, I'd buy the 100% estimation. Also, I don't play in the stars $100 rebuy, so the number for a random button in that tourney may well indeed be closer to 100%.)

[KKsuited]

I was just throwing the bigger str8 idea out there. Have no idea if that's what Greg meant. What I meant was, with KQ, you could be dominated by AK, with your King being no good and a potentially higher str8. With 2,3, everything is probably live, both pairs and both st8's.

That's just what I was asking if he meant. Doesn't sound to good to me, but I was just putting that out there.

[Greg (FossilMan)]

I'm going to change the numbers a little bit, because it was even worse for the all-in, who made a TRULY horrible play. I think the blinds were 400-800 with a 50 ante, 9 or 8-handed. I raise to 2400, button calls, SB now goes all-in for less than 5000, barely a legal raise at all. I think everyone can see how horrible this play is, going all-in with K7 when you are 99.99% guaranteed to get called by at least one, and often two players, both of whom are pretty likely to be ahead of you, and to even have you dominated.

At this point, I know I'm not folding. If this had been a live event, and I had a sense that the button was trapping with a premium hand, then I might have folded. Here, with no such read, I'm not folding. And, since I would be out of position vs. the button on the next three rounds, and never be sure what I needed to hit to beat their hand (which was likely better than mine hot-and-cold), I decided to raise all-in and hope the button folded. I don't dislike the way the button played at all, I think both decisions were fine. While the first call is debatable, it is NOT clearly wrong, especially with position on me and at least 90% of the money left to bet. If I had held a total bluff hand, like 23o, then raising here is even better than with the KQs I did hold, because it's even more important to not leave any chips in play postflop, out of position, against a clearly better hand. Plus, even if I give the SB credit for a real hand (which I mistakenly did at the time), I was getting about 5:1 to play the SB heads-up, clearly a bargain with any two cards. Heck, even if they exposed their overpair, 5:1 odds means I'm not making that big of a mistake anyway.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[TheGrifter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To high a chance the KQ str8 would be beat by a bigger str8?

[/ QUOTE ]

Please give an example of this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Board is Q J T 9 x

KQ loses to AK.