This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
youtu.be
From his point of view, he had an open ended straight flush draw, which is a fantastic hand to semi bluff on as it gives you two ways to win. One, your initial bet forces a weak hand to fold (which is what was should have happened here) or two, one of your many outs hits on if you get called by a decent hand.I've only played poker with friends and usually suck pretty bad. Explain to me like I'm a challenged poker player why her calling the all in was so "wrong" but him going all in when he didn't have crap to begin with was the "right" call? Maybe understanding this will make me not such a crappy poker player.
Garrett had an open ended straight flush draw. He could have won the hand with any club, jack, or six. That's 15 outs (he wouldn't know that Robi had one of those). As it turned out, he could also have won with any seven or eight . . . meaning he had 21 total outs.I've only played poker with friends and usually suck pretty bad. Explain to me like I'm a challenged poker player why her calling the all in was so "wrong" but him going all in when he didn't have crap to begin with was the "right" call? Maybe understanding this will make me not such a crappy poker player.
That's what I think happened. She was an amateur player on a big live stream and screwed up. Either by misreading her hand or just making a huge mistake. Had a brain freeze.
It's difficult to claim she misread her hand for a variety of reasons that have already been covered. And we need to stop with the idea that she was in over her head so she called an all-in with jack high. People who get in "over their head' play the exact opposite way. And nobody calls there with jack high. Not your dumb uncle, the local card player who plays any two cards, not the drunkard... nobody. So while we can't prove she cheated, unless she has some crazy Mike Postle (another player who we couldn't prove cheated... but did) god-like ability to read hands, something was up. And we haven't even gotten into the crazy similarities between her style of writing and that of the thief who stole her chips. Seems likely she wrote tweets for him in the aftermath. Lot's of funny business in play.
My take is that the guy who was complaining was the main draw for the stream and could have gotten her blackballed. In the moment she probably felt like an idiot and made a rash decision to give him the money.
They had thousands of hands of Mike Postle and statistically what he did was like hitting the Powerball. Probability showed he cheated in some way. They didn't have the gun he used to do it but the numbers showed he was doing something.
I would too. But Rip Chavez decided to get the girl he was having an affair with into his high stakes game, front her the money, and then...???
While I largely agree with this and lean towards her cheating for the reasons already mentioned in this thread, as it so happens I did see a crazy call in the wild at a low stakes casino game recently. A late middle-aged woman hero called a big bet on the river with an unimproved Q8 that beat almost nothing, but did in fact beat the busted straight straight draw the guy had. She was a strange player in that she had a mix of decent and bizarre plays. It wasn't on the level of call being talked about here, but I can't imagine her beating more than 20% of his range so it was still crazy to witness.
I don't know the specific hand you're talking about, but I'm guessing it didn't involve a large all-in that closed the action. That makes a world of difference.
video deleted
Have the findings been recently released?
I don’t understand that either.
A lot of times when there is an all in call they will ask how many times the players want to "run it". This time they ran it twice. Meaning if one person won with one card and the other won with the other they would split the pot. If the "run it" three times and one person won twice and the other once they would split the pot 66-33.
Okay, just didn't know if there was anything new given the timing of Alex's post.
This is pretty normal in high-level big cash games. It generally helps to reduce the variance.
I saw a hand this morning where one non-pro player had pocket kings and Phil Helmuth had pocket fours. The flop had three low cards (including a four). The guy with kings went all in and was insta-called by Hellmuth. Hellmuth asked the guy how many times he wanted to run it, and the guy wasn't aware they could run the outcome more than once. Phil explained the process and encouraged him to run it four times. The guy lost on the first play out . . . but then caught runner-runner for a flush on the next, a king on the third one, and the case king on the final run. There were a bunch of notable pros at the table, and they died laughing that if Phil had kept quiet, he would have won the pot and knocked the guy out. Instead, he lost 75% of the pot.
Huh. Is it crazy to say that I actually feel bad for Phil Hellmuth in a scenario? Seems like he was a good sport here.
Phil had A9 and hit 2 9's.
There is a difference when you are being the aggressor with a bad hand by raising and forcing the other person to make a decision versus being the person with a bad hand and calling a big bet when you essentially have no way to win. Even when she said she put him on Ace high that would have beat her so why make that call. If you really think that is what he had then calling means you lose. She either got extremely lucky or had a dead on accurate read of the guy, or was cheating. It was a bad call that worked out.
I reported that user as a potential bot about a week ago, but it appears as if still around.
Yeah, my eyes aren't what they used to be. Thought the 9's were 4's. Forgot that he had to A-9 to start, but I remembered he had trips. The video randomly came up when I had YouTube on.
Wow, that was highly entertaining.
I’m not a high stakes player, and I’ve only really watched a lot of the WSOP events.
I am not a fan of it either. Kind of diminishes the stakes a bit to me. Minimizes the "All In" risk to some degree.
It definitely hurts the viewing experience but if I have meaningful money into a pot, and this is my profession, I absolutely would want to minimize my risk via variance so I totally get it from the players' perspective.
I assume it won't be done in tourney style. It's mostly a cash game addition. Playing for cash I can understand the idea of minimizing variance but it cuts both ways. It definitely is fair because I am not really sure who it benefits more. I guess theoretically it just cuts right on the mathematical percentage line so both probably benefit in the long run over times so they each get their "share" of the mathmatical split.
Love to see it.
Yeah even just as a regular Joe who plays sporadically I've had a couple of memorable cash game hands where I was in a multiple buy-in sized pot as a big favorite and lost. If I had the opportunity to run in twice, at least most likely worst case I split the pot and it would be probably better for my sanity.
Because these guys are looking to regularly make small winnings over a long time. They don't want like 3 months of good play/work to go down in flames on one unlucky hand.
Because you don't have to. It's not uncommon in cash games to not turn over until after the river.
Then they shouldn’t go all-in, nor should they call all-in.
I see what you're saying and it will affect decisions on the margins, but I think for the occasional huge pot it's nice to have the option. I wouldn't want to see it happening with every pot or even every fourth pot.
