![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shipitfish) wrote2006-01-31 08:48 pm
More High Stakes Poker on TV
I watched Episode 3 of High Stakes Poker on GSN last night (I note that I am behind on these, so perhaps you all saw it already; it repeats enough that I can pick my night for viewing). As I wrote about before, this show continues to live up to its promise: "real poker", in a cash game format, on television. It's funny, actually, how the announcers have to explain how cash games work (e.g., players being able to leave any time they like). They must assume an audience familiar only with tournament poker!
On the topic of announcers, I want to take a moment to note about Gabe Kaplan. I firmly believe that he is the best poker announcer that I've ever seen on television. It's clear that before (or after?) he played Mr. Kotter, he gained some broadcasting experience. I've seen him do some older WSoP broadcasts (late 1990s), and the National Heads-Up Championship on NBC, and his skill as an announcer is far above the rest. The main reason is that he doesn't usually over-dramatize the situations (ala Mike Sexton), and he explains in reasonable details why players might make decisions that they do. It's actually considered and well-thought-out commentary on what is happening, rather than empty verbiage designed primarily to induce a false sense of excitement.
I should note, however, that even he was unable to explain on of the strangest hands I've seen yet on the show. Perhaps one of you can help me understand the thinking behind it.
The pot in question was between Daniel Negreanu and Barry Greenstein.
Dan had over $1 million and Barry had about $170,000 (remember, this
is real cash, not tournament chips!). Dan had raised from late
position with K
9 and Barry called with A J
. The flop came 3 7 2.
Dan of course checked, and Barry bet out about the size of the pot
(about $15,000). Dan check-raised for $1 million total. Now, I
think Barry has to put Dan on a small flopped flush. I agree that
with the second nuts, Dan's play is a bit unorthodox, but perhaps
Dan has read Barry for exactly the A. However, more likely, I suspect that Dan thinks Barry is
either on a total bluff (in which case he calls nothing anyway) or
has flopped a smaller flush and will probably put all the money
in.
Amazingly, Barry called this massive overbet! Why would Barry call
with A J. He has to puts Dan on something like T T
to make this call correct:
990 boards containing 7c 3c 2c cards win %win loss %lose tie %tie EV Ac Jh 519 52.42 471 47.58 0 0.00 0.524 Ts Th 471 47.58 519 52.42 0 0.00 0.476
Indeed, even if Dan has the T, Barry is no longer a favorite because of the blocker in
Dan's hand:
990 boards containing 7c 3c 2c cards win %win loss %lose tie %tie EV Ac Jh 493 49.80 497 50.20 0 0.00 0.498 Tc Th 497 50.20 493 49.80 0 0.00 0.502
I can only think this was a mistake on Barry's part. Did I miss something? Other than pure tilt/gamble, how can he make this mistake? What read can he reasonably make here that makes the call mathematically correct? Is he so sure that Dan has a pair lower than jacks and not a club in his hand? Does he just want to show Dan that he can't dominate the table anymore with his big thud of a million dollars wrapped in bands?
Anyway, the story ends with the J on the river and more money being shipped to Barry than
nearly all USAmericans make in a year.
no subject
let's see, he is calling about $155K, for a $185K pot.
a little better than 1:1.2 and he is getting the odds to call if he thinks he's got better than a 46% chance of hitting.
DN is known to make crazy plays, so he could have almost nothing, DN is just that aggressive.
If he puts DN on the flush and he needs to out draw him, then he only has 7 outs - just under a 30% dog.
puts DN on a pair ten or less, 6 (a/j) + 8 (other clubs) 14 outs, little better than 55% favorite.
If DN just has just over cards BG is a big favorite.
But an all in reraise on a flushed board sounds like a drawing hand that skimmed the board, not really hit it too hard. DN is known to open raise with all sorts of stuff, so it's be easy to put him on top pair, Kc kicker, which gives BG 13 outs for above a 50% favorite.
It's hard to put a very aggressive player on a made hand when the raised preflop and then reraised all in. All-in bets just scream steal/weakness. Maybe BG picked up a tell that reinforced him thinging DN was not strong.
Like I said, if my numbers are right (I'm not sure what BG had left after his flop bet) then he only needs a 45+% chance of winning.
no subject
I'd have to rewatch the episode to get the numbers just right. 1:1.2 is probably about correct, although it might have been a bit less. I saw it as more or less an even money proposition, because Dan's overbet left him darn close to 1:1, even if it wasn't exact. Anyway, with seven outs, he's a 1:2.6 dog and has to fold.
While Dan is capable of making that huge bluff or semi-bluff with a worse draw, I think Barry can get the right read. I mean, I had the advantage of a hole-card cam, but I think someone at Barry's level could have read him with some confidence for a made flush. Of the hand we saw, Dan had only used that giant all-in overbet on his vulnerable made hands, which in this spot screams "made small flush". I just feel that Barry must have to be pretty confident in his read for the numbers to work. I suppose it could just be called a bad read that got lucky.
no subject
Also check out a comment I posted in
no subject
no subject
no subject
Holdem Hi: 990 enumerated boards containing 7c 3c 2c
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
Ac Jh 835 84.34 155 15.66 0 0.00 0.843
Kc Qd 155 15.66 835 84.34 0 0.00 0.157
no subject
I've got a case of the "Yeah, But..."'s about this whole discussion. It just seems like while there are lots of excuses we can make for Barry's play, that it has to be a mistake, regardless. Of course, one of the problems of all televised poker (even the good stuff like this) is that we see only the exciting hands. Perhaps Dan had just check-raised bluffed on the flop with that big thud-of-a-wad six times in a row.
Of the hands we saw, Dan was very strong every time he made big check-raises. Even if this is the moment where Dan has chosen a check-raise bluff, I just feel like Barry doesn't miss much by folding. He has to be so sure on his read to take was is effectively an even money bet (because the overbet so overshadows the dead money).
The other question I'm asking myself is why I am so obsessed with this "little" hand, and why do I want so desperately to declare that Barry made a bad play. I guess I'm dying to reach the conclusion that the pros make mistakes too, and thus I can feel ok about my mistakes. That's an important part of my poker self that I want to explore in more depth this year. I have gotten well beyond the anger about bad beats, but when I make a poker mistake, I "have at" myself about screwing up after the session is over. I guess I'm looking to situations like this to show that strong players will make mistakes too, and I'm not a bad player because I make a bad read and put a lot of money in on it (I should note that I am starting to rely more on reads than math in my NL game lately). On top of that, I'm also running bad right now, so I'm looking at my game very very critically, which extends to looking at other people's games critically as well.
no subject
no subject
I never seen "math" and "reads" as contradictory forces. I use reads more than I used to, but always in relation to the odds. I try to estimate the odds that my read is correct, and then compare that to the pot odds. This works better in NL than limit, because the pot odds in limit are often tough to pass up when there is doubt in your mind due to a read. So, I tend to play reads more in NL where I'm less inclined to make a too-loose call due to a read. So, I would tend to say Barry's mistake is misreading Dan, such that Barry believed his read that Dan had a weaker draw was right 50% of the time.
no subject
crazy call..
By the way, thanks for the recommendation of the show. It is nice to see the people hang out and chat with each other while they play. In tournaments, there are too many people to be able to stick with one group for an extended period.
T
A review of GSN
I must say that I agree, especially about the audio guys; I think I'd kick three times though.
T