More High Stakes Poker on TV

[shipitfish]

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.

Comments

[patty-bush.livejournal.com]

I didn't see the episode, no GSN damn, so I'm estimating numbers....
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.

[patty-bush.livejournal.com]

huh... it's not letting me reply to my own comment, well I wanted to add that BG's book Ace on the River is a good read. A bit rough, but Barry is a poker player, not a pro writer. I just finished reading it and it gave a really good insiders look at being a pro poker player.

Also check out a comment I posted in poker_stories that has some insites into BG's opinions on the "big game"

[swolfe.livejournal.com]

i think daniel open raised from the SB, so barry is probably not putting him on much of a hand. daniel's check-raise push looks like a draw...something like KcQd. i think he believes that he could be ahead of what daniel is pushing there, and if not he's only slightly behind with two overs and the nut flush draw.

crazy call..

[tmckearney.livejournal.com]

I can't help but thing that it must have been a bad read. The only other explanation was the implied tilt odds of delivering that bad of a beat, but I don't think that's the case when playing against a player of DN's caliber. I don't think I've seen him steam at all on TV.

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

[tmckearney.livejournal.com]

Wil Wheaton (http://www.wilwheaton.net) (yes, _that_ Wil Wheaton (http://imdb.com/name/nm0000696/)) reviews High Stakes Poker over on CardSquad.com (http://www.cardsquad.com/2006/01/31/my-review-of-high-stakes-poker-on-gsn/)

I must say that I agree, especially about the audio guys; I think I'd kick three times though.

T