Could do better
With tributes from fellow bloggers already pouring in, and more no doubt to come, I'm confident that the majority of the Western world knows of Iakaris's brilliant run through to fourth place in the FTOPS event last night. Fuel55 has given a great final table summary, and no doubt the man himself will tell us more when time permits. So, I'm going to pick nits.
"How dare you sully this great achievement with your carping cavils!" I can hear the cry already. "What right do you, who has never placed so highly in such an event, have to draw breath and utter criticism?". Hey, let's call a spade a spade, I've never even entered an event of this level. But then, I've spent the last two decades criticising the work of people who, within a year or so of graduation, will, by the standard of annual income if nothing else, be my superiors, so I'm hardly likely to let that stop me am I? Besides, the unexamined life is not worth living, right? "Aha", you say "Socrates was talking about self-examination." Well, who's picking nits now?
Ok, with that ponderous introduction out of the way, let me describe the hand of which I speak. The money bubble had already burst, but the final table was a long way away. The blinds were at 2000/4000 and our hero was in the small blind with AA. UTG, who had been crippled a few hands earlier, went all in for 2700, and all folded to our hero. His stack covered the BB slightly, and was (details a bit fuzzy here), about 30K at this point. Our hero made a pot sized bet (14.7K), the BB folded, and the AA held up against the random Qx held by UTG.
So, my issue is that, once our hero calls, all extra money is going into a 2 way side pot (which starts at 2600), and not a 3 way pot. The usual worries about getting heads up with aces don't apply to any great extent, as any money in the side pot is heads up, and the goal of the game should be to get BB to put as much extra money into the pot as possible. The pot sized bet for almost half our hero's stack, particularly given his tight image at the table, shows a willingness to take this hand to the felt, and will fold all but the most premium of hands from the BB. I think that a smaller bet is called for, and for me the choice is close between a straight call and a min raise.
The straight call is risky in that the BB might check and get three immediate free cards. Not so good. Taking AA into a pot against two random hands as opposed to one sacrifices about 12% equity -- the main pot is 8100 here, so let's say that a straight call represents a "charge" of 1K to attempt to reap greater rewards. On the other hand, the BB might take a straight call as a show of, at best, moderate strength, and realise that if he can push our hero out of the hand, then BB gets to play the pot against UTG for free (winning the 2600 side pot, and then playing the main pot of 8100 of which he has contributed 1/3). So, a call might induce a bet, in which case our hero would be delighted to raise.
The min raise might look like a donkey-steal, and get called or raised. Or BB might, correctly, fold. If BB could see our cards, no call is correct, regardless of his cards, except with AA (d'uh), the odds simply aren't good enough.
Finally, let's reconsider the pot sized bet. I think there's a place for it too -- if our hero had been showing lots of preflop aggression (whether because of a run of cards, or simply because of aggression) then a pot sized bet might be just the thing to induce a "no more pushing me around" call. However, I don't think that this particular dynamic applied.
Aside from all the witty repartee in the chat box, another aspect of the game last night that I found amusing was Eric Molinas (edawg....), our hero's ATM, constantly reminding the table how near the money bubble they were. Think that was an attempt to make people tighten up, so that some blinds could be stolen? Cynic!
"How dare you sully this great achievement with your carping cavils!" I can hear the cry already. "What right do you, who has never placed so highly in such an event, have to draw breath and utter criticism?". Hey, let's call a spade a spade, I've never even entered an event of this level. But then, I've spent the last two decades criticising the work of people who, within a year or so of graduation, will, by the standard of annual income if nothing else, be my superiors, so I'm hardly likely to let that stop me am I? Besides, the unexamined life is not worth living, right? "Aha", you say "Socrates was talking about self-examination." Well, who's picking nits now?
Ok, with that ponderous introduction out of the way, let me describe the hand of which I speak. The money bubble had already burst, but the final table was a long way away. The blinds were at 2000/4000 and our hero was in the small blind with AA. UTG, who had been crippled a few hands earlier, went all in for 2700, and all folded to our hero. His stack covered the BB slightly, and was (details a bit fuzzy here), about 30K at this point. Our hero made a pot sized bet (14.7K), the BB folded, and the AA held up against the random Qx held by UTG.
So, my issue is that, once our hero calls, all extra money is going into a 2 way side pot (which starts at 2600), and not a 3 way pot. The usual worries about getting heads up with aces don't apply to any great extent, as any money in the side pot is heads up, and the goal of the game should be to get BB to put as much extra money into the pot as possible. The pot sized bet for almost half our hero's stack, particularly given his tight image at the table, shows a willingness to take this hand to the felt, and will fold all but the most premium of hands from the BB. I think that a smaller bet is called for, and for me the choice is close between a straight call and a min raise.
The straight call is risky in that the BB might check and get three immediate free cards. Not so good. Taking AA into a pot against two random hands as opposed to one sacrifices about 12% equity -- the main pot is 8100 here, so let's say that a straight call represents a "charge" of 1K to attempt to reap greater rewards. On the other hand, the BB might take a straight call as a show of, at best, moderate strength, and realise that if he can push our hero out of the hand, then BB gets to play the pot against UTG for free (winning the 2600 side pot, and then playing the main pot of 8100 of which he has contributed 1/3). So, a call might induce a bet, in which case our hero would be delighted to raise.
The min raise might look like a donkey-steal, and get called or raised. Or BB might, correctly, fold. If BB could see our cards, no call is correct, regardless of his cards, except with AA (d'uh), the odds simply aren't good enough.
Finally, let's reconsider the pot sized bet. I think there's a place for it too -- if our hero had been showing lots of preflop aggression (whether because of a run of cards, or simply because of aggression) then a pot sized bet might be just the thing to induce a "no more pushing me around" call. However, I don't think that this particular dynamic applied.
Aside from all the witty repartee in the chat box, another aspect of the game last night that I found amusing was Eric Molinas (edawg....), our hero's ATM, constantly reminding the table how near the money bubble they were. Think that was an attempt to make people tighten up, so that some blinds could be stolen? Cynic!
Labels: hand analysis, tribute
posted by Michael Albert at 7:09 am
2 Comments:
That is truly elegant thinking. I am laughing as I note it was a subtlety lost on me in the heat of combat, but one I like on further review.
The greatest strength of this collective its unselfish transfer of situational expertise.
In other words, "Thanks Michael."
But wasn't it Emerson, not Socrates, who said that?
As long as we're picking nits, and all.
Nice blog, I've never been here before. Good to meetcha, virtually.
Post a Comment
<< Home