dude loses over 300k on a poker hand..pretty sick (this for poker fans)

[crazy ebw]

Ivey DOES NOT PLAY. Word is dude won 2-4 million of bracelet bets alone so far at the WSOP. Makes no sense...

 

[trueblue magic]

I've heard the same Cristal story each of the last 3 years, all with different people involved. Last year Antonio Esfandiari blogged about the same thinghappening with him and Kobe Bryant. I highly doubt the story's legitimacy.

http://alwaysbluff.com/poker/poker-...ynn-and-too-many-bottles-of-cristal-to-count/

 

[sportinjordans916]

Originally Posted by Crazy EBW

Ivey DOES NOT PLAY. Word is dude won 2-4 million of bracelet bets alone so far at the WSOP. Makes no sense...

Not to mention the millions he's raking in from FTP... I met Ivey once not really much of a personality...

Tuan Le was telling myself and a group of others how they were at the 40/40 club with JayZ and JayZ started trash talkin' to phil and phil replied "weall know you got money Jay but where is it" challenging Jay to bring some real $ to the craps table -- thought it was pretty funny.

EBW I see you posting a lot of poker related forums -- what sites do you play and whats your online handle?

 

[kc24688]

I am definitely not as good as some of you, but unless the blinds dictated otherwise in relation to my chip stack in an extreme situation why fold kj suitedutg without hesitation? I cannot agree until I get a better explanation, though I agree I think a raise is a horrible move that is where I see you falling intoa trap. Overall though you cannot simplify it as much as the first guy who said raise it's more situational than just answering the question like othersnoted.

 

[sportinjordans916]

Originally Posted by kc24688

I am definitely not as good as some of you, but unless the blinds dictated otherwise in relation to my chip stack in an extreme situation why fold kj suited urg without hesitation? I cannot agree until I get a better explanation, though I agree I think a raise is a horrible move that is where I see you falling into a trap. Overall though you cannot simplify it as much as the first guy who said raise it's more situational than just answering the question like others noted.

It has Reverse Implied odds... most of the time when you raise KJ UTG hands like K7, K8, K9 are NOT calling that you will profit from; howeverhands that WILL call include AJ, AK, KQ and you will most likely have a lot of trouble folding after you flop a J 7 2 board or K 9 5... most action you willget is from someone who flopped a set or called with superior kicker... Also you are faced with the trouble of getting reraised by a hand like AK or QQ andyour playing a big pot out of position and have to fold most of the time losing money anyways...

 

[sneakerfan93]

That was a lot of fast money

 

[crazy ebw]

Originally Posted by sportinjordans916

Originally Posted by Crazy EBW

Ivey DOES NOT PLAY. Word is dude won 2-4 million of bracelet bets alone so far at the WSOP. Makes no sense...

Not to mention the millions he's raking in from FTP... I met Ivey once not really much of a personality...

Tuan Le was telling myself and a group of others how they were at the 40/40 club with JayZ and JayZ started trash talkin' to phil and phil replied "we all know you got money Jay but where is it" challenging Jay to bring some real $ to the craps table -- thought it was pretty funny.

EBW I see you posting a lot of poker related forums -- what sites do you play and whats your online handle?

I play on Stars under Prophecyc2. I had to hang it up from Full Tilt.

I haven't been playing a lot lately but have been trying to find time to getback into it.

 

[virgilmalloy]

Originally Posted by sportinjordans916

kc24688 wrote:

---

I am definitely not as good as some of you, but unless the blinds dictated otherwise in relation to my chip stack in an extreme situation why fold kj suited
urg without hesitation? I cannot agree until I get a better explanation, though I agree I think a raise is a horrible move that is where I see you falling
into a trap. Overall though you cannot simplify it as much as the first guy who said raise it's more situational than just answering the question like
others noted.

It has Reverse Implied odds... most of the time when you raise KJ UTG hands like K7, K8, K9 are NOT calling that you will profit from; however
hands that WILL call include AJ, AK, KQ and you will most likely have a lot of trouble folding after you flop a J 7 2 board or K 9 5... most action you will
get is from someone who flopped a set or called with superior kicker... Also you are faced with the trouble of getting reraised by a hand like AK or QQ and
your playing a big pot out of position and have to fold most of the time losing money anyways...








This is generally right, and I would even go so far as to argue that KJo is literally among the worst hands you could choose to vpip from utg, and flatting isliterally the worst way you could do it.

If you're trying to widen your range from UTG (which is ******ed) to maximize overall value from your range, then KJo isn't the hand you are going totry to do it with.

Again, like everything in poker, it's contextual. If you're UTG 6 handed with 7bbs not close to the bubble, KJo is a snap shove.

There are more interesting situations we could talk about, but this isn't really one of them.

Also, unless there are really weird dynamics, I open limp basically never.

Once you start to get good at poker, the actual value of your hands becomes less and less relevant. In the some of the WSOP events that I played recently,there were some dynamics which caused me to open fold AQo and AJs from early position, and others which caused me to 3bet 75o A2s, 4bet shove Q8s all inpreflop.

 

[crazy ebw]

People always overplay (in general) AQ and AJ. I mean yeah they're very strong aces but out of position it's just funky to play. Poker is totally asituation game. There's no exact science that can be used in every situation. Math is the best thing you can rely on if you're unsure and that'swhy math based players are usually some of the more methodical and balanced players. I don't let math rely on my situations too much, but knowing my outsand knowing/deciding if I will be dominated is always something to consider.

 

[mateen cleaves]

Originally Posted by davidisgodly

omg your late.

 

[tree4twenty]

Originally Posted by smoothrick007

Originally Posted by davidisgodly

JK Suited under the gun, what is your move for 1/2?

raise

LOL

That's as far as I got in the thread.....

Uber-fold. Just because it is 2 face cards doesn't make it good. Especially UTG....

 

[virgilmalloy]

Originally Posted by Crazy EBW

People always overplay (in general) AQ and AJ. I mean yeah they're very strong aces but out of position it's just funky to play. Poker is totally a
situation game. There's no exact science that can be used in every situation. Math is the best thing you can rely on if you're unsure and that's
why math based players are usually some of the more methodical and balanced players. I don't let math rely on my situations too much, but knowing my outs
and knowing/deciding if I will be dominated is always something to consider.

Not to sound condescending, but there's this pretty hilarious notion that gets perpetuated on TV that 'math' in poker is about calculating odds andouts and stuff, and that 'math' players are really ABC, conservative fundamental types. I don't mean to pick on you since you seem to understandwhat's going on a little bit, but this is something that I always think is amusing.

'Math' in poker is about 900x more complex than just about anyone realizes. It's about finding optimal mixed game theoretic approaches, calculatingequity vs. wide ranges, finding optimally exploitative counter strategies, etc.

When I try to explain a heavily mathematical approach to the game, people always go, "oh yeah so you totally know all the percentages and stuffright?"

Also, 'math' players are the ones that are usually preceived as 'idiots' or 'maniacs' in a live game, because basically nobody realizeshow wide you should be playing in most situations - even taking -EV spots to maximize your overall EV.

The guys who read all the Doyle Brunson and Phil Helmuth books and watch poker on TV usually think 'math' players are all ******ed. They're theones going "OH MY GOD HOW CAN YOU SHOVE WITH 92 THERE YOU ARE SUCH A DONKEY" etc.

For ABC players that play super TAG, AQ and AJ are bad hands because their range is so tight that those hands come up at the bottom of the range. On the otherhand, when I play like a maniac from late position and squeeze people with AQ, I'm getting people to stack off so light with like KQ and AJ when they'dturbo-muck those against anyone else. Since those hands are at the upper end of my range, then they become really effective weapons.

 

[the north west]

not saying that I don't agree with you, but how come you got heavy math players like jesus, bill chen, but their game is far from maniacs

and you got super maniacs who don't rely heavy on math like dario and dwan

 

[smoothrick007]

what the hell im freaking lost in all this....none of yall would raise KJ suited?and i hear (or read) that some of yall will fold without hesitation? WTH?..hmmidk i guess we talking about a different game..im talking about texas hold em

 

[bradnon]

i dont care if thsi is late...that blows though...u catch a full house after makin trips....and get screwed by 4 of a kind....god damn....i would kill myselfafer a hand liek that

 

[virgilmalloy]

Originally Posted by the north west

not saying that I don't agree with you, but how come you got heavy math players like jesus, bill chen, but their game is far from maniacs




and you got super maniacs who don't rely heavy on math like dario and dwan

I'm assuming you've never seen Bill Chen play poker, right?

Also, 'durrr not heavily relying on math' is about as erroneous as a statement can get. He's like a fking robot, it's pretty well agreed uponwithin the poker world that Dwan and Phil Galfond have the deepest understanding of the game on a mathematical level of any player in the world.

That doesn't mean that they're the best at live poker, at exploiting or intimidating poor players or have as good a 'natural feel' for thegame, but they're without question top 10 players, and pretty easily the best at their respective games online.


The jury's still out on Dario - he's just super aggressive, and if you take 5,000 super aggressive players who are losers overall and put them in abunch of touranments, you'll get an overall negative ROI but you're bound to get a handful of winners who ran like god and bink a couple here and there(Hello, Jerry Yang). The thing that's tough is that a lot of these guys who aren't good and bink big tourneys eventually study the game and play somuch that they BECOME good through positive reenforcement.

 

[virgilmalloy]

Originally Posted by smoothrick007

what the hell im freaking lost in all this....none of yall would raise KJ suited?and i hear (or read) that some of yall will fold without hesitation? WTH?..hmm
idk i guess we talking about a different game..im talking about texas hold em

You're talking about games played for nickels and dimes on a kitchen table, which is basically not even the same game as mid or high stakes poker, which inturn isn't even the same game as the nosebleeds.

 

[crank lucas]

@ daniel getting SHOOK as hell when gus called and raised him all in, thats just SICK

kid poker is still my dude though, him kenny tran

 

[smoothrick007]

Originally Posted by VirgilMalloy

Originally Posted by smoothrick007

what the hell im freaking lost in all this....none of yall would raise KJ suited?and i hear (or read) that some of yall will fold without hesitation? WTH?..hmm
idk i guess we talking about a different game..im talking about texas hold em

You're talking about games played for nickels and dimes on a kitchen table, which is basically not even the same game as mid or high stakes poker, which in turn isn't even the same game as the nosebleeds.

oh..well all i was saying is if i look at my two cards and see KJ suited, you better believe im going to raise and not just call (well depends on how big theblinds are)...i would hate for the flop to come out K37..and get beat by the big blind who all he had to do was check with his 3-7 because i didnt raise...

 

[the north west]

Originally Posted by VirgilMalloy

Originally Posted by the north west

not saying that I don't agree with you, but how come you got heavy math players like jesus, bill chen, but their game is far from maniacs




and you got super maniacs who don't rely heavy on math like dario and dwan

I'm assuming you've never seen Bill Chen play poker, right?

Also, 'durrr not heavily relying on math' is about as erroneous as a statement can get. He's like a fking robot, it's pretty well agreed upon within the poker world that Dwan and Phil Galfond have the deepest understanding of the game on a mathematical level of any player in the world.

That doesn't mean that they're the best at live poker, at exploiting or intimidating poor players or have as good a 'natural feel' for the game, but they're without question top 10 players, and pretty easily the best at their respective games online.


The jury's still out on Dario - he's just super aggressive, and if you take 5,000 super aggressive players who are losers overall and put them in a bunch of touranments, you'll get an overall negative ROI but you're bound to get a handful of winners who ran like god and bink a couple here and there (Hello, Jerry Yang). The thing that's tough is that a lot of these guys who aren't good and bink big tourneys eventually study the game and play so much that they BECOME good through positive reenforcement.

the people who I consider math guys are people who got master or phds in math or math related fields like chris and bill

which leads me to believe that although Dwan and OMG have a deep understanding of poker on a mathematical level, they could not nearly have the same kind ofunderstanding as someone who studied math for 6-8 years in college and applied it to poker

and I have seen bill play, but it has been some what limited

and the level of aggressiveness that dwan and dario play with is much higher than bill IMO

 

[joegonzalez99]

damn i wouldnt mind coming up that much money, but you gotta have that much money to play with it and not get hurt like that tho, it still looked like danielstill had hella chips stacked tho

 

[virgilmalloy]

Originally Posted by smoothrick007

VirgilMalloy wrote:

---

smoothrick007 wrote:

---

what the hell im freaking lost in all this....none of yall would raise KJ suited?and i hear (or read) that some of yall will fold without hesitation?
WTH?..hmm


idk i guess we talking about a different game..im talking about texas hold em

You're talking about games played for nickels and dimes on a kitchen table, which is basically not even the same game as mid or high stakes poker, which
in turn isn't even the same game as the nosebleeds.




oh..well all i was saying is if i look at my two cards and see KJ suited, you better believe im going to raise and not just call (well depends on how big the
blinds are)...i would hate for the flop to come out K37..and get beat by the big blind who all he had to do was check with his 3-7 because i didnt raise...






Right, and all I am saying is that in 99.9% of situations, doing anything other than folding KJs under the gun is a really, really bad play. A lot of pokerhands or scenarios with multi-street lines in weird spots can be really interesting, but this one really isn't. Fold, and move to the next hand, it'snot really debatable.

 

[virgilmalloy]

Originally Posted by the north west

VirgilMalloy wrote:

---

the north west wrote:

---

not saying that I don't agree with you, but how come you got heavy math players like jesus, bill chen, but their game is far from maniacs










and you got super maniacs who don't rely heavy on math like dario and dwan

I'm assuming you've never seen Bill Chen play poker, right?




Also, 'durrr not heavily relying on math' is about as erroneous as a statement can get. He's like a fking robot, it's pretty well agreed upon
within the poker world that Dwan and Phil Galfond have the deepest understanding of the game on a mathematical level of any player in the world.




That doesn't mean that they're the best at live poker, at exploiting or intimidating poor players or have as good a 'natural feel' for the
game, but they're without question top 10 players, and pretty easily the best at their respective games online.






The jury's still out on Dario - he's just super aggressive, and if you take 5,000 super aggressive players who are losers overall and put them in a
bunch of touranments, you'll get an overall negative ROI but you're bound to get a handful of winners who ran like god and bink a couple here and
there (Hello, Jerry Yang). The thing that's tough is that a lot of these guys who aren't good and bink big tourneys eventually study the game and
play so much that they BECOME good through positive reenforcement.




the people who I consider math guys are people who got master or phds in math or math related fields like chris and bill




which leads me to believe that although Dwan and OMG have a deep understanding of poker on a mathematical level, they could not nearly have the same kind of
understanding as someone who studied math for 6-8 years in college and applied it to poker




and I have seen bill play, but it has been some what limited




and the level of aggressiveness that dwan and dario play with is much higher than bill IMO







Just because you understand the THEORY of poker at a very, very deep level doesn't mean you are the best at applying it. I understand poker theory about aswell as anyone, but I'm still just a midstakes grinder and I am still breakeven at best at high stakes.

Also, PhD's don't really mean much. PhD's in math are all about really weird theoretical *!@+, which just doesn't apply in poker. The mostcomplex it gets is like cominatronics and game theory, which any college student should be able to master. That's like saying that someone with a PhD inchemistry is better at cooking than someone who went to culinary school. Yeah it helps, and somebody with a really advanced background starts off with anadvantage but it's not the end-all.

Bill Chen is a game theory expert who understands poker THEORY very, very well (and writes well as well) but he doesn't play nearly enough to be able toapply it as well as durrr or OMG. What those guys are sick at are putting people on such accurate ranges so quickly, keeping tabs on changing dynamics in theirsleep, and really considering a lot of strategies and factors that other people don't even think about.

You've got to realize how new all this poker stuff is. Fifteen years ago concepts like range merging didn't even exist. Now, you can't be a winnerat high stakes without knowing what it is, and when to use it.

 

[crank lucas]

blah blah blah alot of useless paragraphs in here but Ill take all of ya chips at the table

 

[fromthatown]

Originally Posted by Crazy EBW

People always overplay (in general) AQ and AJ. I mean yeah they're very strong aces but out of position it's just funky to play. Poker is totally a situation game. There's no exact science that can be used in every situation. Math is the best thing you can rely on if you're unsure and that's why math based players are usually some of the more methodical and balanced players. I don't let math rely on my situations too much, but knowing my outs and knowing/deciding if I will be dominated is always something to consider.

Tell me about it, I could have been in the 2007 WSOP Main Tournament, if it wasn't for an OG player. It was heads up and OG checked. I raiseall in pre flop. We open up and he had AK and I had AQ. I beat 19 people to come that close.

I still have my 2007 WSOP registration card to remind me to work on my poker game.