durrrr vs elezra hand question

[sauce123]

Originally Posted by tobinFrost

I never said that sauce wasn't better at nl, but was just wondering if he wasn't exaggerating at all.

i mean these two have played so much against each other they probably have reads on each other that we have no idea about.

I'm sure they have "reads" on each other that we have no idea about. Players habitually invoke highly specific reads which are not possible to know in order to make them feel better about playing badly. If we asked Tom about this hand, I'm sure he would say "I have read X, Y, and Z on Eli so I splashed around with my T5 like I did," and if we asked Eli he would say "I have read X, Y, and Z on Tom, so I played my 99 like I did," but if we start from the supposition that at least one of the two players played badly in the hand, then someone's reads were wrong (in the actual case, Eli's).

When you watch TV poker, you will see pros over and over again making dangerous assumptions which they decide to call reads in order to make them look smart and perceptive, when in fact naming their assumptions reads only serves to cloak the giant epistemological gamb0l they've taken.

This hand is an example by Eli of betting an extra street with a bluffcatcher, then not bluffcatching on the river with it. Tom's play is just an example of playing a bad hand, getting in a bad situation, and then bailing himself out with a marginal bluff when his opponent had no plan. It isn't rocket science, it's just bad poker.

It's important that you realize your argument is viciously circular, and amounts to "They're good players, so they make good plays." Either they make good plays or they don't, and their reputation won't change the quality of the plays they are making (this is poker, not art ). So, Look! Did they play well? It doesn't look like it to me.

[tobinFrost]

sauce I thought your comment was about the second video posted of durrrr's bluff on ivey. I don't think that Eli is one of the best players in the world and my whole reason for making this thread was to ask you guys if Tom's play was actually good or not. Sorry for the mix up

[luckychewy]

ben, i think its hard to criticize toms play too much given he was able to get eli off 99 in a situation where its at least somewhat possible he gets to the river wider, making his fd less relevant and his assumed 'read' that eli wasnt prepared to stack off correct.

i also think poker is art in the sense that it allows for lots of creativity. isn't any form of creative expression artistic?

[sauce123]

Originally Posted by luckychewy

ben, i think its hard to criticize toms play too much given he was able to get eli off 99 in a situation where its at least somewhat possible he gets to the river wider, making his fd less relevant and his assumed 'read' that eli wasnt prepared to stack off correct.

i also think poker is art in the sense that it allows for lots of creativity. isn't any form of creative expression artistic?

No, that's being results oriented. If we wanted to know whether Tom played well, we would have to interview both players after the hand and have them (honestly) write down what their plan was for the hand on every street. If Eli said "my plan was to 3b 99 for value, then bet twice to get Tom to call with A high, but then fold my river checking range because I think he would raise a FD earlier and maybe slowplay trips+," (or something like that, I don't think that was what he was actually thinking), and then if we interviewed Tom and he said "I thought Eli thought that I would call flop and turn with A high and weak pairs and raise my FD and some trips earlier, so instead I floated my FD so that I could get him to put in two bets and then play perfectly vs him on the river," then we would have a clear idea of who exploited who in the hand (Tom wins). But things are never that simple, because it is hard to know what other people are thinking, and even if we did know, people often play erratically and change their mind for no good reason.

The set of conditions where playing T5cc the way Tom played it is frighteningly narrow. Tom played the hand poorly. Tom can still be a good player if he plays hands poorly sometimes, since his opponents often play even worse, and he causes them to play especially badly versus him.

When I use a term like 'good play' with regard to poker, what I mean is 'In my best guess as to optimal play, it makes sense to take this line with that hand,' and when I say 'bad' it means "In my best guess as to optimal play, it doesn't make sense to ever take this line with that hand.' In exploitative play, it can pretty much always be right to take any line with any hand in some cases, so when I comment on hands where I am unfamiliar with the metagame, I try not to comment on exploitative play since I can't possibly know which reads to employ. It's also true that in general I think people play much too exploitatively, and even when playing exploitatively I think they do a poor job of exploitation; I think this because I almost never make the superstar-reads I see exploitative players making, and I have been very successful playing big stakes poker for the past few years. Now it's certainly possible that I have been extraordinarily lucky lifetime in poker, and it's also possible that I have some key concepts backwards and that I am smuggling in exploitative play somewhere where I am not aware I am doing it, as well as plenty of other things. But I can't possibly know that, so I proceed on the hypothesis that I'm not mistaken w/r/t base concepts in poker.

As for the Tom vs Ivey hand, it pretty much can't be correct for Tom to 3bet 98ss preflop there, and it's a pretty damn marginal cbet as well. If the cbet is correct (which I think it isn't) then the triple barrel is probably good; if the cbet is bad, then the triple barrel is almost certainly bad (which I think it is). Ivey's play in the hand is good, the river call actually wouldn't be too crazy to make in this spot, though it's definitely speculative.

[sauce123]

Originally Posted by luckychewy

ben, i think its hard to criticize toms play too much given he was able to get eli off 99 in a situation where its at least somewhat possible he gets to the river wider, making his fd less relevant and his assumed 'read' that eli wasnt prepared to stack off correct.

i also think poker is art in the sense that it allows for lots of creativity. isn't any form of creative expression artistic?

Andrew, no idea how to coherently answer your question about poker as being artistic. I've come off opinionated and pompous enough in this thread without dipping my toes into a discussion about what makes something artistic!

[Rolling chances]

What do you guys think of Dwans play in this hand vs Ivey? I mean Ivey has called a reraise from a guy who indulges in this type of aggression in multi way pots more often that anyone i have ever seen play... can we even construct a hand range with a guy like Dwan to make postflop decision easier?

btw thanks Ben for giving your $0.02 on the matter

[tobinFrost]

Originally Posted by Rolling chances

What do you guys think of Dwans play in this hand vs Ivey? I mean Ivey has called a reraise from a guy who indulges in this type of aggression in multi way pots more often that anyone i have ever seen play... can we even construct a hand range with a guy like Dwan to make postflop decision easier?

btw thanks Ben for giving your $0.02 on the matter

Tom is cbetting same amount he would with all his hands, so with flush and straight draws it's a easy call for Ivey considering Tom could have a good hand a lot, but also air here sometimes.


with two bricks for Ivey he is going to be behind almost all of the better hands in Tom's range and really can only beat a bluff. And correct me if I'm wrong but I feel like having the Ad in hand and Kd on board takes a lot of missed f.d. hands out of Tom's range

[tobinFrost]

"As for the Tom vs Ivey hand, it pretty much can't be correct for Tom to 3bet 98ss preflop there, and it's a pretty damn marginal cbet as well. If the cbet is correct (which I think it isn't) then the triple barrel is probably good; if the cbet is bad, then the triple barrel is almost certainly bad (which I think it is). Ivey's play in the hand is good, the river call actually wouldn't be too crazy to make in this spot, though it's definitely speculative"



probably going to get flamed for this, but based on your reasoning wouldn't a river call here mean putting a huge percentage on Tom playing the hand incorrectly? I mean you would have to first correctly guess that Tom would first make a bad cbet on a with a very marginal hand, then bet a flop that he could be easily dominated on, and then fire two more barrels (incorrectly) when two bricks come.

Ivey's hand pref lop isn't all that strong, but against Tom's 3b range he obviously thought it was profitable play. Even though he ended up w/ a good flop and had a decent amount of outs mostly any of the hands at the top of Tom's range could have him crushed. Basically what I'm trying to say is that I think Ivey's hand is too weak to make this guessing game worth it. He would pretty much have to gamble on the fact that he is not triple barreling for value with all of his strong hands, but have to also eliminate all the semi made hands or semi bluffs that he might barrel off with which to me seems like a crapload of hand combinations since if he can play 98ss "badly" he could easily do it with anything else

[luckychewy]

ben, when you say you think people play exploitatively too often i don't see why it's such a stretch to assume tom thought eli was playing such a style in this spot. i understand tom can be playing 'bad' and his opponents worse, yielding him profit. good and bad are only relative terms assigned by us based on our interpretations of them and his opponents are playing worse(he wins from them long term) than him it seems like he's playing 'good' to me. i think your argument is mostly, in terms of optimal play neither of these are acceptable, which i totally understand. i just think it's difficult to apply that high a level of what's right/wrong/good/bad to a situation where we can be relatively certain neither player is even attempting to play in such a way. i suppose i may just be biased by results though and as much as i try to be objective i'm not certain i can be.

maybe i'm in the minority but i don't think you've come off in any way 'poorly' in this thread(as i think the word pompous would indicate). i think it's an awesome trait to be knowledgeable and opinionated and i don't think sharing those opinions should ever make the one sharing them feel any negativity because it's only the interpretation of the opinion by each individual exposed to it which causes an emotional reaction.

[sauce123]

Originally Posted by tobinFrost

"As for the Tom vs Ivey hand, it pretty much can't be correct for Tom to 3bet 98ss preflop there, and it's a pretty damn marginal cbet as well. If the cbet is correct (which I think it isn't) then the triple barrel is probably good; if the cbet is bad, then the triple barrel is almost certainly bad (which I think it is). Ivey's play in the hand is good, the river call actually wouldn't be too crazy to make in this spot, though it's definitely speculative"



probably going to get flamed for this, but based on your reasoning wouldn't a river call here mean putting a huge percentage on Tom playing the hand incorrectly? I mean you would have to first correctly guess that Tom would first make a bad cbet on a with a very marginal hand, then bet a flop that he could be easily dominated on, and then fire two more barrels (incorrectly) when two bricks come.

Ivey's hand pref lop isn't all that strong, but against Tom's 3b range he obviously thought it was profitable play. Even though he ended up w/ a good flop and had a decent amount of outs mostly any of the hands at the top of Tom's range could have him crushed. Basically what I'm trying to say is that I think Ivey's hand is too weak to make this guessing game worth it. He would pretty much have to gamble on the fact that he is not triple barreling for value with all of his strong hands, but have to also eliminate all the semi made hands or semi bluffs that he might barrel off with which to me seems like a crapload of hand combinations since if he can play 98ss "badly" he could easily do it with anything else

There is no reasonable range Tom can play such that Ivey's flop and turn calls aren't massively +ev on that runout.

If calling river is a huge mistake, it's because either a) It's optimal for Tom not to have a balancing number of bluffs on that runout + action, or b) It's optimal for Tom to bluff with some hands which beat Ivey's hand. I suspect a is false and b is at least possibly true. I would never call optimally in Ivey's spot, but if he thinks Tom is out of line his maximally exploitative strat shifts to bluffcatching all hands in which case he might want to call.