Jump to content

Phil Ivey Giving Great Odds


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 189
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It is. I'm just saying that to achieve those odds, he needs to actively avoid showdown (or rather: getting it all in pre-river) even in very +EV situations, and I seriously doubt that is possible while still playing in a way that guarantees him those odds.
It would not be at all unusual for a very good player to actively avoid showdowns against lesser players.For instance, if Ivey looks at AK, and there is an all-in shove in front of him. Even if the guy has a wide range, and Ivey knows he has exactly a 60-40 edge (how does he know? because he is Phil f'ing Ivey, that's why) - he would almost certainly fold this so long as the blinds were low enough. His edge is too large.Also, with low blinds, a fantastic SnG player would almost certainly be better than 5.5:1 to win it against lesser players. Short-handed play with low blinds is quite skill-oriented, and in this case we're not even giving him double the chances compared to average.In this case though Ivey does have a smaller stack, hence why some of us are arguing he has worse than that chance. And yes, that is a significant disadvantage even with low blinds. The guys he is against have done something right in accumulating chips - almost certainly they've been willing to get involved in pots. We all saw Jamie Gold beat better players - he couldn't have done so unless he was going to force the better players to get involved in big pots regularly, since small pots would just increase and extend their advantage.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Ivey is like 3.8 to 1 to win this thing and I'm not kidding in the least. The chip stacks would only be relevant if he was short on chips in relation to the blinds. He's not, he's got plenty to work with and he will. I have a HUGE bet on Ivey against Darvin Moon in a MUST WIN and I feel like I'm stealing. Darvin will get chewed up short handed, but if Ivey gets to 20 million, he will be able to close. Moon's lack of short handed experience makes him a huge underdog to win against so many competent players.
(Doyle Brunson @ Sunday, November 1st, 2009, 12:00 PM) post_snapback.gifWell, I thought I would be pulling for Phil Ivey and ..Jeff.. Shulman at the WSOP final table. But when Daniel wanted to bet Ivey over Moon, I had to take Moon who has 5 times the chips of Ivey. It is a must-win bet so probably we won’t have action. Sorry Phil, I won’t be rooting for you now. Business is business.....
Well, as long as you're stealing from your buddy, Doyle, everything is okay.Or, maybe, Doyle is stealing from you?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ivey still has about 40bb left even though he's 7th in chips.I think the immense pressure of simply being at the final table will be a benefit to Ivey. He needs chips and nobody wants to go out first. Ivey might be more aggressive to start because of that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
For instance, if Ivey looks at AK, and there is an all-in shove in front of him. Even if the guy has a wide range, and Ivey knows he has exactly a 60-40 edge (how does he know? because he is Phil f'ing Ivey, that's why) - he would almost certainly fold this so long as the blinds were low enough.
lol
Link to post
Share on other sites
For instance, if Ivey looks at AK, and there is an all-in shove in front of him. Even if the guy has a wide range, and Ivey knows he has exactly a 60-40 edge (how does he know? because he is Phil f'ing Ivey, that's why) - he would almost certainly fold this so long as the blinds were low enough. His edge is too large.
Yes, but what about this case?
So would a call with KK when he knows his opponent has AK.
Link to post
Share on other sites

if daniel needs a must win, why not just risk losing the 1unit to win 5units with a book rather than betting 1-1 with doyle and a chance of a tie? i assume he is betting an amount he can afford to lose. outcomes of +5/-1 seem better to me than +1/-1/0 especially if you can afford the bet.but then again in a way i think daniels bet is smart too, cuz realistically iveys most likely finish should be 9th-8th-1st. if you look a the pay scale the tiny jump from places 9th-7th are rediculously miniscule. while it may not always be the best strategy for the best player to come out firing on all cylanders and action-orientented early, in these payouts its almost silly to fold yourself into 5th place at a major chip disadvantage when you could go for a few double-ups early and go for the straight 8.5MILL. I dont expect the 'no-names happy to be there' finalists to look at the money situation and play fast early, i expect them to want to last awhile for tv/fam/friends. Ivey has none of that pressure. I also believe Ivey/shulman will understand the payscale situation vastly better than their competitors1. $8.5 million 6. $1.6 million 2. $5.2 million 7. $1.4 million 3. $3.5 million 8. $1.3 million 4. $2.5 million 9. $1.25 million 5. $2.0 million Also, yes we are only one year into this NOv9 experiment, but didnt it pretty much go according to expectations everyone predicted it would last year? -everyone thought phillips would go deep but not win as he wouldnt be the best player-majority thought scott montgomery would fizzle in shorthanded stages, too recklass-most people thought darus suharto would last a while outta trouble but no real threat to win-most people predicted the eastgate v demidov final two, clearly stating those two were the best playersthe chipcounts were not the overriding decision for people picks last year(correct), and this year we get IVey/ even shulman, and all of a sudden the chip count is the most important factor? dont think so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It would not be at all unusual for a very good player to actively avoid showdowns against lesser players.For instance, if Ivey looks at AK, and there is an all-in shove in front of him. Even if the guy has a wide range, and Ivey knows he has exactly a 60-40 edge (how does he know? because he is Phil f'ing Ivey, that's why) - he would almost certainly fold this so long as the blinds were low enough. His edge is too large.Also, with low blinds, a fantastic SnG player would almost certainly be better than 5.5:1 to win it against lesser players. Short-handed play with low blinds is quite skill-oriented, and in this case we're not even giving him double the chances compared to average.In this case though Ivey does have a smaller stack, hence why some of us are arguing he has worse than that chance. And yes, that is a significant disadvantage even with low blinds. The guys he is against have done something right in accumulating chips - almost certainly they've been willing to get involved in pots. We all saw Jamie Gold beat better players - he couldn't have done so unless he was going to force the better players to get involved in big pots regularly, since small pots would just increase and extend their advantage.
I disagree. Ivey is not gonna fold big hands pre-flop in a spot like that where he has a chance to accumulate chips as a good favorite in his attempt build chips to win.New updated look to http://www.wsop.com/ looks good.
Link to post
Share on other sites
if daniel needs a must win, why not just risk losing the 1unit to win 5units with a book rather than betting 1-1 with doyle and a chance of a tie? i assume he is betting an amount he can afford to lose. outcomes of +5/-1 seem better to me than +1/-1/0 especially if you can afford the bet.but then again in a way i think daniels bet is smart too, cuz realistically iveys most likely finish should be 9th-8th-1st. if you look a the pay scale the tiny jump from places 9th-7th are rediculously miniscule. while it may not always be the best strategy for the best player to come out firing on all cylanders and action-orientented early, in these payouts its almost silly to fold yourself into 5th place at a major chip disadvantage when you could go for a few double-ups early and go for the straight 8.5MILL. I dont expect the 'no-names happy to be there' finalists to look at the money situation and play fast early, i expect them to want to last awhile for tv/fam/friends. Ivey has none of that pressure. I also believe Ivey/shulman will understand the payscale situation vastly better than their competitors1. $8.5 million 6. $1.6 million 2. $5.2 million 7. $1.4 million 3. $3.5 million 8. $1.3 million 4. $2.5 million 9. $1.25 million 5. $2.0 million Also, yes we are only one year into this NOv9 experiment, but didnt it pretty much go according to expectations everyone predicted it would last year? -everyone thought phillips would go deep but not win as he wouldnt be the best player-majority thought scott montgomery would fizzle in shorthanded stages, too recklass-most people thought darus suharto would last a while outta trouble but no real threat to win-most people predicted the eastgate v demidov final two, clearly stating those two were the best playersthe chipcounts were not the overriding decision for people picks last year(correct), and this year we get IVey/ even shulman, and all of a sudden the chip count is the most important factor? dont think so.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35Lt4bIXyrY
Link to post
Share on other sites
Even if the guy has a wide range, and Ivey knows he has exactly a 60-40 edge (how does he know? because he is Phil f'ing Ivey, that's why) - he would almost certainly fold this so long as the blinds were low enough. His edge is too large.
I think this is a huge misconception on your part. I don't think any tournament pro would ever fold a hand at any table if they magically "knew" they were gonna be 60% to win it for all their chips. Literally never.If you know you have an edge, you take it every single time. 60/40 is a massive edge.Note that I'm not disagreeing with you in a real-world-scenario, like folding AK preflop at the final table. I'm disagreeing with the theoretical idea that he would fold AK if he actually somehow knew he had a 60% chance to win with it at showdown.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think this is a huge misconception on your part. I don't think any tournament pro would ever fold a hand at any table if they magically "knew" they were gonna be 60% to win it for all their chips. Literally never.If you know you have an edge, you take it every single time. 60/40 is a massive edge.Note that I'm not disagreeing with you in a real-world-scenario, like folding AK preflop at the final table. I'm disagreeing with the theoretical idea that he would fold AK if he actually somehow knew he had a 60% chance to win with it at showdown.
Eh, maybe. Someone a couple posts ago does make a good point about accumulating chips which I neglected.Still, I think in an even-chip situation, Ivey would put his edge at higher than 60/40. With low blinds, he can play accordingly.
Link to post
Share on other sites
if daniel needs a must win, why not just risk losing the 1unit to win 5units with a book rather than betting 1-1 with doyle and a chance of a tie? i assume he is betting an amount he can afford to lose. outcomes of +5/-1 seem better to me than +1/-1/0 especially if you can afford the bet.
You understand that in DN's bet, there are seven potential winners in which he will push that would cost him his bet if he were to take the 5.5/1. In other words, it is not +1/-1/0 vs. +5/-1 it is actually +5/-1/-1/-1/-1/-1/-1/-1/-1. It is a totally different bet. I would take Ivey over Moon in a must-win all day, but will not be betting at the house line for Ivey to win straight up.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, Thanks Daniel, makes me feel better now about my bet :club: You guys that are still arguing against the bet seriously need to CHILLAX. Daniel Negreanu who I am sure knows a little bit more then the rest of us regarding Short stack play/final table/ivey's edge etc, just said he would take IVEY at 3.8/1 to win it all. NOt talking about a must win but straight up! "I think Ivey is like 3.8 to 1 to win this thing and I'm not kidding in the least"Obviously nothing in the gambling world is a sure thing but when you have a short handed game and a guy with IVEYS exp/reading ability/short handed expertise/comfortable fianacial situation etc, then you would be crazy not to take him at 5.5 to 1!I also agree immensely with whoever wrote that the other 8 maybe Shulman excluded will DEF be looking to move up the money ladder. Phil will get easier steals then normal and if he can get to 20 million, I agree with Daniel, GAME OVER!300 to make 1650.....ONE TIME!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow, Thanks Daniel, makes me feel better now about my bet :club: You guys that are still arguing against the bet seriously need to CHILLAX. Daniel Negreanu who I am sure knows a little bit more then the rest of us regarding Short stack play/final table/ivey's edge etc, just said he would take IVEY at 3.8/1 to win it all. NOt talking about a must win but straight up! "I think Ivey is like 3.8 to 1 to win this thing and I'm not kidding in the least"Obviously nothing in the gambling world is a sure thing but when you have a short handed game and a guy with IVEYS exp/reading ability/short handed expertise/comfortable fianacial situation etc, then you would be crazy not to take him at 5.5 to 1!I also agree immensely with whoever wrote that the other 8 maybe Shulman excluded will DEF be looking to move up the money ladder. Phil will get easier steals then normal and if he can get to 20 million, I agree with Daniel, GAME OVER!300 to make 1650.....ONE TIME!!!!
Just make your bet with a reputable bookie as it seems an Ivey win will have some bookies running for cover.I would love for Cada to win.http://www.bluffeurope.com/poker-news/en/2...okies_5997.aspx
Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow, Thanks Daniel, makes me feel better now about my bet :club: You guys that are still arguing against the bet seriously need to CHILLAX. Daniel Negreanu who I am sure knows a little bit more then the rest of us regarding Short stack play/final table/ivey's edge etc, just said he would take IVEY at 3.8/1 to win it all. NOt talking about a must win but straight up!
I respect Daniel as much as the next guy, but he is far from impartial on this subject and even if his opinion was entirely objective, I am not sure why it would invalidate everyone else's opinion.I don't think 5.5/1 is horrible value, but, to put it in context, while Daniel agrees with you, Las Vegas bookmakers apparently think that that price is quite appropriate. And they don't set lines for the purpose of losing to people like you. But hey, everyone should just CHILLAX. All that being said, I have no money on the final table, but I certainly hope that Ivey wins.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think 5.5/1 is horrible value, but, to put it in context, while Daniel agrees with you, Las Vegas bookmakers apparently think that that price is quite appropriate. And they don't set lines for the purpose of losing to people like you. .
the key here is that the bookmakers are new to nov9 action. previous final tables would be played the next day im pretty sure you couldnt even bet the final table at most places if not all places. so to act like the bookies know more than us poker people after theyve only had one year to handicapp it is rediculous. there have been plenty of bets through the course of time that the bookmakers get so wrong it makes you scratch your head. yeah they know what there doing with pro/college betting game but thats bc theyve had a brazzillion experiences with those.
Link to post
Share on other sites
the key here is that the bookmakers are new to nov9 action. previous final tables would be played the next day im pretty sure you couldnt even bet the final table at most places if not all places. so to act like the bookies know more than us poker people after theyve only had one year to handicapp it is rediculous. there have been plenty of bets through the course of time that the bookmakers get so wrong it makes you scratch your head. yeah they know what there doing with pro/college betting game but thats bc theyve had a brazzillion experiences with those.
No, the inability to spell "ridiculous" is well...ridiculous.Here's a hint - if bookmakers are unsure about how to set a line, you can be pretty sure they will not set a generous line on the outcome likely to generate a significant majority of the action. This is a fact of life.DN provides an opinion, though he provides no reasoning or backing for it. I'd take his opinion on poker wagering over mine any day, but this is not exactly the situation. His opinion may also be somewhat biased, as it is fair to suggest a skilled poker player might overestimate the relative advantages of being a skilled poker player.
Link to post
Share on other sites
the key here is that the bookmakers are new to nov9 action. previous final tables would be played the next day im pretty sure you couldnt even bet the final table at most places if not all places. so to act like the bookies know more than us poker people after theyve only had one year to handicapp it is rediculous. there have been plenty of bets through the course of time that the bookmakers get so wrong it makes you scratch your head. yeah they know what there doing with pro/college betting game but thats bc theyve had a brazzillion experiences with those.
I'd assume that books wouldn't post a line if they had no clue about the event.Of course the books don't have the "perfect" spread/line every time but it's pretty damn accurate.edit: I like what mrdannyg said better
Link to post
Share on other sites
3.8 to 1 means that Ivey should have a 20.8% to win or better.The chip counts mean that Ivey has to double 4.3 times to win.This means that for these odds to be good, you're saying that Ivey has a 69.5% chance for each double. (.695^4.3=.208)Do you really that Ivey can outplay people and beat the odds (inlcuding bad luck) by this much? For example, when someone shoves without looking at his cards, a call with AK would already put him below those odds. So would a call with KK when he knows his opponent has AK.I really wish I had the bankroll to make this bet with you... :club:
I'm late to the party on this, but as I said in [undisclosed location], I would be more than happy to pool my resources with you to make this bet against Daniel.As skilled as Ivey is, giving him 3.8:1 odds is extremely generous.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm late to the party on this, but as I said in [undisclosed location], I would be more than happy to pool my resources with you to make this bet against Daniel.As skilled as Ivey is, giving him 3.8:1 odds is extremely generous.
He might be unlikely to place a wager at 3.8:1 when a sports book would lay him 5.5:1...
Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is making FCP dumber. The logic and the math used are just mindblowing.
I'm in deep shit then if I can't follow the current math.Matusows take on Ivey and the final table, pretty much the same opinion as DN'shttp://www.cardplayer.com/cptv/channels/6-...outhpiece-ep-70one of his older mouthpiece's, from july I think, but it starts at minute 31ish
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...