josh arieh (not a negative post)

[faketree 0]

I wanted to ask a question that I've been thinking about for a while but never posted about it. And forgive me if its been asked before. It has nothing to do with Arieh's antics at the tables last year in the WSOP. It has to do with some bets that he made that I don't really understand.A few times during the tournament he would be involved in a pretty big hand with someone else. Josh wanted to raise their bet and asked them how much they have left in front of them. Perfectly legal and doesn't breach any kind of etiquette.My question is, once they told him how much they had left, he proceeded to bet about 80-90% of the rest of their stack. My question is, if you're going to bet that much of his opponents stack, why not just put them all in since he's going to call if they go all in anyway?I know Josh is a professional and knows what he is doing so I'd like to know why he chose to make these bets?Any ideas?

[mutation321 0]

It might have been because if someone other than the short stacked player raised. He could lay the hand down without losing as much as he would have if he had put the player all in.

[KKsuited 0]

I'm no pro, but I know why such bets are made. Doyle Brunson talks a lot about these bets. I think your percentages are a little high though.30-50% of a players stack is more like the %'s I use. Also note, in most cases you have to have a big stack to do this.This bets tells your opponent 2 different things depending on the situation.1) I'm playing this hand for all my chips if necessary.2) If you want to play this hand, you are going to have to play for all your chips.In #2, if the other player comes right back over the top and shows a lot of strength, you can still get away from the hand without losing a ton of chips.Examples of actual hands that I've read what Josh was actually thinking are:1) In my first reason, Josh was making this move against Harry D in the famous hand where Josh jumped all over Harry. Josh was on a big draw that he was not coming off of, so he bet a big amount to tell Harry I'm playing this one to the river, for all my chips if I have to. Obviously, Josh would have liked Harry to just fold right there.2) Reason #2 has the example of the famous "check in the dark" play by David Williams on Josh at the final table. In that hand, Josh bet 1/3 of Davids chips before the flop, telling David he basically had to play for all his chips on this hand if he wanted to play. What happen after that has been discussed enough, but in short, not many players will flat call 1/3 of their chips, then fold (as supposedly David would have done if he missed his set).As for these moves in the local home game, don't bother. Most newer players don't think about these type of things.Maybe Josh or anyone else can elaborate.

[efridge 0]

the reason he makes a bet of that nature is that when there is a player inbetween them and they just call, and the player with the short stack moves all his chips in, they both just call and the middle player doesn't have a shot at a reraise. if josh would bet half or less than the short stack's chips and the short stack moved in, josh would have to worry about calling that bet and maybe calling a reraise from the middle player. now that's he's bet that odd amount, the middle player has to raise before the other player decides if they want to move in or not, so josh holds as much of an advantage his poor position would allow. just my 2cents.

[DiverDown4 0]

Another reason might be that he doesnt want to show his hand. If you bet 60 percent of someones stack, and that person comes over the top for all his chips, you can get away from the hand without showing. If you put him all in and he calls, you have to show whatever you raised with. I may be wrong, but also i think its kind of confusing bet, if someone did that to me, i might stop for a minute and think, "why the hell did he do that?" takes people off their game, its also a huge slap in the face/irritant type raise. but who knows

[faketree 0]

I'm no pro, but I know why such bets are made. Doyle Brunson talks a lot about these bets. I think your percentages are a little high though.30-50% of a players stack is more like the %'s I use. Also note, in most cases you have to have a big stack to do this.This bets tells your opponent 2 different things depending on the situation.1) I'm playing this hand for all my chips if necessary.2) If you want to play this hand, you are going to have to play for all your chips.In #2, if the other player comes right back over the top and shows a lot of strength, you can still get away from the hand without losing a ton of chips.Examples of actual hands that I've read what Josh was actually thinking are:1) In my first reason, Josh was making this move against Harry D in the famous hand where Josh jumped all over Harry. Josh was on a big draw that he was not coming off of, so he bet a big amount to tell Harry I'm playing this one to the river, for all my chips if I have to. Obviously, Josh would have liked Harry to just fold right there.2) Reason #2 has the example of the famous "check in the dark" play by David Williams on Josh at the final table. In that hand, Josh bet 1/3 of Davids chips before the flop, telling David he basically had to play for all his chips on this hand if he wanted to play. What happen after that has been discussed enough, but in short, not many players will flat call 1/3 of their chips, then fold (as supposedly David would have done if he missed his set).As for these moves in the local home game, don't bother. Most newer players don't think about these type of things.Maybe Josh or anyone else can elaborate.

Actually, I wasn't talking about either of these hands. I can't remember off hand who these hands were against. And I am right about the percentages. I remember one specific hand where Josh asked how much a guy had left. He replied something like 850,000. So Josh says, '600's the bet'. Now if the guy went all in after this bet and Josh folded, that would be a horrible play since its only 250 more to call. These bets weren't one third or even a half. They were at least 80% of his opponents stack.Now that I think about it, one of the hands Josh had wired 7s. The other was when he said '600s the bet'. Don't remember all the details but I do remember those weird bets. Anyone else remember this?

[Foulky 0]

I think these answers posted have good logic behind them, but I think they are missing the point. The way I understand the question is when Josh has a much bigger stack and makes a move that is almost all of the other guy's chips. (The hand against Harry he had less chips and the hand against Williams, Williams had a decent stack.) I think he proabably does this because he wants it to make it look like he has a big hand. I think the big raise shows strength, while an all-in could be percepted as an aggressive player (Josh) making a move. The hands i saw where he made this raise he had a hand like 9-9 like the hand against Williams with 10 left when David had A-Q. Also the hand against Matt Dean when Josh had AK and Dean had JJ i think he makes these raises wanting the other guy to fold because he figures it's a coin flip which in both these situations it was. He knows he has to call if they move in but most great pros want to avoid these coinflips if they can. I might be totally off here, if anyone disagrees let me know but this makes the most sense to me.

[Foulky 0]

Another reason might be that he doesnt want to show his hand.  If you bet 60 percent of someones stack, and that person comes over the top for all his chips, you can get away from the hand without showing.  If you put him all in and he calls, you have to show whatever you raised with.  I may be wrong, but also i think its kind of confusing bet, if someone did that to me, i might stop for a minute and think, "why the hell did he do that?"  takes people off their game, its also a huge slap in the face/irritant type raise.  but who knows

There aren't many hands he would fold for a re-raise in this situation, and if he did fold that would basically tell everyone "I raised with garbage." Also the hands I saw where he made this raise he called every time when the guy moved in over the top.

[Snydz9 0]

He plays that marvously, he makes people commit all their chips without him commiting all of his. That is always the spot you want to be in. He bets 30-60% of someone's chips depending on how much they have, either they commit it all or dump it, it might not be like that as far as getting raised all in, but if someone calls that means they are in for all there chips and if you hit what you were looking foir, then put them all in and they gotta call, if not check to them let them go all in(and then fold it) if they dont raise all in, then raise them all in yourself.

[faketree 0]

foulky seems to be the only one that understands what i am saying.this wasn't a 30-60% raise. it was at least 80% in each situation. and i think foulky is right about that williams hand. i think arieh acutally had 1010 and williams AQ and arieh raised about 85% of williams chips. which williams said before he went all in 'well, if i'm supposed to be 10th, i'm supposed to be 10th' and proceeded to push the rest in.and people talking about him being able to fold to a reraise so he doesn't have to show his hand is just wrong. no way he's laying down AK after committing 600k in chips.

[KKsuited 0]

and people talking about him being able to fold to a reraise so he doesn't have to show his hand is just wrong. no way he's laying down AK after committing 600k in chips.That's why I said there are 2 different situations.There is no reason why a player would be 80%. Obviously no one is going to fold after betting 80% of someones chips.The reason no one knows what you're talking about is because no one saw what you are talking about and there is no reason any one would did that.

[Foulky 0]

foulky seems to be the only one that understands what i am saying.this wasn't a 30-60% raise.  it was at least 80% in each situation.  and i think foulky is right about that williams hand.  i think arieh acutally had 1010 and williams AQ and arieh raised about 85% of williams chips.  which williams said before he went all in 'well, if i'm supposed to be 10th, i'm supposed to be 10th' and proceeded to push the rest in.and people talking about him being able to fold to a reraise so he doesn't have to show his hand is just wrong.  no way he's laying down AK after committing 600k in chips.

My thoughts exactly. There is no way he is mucking after making this big raise and as far as going all-in after the flop like on guy said, in almost if not every situation all the money is going in pre-flop or the other guy folds. No one will call off 80% of their stack and wait for a flop. They are going all-in or folding and as far as Josh folding after the flop if he misses, this wouldn't happen either because he is going all the way when he makes this raise. Oh yea you're probably right about the 10s vs. Williams' AQ. I knew it was something like that I think i had 9's suck in my head because I think that's the hand Josh got busted with against Raymer's AQ. Good post Faketree. Keep 'em coming!

[TheIceman05 0]

foulky seems to be the only one that understands what i am saying.this wasn't a 30-60% raise.  it was at least 80% in each situation.  and i think foulky is right about that williams hand.  i think arieh acutally had 1010 and williams AQ and arieh raised about 85% of williams chips.  which williams said before he went all in 'well, if i'm supposed to be 10th, i'm supposed to be 10th' and proceeded to push the rest in.and people talking about him being able to fold to a reraise so he doesn't have to show his hand is just wrong.  no way he's laying down AK after committing 600k in chips.

Actually, he says, "If I'm supposed to be TEMPTED...." I thinkBut that's neither here nor there. Otherwise, my post is absolutely worthless. To me, the raise seems to be an effectually all-in move. There's virtually NO difference between 85% and 100% at this stage in the tournament. And there is NO way Arieh is laying it down for that last trifling amount. Good question. Anyone with a real/good answer, please let us know. It has nothing to do with Arieh possibly laying the hand down, I promise you that much. Ice

[Chip_and_a_Chair 0]

foulky seems to be the only one that understands what i am saying.this wasn't a 30-60% raise.  it was at least 80% in each situation.  and i think foulky is right about that williams hand.  i think arieh acutally had 1010 and williams AQ and arieh raised about 85% of williams chips.  which williams said before he went all in 'well, if i'm supposed to be 10th, i'm supposed to be 10th' and proceeded to push the rest in.and people talking about him being able to fold to a reraise so he doesn't have to show his hand is just wrong.  no way he's laying down AK after committing 600k in chips.

Actually, it was, "If I'm supposed to be tempted, I'm supposed to be tempted." And you're right, Williams seemed irritated and I think he took it as a challenge to his ego that Arieh was toying with him. I got the same impression from watching that hand. It was obvious Arieh wasn't getting off the hand, so it seemed to be a sort of taunt, as if to say, "The ball's in your court." Obviously, if a player has any kind of hand, he has to push there, because the alternative would be to just call to see a flop and have your stack completely crippled if your cards don't hit.Perhaps there's a psychological reason for not putting your opponent all-in, and perhaps it has something to do with perception of hand strength, i.e. not wanting to seem like an uber-aggressive bully who will push with any ace (generally, as was mentioned, players try to avoid coin flips and induce folds). However, I saw the large bets as an attempt to get beneath the players' skins and make them act last, effectively forcing them to PROACTIVELY come over the top and seal their owns fates, rather than just call.

[Foulky 0]

No he deffinetly said if i'm supposed to be 10th, I'm supposed to be 10th but that's no big deal. You might be right about him wanting the other guy to seal his fate by moving all-in but i don't think the raise is supposed to get under the other guy's skin or anything like that. If someone could read my earlier post about it being a sign of strength. I want to know if this makes sense to anyone else.

[The Future 0]

That's funny, I always thought Williams was saying "If I'm suppose to be tempted, I'm suppose to be tempted." I haven't read any of the other posts, so sorry if repeating. When it comes down to the end of tourneys I use the "big % of opponents stack bet" often, especially pre-flop when I just want to knock someone out. I don't use it if I think anyone else will call, just the person I want to. Only use in isolated instances, like when you are in the small blind with a nice hand and everyone has folded to you and you want to knock out the BB player. What I am saying when I make this bet is "Don't call, either fold or go all-in please". It's a move that can push a player in to playing a hand, they think you are being rude for not just going all-in, but teasing them with a really big bet... seems to work pretty well for me against shortstacks.

[TheIceman05 0]

Yeah, I think "tempted" makes more sense, as it directly relates to the fact that Arieh ASKED how much Williams had left, then raised some small fraction less.... as if he was making it somewhat more attractive to call.Ice

[Foulky 0]

I would have to disagree on that one because if Williams lost that hand he would have been 10th... the dreaded 10th place, which meant that he would be the last player eliminated before the final table. This also explains why David was so upset when Marcel was knocked out in 10th since they were so close he obviously wanted both of them to make the final table. He said he felt sorry for Marcel because he was almost out in 10th but instead he won his hand and Marcel lost his. Just my 2 cents.

[MilesZS 0]

Actually, I wasn't talking about either of these hands.  I can't remember off hand who these hands were against.  And I am right about the percentages.  I remember one specific hand where Josh asked how much a guy had left.  He replied something like 850,000.  So Josh says, '600's the bet'.  Now if the guy went all in after this bet and Josh folded, that would be a horrible play since its only 250 more to call.  These bets weren't one third or even a half.  They were at least 80% of his opponents stack.Now that I think about it, one of the hands Josh had wired 7s.  The other was when he said '600s the bet'.  Don't remember all the details but I do remember those weird bets.  Anyone else remember this?

I can't stand to read the rest of this thread, because it's getting really tedious and nearing ridiculous, but for some reason this is bugging me:850/600 is ~71%. I know, seems stupid, but in a way there's a big difference between the 80-90 you're claiming -- someone raises me 700 and I've got 850 I go "duh... ok I'm all-in" (assuming I'm not raggin' it ... haha raggin it). One hundred lower and I might think a bit more about it -- granted eventually I'll probably be all in, but even that 10% difference can make you think. But what do I know, I'm amateur. And don't count out the idea that Josh did that to be annoying. He's a prick.

[dms26 3]

Fake, I think there was a hand with him against Matthias Anderson where he asked how much he had left, Anderson said something like 700K and Arieh raised to about 550K. I'm not positive but I do think I know what your talking about. I remember Norman Chad making a comment about why would be bet just a tiny bit less than what the other player had. I didn't really understand that either, because your not folding if he comes back overtop of you.

[DiverDown4 0]

I think my post was misunderstood. I must have misread the original post, of course nobody is going to lay down an 80 percent raise to an over the top all in, but i was talking much lower raise than that, sorry if i didnt word it well.

[JistTheFist 0]

man faketree I know EXACTLY what you're talking about. There were actually three or four that I remember where Arieh specifacally asked "How much you got left?" and then bet like 100,000 less than their total... and then when they reraised all their chips back at him he would call and almost look like he was annoyed at the fact that they put all their chips in. I even spoke with a lot of my friends about this and we could only think of two explanations for this...1) He got a bad read... He felt that if he made a bet significant to the amount of chips his opponent held that his opponent would fold the hand... in other words he felt more weakness than was really there... but once he made a bet so large he knew he was pot-commited at that point and had to call even though he would have MUCH rather that his opponent folded.2)He wanted his opponent to put all of them in... basically he wanted his opponent to think "That was odd... why would he ask how much I held... and then not put me all-in but put so much in the pot that I would have to go all-in to stay" so once they came back over the top at him he quickly called because he wanted them all in in the first place.... The only thing I disagree with this theory for is because he always seemed to have an annoyed look when he called the all-in.all this stuff about being in poor postition and stuff just doesn't make since because he did it TWICE when he was in a heads-up pot. so it couldn't have been to isolate the middle player also. anyway that's my view on it.. I was always curious about those bets also.

[KKsuited 0]

The only way you would bet 80% of someone's chips is to get them to call you. Josh must have wanted a call. The reason #2 above has to be correct.If you sensed weakness, you wouldn'd need to make such a large bet. You could bet more like 40% and have the same effect.

[faketree 0]

man faketree I know EXACTLY what you're talking about. There were actually three or four that I remember where Arieh specifacally asked "How much you got left?" and then bet like 100,000 less than their total... and then when they reraised all their chips back at him he would call and almost look like he was annoyed at the fact that they put all their chips in. I even spoke with a lot of my friends about this and we could only think of two explanations for this...1) He got a bad read... He felt that if he made a bet significant to the amount of chips his opponent held that his opponent would fold the hand... in other words he felt more weakness than was really there... but once he made a bet so large he knew he was pot-commited at that point and had to call even though he would have MUCH rather that his opponent folded.2)He wanted his opponent to put all of them in... basically he wanted his opponent to think "That was odd... why would he ask how much I held... and then not put me all-in but put so much in the pot that I would have to go all-in to stay" so once they came back over the top at him he quickly called because he wanted them all in in the first place.... The only thing I disagree with this theory for is because he always seemed to have an annoyed look when he called the all-in.all this stuff about being in poor postition and stuff just doesn't make since because he did it TWICE when he was in a heads-up pot. so it couldn't have been to isolate the middle player also. anyway that's my view on it.. I was always curious about those bets also.

I agree Jist. Each time he did it he didn't have to worry about a MP player reraising him. And each time his opponent decided to push it in he looksed annoyed. For sure. Which is why the argument that he did it as deception to get them to push it in doesn't work.The bad read argument is the best I've heard so far. And I know Josh is a great player. Maybe he really thought they would lay down. Especially since he looked pissed that they pushed it in. I don't believe that he wanted them to do that as well because each time he was most likely a coin-flip which everyone says pros want to avoid.

[JTPHS 0]

he definitely says, "if i'm supposed to tenth, i'm supposed to be tenth". I have it on my computer and watched it over a couple times to be sure. It's the only one the really makes sense too because there's ten left and he's lookin' at a coin flip.