Kansaspoker 0 Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/a...5005&m_id=65573He wrote this himself, with supplied link above.Basically he slams Lederer for his opinion, but does not even know when its a split pot. CLASSIC!Conditional Probability - There's more to probability than just the "poker math"I recently played in a $20,000 buy-in no-limit hold’em invitational tournament at Wynn Las Vegas. It was a short field of 23 players and would air live on FoxSportsNet.The structure was rather fast in order to get down to the final six in time for the live show. I ended up making the final table as the chip leader, but it wasn’t a monster lead at all. We were all packed pretty closely together.In the first 30 minutes of play as the chip leader, I didn’t get even one hand I could remotely consider playing. Yet, I hung on to the lead, as the play was slow, for the most part.John D’Agostino was on the short stack with $13,100 when this hand came down. The blinds were $600-$1,200 and “JDags” went all in for his $13,100. Next to the button, Ted Forrest contemplated for a moment or two, and then just decided to call the bet.When it got around to me in the small blind, I found A-Q offsuit and was faced with my first dilemma: reraise to shut Ted out of the pot, or just call and hope to check the hand down with Ted. Knowing how tricky Ted can be, I couldn’t rule out the possibility that he was setting a trap in this situation, so I decided to proceed cautiously by just calling.The flop came 6-6-4 rainbow and I checked quickly, letting Ted know that I had no interest in bluffing into an empty side pot. Ted checked behind me and the turn card was an ace. With about $40,000 in the pot, I decided to throw out a dinky little goofy bet of $3,000. Why? Well, it’s almost like a check, but it gives Ted a chance to fold a hand like 7-7 if he chooses to do so.Ted called the turn and the river brought another 6, for a final board 6-6-4-A-6. I checked and made it rather obvious (at least to me) that I didn’t like that card. I figured that my A-Q was probably in the lead, unless of course Ted had A-K.When the board is 664A6, AK and AQ is a split!!!! Link to post Share on other sites
StatFox_Jason 0 Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 I guess I don't understand what you're trying to say. Daniel said.."I figured that my A-Q was probably in the lead, unless of course Ted had A-K."He simply meant what he said... His A-Q was in the lead, unless Ted had A-K, in which case is A-Q was not in the lead and it would be a split pot. Link to post Share on other sites
Golden 2 Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 The OP is wrong on both counts. Awful post. Link to post Share on other sites
167-169 0 Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 DN wasn't foolish. there is no way forrest can put him on quads in that situation. pushin in should've been the move.50% he had an ace is a questionable analysis at best. quite dumb imo. Link to post Share on other sites
RDigger 0 Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 In no way, did Daniel look foolish in that article.You look foolish for making this thread. Link to post Share on other sites
GrinderMJ 0 Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 Why is everybody so retarded that they can't figure this out? When he says it was a bad river, he means because he was ahead on the TURN with aq unless Ted had ak. It's really not that hard to see what he is saying, and he's right about Ted making an awful check behind. So OP, you are an idiot. Link to post Share on other sites
kaisersoze12 0 Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 This is a very good article.The OP is illiterate. DN said he thought he was in the lead with AQ on the turn. He knew the 6 brought all other Ax hands into play to chop.I think Ted was much more afraid of 67, 65 or something similar than he is A6. Link to post Share on other sites
mrdannyg 274 Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 was playing one of those crappy free bar tournaments last night and a hand came up with Q4 all-in against Q5. i was out but was sweating my buddy, who was not involved in this hand.sure enough queen flops, and board reads Q-7-6-2-3. they start splitting the pot because no one notices the 5-kicker plays. should i mention this, or is it up to the player with the winning hand to bring it up? there was no dealer - hands were dealt by players.daniel Link to post Share on other sites
PFunk 0 Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 was playing one of those crappy free bar tournaments last night and a hand came up with Q4 all-in against Q5. i was out but was sweating my buddy, who was not involved in this hand.sure enough queen flops, and board reads Q-7-6-2-3. they start splitting the pot because no one notices the 5-kicker plays. should i mention this, or is it up to the player with the winning hand to bring it up? there was no dealer - hands were dealt by players.danielIf you notice it you should mention it....Unless of course you're the person with the Q4 :-) Link to post Share on other sites
fourfour44 0 Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 Where does he "slam Lederer" in this article? Link to post Share on other sites
Governator 54 Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 Where does he "slam Lederer" in this article? Link to post Share on other sites
AllenRay4 0 Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 Where does he "slam Lederer" in this article?i also looked for it and came up emptythe whole OP was just stupid Link to post Share on other sites
Randy Reed 0 Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 What the OP failed to even realize after reading the article was that Ted held AA and would have won. This has posted here many times and is nothing new. DN is right in his assesment, there is no way he's calling an all-in with a 6 in his hand. Had Ted pushed, DN would have called expecting to split the pot and been on the rail. Link to post Share on other sites
mrdannyg 274 Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 can you clarify this, randy?are you saying that ted had AA, for aces full, and did not raise? Link to post Share on other sites
BB 0 Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 Good article by Daniel. Just one thing...Had Ted Forrest been playing Howard Lederer, and not gone All-In with three aces-2 sixes, his play could be criticized.However, Ted Forrest wasn't playing a Math Guy, but Daniel Negreanu! Here are the clues:First early in the article, Daniel (A Q) explains why he did not raise Ted (AA) with hole cards that would logically call for a raise."Knowing how tricky Ted can be, I couldn’t rule out the possibility that he was setting a trap in this situation, so I decided to proceed cautiously by just calling."The flop came 6-6-4.On the river Daniel gave two puzzling pieces of information to Ted.#1 "Ted called the turn and the river brought another 6, for a final board 6-6-4-A-6. I checked and made it rather obvious (at least to me) that I didn’t like that card. " Ted would notice the reaction, but normally wouldn't any reaction make him suspicious Daniel was feigning weakness and had the last 6, making quads? #2 Daniel made a comment that affected Ted, "As Ted started reaching for chips, I said aloud, “You’re not seriously thinking about going all in here, are you? I saw you bluff Antonio off the same hand on TV.”Ted would search his memory for a hand where he held pocket aces and bluffed Antonio Esfandiari, but would only remember the hand where he bluffed him when a straight draw was on the board.Again it would be a confusing situation. Daniel might just be wrong about his hand, or might be playing a two part game feeding him misinformation to get him to raise all in. Knowing how deceptive Daniel can get, a check makes sense, because even if he was 90% sure he could eliminate A 6 as Daniel's starting hand, which is Daniel's point in the article,why risk an all-in against this particular player?Reasonable caution. Link to post Share on other sites
iveyfan30 0 Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 he doesnt even really rip lederer...good post, but seems like you had an agenda to it..too bad it backfired... Link to post Share on other sites
PotDragon 0 Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 Reasonable caution.Man, you really nailed the breakdown on that one.:clap: Link to post Share on other sites
mcpickl 0 Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 can you clarify this, randy?are you saying that ted had AA, for aces full, and did not raise?that is correct Link to post Share on other sites
AgroPoker 0 Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 Good article by Daniel. Just one thing...Had Ted Forrest been playing Howard Lederer, and not gone All-In with three aces-2 sixes, his play could be criticized.However, Ted Forrest wasn't playing a Math Guy, but Daniel Negreanu! Here are the clues:First early in the article, Daniel (A Q) explains why he did not raise Ted (AA) with hole cards that would logically call for a raise."Knowing how tricky Ted can be, I couldn’t rule out the possibility that he was setting a trap in this situation, so I decided to proceed cautiously by just calling."The flop came 6-6-4.On the river Daniel gave two puzzling pieces of information to Ted.#1 "Ted called the turn and the river brought another 6, for a final board 6-6-4-A-6. I checked and made it rather obvious (at least to me) that I didn’t like that card. " Ted would notice the reaction, but normally wouldn't any reaction make him suspicious Daniel was feigning weakness and had the last 6, making quads? #2 Daniel made a comment that affected Ted, "As Ted started reaching for chips, I said aloud, “You’re not seriously thinking about going all in here, are you? I saw you bluff Antonio off the same hand on TV.”Ted would search his memory for a hand where he held pocket aces and bluffed Antonio Esfandiari, but would only remember the hand where he bluffed him when a straight draw was on the board.Again it would be a confusing situation. Daniel might just be wrong about his hand, or might be playing a two part game feeding him misinformation to get him to raise all in. Knowing how deceptive Daniel can get, a check makes sense, because even if he was 90% sure he could eliminate A 6 as Daniel's starting hand, which is Daniel's point in the article,why risk an all-in against this particular player?Reasonable caution.very good post Link to post Share on other sites
celtic020 0 Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 Great Article by Daniel. Ted checking Aces full was pretty silly since he has to get paid off by the case Ace and there is almost 0% chance that even Daniel has a 6 in that spot. Also, of course Daniel didnt like the river card...he thought that it bailed out Ted's AJ or worse. Link to post Share on other sites
AgroPoker 0 Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 Great Article by Daniel. Ted checking Aces full was pretty silly since he has to get paid off by the case Ace and there is almost 0% chance that even Daniel has a 6 in that spot. Also, of course Daniel didnt like the river card...he thought that it bailed out Ted's AJ or worse.Yes, the OP has no idea what he is talking about. Link to post Share on other sites
KowboyKoop 0 Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 OP, you completely misread DN's article or something, wow, you were WAY off. DN nevers insults Lederer or anything like that, he is just commenting on their differences in how they analyze certain situations. Link to post Share on other sites
kaisersoze12 0 Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 OP, you completely misread DN's article or something, wow, you were WAY off. DN nevers insults Lederer or anything like that, he is just commenting on their differences in how they analyze certain situations.What is DN and Lederer's relationship like? I knew it was icy at one point. Link to post Share on other sites
BigFish 0 Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 Thanks to the OP for a terrific post.Please do us all a favor and never post here again. Thanks,The FCP Community Link to post Share on other sites
Painter567 0 Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 Been over this.............http://fullcontactpoker.com/poker-forums/v...0252&highlight= Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now