ivey's jacks (mike matusow agrees with me.)

[theredpill99 0]

moving all-in with JJ against decent opponents with this deep of a stack is usually wrong unless you have a good read. Kanter raised for 180K. Ivey has 3 million, right ? Kanter has him covered. Assuming Kanter makes same raise for all premium hands and he only raises premium hands. Ivey is a 4 to 1 dog 20 % of the time and other 80 % of the time he is 50/50 . So 80 % of the time , he breaks even over the long run since it's 50/50.20 % of the time, he loses 80 % of the pot (JJ vs QQ is 20/80). So each time he makes this play he can expect to lose 1.8 million over the long run. Thus, it's a - EV play. If you're interested, 80 % of 6 million = 4.8 million and then I subtracted this from Phil's 3 million to get the 1.8 million loss. If you really want detail, JJ against AK isn't really 50/50. It's about 6 % advantage so he can expect to make about 360,000 each time he's up against 2 overcards. Actually, though, if Kanter will call with AQ and AK and maybe even KQ. Then ,he gets that 360,000 (.80)andhe loses 1.8 x 10^6 (.20)so 360,000(.80)+ (.20)(-1.8x10^6) = - 72000So he still loses 72000 chips each time he makes the play. It's slightly -EV if Kanter only calls with decent hands. If Kanter is very loose and calls with TT , 99, KQ, AK, AQ then I think this becomes slightly positive.

[Fluffdog87 2]

hes a 4-1 dog 75% of the time getting called against AA, KK, OR QQHES 50-50 53-47 WHATEVER 25% OF THE TIMEgetting called against AKSO HE CAN EXPECT TO WIN IN TOTAL 28% WHEN CALLED HERE. LOGICALLY.I THINK U MIXED THE 2 FIGURES UP ON ACCIDENT.

[theredpill99 0]

hes a 4-1 dog 75% of the time getting called against AA, KK, OR QQ

I'm assuming that1) Kanter raises only premium hands2) Kanter calls everytime than Phil reraises all-inSo Kanter only picks up KK,AA, and QQ roughly 20 % of the time and that is where I get that figure. He will have KQ, AK, and AQ, the other 80 % of the time. 16 ways to make AKonly 6 ways to make AAHow can you say that Kanter will call 75 % of the time ? We have no idea how often he will call so I assumed that he called everytime and calculated that way. I do know what Kanters possible hand ranges are, though.

[Fluffdog87 2]

read the entie post and you'll understand it. Otherwise I've heard it's indesifirable. LOL 8)

[teneight 1]

when did poker come about math?? lolanyways, i'm sure the last thing phil ivey was thinking about during this hand was math. He cleary stated that math is overrated in poker, it's all about reads/feel for the gameteneightbtw, i'm a math major

[Fluffdog87 2]

WELL IF YOU READ MY ENTIRE POST YOU'LL UNDERSTAND WHY HE SHOULD HAVE USED IT THAT HAND. LOLI'M REALLY YELLING AHHHHHHHGETTING PUMPED UP FOR A TOURNEY. WAHOOOOO

[DaBruins 0]

not sure what you're arguing for as i havent read the whole thread, but:Kanter is a horrible player who does weird raises with weird hands and does them badly. Ivey knows Kanter can have any hand and if he merely re-raises he knows Kanter is a calling station. Well i guess at that point he didnt want to risk the big chance that Kanter would call and A K or Q would flop meaning Ivey would have no idea what to do. In this case, Kanter would probably call him with AKs or 10 10 or even maybe AQs. The point is not that only better hands call Ivey, the point is that Ivey felt there was a 95% chance he wasnt getting called. So yes lets say 3/4 of the hands that call him beat him, that doesnt mean Ivey loses 75% of the time... not even close.I'm not saying the hand was played in a perfect manner, but i dont fault him for making that move against a donk and i wont criticize a move that an elite player made on an edited TV show.

[Fluffdog87 2]

sarcastic yeahhhhhhhhhumm read the post first, then comment on it.You wouldn't of said what you just did.Go Phil Ivey. But he still screwed up bigtime here. Its such an obvious and glaring mistake.Read the post if your going to comment, so your comment will be well informed.

[sholden 0]

sarcastic yeahhhhhhhhhumm read the post first, then comment on it.You wouldn't of said what you just did.Go Phil Ivey. But he still screwed up bigtime here. Its such an obvious and glaring mistake.Read the post if your going to comment, so your comment will be well informed.

No one can read the first post. It is incomprehensible. If it was written in Chinese the average English speaker would have more chance of understanding what it says.

[Azwethinkweiz 0]

I dont care how vastly amazing Phil Ivey is, he made the move on a semi-tilt. There were tears in his eyes after the hand. it was emotional. He got a dry run of cards and pushed it in with the first hand he caught, plain and simple. there was no calculated risk, no math, he saw JJ and pushed it to the center. He wont admit it, people will defend it with upteen and a half zillion pretentious arguements, but it is what it is.

[justblaze 0]

hes a 4-1 dog 75% of the time getting called against AA, KK, OR QQHES 50-50 53-47 WHATEVER 25% OF THE TIMEgetting called against AKSO HE CAN EXPECT TO WIN IN TOTAL 28% WHEN CALLED HERE. LOGICALLY.I THINK U MIXED THE 2 FIGURES UP ON ACCIDENT.

for a guy who is ranting about math, you seem to know nothing about it. if his calling ranges is QQ KK AA and AK, then almost 50% of the time he will have AK (16 out of 34). `

[dead money 1]

for a guy who is ranting about math, you seem to know nothing about it. if his calling ranges is QQ KK AA and AK, then almost 50% of the time he will have AK (16 out of 34). `

Well, to be fair, in his original post, it was AK suited only. So there are 18 ways to make AA, KK, or QQ. And only 4 ways to make AK suited.

[CaneBrain 95]

Oh, and if it werent for that horse, I never would have made it through that last year of medical school.(Im not sure if that is how it goes, but if anybody knows Louis Black, they will understand).

I get it. (It's actually, if it werent for my horse, I never would have spent that year in college)"What was she on a polo scholarship??""Classic.

[onlymyBgame 0]

why does everyone look at these things in such black and white terms. Ivey made an overbet push because he thought there was very little chance he would be called. YOU HAVE TO ACCOUNT FOR FOLDING if you try to figure out the profitability of the play. i dont think it was a particularly good play, but i feel as if most people are approaching it in the wrong way.say ivey makes it 600k and then aaron (or possibly a player behind phil) decides to move in with a hand like AK, AQ or even something worse. it puts phil in a tough spot. he was taking away aaron's opportunity to semibluff him off of a huge pot by simply moving in. and considering ivey's image as an extremely aggressive player, it's very likely that he could be played back at if he simply makes a standard reraise.i think people are also presuming an overly tight calling range. the play doesnt make a whole lot of sense at first glance, so many people immediately assume that's a bluff. and since aaron has him outchipped, he might have wanted to gamble with overs or even possibly TT or 99. i mean, we all watched him on tv and made some pretty terrible calls and lucked out, so i dont put it past him.

[alf13 0]

Kanter had shown the ability to raise alot of hands.....Ivey got a bad read.....My guess is that Ivey didn't mind a fold....but he also didn't mind a call from TT or a AJ and if he found himself in a coin flip vs. AQ, or AK....so be it....It was a bad read and he just got unlucky that his bad read included Kanter having him buried....

[HoosierAlum 0]

Kanter had shown the ability to raise alot of hands.....Ivey got a bad read.....My guess is that Ivey didn't mind a fold....but he also didn't mind a call from TT or a AJ and if he found himself in a coin flip vs. AQ, or AK....so be it....It was a bad read and he just got unlucky that his bad read included Kanter having him buried....

Pretty much sums it up perfectly.

[Guitarmy 0]

nevermind nobody understands this math concept nor why ivey's play was asking to lose. nevermind. I give up trying to explain this.

Wow, how ignorant. You dont even know what your talking about kid. Fluffdog87? Does that refer to your year of birth making you 18? I think you dont understand what a math concept is. I blame the schools.

[Pupsta 0]

moving all-in with JJ against decent opponents with this deep of a stack is usually wrong unless you have a good read. Kanter raised for 180K. Ivey has 3 million, right ? Kanter has him covered. Assuming Kanter makes same raise for all premium hands and he only raises premium hands. Ivey is a 4 to 1 dog 20 % of the time and other 80 % of the time he is 50/50 . So 80 % of the time , he breaks even over the long run since it's 50/50.20 % of the time, he loses 80 % of the pot (JJ vs QQ is 20/80). So each time he makes this play he can expect to lose 1.8 million over the long run. Thus, it's a - EV play. If you're interested, 80 % of 6 million = 4.8 million and then I subtracted this from Phil's 3 million to get the 1.8 million loss. If you really want detail, JJ against AK isn't really 50/50. It's about 6 % advantage so he can expect to make about 360,000 each time he's up against 2 overcards. Actually, though, if Kanter will call with AQ and AK and maybe even KQ. Then ,he gets that 360,000 (.80)andhe loses 1.8 x 10^6 (.20)so 360,000(.80)+ (.20)(-1.8x10^6) = - 72000So he still loses 72000 chips each time he makes the play. It's slightly -EV if Kanter only calls with decent hands. If Kanter is very loose and calls with TT , 99, KQ, AK, AQ then I think this becomes slightly positive.

thank you for the professional analysis...too bad you're retarded.fold equity mean nothing here?oh yeah, a raise means it must be a premium hand. that's right.

[Fluffdog87 2]

Mike "the mouth" Matusow proves my point on how bad of a play Ivey made in the WSOP Main Event. He agrees with me.Here is his interview link-http://s53.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=09NY28D...AH1K5DUO6HNSLRPGo to the 9 min. mark and he talks about this very hand. Ivey busting with JJ in the WSOP main event.He says he may just fold them to the original raise to 180k.

[Chiggleslap 0]

you wanna know another person that agrees that phil ivey's play was a "brain fart?"PHIL IVEY.he discussed it when he was playing on FTP. he said, verbatim, "i slipped." he had a mental lapse. he doesn't just regret the play because it knocked him out of the tournament, he actually stated that he feels it wasn't the right play, with or without the knowledge of kanter's holdings. ivey didn't think he "played it fine," so i'm going to step out on a limb and agree with him.

[Fluffdog87 2]

WOW NOW THAT WE HAVE A DEFINITIVE ANSWER, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK WHAT THE HELL WERE THE OTHER PEOPLE THINKING WHO DISAGREED WITH ME? LISTEN TO THE INTERVIEW :shock: 8) :x PRICELESS INTERVIEW

[Pupsta 0]

WOW NOW THAT WE HAVE A DEFINITIVE ANSWER, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK WHAT THE HELL WERE THE OTHER PEOPLE THINKING WHO DISAGREED WITH ME? LISTEN TO THE INTERVIEW   :shock:      8)  :x  PRICELESS INTERVIEW

I'D LIKE TO ASK WHO THE HELL BEAT YOU SENSELESS AS A CHILD THAT NOW MAKES YOU FEEL OKAY TYPING EVERY MESSAGE IN NOTHING BUT CAPITALS.WERE YOU AND KOWBOYKOOP BRED FROM THE SAME LITTER?

[Fluffdog87 2]

thank you for the professional analysis...too bad you're retarded.fold equity mean nothing here?oh yeah, a raise means it must be a premium hand.  that's right.

wrong Ivey and matusow agree.with me

[InertGrudge 0]

thank you for the professional analysis...too bad you're retarded.fold equity mean nothing here?oh yeah, a raise means it must be a premium hand.  that's right.

wrong Ivey and matusow agree.with me

Ready everyone, I'm going to make a bombastic argument: Just because Ivey and Matusow agree with the OP on something, it automatically makes it correct.And besides, I really don't think you understand a word other people are saying to you. I don't think I ever once read in here that what Ivey did was the absolute best play he could have done. Yes, he did indeed make a bad move. However, even if we agree with you (and Ivey and Matusow) that Ivey made a bad play, it does not mean that your silly argument is correct. You try (and I use try very forcefully here) to make some "mathematical" point that completely neglects the mathematics of the situation. And then, when other posts present valid arguments against your case, you simply tell them that they don't understand you and your intellectual theory. One, it's easy to not understand you because you write like a five-year old. And you argue like one, too. Boiling things down to a "I'm right, you're wrong" mentality is simply childish. Secondly...oh, forget it, I only need the first point.If you want people to take you seriously, then perhaps you should act like you want to be taken seriously. Write in clear sentences. Present counter-arguments. Type in lower case letters. All of these things help. And, for gosh sake, quit acting like a pompous jerk.

[Fluffdog87 2]

I agree, you seem to be taking this quite childishly, after reading your post. It seems like the post of someone who was originally wrong. Your own words flinging insult after insult at me. Thank you for proving this in your very own post. :clap: :clap: :clap: :dance: :dance: :dance: :bubblethanks: