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

[Fluffdog87 2]

I DO ITS EASY TO UNDERSTAND.I wrote this in another post and nobody understood me. when kanter raise to 180 and ivey goes all in. true, most everything folds here but when someone calls your clearly screwed. clearly he was 8th in chips here.It is nessasary to read the below posts, by myself, to understand the total math concept.post link- http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...8490&highlight= Fri, Nov 25th, 2005 10:59 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- im sorry that your missing the point here. he went all in with jj if hes called its going to be by QQ KK OR AA AND MAYBE AK SUITED HERE MAYBE. So a pro looks at this ands says 3/4 im a 4-1 dog, 1/4 im a 50-50 coinflip.so he wins this move 28% of the time. they are not happy to be a slight fav to win. They want to get it in with the best hand. Daniel's hand clearly represents folding equity. In ivey's situation, he saying call me with the above four hands maybe. daniel will win the hand right there 50-75% lets say probably less you'lll claim. now when he does get called he is a 60% fav lets say. This means hes not trying to get a coinflip. Hes thinking ive got 50% win % if he fols + when he calls 60% to win there so 50+60/2 (the other half of the time he gets called here), so the realistic chances of him winning this exact hand are really 80% and not 50 %. So when good players that are not short stacked take coinflip this is teir logic. Not lets get this over with now so i have chips later. 30k 60 k blinds. kanter raises to 180k, ivey moves all in for 3 million!!!! You do this with AA OR KK ONLYor if your shortstacked. He had neither. this is explaining the move using my math. No, this is straight from Skalansky. Pro Poker players take these coinflips knowing in real terms they are not coinflips, for they win the hand, in this example, 80% of the time.

[Bizzle 0]

See, I am fairly sure that I understand whatever math concept it is that you are talking about.But I see no math. And due to the lack of structure in your post, I really cannot tell whether you are arguing for or against jamming in Ivey's seat.I would be more than happy to debate you on whether Ivey's jam was correct or not (I can defend both sides), but I'd need you to clean up your argument some first.

[dead money 1]

Maybe nobody understood you because you dont know how to write. There should be some sort of structure to your post. I have no idea where you are going with this. The second sentence pretty much sums up what Im talking about.

[dead money 1]

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).

[sirphatticus 0]

ex-sqeeze me? a bikin' powder?no seriously, i understand about 20% of that post, from what i gather your defending ivey...to tell you the truth, i dont see whats spectacular about the hand... ive seen it, more than once, never noticed anything off about it.

[augmented 0]

uhhhhhhhh you're missing something.........kanter sucks and is a calling station. kanter will probably call with any pair, 6s and up. also maybe with AT, AJ, AQ. maybe even something worse. you overestimate kanter. ivey played it fine.

[Fluffdog87 2]

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

[augmented 0]

this is not a math concept. this is ivey raising with a good hand against a horrible player who is VERY likely to call with something worse. and by worse, i mean a lot worse.

[Bizzle 0]

uhhhhhhhh you're missing something.........kanter sucks and is a calling station.  kanter will probably call with any pair, 6s and up. also maybe with AT, AJ, AQ. maybe even something worse. you overestimate kanter.  ivey played it fine.

How do you call him a calling station and make any read on what he would have done preflop? I agree that he made a few sketchy calls during the main event, but almost all of them were post-flop or post-turn when he had outs no matter what the other player had.I am doubting A10 and AJ. I also doubt 99-66.

[KingAustin 0]

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

Are you a pro? If not, TP/MM

[Fluffdog87 2]

i have a very low bankrol right now. but yes i have a very in depth understanding of many parts of the game through intense studying of everything poker.

[Merby 3]

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

I don't think anyone is arguing the mathematics in play here. You see, the majority of posters are trying to figure out what you are actually saying. The fundamental problem is that you have not presented an "argument"... merely a series of "sentence fragments".Quoting Bizzle:

But I see no math. And due to the lack of structure in your post, I really cannot tell whether you are arguing for or against jamming in Ivey's seat.

Sirphatticus seems even worse off than Bizzle:

...no seriously, i understand about 20% of that post...

I had thought that dead money made this point rather clearly:

Maybe nobody understood you because you dont know how to write. There should be some sort of structure to your post. I have no idea where you are going with this. The second sentence pretty much sums up what Im talking about.

I believe the second sentence he is referring to is the following sentence fragment:

when kanter raise to 180 and ivey goes all in.

This is the point in my post where I would normally turn around, and translate your idea into a clear argument of the point that I think you were trying to make. Unfortunately, this time I am at a loss, because in order to be able to present your argument clearly, I would have to first have some inkling of what it is you are trying to say - and I have none. Don't worry, you don't need to pass english class to excel at poker,Cheers,Merby

[Smiddywap 0]

im sorry that your missing the point here. he went all in with jj if hes called its going to be by QQ KK OR AA AND MAYBE AK SUITED HERE MAYBE. So a pro looks at this ands says 3/4 im a 4-1 dog, 1/4 im a 50-50 coinflip.so he wins this move 28% of the time. they are not happy to be a slight fav to win. They want to get it in with the best hand. Daniel's hand clearly represents folding equity. In ivey's situation, he saying call me with the above four hands maybe. daniel will win the hand right there 50-75% lets say probably less you'lll claim. now when he does get called he is a 60% fav lets say. This means hes not trying to get a coinflip. Hes thinking ive got 50% win % if he fols + when he calls 60% to win there so 50+60/2 (the other half of the time he gets called here), so the realistic chances of him winning this exact hand are really 80% and not 50 %. So when good players that are not short stacked take coinflip this is teir logic. Not lets get this over with now so i have chips later. 30k 60 k blinds. kanter raises to 180k, ivey moves all in for 3 million!!!! You do this with AA OR KK ONLYor if your shortstacked. He had neither. this is explaining the move using my math. No, this is straight from Skalansky. Pro Poker players take these coinflips knowing in real terms they are not coinflips, for they win the hand, in this example, 80% of the time.

Dude, you're still not getting what I posted in the other thread. With the huge bet, Ivey is looking for a fold from Kanter. The chances someone is holding one of the four hands you mentioned above in a given hand are very slim. The times Ivey gets folded to here and picks up the blinds plus Kanter's 180 are very much the majority.I believe you get into this in your second paragraph. You note that in the example of Daniel's hand he'll be folded to half the time. How often would Kanter fold in this spot? Nine out of ten times? More?Now, what I believe you're trying to get across here is that Ivey's all in is a larger bet than required for a fold from Kanter. However, if Ivey raises to (for example) 1 million, the action's back on Kanter. Kanter can then push all in and put Ivey in a tough spot.

[dead money 1]

I believe the second sentence he is referring to is the following sentence fragment:Fluffdog87 wrote:when kanter raise to 180 and ivey goes all in.

He edited this. It originally said,"when raise to 180 and ivey goes all in."Now it seems to make sense.

[Bizzle 0]

Don't worry, you don't need to pass english class to excel at poker,Cheers,Merby

vnh. wp. You get the runner up trophy for Noobie of the Year

[Merby 3]

Wow... my above post was my first "flame" post... I can see how addicting that can be after a stressful day at work.Fluffdog87 - don't mind me. You're right to be upset with me (if you are...) My post was rude and lacked any substance. Add to that the fact that my post did not add anything to this thread.I must thank you, though. I had a rough stressful day, and it was unbelievably cathartic to mindlessly flame a complete stranger. Let the Merby flaming begin... (no seriously, you should try it, it's great!)Cheers,MerbyPS> NEVER take me seriously

[Fluffdog87 2]

god dam arghhhhhhhhi don't flame people.i just telll people when their wrong, very blatently. lol, this could be econsidered a flame.read only all my posts on the other thread, and maybe you'll understand it better. :wink:

[Smiddywap 0]

Translation of original post for those who don't understand (Note - translation is approximate, I don't get it all either):

im sorry that your missing the point here. he went all in with jj if hes called its going to be by QQ KK OR AA AND MAYBE AK SUITED HERE MAYBE. So a pro looks at this ands says 3/4 im a 4-1 dog, 1/4 im a 50-50 coinflip.so he wins this move 28% of the time.

On the topic of Phil Ivey's final hand in the WSOP Main Event where his pocket jacks ran into Kanter's pocket kings, I believe Ivey's 3 million chip all in bet was ill-advised. If Ivey is called in this situation he is likely facing one of four hands: AA, KK, QQ, or AKs. A professional sees that he's a 4 to 1 underdog against the higher pairs and is in a coinflip situation against the AKs. According to my calculations, this means Ivey will win the hand only 28% of the time, assuming equal probability of each of the selected hands.

they are not happy to be a slight fav to win. They want to get it in with the best hand.

Professionals do not like such poor odds. They would rather make such a move while holding a more optimal hand.

Daniel's hand clearly represents folding equity. In ivey's situation, he saying call me with the above four hands maybe. daniel will win the hand right there 50-75% lets say probably less you'lll claim. now when he does get called he is a 60% fav lets say. This means hes not trying to get a coinflip. Hes thinking ive got 50% win % if he fols + when he calls 60% to win there so 50+60/2 (the other half of the time he gets called here), so the realistic chances of him winning this exact hand are really 80% and not 50 %. So when good players that are not short stacked take coinflip this is teir logic. Not lets get this over with now so i have chips later.

In regards to DN's hand, as explained in the thread linked above, he has folding equity. In Ivey's situation, (Ed note: unsure of this passage, would appreciate outside interpretations). In Daniel's case, he will win his hand between 50% and 75% of the time, though you may argue he isn't such a large favorite. For the sake of discussion, let's say he will win 60% of the time. DN is thinking his opponent will fold to a bet half the time. Add to this the 60% chance of winning if he gets called:0.5+(0.6/2)=0.5+0.3=0.8=80%In this way, DN really has an 80% chance of winning the hand if he moves all in. Good players will use this logic to determine whether or not to make such a bet when not short stacked. They do not see a less favorable situation as a good option for gaining chips.

30k 60 k blinds. kanter raises to 180k, ivey moves all in for 3 million!!!! You do this with AA OR KK ONLYor if your shortstacked. He had neither.

Back to Ivey's situation, his blinds are currently at 30,000/60,000. Kanter raises 180,000. At this point, Ivey moves all in for 3 million! This is a move you make with only AA or KK or if you are shortstacked. Ivey was in neither situation.(Ed. note: I believe the OP is skipping a point here where he goes through similar math for Ivey's situation.)

this is explaining the move using my math. No, this is straight from Skalansky. Pro Poker players take these coinflips knowing in real terms they are not coinflips, for they win the hand, in this example, 80% of the time.

In conclusion, through this post I have explained my claim by using mathematics. This is a concept taught by Sklansky. Professional poker players will engage in a coin flip situation only if they, in reality, have a large chance of winning the hand in the manner I have described.

[dead money 1]

god dam arghhhhhhhhi don't flame people.i just telll people when their wrong, very blatently. lol, this could be econsidered a flame.read only all my posts on the other thread, and maybe you'll understand it better.

See, this is your problem right here. You are talking about another thread and you expect those of us that havent read it to understand whats going on. You have to post a link so that we will understand what you are talking about. Right now we are only getting bits and pieces of the idea. I assume this is about Iveys bustout in the WSOP. But I dont understand where Daniel comes into this. There big pieces of the plot missing, and I am lost without them.

[augmented 0]

are you kidding bizzle? he made so many preflop calls. he called an all in with AT against QQ. he called hachem's all in with 9s even though hachem represented a very strong hand (i guess that happened to be a good call). and he was not afraid to put his money in bad at all, like when he moved in preflop with A7 against AQ against barch. and i'm sure he saw ivey as a LAG player who makes any move with any 2 cards, and that he is worse than ivey, making him even more likely to call with marginal cards. he was riding a rush, ivey knew that, i'm sure he woulda called with TT-66, and maybe even less. he happened to have a hand, thats bad timing, not a horrible choke.

[Bizzle 0]

are you kidding bizzle? he made so many preflop calls. he called an all in with AT against QQ. he called hachem's all in with 9s even though hachem represented a very strong hand (i guess that happened to be a good call). and he was not afraid to put his money in bad at all, like when he moved in preflop with A7 against AQ against barch. and i'm sure he saw ivey as a LAG player who makes any move with any 2 cards, and that he is worse than ivey, making him even more likely to call with marginal cards. he was riding a rush, ivey knew that, i'm sure he woulda called with TT-66, and maybe even less. he happened to have a hand, thats bad timing, not a horrible choke.

I loved the 9s call. If I remember correctly (and I would like to think I do) the A10 call was versus a shortstack. I just honestly can't seem him calling a 2.4 mil reraise on top of his 200k with A10 or AJ, or 66.

[augmented 0]

well i just can't see him doing any of the horrible crap he did, like calling raymer's flop bet with absolutely nothing. that hand proved that he didn't mind going broke, so its not like ivey's chip size would have really mattered. look man, kanter calls in the worst situations ever. ivey knows this. so he pushed, and ran into a bigger hand. its not like ivey was totally bluffing.

[Bizzle 0]

well i just can't see him doing any of the horrible crap he did, like calling raymer's flop bet with absolutely nothing. that hand proved that he didn't mind going broke, so its not like ivey's chip size would have really mattered. look man, kanter calls in the worst situations ever. ivey knows this. so he pushed, and ran into a bigger hand. its not like ivey was totally bluffing.

I understand this, and I am not arguing with the move. I just have a few minor quibbles with the calling hand range that you put him on. I know that no pro would call with 99, TT, or AQ and he probably would. But like I said before...I really don't seem him calling with anything else. Maybe there is some bias involved because *I* wouldn't call with anything else, but I just can't see it.

[justblaze 0]

if this translation is accurate, then here is why fluffdog is a moron: (justblazes reply in blue)

Translation of original post for those who don't understand (Note - translation is approximate, I don't get it all either):

im sorry that your missing the point here. he went all in with jj if hes called its going to be by QQ KK OR AA AND MAYBE AK SUITED HERE MAYBE. So a pro looks at this ands says 3/4 im a 4-1 dog, 1/4 im a 50-50 coinflip.so he wins this move 28% of the time.

On the topic of Phil Ivey's final hand in the WSOP Main Event where his pocket jacks ran into Kanter's pocket kings, I believe Ivey's 3 million chip all in bet was ill-advised. If Ivey is called in this situation he is likely facing one of four hands: AA, KK, QQ, or AKs. A professional sees that he's a 4 to 1 underdog against the higher pairs and is in a coinflip situation against the AKs. According to my calculations, this means Ivey will win the hand only 28% of the time, assuming equal probability of each of the selected hands.speaking of math, why dont we enumerate the combinations in which each hand in Kanters supposed calling range (which you have failed to justify) are distributed? hint: its not 3:1 like you think. also, you think he has 0% fold equity? i know you understand what fold equity is since you reference it in a following comment...

they are not happy to be a slight fav to win. They want to get it in with the best hand.

Professionals do not like such poor odds. They would rather make such a move while holding a more optimal hand.you havent shown in any way how ivey is a 'slight favourite'. in fact, you pegged him at a 72-28 dog. make up your mind.

Daniel's hand clearly represents folding equity. In ivey's situation, he saying call me with the above four hands maybe. daniel will win the hand right there 50-75% lets say probably less you'lll claim. now when he does get called he is a 60% fav lets say. This means hes not trying to get a coinflip. Hes thinking ive got 50% win % if he fols + when he calls 60% to win there so 50+60/2 (the other half of the time he gets called here), so the realistic chances of him winning this exact hand are really 80% and not 50 %. So when good players that are not short stacked take coinflip this is teir logic. Not lets get this over with now so i have chips later.

In regards to DN's hand, as explained in the thread linked above, he has folding equity. In Ivey's situation, (Ed note: unsure of this passage, would appreciate outside interpretations). In Daniel's case, he will win his hand between 50% and 75% of the time, though you may argue he isn't such a large favorite. For the sake of discussion, let's say he will win 60% of the time. DN is thinking his opponent will fold to a bet half the time. Add to this the 60% chance of winning if he gets called:0.5+(0.6/2)=0.5+0.3=0.8=80%In this way, DN really has an 80% chance of winning the hand if he moves all in. Good players will use this logic to determine whether or not to make such a bet when not short stacked. They do not see a less favorable situation as a good option for gaining chips.so why doesnt this theory apply to Ivey and the possibility of kanter folding?

30k 60 k blinds. kanter raises to 180k, ivey moves all in for 3 million!!!! You do this with AA OR KK ONLYor if your shortstacked. He had neither.

Back to Ivey's situation, his blinds are currently at 30,000/60,000. Kanter raises 180,000. At this point, Ivey moves all in for 3 million! This is a move you make with only AA or KK or if you are shortstacked. Ivey was in neither situation.im sorry, i must have missed the part where you told us how you decided the exact conditions required for pushing a stack. id like you to find me a quote from any respected author agreeing with this.(Ed. note: I believe the OP is skipping a point here where he goes through similar math for Ivey's situation.)

this is explaining the move using my math. No, this is straight from Skalansky. Pro Poker players take these coinflips knowing in real terms they are not coinflips, for they win the hand, in this example, 80% of the time.

In conclusion, through this post I have explained my claim by using mathematics. This is a concept taught by Sklansky. Professional poker players will engage in a coin flip situation only if they, in reality, have a large chance of winning the hand in the manner I have described.so you basically make no sense. Ivey was stupid because based on your incredibly incorrect assumptions and analysis of the distribution of 4 hands, he is a 28% dog. then you spend many posts explaining fold equity, and fail to include it in your original analysis. TP/MM.

[Fluffdog87 2]

the interpretation was spot on.Rush or not Kanter will not make a call with 10's or below here. Why? For the same reason Ivey shouldn't have pushed in, at best he's against AK, and he's probably dominated by A BETTER PP.In my first post I give the link to the previous post.The DN story was a link in that post, (which wasn't much of a story anyway). That link was put there to explain why they thought I was wrong. I don't understand what they were trying to get at, but used it as an example in a similar math hand, (The Ivey All-In Hand.) Real Terms Poker Math is difficult for some to understand right off the bat, if you understand regular poker math, but it would be even harder, if you don't completely understand the regular pokeere math. :wink: Nice Interpretation.