Wpt Ted Forest Dry Side Bet

[keith crime 8]

Do you guys agree it was a bad betHard to argue that after he got the guy to lay down what would have been a set on the turn

[chrozzo 19]

Do you guys agree it was a bad betHard to argue that after he got the guy to lay down what would have been a set on the turn

i dont know hat youre taling about, he had a side bet on a particular hand? was this from the heads up tourney?

[PoppinFresh 0]

It's a good bet if he can see his opponents' hole cards.But he can't, I think it was a bad bet. Then again Forrest is 10x the player I will ever be, so meh.

[Petoria 0]

Do you guys agree it was a bad betHard to argue that after he got the guy to lay down what would have been a set on the turn

Not hard to argue at all. If you realize that results dont matter.It was a pretty bad bet in my opinion

[keith crime 8]

Sorry Kido Pham short stack all in with A5Forest calls A9 spadesanother player calls with 99flop hits no one with two spadesforest bets 99 folds - turn 9

Not hard to argue at all. If you realize that results dont matter.It was a pretty bad bet in my opinion

I agree its hard to say he knew he had pham dominated but he has outs and he got the strongest hand to lay down - I think the dry side stuff is overemphasized - if forest wants to win he cares more possibly about winning those chips than letting a small stack survive

[custom36 4]

There's no doubt that it was a terrible bet. Anyone that knows anything about poker knows that you don't bet into a dry side pot without a made hand at the final table of a MTT.

[powerpoker 0]

There's no doubt that it was a terrible bet. Anyone that knows anything about poker knows that you don't bet into a dry side pot without a made hand at the final table of a MTT.

i pretty much agree

[Abbaddabba 0]

There's no doubt that it was a terrible bet. Anyone that knows anything about poker knows that you don't bet into a dry side pot without a made hand at the final table of a MTT.

It depends a lot on the payout structure.

[PoppinFresh 0]

There's no doubt that it was a terrible bet. Anyone that knows anything about poker knows that you don't bet into a dry side pot without a made hand at the final table of a MTT.

Except Forrest does know something about poker.

[custom36 4]

Except Forrest does know something about poker.

I'm going to attribute it to fatigue. Or drinking.

[etip 0]

I think it was a good bet, mainly because I'm reasonably sure he put Pham on a weaker ace, and Bell on a stronger Ace.Actually it doesn't matter what he put Bell on, as long as he thinks Bell will fold.I'm almost certain that he knew Pham had a weaker Ace, so if he can get heads up w/ Pham that is advantageous -- he can win the pot and knock out Pham a large percentage of the time, as opposed to being a non-factor if Bell stays in the hand.In other words, I think that since he had such a good read on Pham, taking the slim chance that Pham hits his non-spade kicker is worth attempting to win the entire pot.Betting a dry side pot in a tournament can sometimes be justified, and I think this is an example of when it is acceptable.

[Jerry_Lundegaard 0]

Maybe it was a bad bet but overall he played unreal...Needs to shave that 14 year old kid-esque stash though

[custom36 4]

I think it was a good bet, mainly because I'm reasonably sure he put Pham on a weaker ace, and Bell on a stronger Ace.Actually it doesn't matter what he put Bell on, as long as he thinks Bell will fold.I'm almost certain that he knew Pham had a weaker Ace, so if he can get heads up w/ Pham that is advantageous -- he can win the pot and knock out Pham a large percentage of the time, as opposed to being a non-factor if Bell stays in the hand.In other words, I think that since he had such a good read on Pham, taking the slim chance that Pham hits his non-spade kicker is worth attempting to win the entire pot.Betting a dry side pot in a tournament can sometimes be justified, and I think this is an example of when it is acceptable.

(sw)

[mecoble 0]

it was a bad bet. i think daniel wrote an article about people doing that.

[Rbk33 0]

I havent seen the show yet but a bet into a side pot with no hand is questionable. What was the flop?

[PoppinFresh 0]

I havent seen the show yet but a bet into a side pot with no hand is questionable. What was the flop?

K 8 5 with two spades(I'm not 100% but I think that was it)

[GWCGWC 83]

Pham has Ac5dForrest As9SChris(?) has 9h9dflop (8sKh4s) Ted makes a terrible/awful/sick/bad bet it was just wrongThe good thing about this is that Mike Sexton made another great comment after the hand. "Ted didn't see the Forrest for the trees there." yuckyuck

[PokerMirate 0]

I'm almost certain that he knew Pham had a weaker Ace, so if he can get heads up w/ Pham that is advantageous -- he can win the pot and knock out Pham a large percentage of the time, as opposed to being a non-factor if Bell stays in the hand.In other words, I think that since he had such a good read on Pham, taking the slim chance that Pham hits his non-spade kicker is worth attempting to win the entire pot.

For one how can you possibly guess that? Kido would play such a large range of hands, many of which are better than Teds, the same way he played the A5 that it is crazy to say Ted knew Kido had a weaker Ace.Even if somehow he knew Kido had a weaker Ace, what if the kicker had paired the flop? Then you really screwed yourself. He was risking roughly $100k in real money, the bump in gauaranteed money, that his A9 was better than Kidos hand. Without knowing the results it is better to keep Bell in.

[etip 0]

it was a bad bet. i think daniel wrote an article about people doing that.

There are no absolutes in poker. I think that this is a strange case in which it is acceptable to bet a dry side pot.What Daniel was talking about is the usual case in which you don't really have a strong read on the short stack, and where two hands, combined, have a much better chance of knocking out the short stack than just one hand.In this case, Ted's hand and read were both strong enough to justify isolating Pham.Don't think that it was a bad bet just because Mike Sexton, or even Daniel, said it was -- think about it for yourself and put yourself in Ted's shoes.If you're Ted, and you *know* that Pham has Ax that didn't hit the board, and you *know* that Bell will fold, why not take down the pot??? With Pham only having 3 (2 really b/c of spade draw) outs, reward >> risk.

[GWCGWC 83]

What Daniel was talking about is the usual case in which you don't really have a strong read on the short stack, and where two hands, combined, have a much better chance of knocking out the short stack than just one hand.

If you don't have a strong hand, you don't bet into a dry side pot. It's that simple. Ted had a nut flush DRAW, but only a draw. Pham could have had any PP or a king, if this was the case, then Ted should have checked.

[etip 0]

For one how can you possibly guess that? Kido would play such a large range of hands, many of which are better than Teds, the same way he played the A5 that it is crazy to say Ted knew Kido had a weaker Ace.Even if somehow he knew Kido had a weaker Ace, what if the kicker had paired the flop? Then you really screwed yourself. He was risking roughly $100k in real money, the bump in gauaranteed money, that his A9 was better than Kidos hand. Without knowing the results it is better to keep Bell in.

OK - let's talk about math.The whole reason he called before the flop was because he thought his hand was best.Then the flop brings him a spade draw -- this is a MAJOR thing.If I were Ted, I would be thinking:The odds that I have Pham beat (OR WILL DRAW OUT ON HIM) are greater than the odds that he has me beat, AND are good enough that my hand justifies isolation.IMO, his bet is similar to betting into a dry pot w/ a high pair (aka a hand strong enough to risk reducing the # of hands against the short stack). I think he knew that his hand was that strong against Pham.But - you're right, Pham COULD have outflopped him, but in general it is unlikely since most hands miss most flops - but even if he did, Ted had a powerful re-draw. However I'm pretty sure Ted would only make that bet with a read that he had Pham, er... out-ace-kickered.

[nritchi3 0]

There are no absolutes in poker. I think that this is a strange case in which it is acceptable to bet a dry side pot.What Daniel was talking about is the usual case in which you don't really have a strong read on the short stack, and where two hands, combined, have a much better chance of knocking out the short stack than just one hand.In this case, Ted's hand and read were both strong enough to justify isolating Pham.Don't think that it was a bad bet just because Mike Sexton, or even Daniel, said it was -- think about it for yourself and put yourself in Ted's shoes.If you're Ted, and you *know* that Pham has Ax that didn't hit the board, and you *know* that Bell will fold, why not take down the pot??? With Pham only having 3 (2 really b/c of spade draw) outs, reward >> risk.

Ok Clearly you have never been at a final table before. Im gonna make this really clear for you. Every place you move up at the final table of a tournament is worth a lot of money therefore sometimes its worth sacrificing a pot in order to knock a player out. That is why you never bet at a dry side pot at the final table of a tournement. Maybe its not an absoloute but its as close as there is in poker. Forrest would feel like a big dummy if Pham survives and then forrest ends up being the next one out.

[DLizzle 0]

I didnt see the hand, but anyone know what the stacks/blinds were like. Tough to have a spot where this bet is good but it's possible. for example the short stack may have been so short that he didn't even matter and doubling him up was not a problem. Also I guess Ted could have been playing for first and only first. Or he could have wanted to not give Pham the pot and would rather the other guy had it.

[hank213 1,823]

Ok Clearly you have never been at a final table before. Im gonna make this really clear for you. Every place you move up at the final table of a tournament is worth a lot of money therefore sometimes its worth sacrificing a pot in order to knock a player out. That is why you never bet at a dry side pot at the final table of a tournement. Maybe its not an absoloute but its as close as there is in poker. Forrest would feel like a big dummy if Pham survives and then forrest ends up being the next one out.

What he said...

[etip 0]

If you don't have a strong hand, you don't bet into a dry side pot. It's that simple. Ted had a nut flush DRAW, but only a draw. Pham could have had any PP or a king, if this was the case, then Ted should have checked.

I see where you, and everyone else, is coming from - because I have had my fair share of frustrations with people bluffing dry side bots.BTW, the rule is to never *bluff* a dry side pot, you're allowed to bet if you have the best hand! The ultimate goal is to accumulate chips for yourself, right? Why let another guy catch a 3 outer on you when you would've beaten the short stack yourself, right?Anyway, I stand by my statement that I think Ted had a good read w/ a very powerful re-draw even if he was wrong (which...he's Ted Forrest, he usually isn't).Personally, I think it was the opposite of bad -- I think it was a brilliant play -- I hate to be results oriented but look at what happened for Ted!!But I respect the opinions of everyone on here, because, like I said, I've been on the other end of the dry side pot bet.

Ok Clearly you have never been at a final table before. Im gonna make this really clear for you. Every place you move up at the final table of a tournament is worth a lot of money therefore sometimes its worth sacrificing a pot in order to knock a player out. That is why you never bet at a dry side pot at the final table of a tournement. Maybe its not an absoloute but its as close as there is in poker. Forrest would feel like a big dummy if Pham survives and then forrest ends up being the next one out.

I have been at many final tables!! Probably close to 20 finals of large multis, and that's just online. I realize that the money is huge (but how huge is it to Ted really? A $10,000 tourney to him is like a $10 for me). But anyway, the ultimate goal is to accumulate chips for *yourself* and to win. You should "play to win, don't play to not lose."Please don't be condescending to me btw.The rule is never to bluff a dry side pot. Well, Ted didn't bluff, did he? He had Pham beat. I've said it before and I'll say it again -- my *personal* opinion is that this move is very read-dependent, and I think Ted knew what he was doing. I honestly think that he put Bell on AQ or maybe even AJ, but even if he put him on the two 9s it doesn't matter because I believe Ted thought he had Pham dominated.If you don't agree, that's fine, but you have no idea what my accomplishments in poker are, and don't pretend that one or two posts dictate how good I am.LOL. Does anyone else agree with me?