Doyle Brunson Vs. Chip Reese Horse Final Table

[offset 0]

The laydown is hard for us to understand because Chip and Doyle have played with each other for years, and it involves multiple levels of thinking. I think some people need to learn to be a little results oriented.

[Zach6668 513]

Some need to learn TO be results oriented?I'm not arguing, but if you want to explain, I'd be happy to listen.I do agree with you on it being hard to understand though.

[offset 0]

Some need to learn TO be results oriented?I'm not arguing, but if you want to explain, I'd be happy to listen.

I mean that sometimes I see responses to posts that almost discount reads and give generic advice on hands that are a lot more complicated. I do not think that we can call every play bad just because we do not understand it. Brunson understands the math involved, and he understands that he has to be very sure of his read. Since we are not even close to the same level of play as Doyle we have to give him the benefit of the doubt and trust his read rather than ours. Of course, we can still analyze the hand, but I think we will learn more if we analyze why he made the laydown, rather than if we think he made the right play.

[Zach6668 513]

I mean that sometimes I see responses to posts that almost discount reads and give generic advice on hands that are a lot more complicated. I do not think that we can call every play bad just because we do not understand it. Brunson understands the math involved, and he understands that he has to be very sure of his read. Since we are not even close to the same level of play as Doyle we have to give him the benefit of the doubt and trust his read rather than ours. Of course, we can still analyze the hand, but I think we will learn more if we analyze why he made the laydown, rather than if we think he made the right play.

Yeah, ok. 100% right.EDIT - ^^ Not sarcasm.

[offset 0]

Oops.

[Zach6668 513]

I am not annoyed that you do not agree with my opinion, but I am annoyed that it is received in such a hostile way. I am disgusted with the degredation of the strategy forum. People post hands every day, but actual discussion has turned into one lined automated responses and quirky sarcastic remarks. This is why FCP does not have a respected strategy forum like 2+2.Since you did not provide any points on your opinion I assume that mine is correct. By the way, how many posts do I need before I am inherently right about everything and I do not have to justify anything I say?Good Night.

Sorry man, that wasn't sarcasm at all. I was agreeing with your opinion. You are actually exactly right. This has been discussed a bit lately with those of us who want to try and get these strat forums growing again, and this was one of the main issues. It's entirely possible that I'm at fault in it too, and I'm looking to change that, for sure. Either way, in this case, I was agreeing with your analysis, and in no way meant any sarcasm or anything like that.Also, I started out saying bad fold, but you guys are certainly doing a good job of convincing me otherwise, so I'm trying not to be closed minded here.

[Caught_clean 0]

"Phil, Pot odds dont apply as much in tournament poker" - T.J. Cloutier

[pokerfan1080 0]

All poker situations (excluding when we have the nuts) are read dependant.Why is there a seemingly strong desire to go broke with a good hand while facing an opponent who we think may have us beat?Know when to fold'em... why is that so bad?

[Zach6668 513]

All poker situations (excluding when we have the nuts) are read dependant.Why is there a seemingly strong desire to go broke with a good hand while facing an opponent who we think may have us beat?Know when to fold'em... why is that so bad?

Well, I'll address this in general, without referring to this particular hand, which is obviously very special.If that is your mentality late in tournaments, or at any point, and anyone picks up on this, you will pretty much get shoved around and you will end up being bluffed quite a bit by the stronger players, probably. If I folded everytime I thought I may be beat, even getting a great price, then I'm losing some EV, whether it is $ or chipEV, etc, somewhere.

[Acid_Knight 2]

What I was getting at before, when asking if pot odds weren't the correct way to approach the situation, then what was, was even more basic than the discussion that followed.I understand that later in tournies, there are many more factors that go into the hand than the pot odds and hands must be played differently according to the situation, which will vary much more than it would in a cash game.The point that I was trying to make is that Doyle assigns a % of the time that Chip is beating him and then he figures outt he price he's getting. It's still pot odds, but those odds are based on his read of Chip, a man who he's played poker with for almost 40 years now.Doyle obviously looked at the hand, the pot odds, and his stack and he did something that most of us could never do. He properly assigned Chip one of the very few hands that beats his a high enough percentage of the time to make the pot odds incorrect and he folded.On the most basic levels, it's still simple poker. Doyle is just better than everyone. I don't think you can argue that pot odds aren't as important as his read, becuase they all go into the hand. Doyle just had such a good read on the situation, that he decided that the excellent pot odds he was being offered weren't good enough to make the call.

The correct line of reasoning is going with your read, and trusting your gut. There is no reason to put all of your money in the pot if your read is that you're drawing to two outs.

This is what I'm talking about here. Trusting your read and going with your gut are still gonna come down to the price you're getting in the end. It doesn't matter if you're drawing to 2 outs if you are getting the right price to do so. The idea here was that Doyle KNEW that he was probably drawing to 2 outs and the price wasn't right, so he folded.Pot odds are still the correct line of reasoning.

[ChrisRichey 1]

Acid Knight, what are you talking about here? You quote me, and then agree with me. Pot odds are irellevent when he thinks he is drawing to two outs, because you are almost NEVER going to have the proper odds to chase two outs, especially at this point in a tourney.

[nomad_monad 0]

Acid Knight, what are you talking about here? You quote me, and then agree with me. Pot odds are irellevent when he thinks he is drawing to two outs, because you are almost NEVER going to have the proper odds to chase two outs, especially at this point in a tourney.

No, this is not quite Acid's point.I could explain why, but I think he would prefer to do it himself. But the shortest way to explain it is that it's not black and white. It's probabilistic.Btw Acid, don't take my last post as implying that I don't think you know about shifting chip valuations during a tourney. It's just my habit to be thorough when making a point because just like I don't assume that you're the only one reading the post, I don't assume that everybody will be familiar with the concept either.

[ChrisRichey 1]

No, this is not quite Acid's point.

Yes it was.

This is what I'm talking about here. Trusting your read and going with your gut are still gonna come down to the price you're getting in the end. It doesn't matter if you're drawing to 2 outs if you are getting the right price to do so. The idea here was that Doyle KNEW that he was probably drawing to 2 outs and the price wasn't right, so he folded.Pot odds are still the correct line of reasoning.

And like I said, it's not often you're going to get 10:1 to chase your two outer this late in a tourney. I am done arguing, there are obviously two different opinions on this.

[offset 0]

Sorry man, that wasn't sarcasm at all. I was agreeing with your opinion. You are actually exactly right. This has been discussed a bit lately with those of us who want to try and get these strat forums growing again, and this was one of the main issues. It's entirely possible that I'm at fault in it too, and I'm looking to change that, for sure. Either way, in this case, I was agreeing with your analysis, and in no way meant any sarcasm or anything like that.Also, I started out saying bad fold, but you guys are certainly doing a good job of convincing me otherwise, so I'm trying not to be closed minded here.

Oops. Sorry, I completely misinterpreted your post. My fault.

[Ramram84 0]

I just want to say that I think this is the most rediculous argument ever. If you like playing your pot odds and mathematics then play them, but the fact of the matter is that a professional player made a professional play, and that is why he's one of the best in the game. If anyone thinks that means he'll get pushed around, by all means, sit down with him in a game and try to push him around.

[nomad_monad 0]

Yes it was.

No, not really. Conditional probability and pot odds aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, they kind of go together.

And like I said, it's not often you're going to get 10:1 to chase your two outer this late in a tourney. I am done arguing, there are obviously two different opinions on this.

More like one opinion and a misunderstanding of it. Just because Acid happens to use some of the same language that you do doesn't mean he's saying the same thing.

[David_Nicoson 1]

Doyle Brunson has roughly 750,000 to start the hand and Chip Reese has about 1.2 million.Doyle raises to 70,000 with QQChip Reese calls with KKDavid Singer calls with 66Flop: 7-2-3Doyle bets 240,000.Chip Reese raises to 500,000

I wonder what Chip's thinking here. If he lets Doyle keep the lead on the turn, it looks like he breaks him.How big is Singer's stack? 8 hundred-something thousand?Does Chip expect Singer to fold 45 there?

[Acid_Knight 2]

Acid Knight, what are you talking about here? You quote me, and then agree with me. Pot odds are irellevent when he thinks he is drawing to two outs, because you are almost NEVER going to have the proper odds to chase two outs, especially at this point in a tourney.

I don't agree with you. You said that it's not about pot odds, it's about the read.What I said was that pot odds still matter and are the final determination of the play that you make, based on the reads that you have and the price you're getting.Just because you'll rarely have the price to draw to 2 outs, doesn't mean that you're not making the play based on pot odds in the end. IF you did have the price, then you're supposed to call. If you think you have 1 out and you're getting 50-1, you call. That's how this all works. Yes, everything is dependant on your read, but the whole reason you make the read is to figure out where you are in the hand, how many outs you have (or he has) and then make the correct move according to the price that the pot is laying you.

Btw Acid, don't take my last post as implying that I don't think you know about shifting chip valuations during a tourney. It's just my habit to be thorough when making a point because just like I don't assume that you're the only one reading the post, I don't assume that everybody will be familiar with the concept either.

I didn't take any offense or assume that at all.I like being thorough as well, in case you haven't noticed by many of my posts. I also agree that not everyone is familiar with that concept.

[Morpheus 0]

I think I have an easier answer.....I just watched the clip again, and I think that Doyle made the laydown because he saw Chip's cards! They were sitting beside each other and Chip didn't do a great job of protecting his cards.....check it out!

[Acid_Knight 2]

I think I have an easier answer.....I just watched the clip again, and I think that Doyle made the laydown because he saw Chip's cards! They were sitting beside each other and Chip didn't do a great job of protecting his cards.....check it out!

Good thought except that he bet out a rather large amount. Just imagine the headlines when Texas Dolly magically check folds QQ on a 7 high board...

[Zach6668 513]

No, not really. Conditional probability and pot odds aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, they kind of go together.

Funny, this is the exact thing I said to Chris on aim.He said he's just a DB fanboy.

[JacKingOff_suit 0]

I think since Doyle had been playing with Chip Reese for so long that he might had figured out that Chip wouldn't had just min-raised him with JJ or less. He discounted QQ since he had QQ so that left KK, AA or set. Even the pot odd might be right to call (not sure the details) but he couldn't put that much in the pot to just call so he folded.

[Smokestack 0]

only read the first page of replies so apologies if this has already been mentioned. I found it interesting that in the coverage, Lon or Chad comment on Doyle and Chip playing so much together that they have to get creative in "messing" with each other. I probably paraphrased pretty bad...but I do think the word used was messing....This isnt to slight the strat previous to my post...just stuck out at me...

[CoranMoran 0]

All poker situations (excluding when we have the nuts) are read dependant.Why is there a seemingly strong desire to go broke with a good hand while facing an opponent who we think may have us beat?Know when to fold'em... why is that so bad?

This laydown can/should only be done with a brilliantly confident read.And one can only have a read this strong by playing with that specific opponent for years and years.Doyle had the read.And he made the appropriate play with confidence.My fear is that we (all of us) will think that we can/should make these plays in our games.And I strongly feel that they answer should be no.Because the truth is that we probably have not been playing with the same villain for the last couple of decades.And so there is no way that we can have a read solid enough to make a radical play such as this that goes completely against the pot odds.What we saw on TV was brilliant poker.But when non-brilliant players (us) make these plays, we will surely lose $$ in the long run.--CM

[Acid_Knight 2]

This laydown can/should only be done with a brilliantly confident read.And one can only have a read this strong by playing with that specific opponent for years and years.Doyle had the read.And he made the appropriate play with confidence.My fear is that we (all of us) will think that we can/should make these plays in our games.And I strongly feel that they answer should be no.Because the truth is that we probably have not been playing with the same villain for the last couple of decades.And so there is no way that we can have a read solid enough to make a radical play such as this that goes completely against the pot odds.What we saw on TV was brilliant poker.But when non-brilliant players (us) make these plays, we will surely lose $$ in the long run.--CM

Excellent post.