Analysis On Dn's Final Table

[mk 11]

Haha, loser...Wang

obv brag post.

[mk 11]

...Moneymaker is a PlayBoy now...

ty for for the response. lol, what does this mean though? play money?

[SBriand 4]

ty for for the response. lol, what does this mean though? play money?

It probably means he plays with boys. Ewww.

[DanielNegreanu 141]

name='Bizzle' post='1603531' date='Thursday, December 21st, 2006, 9:32 AM']I'm still fairly confident that if we ran the numbers for hands where you bet and got folds 6 handed and where you bet and got folds 3 handed, it happened at a much higher rate 6 handed. Granted, at that point ranges are tighter, but even still, as someone following along with every hand, early on, you were getting a lot of folds, and later you were getting few, if any, folds. I find it hard to believe that this was entirely them outflopping you every single hand, but if so, sucks. *shrug*

Here is what you are missing, that SHOULD be true at any final table for ALL players. The fewer players at the table, the weaker the hands required to continue. As for what happened at my final table, it was evident. My opponents flopped or turned the best hand. If I was being bluffed in any of those hands I'll be very, very, surprised.

But if we play it from that view, wouldn't that still induce more checking behind to avoid getting trapped? Granted, I know you don't think the pots were that big, but every time you continuation bet and he takes it away by raising his "monster" (still giggling ) you lose 10-15% of the average stack at the time. Doesn't this worry you?

No, it doesn't worry me since it won't happen to often. In the long run, with my opponents missing most flops and me attacking the pots with small bets, I'll show a profit especially when you consider the fact that sometimes when they hit the flop, I might hit it better.

I don't disagree with the line entirely, but I do disagree with the small pot idea. When we talk about a raised pot preflop and a continuation bet postflop, just those two bets were anywhere from 600-800k. This doesn't appear to be "small" by this point.

But it is. In relation to the blinds and antes the bets are small.

I still don't like the flop call. I guess it is more consistent with your image, but when the other player bets 20% of his stack, is check-calling if you feel he is weak really the best option here? If you planned on leading at the turn, I can understand it, so I'm assuming the king totally demolished your plan and made you want to get it all in the middle.

This hand was brutally unlucky in that he had nothing and I was going to win this pot unless he improved. Not only did he improve, but he hit a card that totally traps me into the pot as well since I had a two way hand.That's just totally not true and it's because you are misunderstanding what a "weak hand" is three handed. I wouldn't expect anyone to fold middle pair for a min bet. When you watch the show I don't think you'll find even ONE instance where my opponents called with a weak hand. A pair three handed is NOT a weak hand when facing a very small bet.I don't disagree. The KJ hand I still think is weak from Joe, but on a whole, the other players (especially Joe) weren't exactly gearing up on the hands I mentioned, but letting you bet, check-calling, and being good at showdown. Why would Joe fold K-J from the BB short handed? I don't get why you think it's a weak hand from Joe's perspective. Joe played well three handed, which means he defends his blind with hands like 5-6, etc. K-J would be conidered a very good hand to defend your blind with at this stage of the tournament.When playing small ball, you are banking on A) hitting a few flops, and B) hoping your opponents don't flop too many pairs. Down to three handed I had two pair counterfitted, had my opponent hit the ONLY card that could cost me 1.5 million Kh, got outdrawn by a gutshot, and ultimately lost with K-10 vs. 44... oh well.The two pair hand sucks, obv, and the king on the river clearly hurt. I don't think you can consider yourself getting outdrawn when the flop went check-check, but when I'm complaining to other people I'd prolly say the same. I'm not saying you didn't run poorly (if I was I'd mention the river King you spiked that allowed you to get a ton of value out of AK versus Hanna, when you were clearly beat on the turn based on his river call, unless he spiked the same card), I'm just saying that it appeared to me like there were a few lines that you took that accelerated the demise. That hand with AK was very early and is was against Mads. It was an extremely small pot and I could never lay it down for a 300k bet on the turn with position. I think I messed up on the A-4 hand, but aside from that, I played fine. Just didn't hit any pairs... these WPT events don't give you much time at the final table to wait. That's why setting up a table image the night before was so imperative to my strategy in that it would allow me to pick up pots when my opponents missed the flop... when you see the show, you'll see that they just didn't miss.

[Ouch-8s 4]

There does come a point in WPT final tables where pre-flop play takes over, but it's not as quickly as many pros may believe.

Isn't this point really whenever a majority (or even a few) of the players decide it has come? A player who wants to force 'longball' play always can, but the player who wants to play smallball requires that his opponents play along. Granted, the smallball player may be seen as refusing to give action if he simply gets out of any hand where the response to his min-bet is a jam, but as Bizzle pointed out, if 10% of an average stack is changing hands here, then i) he's not going to be able to do try and enforce smallball on the table for long, and ii) I'm pretty happy as a jammer getting a 10% low-risk increase to my stack.

[DanielNegreanu 141]

I meant he's an exception to the math > read example, he's really the only player in that grouping that doesn't follow a very strict mathematical approach to the game, at least in my view.

What I'm trying to tell you, is that you are totally wrong. Laak is a backgammon player and plays strictly mathematical. He's more of a math guy than most anyone on that list.

[Morpheus 0]

It is simply not a coincidence that the players who do well on the WPT take the small ball approach. The other approach is far too kamikaze to win consistently as they get their money in bad far too often for very large amounts. You can suckout sometimes, but if you routinely play large pots in coin flip situations you can't get there too often. In five seasons on the WPT, if you compare this small list to each other you'd see a significant difference in success.

Compiled from the Hendon Mob database (note: most of the big ball players weren't even in the WPT top 100 money list, so I had to go in and add up their winnings (except for Lederer)!!!)WPT Cash Winnings for (I added Daniel and Matusow to even it up):Small Ball Players:Daniel Negreanu = 4,840,819 Phil Ivey = 1,152,896 Gus Hansen = 2,196,846Erick Lindgren = 2,262,304 Michael Mizrachi = 4,080,720 Nam Le = 1,422,023 Tuan Le = 4,480,643 Phil Hellmuth = 466,204TOTAL SMALL BALL PLAYERS = $20,902,455"Big Ball" Players:Mike Matusow = 379,520Greg Raymer = 60,180Chris Ferguson = 240,692Howard Lederer = 734,048Andy Bloch = 364,525Phil Gordon = 360,000Phil Laak = 377,255Erik Seidel = 438,742TOTAL "BIG BALL" PLAYERS = $2,954,962AINEC!

[Ouch-8s 4]

WPT Cash Winnings for (I added Daniel and Matusow to even it up):Small Ball Players:Daniel Negreanu = 4,840,819 Phil Ivey = 1,152,896 Gus Hansen = 2,196,846Erick Lindgren = 2,262,304 Michael Mizrachi = 4,080,720 Nam Le = 1,422,023 Tuan Le = 4,480,643 Phil Hellmuth = 466,204TOTAL SMALL BALL PLAYERS = $20,902,455"Big Ball" Players:Mike Matusow = 379,520Greg Raymer = 60,180Chris Ferguson = 240,692Howard Lederer = 734,048Andy Bloch = 364,525Phil Gordon = 360,000Phil Laak = 377,255Erik Seidel = 438,742TOTAL "BIG BALL" PLAYERS = $2,954,962AINEC!

Does Matusow belong in the longball/math category?

[Bizzle 0]

Isn't this point really whenever a majority (or even a few) of the players decide it has come? A player who wants to force 'longball' play always can, but the player who wants to play smallball requires that his opponents play along. Granted, the smallball player may be seen as refusing to give action if he simply gets out of any hand where the response to his min-bet is a jam, but as Bizzle pointed out, if 10% of an average stack is changing hands here, then i) he's not going to be able to do try and enforce smallball on the table for long, and ii) I'm pretty happy as a jammer getting a 10% low-risk increase to my stack.

Jon, I love you.DN, I'll hit two things here, but most of my arguments are just continuing what I said above. I was referring to Joe's check-call on the turn with KJ, when he had 2 overs and a gutter with 1 to come, not preflop. Secondly, the comment about the bet being small compared to the blinds and antes, doesn't the size of the pot compared to the stacks on the table determine whether or not it is small, not the size of the bet compared to the pot? If the blinds are 1-2mil, and we each have 20mil, and there is 8mil in the pot preflop and I bet 2mil at it, I don't think that could be characterized as being "small".

[mk 11]

AINEC!

fyi, 5 of the 'big ball' players haven't played wpt events since 2003-2004.

[DanielNegreanu 141]

Does Matusow belong in the longball/math category?

Totally. Forgot about him, he is a nutcase, lol.

[DanielNegreanu 141]

fyi, 5 of the 'big ball' players haven't played wpt events since 2003-2004.

Not true. Even if it were I don't think it would change all that much.

[Ouch-8s 4]

Totally. Forgot about him, he is a nutcase, lol.

Yeah, I think my question has more to do with the apparent relation between math and longball. No one is going to argue that MM is fond of reacting to perceived weakness with aggressive betting. I just really consider him more of a read/feel player than a math player.

[mk 11]

Not true. Even if it were I don't think it would change all that much.

ah, i guess it was '05.

[mk 11]

Yeah, I think my question has more to do with the apparent relation between math and longball. No one is going to argue that MM is fond of reacting to perceived weakness with aggressive betting. I just really consider him more of a read/feel player than a math player.

why does it have to be one or the other?

[Uppie_ 0]

obviously those on the small ball list are all great players and smallball is probably a better way to play these touraments.But what makes someone a good or weaker post flop player, aka why is annie duke to weak of a post flop player to have a lot of success playing small ball? or even if you don't want to single anyone out why are most players to weak post flop?

[navybuttons 15]

Isn't this point really whenever a majority (or even a few) of the players decide it has come? A player who wants to force 'longball' play always can, but the player who wants to play smallball requires that his opponents play along. Granted, the smallball player may be seen as refusing to give action if he simply gets out of any hand where the response to his min-bet is a jam, but as Bizzle pointed out, if 10% of an average stack is changing hands here, then i) he's not going to be able to do try and enforce smallball on the table for long, and ii) I'm pretty happy as a jammer getting a 10% low-risk increase to my stack.

the long ball player tries to counteract the small ball player by making large leads at the flop and large check-raises.the small ball player counteracts the long ball player by check-calling.if you see the heads up DN vs. Raymer match it is a perfect example of the styles counteracting each other.as you might imagine the long baller gets himself in trouble when he's beat and ultimately gets stacked, while the small ball player gets out relatively unscathed unless he's got the goods to stack the other guy. basically the small baller can check-call to keep the pots small.

[blakheart 3]

The simple fact is that you will miss the flop 2/3rds of the time. The small ball player attacks those orphan pots and wins most without confrontation. When the longball player pushes back, the small ball player can get out of the way if he is beat or stack is opponent. Either way, the smallball player is picking up a lot of chips to weather the push from a long ball player. Read supersystem 2, Doyle explains his thinking there.

[PrtyPSux 0]

this is pretty much what I stated earlier, it FOR SURE will seem like dn just got outflopped everytime, but even though he says he didnt play over aggro, he did. I saw his attitude change after the K9 hand, and I saw his play change as well. He played most pots 3 handed and lost most of them because his opponents hit flops. However, it wasn't necessary at all to even try and outplay these guys when his chiplead was so huge coming into 3 handed play, just wait and play Juanda poker imho. I just got back from scores so I'm not trying to write too much, but pretty much thats the core my arguement.. he played way too much "small ball" 3 handed, and certainly disregarded preflop poker.

[DanielNegreanu 141]

obviously those on the small ball list are all great players and smallball is probably a better way to play these touraments.But what makes someone a good or weaker post flop player, aka why is annie duke to weak of a post flop player to have a lot of success playing small ball? or even if you don't want to single anyone out why are most players to weak post flop?

A weak post flop player plays hands in such a way that often forces them to lose more chips than necessary. A good player looks to lose the minimum, whereas someone who doesn't understand the strategy will make too many continuation bets and waste bets. On top of that, the KEY factor is reading your opponents tendancies. If your people reading, or hand reading skills aren't very good playing flops becomes more difficult since you'll essentially be guessing too often.

[beans-n-icewater 18]

She doesn't really fit with either group, but she definitely leans towards the monkey/ape group. I just think her nasty stinkin' feet need some shoes on them. Euuck.

RYM(read your mind)

Except for the brief "I nutted in your ear" diversion (especially the quaintly tasteful graphic... 10 points for Mr. Icewater), I am shockingly impressed.Wang

I hope those are PACT points....

[Ouch-8s 4]

why does it have to be one or the other?

Yeah, I was anticipating a comment from Wang about 'math is what gives me my feel'. It doesn't have to be one or the other. But it is possible to be a 'feel' player who largely disregards math, no?Listening to MM on The Circuit, for example, he certainly advocates a smallball approach. But I don't see him playing that way, maybe because I only see him on FTs/TV. He seems like a purely feel based player, who is far less concerned with his cards & the odds of them being best/improving than his ability to discern whether he can make an opponent lay down his hand.

basically the small baller can check-call to keep the pots small.

Stack vs blind size becomes pretty important if you want to keep the pots 'small'. Once the blinds get to a certain level, the longballer is not just making large bets, he's jamming. You cannot check-call a jam and say you're keeping the pot small. Preflop play has to raise its head once people at the table start jamming.

[Shimmering Wang 1]

Yeah, I was anticipating a comment from Wang about 'math is what gives me my feel'. It doesn't have to be one or the other. But it is possible to be a 'feel' player who largely disregards math, no?Listening to MM on The Circuit, for example, he certainly advocates a smallball approach. But I don't see him playing that way, maybe because I only see him on FTs/TV. He seems like a purely feel based player, who is far less concerned with his cards & the odds of them being best/improving than his ability to discern whether he can make an opponent lay down his hand.Stack vs blind size becomes pretty important if you want to keep the pots 'small'. Once the blinds get to a certain level, the longballer is not just making large bets, he's jamming. You cannot check-call a jam and say you're keeping the pot small. Preflop play has to raise it's head once people at the table start jamming.

I typed part of it out for continuity's sake, but that's a little different than what Daniel's talking about here. He's not so much referring to "using math to make reads" vs. "using feel to make reads," but rather what one DOES with those reads.Plus I worry that Mike Matusow can't do long division...Wang

[Ouch-8s 4]

I typed part of it out for continuity's sake, but that's a little different than what Daniel's talking about here. He's not so much referring to "using math to make reads" vs. "using feel to make reads," but rather what one DOES with those reads.Plus I worry that Mike Matusow can't do long division...Wang

Yeah I think we're getting on a tangent here. I was refering (re: MM) to whether he belonged in the first or second group of WPT players, and was still dividing them using Adam's metric of reads vs math, instead of DN's "They make "reads" pre-flop hoping to come over the top with weak hands to attack the dead money." By this definition, there is little doubt where MM belongs. Gus is in group 1, and he is deeply math based. In defense of MM, long division is freakin hard.

[GrinderMJ 0]

Bizzle, I didn't watch any of the updates or things like that, what were the stack sizes and blind/ante structure coming in to 3-handed play. Actually anybody if you know that, can you help a tall white man out?