FFR poker league -dead-

[Reincarnate]

Why does Tom Dwan look like he's having a perpetual Vietnam flashback/lobotomy/murder happening before his eyes?

[awein999]

Originally Posted by Reincarnate

Why does Tom Dwan look like he's having a perpetual Vietnam flashback/lobotomy/murder happening before his eyes?

No idea what the hell he's doing and he's so sick. My favorite player. I guess having a poker face of showing "constant carish anxiety" makes some subconsciously think he's worried thus they are less likely to fold and more likely to raise him as a generalization. Combined with his loose aggressive style I think it fits.

Whatever he's doing it's working like a ****in charm. He rivals Phil Ivey for best current player.

[Reincarnate]

What, in general, is a decent betting strategy? When to bet/how much to bet?



AND YES I AM WELL AWARE THAT IT DEPENDS
doesn't mean there aren't a handful of situations it can be broken down into

played against Halogen last night -- at one point decided to switch it up and try high-variance style and got slaughtered. 3x betting amount is indeed where it's at for the most part but I have no idea why

[Reach]

Originally Posted by Reincarnate

What, in general, is a decent betting strategy? When to bet/how much to bet?



AND YES I AM WELL AWARE THAT IT DEPENDS
doesn't mean there aren't a handful of situations it can be broken down into

played against Halogen last night -- at one point decided to switch it up and try high-variance style and got slaughtered. 3x betting amount is indeed where it's at for the most part but I have no idea why

How much to bet: I already linked you to this. If you don't still have it, save it: http://www.thepokerbank.com/images/b...ng-diagram.png


When to bet? You're a beginner, so make bets when you actually have a hand, i.e. top pair or better if you're in a ring game with 9 players. The less players at the table, the weaker the types of hands you can bet but basically, when you connect with the flop in some way, bet. If you miss, don't bet (check).

Of course, as you get better, you'll have to adapt this strategy significantly, but for the time being that'll do. (e.g. the first thing you can do is to balance your checking range by occasionally checking when you make hands, so you're not always checking when you miss the flop. You can also balance your betting range by starting to bet flops when you missed, which is usually a continuation bet).


The reason 3x is a good raise size is because of pot odds (http://www.thepokerbank.com/strategy...tics/pot-odds/). It gives players relatively bad pot odds to make the call if they have weak hands, but doesn't make the pot odds bad enough that they're necessarily going to fold hands that you have beat (i.e. profitable hands).

[Reincarnate]

It's hard for me to tell which numbers I should be looking at with respect to bets because I'm still not entirely sure who's putting in what when. Whenever Halogen put in X amount, I changed my bet size to 3X if I had a strong hand. When should I look at the differential versus the sum total of the pot?

Reach: Alright I'll check that site out now when I get a chance -- I had looked at it before but was unfamiliar with a lot of the terminology at the time. Hopefully I'll get it this time. XD

[Reach]

Originally Posted by Reincarnate

It's hard for me to tell which numbers I should be looking at with respect to bets because I'm still not entirely sure who's putting in what when. Whenever Halogen put in X amount, I changed my bet size to 3X if I had a strong hand. When should I look at the differential versus the sum total of the pot?

Reach: Alright I'll check that site out now when I get a chance -- I had looked at it before but was unfamiliar with a lot of the terminology at the time. Hopefully I'll get it this time. XD

It takes practice man, don't sweat it. What you were doing there sounds pretty right to me for starters.

Whenever you're making a bet, you should be looking at the size of the pot and shaping it to the size of the pot.

Whenever your opponent bets and you're considering a raise, you should be looking at the size of their bet and not the pot

(Unless it's a weird scenario you'll encounter sometimes when someone makes a really big underbet (less than half the pot) or minimum bet and you think it's weak, in which case I'll raise them a hell of a lot more than 3x).

[Reincarnate]

Alright so what about something like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6I-uuMz9-w

Just trying to get a feel for why pro players do what they do. Phil seems to enjoy underplaying his stronger hands to get people to put in more money -- but then he gets pissed if they catch up and surpass. In this case, AA is stronger than TT, which are the hands they each have (Phil and Tom, respectively).

Questions:

1. Why on earth did Tom decide to go all-in with TT? Am I overestimating how risky that is? They say Phil was giving Tom "nothing to read," but might this be false?

2. What was he expecting Phil to do in reaction? Fold?

3. Technically speaking, Tom going all-in when Phil had pocket Aces is great for Phil, right? Having AA going into the flop with your opponent risking it all (at best matching Phil -- any other hand being statistically weaker).

4. Can we really say that this was a smart play? It seems like Tom just got lucky by catching that 10 when a whole slew of other cards would have either helped Phil or possibly not helped Tom. In other words, it seems like Tom *did* fall for Phil's trap, but to the tune of going all-in against pocket Aces? That seems suicidal, no?

5. I feel like Phil constantly gets pissed over this. Isn't this the entire risk of underplaying your hand? Why does he get so pissed when people come back with stronger hands after he started out strong and underplayed it? He seems to fault others for "overplaying" shitty hands but sees nothing wrong with underplaying good hands -- but in this case TT doesn't seem all that shitty... but it just doesn't seem good enough to go all-in with.

Random question 6: How did Tom know Phil had Aces after Phil called in response to his all-in? That he wouldn't possibly call his all-in unless he had something unquestionably strong?

Hopefully I am making sense @_@

[ddrmaniacaaa]

I actually think starting out with a basic starting hand chart and playing only the best 10 hands (something like AA KK QQ AKs AQs JJ KQs AJs AK and a pair of 10s) and seeing where you go from there. 9 times out of 10 in a 9 handed table you are going to have the best hand preflop. Then as you get to a substantial sample size of hands you will be able to understand when to check/call check/raise flat call bet out, etc. Those hands should get you started but you will realize you get these hands very little so you will want to increase to more hands (next ten hands being ATs KJs AQ 99 QJs K10s 8s Q10s A9s AJ). From there you will probably want to play any pocket pair and some smaller suited connecters. In the end your bet/call amounts are all relative to the size of the pot and each scenario is different, and this is really something only experience can teach you. For instance, you may flop a full house, but wont wind up getting any additonal money, or you may find that checking induces you opponent to bluff, etc, etc. And at that point it would really be about finding out how you opponent plays, and has nothing to do with the two cards in your hand. The best players play the player and not the cards. This game is all about winning the maximum when you have the nuts and losing the minimum when it is your oppenent that has you beat. Again, this is where hand sample size comes in to play.

If your interested, I would look into Doyle Brunson's Super System. This will help you establish what has worked for one of the winningist players in poker over the past 60 years. He is, in my opinon, one of the most knoledgeble players in the game. If your looking for a less of an exahustive read the Harrington on Holdem books are fantastic.

And Reach, im gonna have to disagree with you on the Joe bit. He has had plenty of success past his 05 victory, such as high stakes cash games and smaller tournament formats such as poker after dark. He really is a lovable guy and embodies the personality that everyone can agree on. I do agree with you that, since 2003, the luckiest person wins. But time and time again the best players have proven they can hang with the lucky ones.

To answer your questions.
1. Tom Dwan plays more hands than you would imagine, he doesnt mind going all in with 6 4 offsuit either. He just has that much money.
2. I dont think he wanted Phil to fold, as heads up a pair of 10s is pretty monster. Phil is also known to lay down some monsters and might have layed down anything other than kings or aces.
3. Exactly right, this is why Phil called so fast. You cant have a worse hand than AA.
4. You gotta remeber that you are seeing the cards both players have and it would be easy to come to this assumption. It was a bit suicidal, but Tom has put more money at risk with far worse hands.
5. This is the downside of underplaying your hand. Had he not flat called the big blind and made a simple raise Tom would have probably just called the raise. Underplaying your hand might work out in most scenarios, but i do not favor this play by Phil. I agree with you, Tom should have just called Phils Raise to 3600.
6. Usually, players flip over there hands. Once both players are all-in, no more money will be added to the pot, so Phil most likely flipped over his hand right after snap calling.

i.e. check out this hand where Tom Dwan will go to unthinkable lengths to win a pot, against the best player, no less.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wf90BmqVtE

[awein999]

Originally Posted by Reincarnate

Alright so what about something like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6I-uuMz9-w

Just trying to get a feel for why pro players do what they do. Phil seems to enjoy underplaying his stronger hands to get people to put in more money -- but then he gets pissed if they catch up and surpass. In this case, AA is stronger than TT, which are the hands they each have (Phil and Tom, respectively).

Questions:

1. Why on earth did Tom decide to go all-in with TT? Am I overestimating how risky that is? They say Phil was giving Tom "nothing to read," but might this be false?

2. What was he expecting Phil to do in reaction? Fold?

3. Technically speaking, Tom going all-in when Phil had pocket Aces is great for Phil, right? Having AA going into the flop with your opponent risking it all (at best matching Phil -- any other hand being statistically weaker).

4. Can we really say that this was a smart play? It seems like Tom just got lucky by catching that 10 when a whole slew of other cards would have either helped Phil or possibly not helped Tom. In other words, it seems like Tom *did* fall for Phil's trap, but to the tune of going all-in against pocket Aces? That seems suicidal, no?

5. I feel like Phil constantly gets pissed over this. Isn't this the entire risk of underplaying your hand? Why does he get so pissed when people come back with stronger hands after he started out strong and underplayed it? He seems to fault others for "overplaying" shitty hands but sees nothing wrong with underplaying good hands -- but in this case TT doesn't seem all that shitty... but it just doesn't seem good enough to go all-in with.

Random question 6: How did Tom know Phil had Aces after Phil called in response to his all-in? That he wouldn't possibly call his all-in unless he had something unquestionably strong?

Hopefully I am making sense @_@

1. If Tom goes all in with TT first time playing Phil, Phil folds everything except AA or KK because Tom knows how much Phil hates to commit chips early in a tournament. Especially heads up.

2. Yes.

3. This is good for Phil this time but what about when Tom has KK and he does the same thing and Phil has JJ? Based on the history Phil should call because Tom shoved with 1010 before thus making Tom's image much wider than Phil's. That's why Tom says "we can play as many as you want" he is more willing to put in chips then Phil to the point where he can put Phil on more specific hands in big preflop pots in future matches then Phil can with Tom.

4. 3.

5. He gets angry because he is an arrogant egotistical asshole. He thinks he is the best player in the world so when things don't go his way he is "horribly unlucky" or someone was "really stupid" and he was robbed.

6. 1.

[Reach]

Originally Posted by Reincarnate

Questions:

1. Why on earth did Tom decide to go all-in with TT? Am I overestimating how risky that is? They say Phil was giving Tom "nothing to read," but might this be false?

2. What was he expecting Phil to do in reaction? Fold?

3. Technically speaking, Tom going all-in when Phil had pocket Aces is great for Phil, right? Having AA going into the flop with your opponent risking it all (at best matching Phil -- any other hand being statistically weaker).

4. Can we really say that this was a smart play? It seems like Tom just got lucky by catching that 10 when a whole slew of other cards would have either helped Phil or possibly not helped Tom. In other words, it seems like Tom *did* fall for Phil's trap, but to the tune of going all-in against pocket Aces? That seems suicidal, no?

5. I feel like Phil constantly gets pissed over this. Isn't this the entire risk of underplaying your hand? Why does he get so pissed when people come back with stronger hands after he started out strong and underplayed it? He seems to fault others for "overplaying" shitty hands but sees nothing wrong with underplaying good hands -- but in this case TT doesn't seem all that shitty... but it just doesn't seem good enough to go all-in with.

Random question 6: How did Tom know Phil had Aces after Phil called in response to his all-in? That he wouldn't possibly call his all-in unless he had something unquestionably strong?

Hopefully I am making sense @_@

1. TT is a very strong hand heads up. This is a pretty standard move. You can figure that, pre-flop, TT is ahead everything other than JJ, QQ, KK and AA.

The problem with a hand like TT is it doesn't flop well (often there are over cards), making it hard to play. But it's still a strong hand. It's good to shove with because you can often get called by worse, and you have a lot of fold equity.

2. Probably fold, or call with a hand he's ahead of (AK, AQ, 99, stuff like that).

3. Very good for Phil. Phil is somewhere around 80% to win the hand.

4. Of course Tom got lucky. In retrospect it looks like a stupid play, but remember, Tom can't see what Phil has. He can only make an educated guess as to what he has, and given the range of hands Phil could be repping in a spot like that, the shove all-in isn't a bad play. Rather, it was Tom that got very unlucky to have Phil call and show him AA.

5. He was pissed because at the time, Tom was very new to live poker and he wanted to show him up by knocking him out of the tourney. He didn't think much of the kid. Of course, nowadays Tom is well established as one of the best.

6. Experience with Hellmuth told him that the way he called him without having to think about it meant Phil had aces.

And Reach, im gonna have to disagree with you on the Joe bit. He has had plenty of success past his 05 victory, such as high stakes cash games and smaller tournament formats such as poker after dark. He really is a lovable guy and embodies the personality that everyone can agree on. I do agree with you that, since 2003, the luckiest person wins. But time and time again the best players have proven they can hang with the lucky ones.

I didn't say he was bad. I actually said that he is a pretty good player. He probably is lovable, but that doesn't mean he's an amazing player. I mean: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FMVg...eature=related @ 7 minutes, Hachem making a classic donkey mistake and sucking out (His hand is never good here, what on earth is he doing after he gets 5 bet on the flop lmao. This is the easiest fold in the universe.)

He didn't win the WSOP because of skill. He got retardedly lucky, and that isn't something to idolize.

I just feel like, if you're going to idolize anyone for tournament play, it has to be someone that has done well over many, many years (Ivey, Daniel), because doing well in any given year is mostly about luck.

Cash games are the true test of skill in poker. I find it strange that people really seem to cling onto tournament winnings as a metric of something important though. Tournaments are largely about exploiting weak players and running well. By the time you get deep, and the blinds are huge, most of the players know what to do with a particular hand in any given scenario. It often just comes down to who gets the better hand, and picking off any fish left in the field.

[awein999]

Watch all four parts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmSIg...eature=related

If you think Tom Dwan is purely an aggressive loose player think again. This is some spectacular folding.

[Reach]

Originally Posted by awein999

Watch all four parts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmSIg...eature=related

If you think Tom Dwan is purely an aggressive loose player think again. This is some spectacular folding.

I wonder why they never finished this challenge. I mean, Tom has clearly won. Patrick can't beat Tom, and he knows that, but they should at least finish the damn thing.

Either way, yeah, Dwan's play here is essentially perfect. This is exactly how to fold and do it well. Dwan loses the absolute minimum and just about any other player would have lost significantly more, if not everything.

Dwan vs Cates has been interesting. Sadly, no action lately

[Reincarnate]

Are there good resources online for sample poker matches and all the internal thought processes/decisions that go into it?

[ddrmaniacaaa]

Well, i do not idolize Joe like the other person, but basically im agreeing with everything you said. Maybe i misinterperted what you said about him, but I feel he is a decent cash game player. He has made many apperances on High Stakes poker and the European Poker Tour and has done reasonably well. And actually my two favorite players are Ivey and Daniel (Dwan too of course)

Rubix: Digging through Youtube I have found some good online matches where people commentate their own play, but thats about it. Best thing I would recomend would be the final show of each week on poker after dark (usually friday at 2:05 AM EST on NBC). Here the pros recap the most important hands of the week they were involved in, and I feel its a really good look into the minds of the best players. You can probably find most of the episodes on youtube.

[aperson]

Originally Posted by Reincarnate

played against Halogen last night -- at one point decided to switch it up and try high-variance style and got slaughtered. 3x betting amount is indeed where it's at for the most part but I have no idea why

Because e is the natural log

[nois-or-e]

MrNoobix approved for play. Setting up a tourn for tonight.

Log in and check it out.


Edit: starts in 20mins from this post, 10min late rego ;D



Double Edit: 8 mins till rego closes

[DotKritic]

emerald going 180 or 270 before the flop...

[nois-or-e]

http://www.allinpokerblog.co.uk/play...id=92771910459

hehu

[awein999]

That doesn't give justice to the epic match it was and my good playing for most of the tourney

It does make me laugh everytime though cause it looks retarded....

Edit: 3:30.

[TC_Halogen]

Originally Posted by nois-or-e

http://www.allinpokerblog.co.uk/play...id=92771910459

hehu

no way, haha

EDIT: at least I got 3rd

how long was it anyway?