BGonline.org Forums

My analysis, OtB action, etc.

Posted By: Chuck Bower
Date: Tuesday, 9 February 2010, at 5:26 p.m.

In Response To: Part II (Steve Mellen)

This isn't so clearcut (IMO) as the previous (hypothetical) KK or QQ vs. {AA,KK,AK}. You're getting about 5::3 pot odds so technically you need 37.5%. I saw the distribution of possible hands as follows:

AA -- 6
KK -- 6
AK/KA -- 18
other high pair -- 4
non-pair -- 2 (undominated, something like T9s)

Based upon those cards and the chances of beating them I calculated a 39% chance of winning, so looks like a close call.

The tournament situation has an impact, IMO. Your M (stack divided by blinds+antes) will be less than 10 if you fold, and you'll be the short stack. Your chances of catching favorable situations are going to be limited and you will likely have to swing for the fences with hands like A8, QJ, etc. in the not too distant future. I think the bottom line is that if you have a small ad here, take it.

OTB, Jeff Shulman folded. It was written up (and all actions defended) in Card Player by his mentor, Phil Helmuth. If you think I'm bad giving details, Helmuth didn't mention the current blinds and antes nor the stack sizes. (As far as position, he just said that Shulman was immediately behind Saout.) He didn't even say how many were at the table! I had to dig through the WSOB blog and find ESPN coverage posted on U-Tube to get the info.

Helmuth's "logic" was that there was plenty of time (!!) and that the good players (Shulman and Ivey) shouldn't get into hand-to-hand combat with the weaklings. He did mention the beginning blinds and antes (half the current) which makes me think he was trying to deceive the readers into thinking Shulman was in better shape than was real. Further, I used his values for Shulman's stack size ($14M) when the blog showed $12M (and $8M after the fold). You'd think the after-the-fact report (Helmuth's) would be more accurate as the blogger is working under pressure in real time, but based upon the convenient omissions of important facts in Helmuth's column, I'm very suspicious.

There was more jibber-jabber in the column about "the rest of the story" which was clearly an example of playings results. (It never said what Saout's holecards were, so maybe it isn't known.)

Messages In This Thread

• More poker, part I (OT)
  Chuck Bower -- Saturday, 6 February 2010, at 6:46 p.m.
  • More poker, part I (OT)
    lenny -- Saturday, 6 February 2010, at 11:37 p.m.
    • More poker, part I (OT)
      Chuck Bower -- Sunday, 7 February 2010, at 12:42 a.m.
      • More poker, part I (OT)
        Bob Glass -- Thursday, 11 February 2010, at 12:33 a.m.
    • More poker, part I (OT)
      Steve Mellen -- Sunday, 7 February 2010, at 5:53 p.m.
  • More poker, part I (OT)
    Bob Koca -- Sunday, 7 February 2010, at 12:10 a.m.
    • More poker, part I (OT)
      Chuck Bower -- Sunday, 7 February 2010, at 12:33 a.m.
  • More poker, part I (OT)
    dc-ohio -- Sunday, 7 February 2010, at 3:38 p.m.
  • FYI: identity of players
    Chuck Bower -- Sunday, 7 February 2010, at 4:58 p.m.
  • Part II
    Chuck Bower -- Sunday, 7 February 2010, at 7:28 p.m.
    • Part II
      Steve Mellen -- Monday, 8 February 2010, at 5:04 p.m.
      • My analysis, OtB action, etc.
        Chuck Bower -- Tuesday, 9 February 2010, at 5:26 p.m.
        • My analysis, OtB action, etc.
          Steve Mellen -- Tuesday, 9 February 2010, at 6:44 p.m.
          • My analysis, OtB action, etc.
            Sam Pottle -- Wednesday, 10 February 2010, at 2:28 a.m.