Monday night was event #2 of the BBT3 and it was a 6 max format for Mondays at the Hoy (MATH). I have never played in the 6 max tournaments before and admittedly, it was a fairly different beast. I really couldn't get much going and in the end, I lost two showdowns AT < J8 (J8 was a relative short stack shoving from CO), AK < AQ (I was shoving but AQ was almost getting the right price to call based on what probably was my shoving range) and the latter knocked me out. I didn't really get anything and besides a few steals and resteals here and there with questionable holdings, I really couldn't do much... and then I did wonder, are there times when nothing clicks and you just kinda get knocked out of the tournament without ever getting in rhythm or do good players still find ways to make stuff happen? Any thoughts there would be appreciated.
Tonight is the Skill series which I know I am a complete dead money being that I am a one trick pony. I think it's PLO tonight but I'm not sure... it really doesn't matter. The point is it's not NLH and so I'm not sure why I'm playing... I guess just to get lucky cuz you never know how you might get smacked by the deck... though I think even if I get really lucky, I just won't know what to do with it and still lose. Bayne, maybe you should be giving me pointers instead of sharing bad beat stories with me.
Also, thanks for all the comments on my hand from yesterday. Let me address some of that here. To recap, Scott Fischman minraises from UTG+1 and I'm the only caller from the BB with KQs. Flop comes 6-7-3 with two of my suits, giving me two overs and a second nut flush draw. I check, Scott bets 1,500 into a pot containing 2,650. I checkraise to 6,000, he jams and I call the 12,000 more. The call there is no question. With the pot odds, it's a no brainer. Again, my question was, should I have checkraised more?
One guy commented that considering how Scotty was playing, it may not have mattered and that he was jamming no matter what. Maybe so but that's kinda besides the point. I'm not too interested in the results as I am in the process. If I am happy with my thought process, the betting amount, and the strategy itself, I am ok with the ending result being the same, which is I missed my 15 outs twice and I was crippled. Anguila mentioned that my bet sizing needs to be the same if I had flopped a monster, say a set or something so he disagreed with making it bigger. He liked my value bet-ish looking check raise. The only thing is, if I had flopped two pair or a set, I woulda bet bigger. The board is draw heavy so there is no reason for me to value bet there. And that's where I felt my mistake was. Because the board is so draw heavy, if I had a made hand, wouldn't I have bet more? Sure I would. That's what I do. Try to build pots when I have it. Gnome asked what would have been a good amount? 8,000? 9,000? Even before he asked that question, I obviously had some thoughts in mind and yes, I believe around 8500 would have been a good amount. That would clearly send the message that he no longer has fold equity even if he shoves. Again, he might still read me as having a flush draw and shove anyways but again, that's besides the point and at that point, surely I would instacall given the odds.
I think 6,000 looked weakish and drawish... Riggstad mentioned that Fischman did put me on a draw and so he shoved. He also mentioned to me later that Scott was surprised I called there considering my stack size. I actually didn't instacall there and I thought of a few things but the following is what made me call:
1) incredible pot odds considering my potential outs. 2:1 and potentially 15 outs twice, if he's on a ace high flush draw, that sucks but I at least have 6 outs twice. If he has two pair or better on this board, I have 9 outs. So considering the situation, I was getting tremendous pot odds.
2) I didn't want to give up what ended up becoming such a big pot to Scott Fischman. Sure, apparently, he was just donking it up in that one but at the time, I didn't know that. I was moved to the table not too long ago so I knew he was in the pot a lot but I didn't know he was just playing carefree poker. One thing I did notice was that everyone seemed to not want to be in the pot with him, at least at that table.
3) It was a known pro and I had a good chance to bust him. I had him covered, if I win that pot, I am the chip leader with almost twice as many chips as the second place guy, who would be sitting directly to my right. The only other chip stack that would hurt me that was on my left would be gone. It would make for an ideal table situation and give me a very good chance to go deep/win the tourney.
Having said all that, I did consider the other option that I didn't even touch on yesterday. Considering my stack size, I could have played this hand carefully and just smooth called his flop bet. The bet was small, it was giving me good odds to catch something on the turn so I could just call. If he fires out on the turn once the A comes, I could get away from the hand and move on to the next hand. That is certainly another option and maybe a better one considering the situation. I think in my mind, there was also a part of me that wanted to send the message that I wasn't gonna get pushed around by a pro. That maybe everyone might fold to his minraise but that I was gonna fight him for the pots. Maybe that ego got in the way but in looking back, I don't hate my play. I hate the amount still and I still think I shoulda gone bigger, regardless of the results, but check calling flop bet and then check folding on the turn seems a little too weak. I don't know. Interesting hand.
Oh, and btw, it appears that there's a lot of negativity by everyone against Scotty and how he played/lucksacked into the TOC. I also saw some people lament that there goes one WSOP Main Event seat. I am actually shocked to see that. I actually thought this blogger bunch was a lot more resilient than that. A known pro wins a tournament, gets a seat into the TOC and you assume he's got one of the prizes locked up? Why because you don't think you can compete? You don't think you're good enough? Then why the hell are you even playing? It's the WSOP ME seat we're fighting for. I don't give a shit who stands in the way. I know I don't have any MTT successes but I'm trying hard to get better at it and I'm not gonna cry about a pro being in the way of one of the seats. That's just weak and I'm shocked/disappointed with some who appear to be so discouraged by his presence. I actually think it's cool that a known pro is playing and as a matter of fact, if the other known internet pros come out, take down the blogger tourneys, lock up all the seats to the WSOP, as much as it may be a bummer that a blogger can't take it, I think it's nice to know that skill obviously matters and that everyone who cries about their bad luck and how THAT's the reason they're not winning will be put in their place. There's a reason why guys (and girls) like Hoy, Chad, Lucko, LJ etc continue to post big wins (not literally since Lucko and Chad seem to not really post anymore) in MTTs and based on reading their blogs, you know it's not because they get lucky all the time. I'm not bashing anyone in particular here. All I'm saying is, know what's at stake, man up, and play some poker. It's the freakin world series. Pro or no pro, you know you're gonna have to fight hard, play your best poker, and get lucky in key spots to win. We as a group take poker very seriously. It's time to show all the nonbloggers/pros what kinda damage we are capable of doing. I know I'm working hard to do that. I hope you all are too.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Monday night was event #2 of the BBT3 and it was a 6 max format for Mondays at the Hoy (MATH). I have never played in the 6 max tournaments before and admittedly, it was a fairly different beast. I really couldn't get much going and in the end, I lost two showdowns AT < J8 (J8 was a relative short stack shoving from CO), AK < AQ (I was shoving but AQ was almost getting the right price to call based on what probably was my shoving range) and the latter knocked me out. I didn't really get anything and besides a few steals and resteals here and there with questionable holdings, I really couldn't do much... and then I did wonder, are there times when nothing clicks and you just kinda get knocked out of the tournament without ever getting in rhythm or do good players still find ways to make stuff happen? Any thoughts there would be appreciated.
Man, do I often wonder this myself, especially when it seems like Hoy, LJ or Luck consistently go deep and I only go deep when the cards cooperate. I think they are good at sensing weakness and pushing in situations that I just don't have enough tournament experience to really go for it. Otherwise a very good question and probably a reason I'm a cash player and not a consistent tournament player.
The only thing that bothers me about the pros is they can get a ME seat probably any time they want. They can buy in, get a backer or probably even are just sponsored. These options simply aren't available for us bloggers and I doubt Al had that in mind when he set all this up In fact if a bunch of pros do get those seats I doubt Al will set up a BBT4. But good pep talk. Youre right about manning up and playing poker.
In my experience there are tournaments that you just can't do nothing to help your cause. And by that I don't mean that you don't receive good cards, it's a combination of things (players at your table, suckouts, bad timing, coolers, etc...) that leave you making bad moves that other times would have worked.
In one tournament the luck factor is huge, but I define luck very broadly (as you surely also do). Getting good cards when matters and having them hold up, flopping the nuts vs the 2nd nuts, having good timing, winning important coinflips, making a key suckout, getting weak players at your table that you can steal from, getting bad players at your table that insist in donating....
Well, I guess you can see my point...
In my experience there are tournaments that you just can't do nothing to help your cause. And by that I don't mean that you don't receive good cards, it's a combination of things (players at your table, suckouts, bad timing, coolers, etc...) that leave you making bad moves that other times would have worked.
In one tournament the luck factor is huge, but I define luck very broadly (as you surely also do). Getting good cards when matters and having them hold up, flopping the nuts vs the 2nd nuts, having good timing, winning important coinflips, making a key suckout, getting weak players at your table that you can steal from, getting bad players at your table that insist in donating....
Well, I guess you can see my point...
That hand against Fishman alan, I think ONE decision had to be made.
Do you want to go to the felt with it. The betting really didn't matter.
Scott showed his propensity to shove at any point with any two, and I gather (rather than know), that he took advantage of people taking less chances knowing what was at stake. Which to him at that point was a $75 buy-in with a huge prize pool, that he figured was a lot more than the avergage person was playing for in such a small field. So the question then is, am I going with 15 outs twice, or am I playing it safe, check folding the turn.
Peak,
Up until the middle of that tournament, scott wasn't playing for a chance at a WSOP seat. Heck, he didn't even know about it. He was just playing because a friend invited him, and he felt like it.
Now based off of everything he knows now about the challenge, and how it has come about, and his recent succes, he will most likely play through the rest of them, as time permits. 1) because he knows the value of a red pro attracting more players. And he is doing that to help US get even more prizes the next time around.
2) because with his win, he now has skin in the game, and, go figure, he actually enjoys it.
so peak, to your point, its not like he is trying to WIN a wsop seat. He's just having fun with the rest of us, like the rest of us..
Alan, I like your wrap in this post. and I agree with you. Man UP Bitches!!
It's clear to me that in MOST tournaments, there's little you can do to dodge beats and win it all. Skill is important, but luck weighs so heavily in any one tournament.
Good players minimize the impact of luck, but there's no way they can eliminate it.
It's just a fact of life in tournaments, and it's what disgusts me about this lucksack-filled form of poker. It seems so wrong to me that Scott Fischman or an 8-year-old can win an entire blogger tournament while playing so poorly. I'm not angry at Fischman himself; I'm disgusted at a format that allows him to win with hands like T6s and A2.
Try bringing that to a cash game and see what happens.
Riggstad, as I already told you in the email, I am happy to have a known pro in the field. And again, I agreed with his take of no one seemed to want to fight him for pots and I wanted to send that message. I just felt a slightly bigger raise woulda done that. I think he may still have shoved given the pot size and how close in % we were (based on what he put me on) but I just thought a bigger raise was in order. I was not scared of busting (as evidenced by me busting a hand later) and I was playing to win, not to cash.
Gnome, I agree to an extent but when you see some of the online pros consistently take down some of the bigger tourneys, you have to admit that the luck factor must be minimized. I mean sure, we can all win a tourney or two if the field size is like 100 if we get smacked in the face with the deck. Believe me, I, of all people would know this since I took down the Mookie in BBT2 when I had AA and KK countless times and when it mattered most, I sucked out when my A6 > AA against sellthekids. So, sure, luck is a factor but in the short term, luck is a factor in cash games. I had one session where my AA < AK three times... 3 times in one session! All preflop all in. All I'm saying is that luck plays a factor in every form of poker. And btw, I think it was the 12 yr old that won the Mookie. Get your facts straight! :)
Right, luck plays a factor in all forms of poker. My point is that it's repulsive that someone playing like a donk can wing it all the way to a championship.
I wish tournament poker would move more toward a double shootout format, which I believe would reduce the likelihood that some donk can accumulate enough chips through suckouts to survive all the way to the winner's seat.
Post a Comment