|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 12/1/2008 3:25:20 PM PACIFIC |
 Ivy call, BAMAFROG, 6. Aug 2003 04:15 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| IMHO Phil made a major blunder with his call with 99 PP. QQ on board, he had to assume Chris for Q X. He got lucky on the turn, then rightfully burned on the river. If your PP don't flop and overcards on board, FOLD. Live to play another hand. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ivy call, Big Frank, 6. Aug 2003 04:42 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| The difference is that IVY had a made full house. Even if he was up against a Qx, he made the right call. Got rivered thats all. Happens to good calls ALL THE TIME | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ivy call, BAMAFROG, 6. Aug 2003 05:00 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Why would you EVER want to put your tourney on the line with an under pair draw? He was 1 seat from final table and had a fair amount of chips, he could have folded and waited for a better time to double up. I agree he caught his card, and then lost, BUT does that make the call correct? I don't think sooooooo. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ivy call, Buckeye Mike, 6. Aug 2003 05:58 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I agree with Bama here just because he caught his card on fourth street, doesn't make it the right call. He was a big dog after the flop. He got lucky on fourth street to pull out the 9 and then got outdrawn himself when Moneymaker caught an Ace. What a tough beat though to go out one from the final table in the World Series. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ivy call, Styx, 7. Aug 2003 21:37 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I dont think anyone is really trying to say that phil did the right thing, i mean one away from the final table and risking it all against the chip leader. But as i said in another post mm calling was near horrible he had to believe that at that point phil would not risk it all without actually having something no matter how often he has overplayed his hand in the past. True that was lucky of phil to catch the 9, but i do not think he would have called another large bet if he did not catch the third 9. They both caught miracle cards, mm was just luckier. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ivy call, noiseboy, 6. Aug 2003 08:52 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| No, he's talking about Ivy's call on the flop. At that point, Ivy called with the pocket 99's when there were two QQ's on the board. This was probably a mistake, but perhaps he was onto the fact that Moneymaker bluffs a lot and thought he might be just trying to bully with his stack. Money was a HUGE favorite on the flop, and could have bet more, but he wanted to take a chance and trap Ivy. Then Ivy got lucky and spiked his two outer. Then he is the HUGE favorite as Moneymaker either needed an A or a Q, five outs on the river. Moneymaker was probably right to call the all-in, because the pot was enormous at that point, and he could reasonably think he still had the best hand with Trips and top kicker. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ivy call, shorn, 6. Aug 2003 11:09 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Actually, money had 7 outs on the river as any 6 would give him the bigger boat as well. Now, I think Ivey made a bad play by calling the flop too. Perhaps he flet that if he called the flop and the flop bet was a bluff, then he would get checked to on the turn and he could go all-in with his 9's. He might of actually thought he was ahead on the flop. By simply calling there, he isn't risking too much of his stack (MM underbet) and thenif he misses the turn and MM bets again, then he dumps. Also, calling would be the play if Ivey were bluffing that he was holding AQ and wanted to trap. Perhaps he smelled weakness (incorrectly) in MM and hoped that he could take control of the hand by calling what he thought was a bluff bet on the flop. Either way, when he hit his miracle card on the turn, he played it correctly and then money re-miracled on the river. That guy is either worshipping Satan or living the cleanest life the world has ever known with all the times he hit in the tourny with all his chips on the line. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ivy call, Big_Slick, 6. Aug 2003 05:53 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| he had to assume Chris for Q X Would love to hear your reasoning behind that statement. This is the same player that went all in with a pair of 3's earlier in the day, right? If you worried that every flop hit your opponent, you wouldn't last past day 1. He got lucky on the turn, then rightfully burned on the river. If anyone got lucky, it was Moneymaker catching the Ace on the river. If your PP don't flop and overcards on board, FOLD. This isn't a 3/6 ring game at Party Poker. Very often a flop is seen by only 2 players making any pocket pair a strong strarting hand (althought there were 3 to see the flop in your example). And since this is NL, players are often correct to play their pocket pairs to the river. Ivey (not Ivy) played the hand like a pro and got unlucky on the river. But that's my opinion. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ivy call, BAMAFROG, 6. Aug 2003 07:39 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| First sorry about the spelling You are correct that Moneymaker went all in with 33, but that was a call( bad 1 everybody says), and he got very lucky. In this hand he made the bet, a lot of difference. My main point on this issue is Phil made a call that would put him out of tourney if he lost when he didn't have to. He could easily have dumped the 9s and gone to the next hand ,waiting for better time to pounce. If the 9 doesn't come on the turn, I wonder how many people would feel sorry for him? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ivy call, Schuster, 6. Aug 2003 07:48 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I disagree that Moneymaker's 33 call was bad. I was shocked as hell when he made it, but if you really put your opponent on overcards, and really trust your read, then the call is ok. You're 3 to 1 to have the best hand by the river. Those are pretty good odds. The thing about Ivey's call was that he's staring down a preflop raiser. If you raised before the flop with AK and had a QQ6 flop, you'll bet at it. Now you get called by someone, I bet you start to sweat a little. It'll take a lot of heart to bet at that board again, with no piece of it. That's why Ivey made the call, if Moneymaker has nothing, he probably won't fire at it again, and odds of him not having a queen are better than the odds of him having a queen. Lee | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Frog and Schuster, Easy E, 6. Aug 2003 08:25 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I don't think it's a bad call at all. with that QQrag flop, you're looking to bust a player who isn't afraid of putting in their chips. A sneaky 9's-full is a great way to do that. Look at the implied odds of calling CM's flop bet, then see if you still think the call was bad. IMO Phil dumps on the turn without the 9, unless he sees Chris having overcards. If so, Chris probably only bets 70-100K as was his habit, it seemed, so Phil could think ahead and see that he might be able to get to the river without being too crippled. I forgot if they told us, what did CM bet on the flop and turn? I know he opened for 60K preflop. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Frog and Schuster, Schuster, 8. Aug 2003 00:22 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Reread my post, Easy, I don't think the call was bad at all! Not only are the implied odds good, but I think Phil Ivey felt he might have the best hand there. If MM bet it again on the turn and Phil didn't catch his 9, he could feel more comfortable that his hand wasn't the boss, and could get away from it pretty easily. Lee | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ivy call, noiseboy, 6. Aug 2003 09:08 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I'm not sure I understand how getting your money in with the best hand is "getting lucky". The call with the 33's was brilliant, he knows any pocket pair is a favorite against two overcards, so if he doesn't have his opponent on a pocket pair, then his move was correct. Of course if you are wrong in your read, then you are screwed because you will be a 4 to 1 dog if someone has a higher pair than you. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ivy call, shorn, 6. Aug 2003 11:13 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I think it was 50/50. Yes, he had a great read on Dutch there, but hell, dutch could have held A9 or A5s too. MM correctly smelled overcards, but with the stack that he had, I would have waited for a better spot to call off all of my chips that late in the tournament. If he loses that pot, none of us ever talk about the guy. With a better than average stack, is that really worth a coin flip when all that money is at stake?? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ivy call, noiseboy, 6. Aug 2003 08:58 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Actually, I was very impressed with his call with pocket 33s earlier. That was a WCP move. By his read of the other player, he put him on two big cards and not a pair. He knew the other guy was a short stack and probably couldn't wait around for pocket AA's or KK's. He realized that if he was right in his read, that he would be the favorite so he got his money in. He also had more chips than the other guy, so a loss wouldn't bust him. Finally, he's in there to win the thing, and to do that he needs lots of chips for the final table. Anyway, he went with his read and he was right. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ivy call, shorn, 6. Aug 2003 11:14 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I think he had 67k less than Dutch when he called actually, because Dutch wasn't out after that hand. So, if he lost, he was gone... | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ivy call, Schuster, 6. Aug 2003 07:38 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Moneymaker opened for a raise before the flop, and bet on the flop. Given the pair on board and the propensity for preflop raisers betting the flop, Ivey probably thought his 9's were good, and I'd be inclined to think likewise, at least enough for a flop call. This isn't a normal ring game where the "no set no bet" rule applies. I think he was justified in making the call. Lee | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ivy call, Flatout_Mainiac, 6. Aug 2003 10:12 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I am not an expert NL player, but I thought the real mistake in this hand was Moneymaker not raising enough on the flop. To me it seemed that Moneymaker tries to squeeze out that extra chip from his opponent and this just leave him open to getting hit hard (i.e.Ivy's low pocket hitting for the fh on the turn). I've always been taught in anything I do that if you have the ability to finish off your opponent right then and there you better do it (If you know you got the best hand at the turn, don't give them a reason to try to draw out on you). I thought this concept applies to NL but I would like to hear from others about what you think about Moneymaker's play on the flop. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ivy call, noiseboy, 6. Aug 2003 10:15 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Well, I think with 3 Q's Moneymaker wants to bet exactly the amount that he thinks Ivey will call. He's a big enough favorite that he doesn't want to lose his opponent right away. It would be different if there was a str8 or flush draw on the board, then he would have to make a huge bet on the flop so that Ivey wouldn't draw to beat him. However, that being said, trapping can be profitable, but it carries a great deal of risk. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ivy call, Jav, 6. Aug 2003 10:21 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I didn't see the hand, so I really don't know how it played it pre-flop. But if I was heads up against an aggressive player, and flopped trips with an ace kicker; I would probably slow play it until he bet into me, then come over the top of him. Yes you will get sucked out on more, but I think you'll extract more money from the aggressive player if you play it that way. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| POKER FORUM HOME | POKER FORUM | LINK TO US | ARCHIVE | ONLINE POKER | Copyright 2002, United Poker Forum |
|
Getting Started |
UPF Tournaments |
Poker News, Views, Rules |
Poker Strategy & Psychology |
Money and Bankroll Poker Bonuses & Promotions | World Series of Poker (WSOP) | Play Online Poker | Poker Odds & Statistics | Tournament Poker | Poker Books, Videos & Learning Tools Looking for a Poker Game | Poker Bad Beats | Not Quite Poker | Quizzes and Polls | Forum Suggestions & Bugs |
|
|
|
|
Interesting Links: Online Poker | Free Poker Games | United Poker Network |
|