Hey, Card Player poker tools. Analyse this.

[Barny]

Is it just me being defensive or does anyone else think this 'analysis' is nonsense ?

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-tools/hand-matchups/1569
_________________
If it wasn't for luck I'd lose every tournament I played...If I wanted to manage a bankroll I'd be a bank manager.

Play online with The Mob at Genting Poker

[bergeroo]

Barny,

It seems like you've been stitched up there. And no name for who wrote it. The use of language is highly results orientated and selective.

If the club doesn't come on the river then presumably he folds?

And your river shove is just over pot. The sizing of this river bet seems fine. If the bet is 'desperate' then in that case every all in bet must be 'desperate'

I'm not sure I would play this hand like this, I've also never played against Seiver. But if someone internet kid had played the hand like this and got a fold on the river then I can't help feeling that the analysis would be different!

If you are going to make this kind of play then shouldn't you be doing it against Scott Seiver* instead of someone who never folds top pair?!?

Yeah maybe he sniffed out your bluff, or maybe he called all the way with ace high and third flush draw and got there on the river and then made a good call.

What were your thoughts when you shoved the river. If he indeed had a club, did you think you could get him off Qc for example?
*By the way I think SS is an amazing player!

[darrensprengers]

i, personally, dont like the river shove. scot knows you are a good player and that you will barrell his float after a 3 bet when he flats. he cant expect you to check fold. you might check call with a stronger range than you bet fold but i would guess it is marginal. he opts for a standard float as you bet out. when he calls the turn i think his range is filled with flushes and draws. heavily weighted towards draws as i think he would probably raise the turn for value vs overpairs and a club hands in your range as you are double barrelling. not knowing any of the stats it probably as subjective as the website but i think thats a scare card for you more than for him nearly all the time.
_________________
The next best thing to gambling and winning is gambling and losing.

-- Nick "The Greek" Dandalos

[Barny]

Thanks Bergeroo. I agree with everything you say.

When I got called on the turn I was already prepared to shove a lot of rivers, and specifically a club as my line was perfectly consistent with any hand that included the ace or king of clubs, and because for a number of reasons I was pretty sure he didn't have either of these cards. Partly this was a read of relative weakness on flop and turn.

If he had called my preflop re-raise with a king in his hand then what hand was it? An AK would have likely four bet, a K Q would not have flatted flop and turn, a KJ would probably be suited to call pre (and could not be suited in clubs) and would have likely raised the flop particularly if it included the K of clubs. If he had AJ he'd have played it stronger post flop. If he held any hand with two clubs in it would probably have played differently too. Any hand with A clubs in probably plays different on flop and or turn. His line felt more like a pair around 88 or maybe J 10. Either of these hands ( but far more likely the pair) could have brought him a flush on the river, but a small enough one for him to fold. And to me most of his range made him two pairs on the river, an easy fold to my all in.
I on the other hand could have any two big cards (pair or not) that included a club. In fact it's only by pure chance that I didn't have one.

To be honest, I don't much like his turn call as he didn't really know what he wanted to hit. Even when the flush came he had to think long and hard - asking the dealer to spread the pot - before making the call. It was not a case of 'seeing through my desperation' it was a case of feeling his hand was just about too strong to fold getting almost exactly 2/1. He had pretty much the only hand he could call me with and it didn't seem like the most likely hand for him to have.

I suppose you can say I priced him in for the turn call - I felt I needed to structure my bets to leave myself a pot sized river bet - but he can be calling to get into trouble. And what does he do if he misses? Presumably I get paid off on an ace.

The somewhat sycophantic suggestion that I should not have made the river bet because of his tournament record doesn't really come under the heading of 'analysis' and is too silly to merit a detailed response. Is the writer suggesting that I should not have defended my bb with AK against Siever's cut-off raise? Or that I should not have c -bet? Or that I should have just rolled over on the river because my opponent has won more tournament dollars than me?

And what has the fact that it's early in the tournament have to do with anything? I can give up the pot and leave myself with a quarter of the average stack on the toughest table in the room. Or I can make a calculated move that will get me up to a half sized stack and which will get through the vast majority of the time. Frankly, if you don't have it in you to make this bet then you're wasting your money entering tournaments.

You are very right about the language. It is what irritated me the most. Every bet I make is an 'attempt' or a 'try'. My c bet is an 'attempt to take control of the pot' and his call with a dominated hand is apparently represents the failure of that attempt.
Throughout the article the writer seems to fancy themselves a mind reader giving Seiver maximum credit and me none at all with the thoughts he assigns to us.

I do think Seiver is a very good player and having given himself the problem on the turn he made a strong call on the river. But the fact that it took a very good player a long time to make the call with about the strongest hand he could have, just shows that my bet was a good one.
_________________
If it wasn't for luck I'd lose every tournament I played...If I wanted to manage a bankroll I'd be a bank manager.

Play online with The Mob at Genting Poker

[Barny]

[StGilmore]

Scott's PR person wrote this. That is all.

edit: except on re-reading this I'm really annoyed, so... on to my next post.
_________________
"I find it's best to start the day with no composure and then you've got nothing to lose." B. Boatman

http://midlifepoker.blogspot.com/
http://outthescammers.blogspot.com/

[StGilmore]

Outcome

With the blinds at 75 and 150, Seiver raised to 350 from late position, Boatman reraised to 1,125 from the big blind, Seiver called. On the Flop, Boatman bet 1,000, Seiver called. On the Turn, Boatman bet 2,000, Seiver called. On the River, Boatman went all-in, Seiver called 8,925.

Alternate Analysis

Seiver opened from late position but when 3-bet from the BB by Boatman he merely flat-called perhaps relying on his positional advantage. Boatman lead out strong on the flop sensing that Seiver was weak and got his call. When the club draw came in on the Turn, Boatman made a meta game bet of just under 1/3 of the pot. Unsure where he was in the hand, Seiver nevertheless decided to call Boatman's bet. With the River bringing the 4th club, Boatman made the strong move of shoving all in. Seiver tanked, knowing that as the hand played he could be crushed, but finally decided to make the crying call.


I'm in no way impugning Seiver's play here - but definitely mocking the commentary.

Looking at the hand dry, as in how it played out with the bets and cards, in fairness, I would never expect Seiver to end up with the cards he has the way he played it. It all relies on the river.

In the way this 'analysis' was written, I suspect that if the club does not come on the river, despite their own posted percentages, they would've somehow labelled Barny's win as a suck out.

As for the hand itself, for me, the river would have come down to those two polarized choices: check/fold v. shove. Agonizing. But as I see it the final table is rarely made by the check/fold.
_________________
"I find it's best to start the day with no composure and then you've got nothing to lose." B. Boatman

http://midlifepoker.blogspot.com/
http://outthescammers.blogspot.com/

[Seb]

I rarely make this play because you're completely blind, he could have literally anything. But yeah, you need it as an option. You would want a strong instinct that he was weak.

[dwh103]

I'm mainly surprised they posted a hand that actually had some post flop play. Pre-flop racing is all I've ever seen on there, followed by a mini essay describing a 10BB shove and auto-call.

Maybe they should go back to what they know best. The good thing is that in a roundabout way we've ended up with Barny's analysis. Reminds me not to play on autopilot and to consider all this stuff.
_________________
My blog: http://thepokerlifeofdave.blogspot.com/

[the shiver]

Barny,..this is why football managers dont read papers no more
_________________
never chop wood in a rubber dinghy

[bergeroo]

Barny,

I am in no way qualified to speculate on SS's play, pre or post flop, but your analysis of your own seems eminently sensible. Yes, a slightly bigger turn bet to leave a shove of a little less than pot might have been preferable but that's a small point. I'm also not sure I can make a comment on whether it is a good river shove or not, but certainly firing three barrels should be something in your repetoire.

If indeed you did have a tough table, then taking a more high variance line like this to get chips seems to make sense.

It's actually a really lame article and completely one sided. If Seiver called and you showed up with the Ace of clubs, would they print this?

[darrensprengers]

[evelyn]