The Challenge Hand Review Thread

Stump your fellow simians.
RCC
Posts: 7019
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 5:28 pm
Location: Here for now.

The Challenge Hand Review Thread

Post by RCC »

Where I review the hands played in the challenge, and try to see how many people I can bore and upset at the same time. 8)

Hand 1:


Most interesting decision:

By far the most important decision in this hand was slimshady2357's decision on the turn. He had bet a small amount on the flop with top pair crappy kicker and was called in three places, only to see the turn come down with his third king, putting 2 clubs on board. The pot had 18 chips in it.

What to do?

There is the danger that you are beaten by a higher king or a full house, but likewise there is the danger of giving a free card in that both someone could hit a better hand or at best you fail to get full value for your hand.

I don't like a check here, for a few reasons. It invites a bluff, but the kicker is so bad that you really don't want to call a bet or move all in because you only beat a bluff, and in such a quick tournament every chip is very valuable.

What I like is a bet of enough to scare off any longshot draws, or at least make them unprofitable, but not so much as it commits to the pot so it can be thrown away if someone makes a big raise. The bet also has the advantage that if someone has something like K6 they may fold, and if they don't most likely we are looking at a split pot if the last card is higher than either kicker. Better to be the bettor and not the caller as nobody ever folded to a call.

I was thinking something like six chips. This makes calling with any realistic draw a mistake, but leaves 10 chips in case I'd have to fold.

Best use of a semi-bluff

Rebecca's bet on the turn was a great example of using postion to make a well timed semi-bluff. When the second king fell and everone checked, it was a perfect opportunity to buy a pot almost equal (18 chips) to a starting stack. The betting suggested nobody had a king and it would be hard to call a bet without one. Although someone had a king, the bet was small enough not to mean disaster and still left a shot at the straight...

Moral of Hand 1

Position good, passive play bad.
slimshady2357
Posts: 698
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 4:53 pm

Post by slimshady2357 »

*sigh*

Yes, I played that badly. I wish I had your experience RCC, that analysis was a great help. I was hoping you would do something like this.

I should have bet after the third king, I was too focused on someone having the other king with a bigger kicker. I just wasn't thinking about how a (sizeable) raise would get rid of anyone looking to draw something still. I really am quite green and there are lots of things I need to learn.

Thanks for the opportunity :) I'm in trouble now with only 6 chips, but at least I can wait on a good hand for a for a few deals and not have to post either blind.

Adam
rebecca
Posts: 514
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 12:14 am
Location: Insert funny "location" here.

Post by rebecca »

slimshady2357 wrote: I'm in trouble now with only 6 chips, but at least I can wait on a good hand for a for a few deals and not have to post either blind.
Hey, it's NL, anything can happen!

And RCC, it goes without saying, I'm sure, but I'll say it anyway: no analysis on unshown, uncalled hands, right?
RCC
Posts: 7019
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 5:28 pm
Location: Here for now.

Post by RCC »

rebecca wrote:
slimshady2357 wrote: I'm in trouble now with only 6 chips, but at least I can wait on a good hand for a for a few deals and not have to post either blind.
Hey, it's NL, anything can happen!

And RCC, it goes without saying, I'm sure, but I'll say it anyway: no analysis on unshown, uncalled hands, right?
Yes. I will only use public information in analyzing the hands.

Only aspect of this is that all hands live at a showdown will be revealed, as they would be by request in a live game or in a internet game hand history...
RCC
Posts: 7019
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 5:28 pm
Location: Here for now.

Post by RCC »

I'll also add that if anyone wants to reveal what they held for analysis by other players after the hand is over to feel free, but I won't be revealing anyone's cards. Not even Sam Farha's.
RCC
Posts: 7019
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 5:28 pm
Location: Here for now.

Post by RCC »

Hand 2 analysis:

I've been caught stealing;
once when I was 5...
I enjoy stealing.
It's just as simple as that.
Well, it's just a simple fact.
When I want something,
I don't want to pay for it.

I walk right through the door.
Walk right through the door.
Hey all right! If I get by, it's mine.
Mine all mine!

My girl, she's one too.
She'll go and get her a skirt.
Stick it under her shirt.
She grabbed a razor for me.
And she did it just like that.
When she wants something,
She don't want to pay for it.

She walk right through the door.
Walk right through the door.
Hey all right! If I get by, it's mine.
Mine all mine!

We sat around the pile.
We sat and laughed.
We sat and laughed and
Waved it into the air!
And we did it just like that.
When we want something,
We don't want to pay for it.

We walk right through the door.
Walk right through the door.
Hey, all right! If I get by, it's mine,
Mine, mine, mine, mine, mine, mine...
http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/ ... CF0005000D
varwoche
Posts: 435
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 6:13 pm
Location: Puget Sound, in the land of orange alert

Post by varwoche »

Hand 2... I had 2 pair, Js and 8s. If Farha hadn't gone all in I would have called the 4 unit bet. And I was anticipating a sharp post-hand critique -- that calling the hand was wrong.

Much of this is mysterious to me.
Skeeve
Posts: 15247
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:35 am

Post by Skeeve »

varwoche wrote:Hand 2... I had 2 pair, Js and 8s. If Farha hadn't gone all in I would have called the 4 unit bet. And I was anticipating a sharp post-hand critique -- that calling the hand was wrong.

Much of this is mysterious to me.
He bluffed his way at somebody's flush, and got flushed.
RCC
Posts: 7019
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 5:28 pm
Location: Here for now.

Post by RCC »

varwoche wrote:Hand 2... I had 2 pair, Js and 8s. If Farha hadn't gone all in I would have called the 4 unit bet. And I was anticipating a sharp post-hand critique -- that calling the hand was wrong.

Much of this is mysterious to me.
Nope. The only problem was that it was a 5 chip bet.

I think you have to call that, being last to act and having rivered two pair. Folding to the all in was a good move though.
varwoche
Posts: 435
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 6:13 pm
Location: Puget Sound, in the land of orange alert

Post by varwoche »

varwoche wrote:Much of this is mysterious to me.
Meaning... It is my general sense that there is more art than science involved in mastering this game.

My thoughts at the time Cecil bet 4 units on the river: Hoping he has high pair or else bluffing; slightly worried about two pair K high; thinking flush unlikely due to no prior bets; most worried about straight; willing to call 4 units, not much more if any.

add: Have Cecil's cards been revealed? Can they be?
RCC
Posts: 7019
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 5:28 pm
Location: Here for now.

Post by RCC »

varwoche wrote:
varwoche wrote:Much of this is mysterious to me.
Meaning... It is my general sense that there is more art than science involved in mastering this game.

My thoughts at the time Cecil bet 4 units on the river: Hoping he has high pair or else bluffing; slightly worried about two pair K high; thinking flush unlikely due to no prior bets; most worried about straight; willing to call 4 units, not much more if any.

add: Have Cecil's cards been revealed? Can they be?
They were. Check the last post in the game thread.

He called so his hand was shown...

When he bet 5 chips you were looking at winning 13 chips. He was out of the blinds so he could have almost anything, but with the blind structure as fast as it is, and since you are not really looking to move up the payscale as there is none (win or bust) not calling one player there would be way too tight.

There is much more science than art, it is just that the science is so freaking complicated and nuanced that it is better practically understood as art.

David Sklansky's The Theory of Poker pretty much covers the basic science of poker. Almost everything can be derived from the principles laid out in that book. That was one of the first books I read, and the first book worth reading.

Poker books are a minefield. There are a lot of good ones but many more that are quite flawed.