What’s in a name?
What's in a name?
Here's Johnny Terrence. That is as in Chan. TC is beyond solid. He recently made a very nice score at the WCOOP. Respectable is an understatement. Now he's posted the standard run-bad blog and is questioning the value of continuing. Most would happily take on his 'problems' and winnings.
One of the key hands is as follows:
At dinner I had 56k with 300-600 blinds. On the third hand back from dinner, utg raised to 1500, Jeff Lisandro next to act made it 4200, I made it 11k from the SB with AKs, Lisandro moved in for his 26k with TT and I called. The board was air and I was down to the original 30k stack. Sigh.
Is that any kind of shocker? Seems the standard 'race' commentary from Mike and Vince applies. 56:44 or whatever. It is your typical big pot poker that Negreanu tries to avoid.
AK is also something with a name. It is Big Slick. It is the third best drawing hand at Hold'em. Was his raise back at a solid player the ideal move. Circumstance contributes to one's answer. This leads to circumstantial results. His sigh at the end isn't all that valid.
All this is a pretty good example of why Negreanu is a proponent of small pot poker. It was at a stage where blinds weren't a serious factor. He was playing from an average or above stack. Two were already contesting the pot in an aggressive manner. There is a fair possibility that one or both of his cards are also in the active hands. Raising here is committing to no small degree. If you aren't reraising your commitment is to post flop play and the opportunity to reevaluate without serious damage.
It might be that TC's very strong limit background came into play. AK is an obvious 3-bet there. At limit it is possible to love those drawing hands and make hay or limit the loss. That isn't the case at NL and he paid a price. At limit you can commit to your hand and losing leaves you not whole but typically still alive.
Big pot poker is a viable game but it comes with hands just like the above. It can cause sighs for a variety of reasons. Lisandro was entitled to a sigh as well. His was one of relief.
Related posts:
A case can be made for playing A-K less aggressively. But in a tournament (as you know), you have to keep getting chips, so these are risks you often take. When they work, you’re set to run deep. When they don’t, you sigh.
At a point, blinds point to aggressive play. That isn’t a factor here. It could be a squeeze play with a bad read. But, it placed a solid stack at risk. Now there is a need for more a aggressive — or as you put it accumulative — strategy.
Solid play usually shows a graph without massive changes. It is a series of steals and wise plays with limited exposure.
In the scheme of things and ignoring the propensity of the article’s attitude somewhat, I’d make the following action grading:
1. Call — play a post flop game.
2. Fold — odds in the possible 3 way pot make all 3 likely dogs and look for a better situation.
3. Go all-in. Playing to get Lisandro to lay down the type of hand he has.
4. Reraise with knowledge that Lisandro’s call will likely force playing for the all-in anyway. (Bit of hindsight but obvious after at least.)
I’d be willing to swap 2 with 3 at times. But against a Lisandro type I’ll go with the wimp version.
The thing I don’t like about (#1.) call, is that you’ll be playing the hand from out of position, plus you could get re-raised (as happened). I understand call, hut A-K is better to move all in with, rather than call an all in.
That’s what makes poker such a great game. There is no clearly right way to play in most situations. They say “it depends,” but it really depends on more than it depends, if that makes sense.
Well, I have embarrassed myself with my reading of hand histories all the time but I thought/think that TC had position in all this. UTG raise, Lisandro re-raise, TC makes 3rd bet.
If he has position, then call is okay — he’s letting his position work for him.
Just to be clear, I wasn’t criticizing anything – just sayin’ there are different ways to play the hand. For what it’s worth, I don’t see anything wrong with folding. The reason is: you know it is likely a race. If you think you are a better player than the others, why race? Wait for opportunities to outplay them.
No such thought. You just summarized my thought on the hand nicely, just now. I like aggression. You won’t win without it. But, I thought the hand misplayed for the circumstances.
I appreciated the continued dialog. You added to the blog nicely. Worry not! There won’t be one of my attack blogs with your name showing up…
Looks like you are a real pro. Did you study about the subject? lol