WSOP - Patri's quick elimination
RzItUp
some of the interesting sights and news when i return.
One quick highlight:
$3000 buy-in Pot Limit Holdem
The event had just started, maybe 10-15 minutes. I was seated at the table
next to Patri. I stood up and was watching the hand at his table when the
following hand happened:
First position calls $50
Patri calls $50
Button makes it $250
Small blind (Layne Flack) calls $250
First position calls $200
Patri calls $200
Flop comes: 789
All check to button who bets $1000
Layne shows me his hand, AKs and mucks it
other player folds
Patri calls $1000
Turn comes: 7
Patri checks
Button goes all in
Patri immediately calls and turns over 88
River comes: A
button rolls over AA catchhing the case A
Patri storms from the table, only to be told he wasnt all-in. He runs back
yelling "woohooo". Next hand he goes bust.
Guy at my table says, "my daddy always told me never to play hold'em if I had
purple hair".
poker-tourneys
relative quality of hands, odds, etc. I warned him that he may burn his
brain cells out, but he's young and full of piss and vinegar. He's a nice
young man.
For the very short time he has been playing, it's hard to blame him for
getting chewed-up by some of the best talent in the country. His story is
no worse than many of us could tell. He's trying, and that's what counts.
Keep it up, Patri, and one of these days......who knows?!?!?!?
I am reminded of a calendar I saw recently. It said:
DEFEAT. For every winner, there are dozens of losers.
Chances are you're one of them!
Well, it's the truth-you know.
"Junior" Sample
P.S. I played as bad as can be played for a week. I finally boxed it up
and came home. And I know what happened:
10% bad luck, and 90% really bad play. Need to adjust my brain and try
again next time. Shit happens.
RzItUp <rzi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990509185654...@ng-co1.aol.com...
Lee Daniel Crocker
"poker-tourneys" <poker-t...@massconfusion.com> wrote:
> Patri is young and he's trying. Walks around constantly calculating the
> relative quality of hands, odds, etc. I warned him that he may burn his
> brain cells out, but he's young and full of piss and vinegar. He's a nice
> young man.
>
> For the very short time he has been playing, it's hard to blame him for
> getting chewed-up by some of the best talent in the country. His story is
> no worse than many of us could tell. He's trying, and that's what counts.
> Keep it up, Patri, and one of these days......who knows?!?!?!?
>
> I am reminded of a calendar I saw recently. It said:
>
> DEFEAT. For every winner, there are dozens of losers.
> Chances are you're one of them!
into going all in as a 45-to-1 underdog, and he caught his one-
outer. I say Bravo for Mr. purple-hair. If he keeps doing
that, he'll have some bracelets to match his nose rings soon.
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Alan Bostick
rzi...@aol.com (RzItUp) wrote:
Let's see now . . . Patri gets all the money into the middle of the table
when he's the favorite, and his opponent catches a 40:1 miracle card to beat
him.
Tell me you'd play it any differently.
--
Alan Bostick | "Ah, never wager with a pataphysician," he said
mailto:abos...@netcom.com | as they left. "'Pataphysics is, after all, the
news:alt.grelb | ultimate weapon." -- Max Merriwell
http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~abostick
Ken Bahnzo Tarvin
wrote:
>Let's see now . . . Patri gets all the money into the middle of the table
>when he's the favorite, and his opponent catches a 40:1 miracle card to beat
>him.
>
>Tell me you'd play it any differently.
>
>
Not one bit. Tough beat, Patri......
Ken Tarvin
San Diego, CA
http://www.bahnzo.cx/
I don't say we all ought to misbehave,
but we ought to look as if we could.
- Orson Welles
"Being right too soon is socially unacceptable."
- Robert A. Heinlein
Jeffrey B. Siegal
> I said that I would rather have TT than AA in a pot limit
> game, because TT builds top set, and AA builds an overpair.
That's pretty silly. AA can make a set just as easily as TT.
Maverick
> Tongue ring. Its a tongue ring. Of course I don't have a nose ring -
> what kind of freak do you think I am?
Damn patri, I hope you never approach too close to Chelsea Clinton at
Stanford....secret service might have a few words for you.
steve belling
> Tongue ring. Its a tongue ring. Of course I don't have a nose ring -
> what kind of freak do you think I am?
Jeez, a post about Eskimos win and now your quick elimination. Just get
home? You got hundreds to go through. If I were you, I'd try green hair
next year. Purple hair is unlucky.
--
Badger
"The harder they come,
the harder they fall,
one and all"
Maverick
>
> That's pretty silly. AA can make a set just as easily as TT.
Not necessarily. Sometimes you can't make it to the flop with TT...so
there are fewer TT sets than aces...
Patri Forwalter-Friedman
: into going all in as a 45-to-1 underdog, and he caught his one-
: outer. I say Bravo for Mr. purple-hair. If he keeps doing
: that, he'll have some bracelets to match his nose rings soon.
Tongue ring. Its a tongue ring. Of course I don't have a nose ring -
what kind of freak do you think I am?
Anyway, thanks for your comments on my play. It was pretty painful, since
I had been doing terribly in satellites, and decided that I should
concentrate more on tournaments, because I am much better at playing when
the money is deep, and here I sit down at a tournament and find the
perfect situation on the third hand and then blam....
Even more ironic is the fact that I'd had a discussion in line when
registering, and then again at the table before the event started, on the
differences between no-limit and pot limit holdem. I claimed that one of
the major differences was that big pairs are very dangerous in pot limit
because you can't protect them, and most players have a tendency to
overplay them. I said that I would rather have TT than AA in a pot limit
game, because TT builds top set, and AA builds an overpair. It seems
clear which of those is more likely to get you broke and which to double
you up.
Anyway, now that the beat is behind me, all I have to say is that I hope
all of my opponents play their pocket aces like that - going all in for 12
times their pre-flop bet on a board of 7789. Please. Don't change. Aces
are a monster. You gotta keep pushing with them. If someone calls you,
he must be an idiot, because you have POCKET ACES. Keep betting till you
are all in, no matter how scary the board. You have POCKET ACES. You
only get them once every TWO HUNDRED AND TWENTY HANDS! When you get them,
you gotta bet them. Yeah.
Patri
Jeremy Balka
: Lee Daniel Crocker (l...@piclab.com) wrote:
: : into going all in as a 45-to-1 underdog, and he caught his one-
: : outer. I say Bravo for Mr. purple-hair. If he keeps doing
: : that, he'll have some bracelets to match his nose rings soon.
Okay, pet peeve time. The AA was clearly not a 45-1 dog. First of all,
even if you want to include the known AK mucked hand, with all of the
observed cards, it was only 41-1. But you can't just pick and choose
which cards to include. Before the river was dealt, we could have looked
at all the remaining cards except the river card, and found out that Patri
was actually drawing dead, since the remaining card must be an Ace.
Clearly, both of these analyses are flawed. You have to look only at the
information available to both players at the time the chips moved in.
If both hands were shown after the money moved in, it would be clear to
both players that the AA was a 42-2, or 21-1 dog. You can't just include
the fact that somebody had an Ace, and then call it a 45-1 suckout.
Jeremy
Patri Forwalter-Friedman
: Patri Forwalter-Friedman wrote:
: > I said that I would rather have TT than AA in a pot limit
: > game, because TT builds top set, and AA builds an overpair.
: That's pretty silly. AA can make a set just as easily as TT.
That is true, but it does not refute my point. The difference between the
hands is those times when they do not make a set. TT is likely to just be
an underpair, and so you won't lose or win much. Whereas AA is going to
be an overpair, which most people play much too strongly, and needs to be
played very carefully. It will win you lots of medium pots, but it will
lose you big ones unless you learn to lay it down.
When I say "TT builds top set", I mean "if you are playing TT at all
strongly or past the flop, you probably have a set". This is not true of
AA, you will often be playing it strongly and past the flop when it is
just an overpair. Thus while AA flops a set as often as TT, I would not
say that "AA *builds* top set". Does that difference make sense?
Patri
Patri Forwalter-Friedman
: : Lee Daniel Crocker (l...@piclab.com) wrote:
: : : into going all in as a 45-to-1 underdog, and he caught his one-
: : : outer. I say Bravo for Mr. purple-hair. If he keeps doing
: : : that, he'll have some bracelets to match his nose rings soon.
: Okay, pet peeve time. The AA was clearly not a 45-1 dog. First of all,
: even if you want to include the known AK mucked hand, with all of the
: observed cards, it was only 41-1. But you can't just pick and choose
Yes, this is true. When I whine about the bad beat, i call it a 41-1
beat.
: which cards to include. Before the river was dealt, we could have looked
: at all the remaining cards except the river card, and found out that Patri
: was actually drawing dead, since the remaining card must be an Ace.
: Clearly, both of these analyses are flawed. You have to look only at the
: information available to both players at the time the chips moved in.
This is absolutely true. However:
1) 21:1 is still a pretty bad beat.
2) 41:1 sounds worse. When I tell a bad beat story, I want sympathy.
41:1 gets more sympathy. I completely admit that it is mathematically
flawed. It is a wrong number. Explainable through flawed logic, but
wrong. But it sounds better. I wouldn't use it in a mathematical
analysis or a post on strategy, but I will use it to whine.
Patri
sres...@slip.net
> : Patri Forwalter-Friedman wrote:
> : > I said that I would rather have TT than AA in a pot limit
> : > game, because TT builds top set, and AA builds an overpair.
> Jeffrey B. Siegal (j...@quiotix.com) wrote:
> : That's pretty silly. AA can make a set just as easily as TT.
pa...@cs.Stanford.EDU (Patri Forwalter-Friedman) wrote:
> That is true, but it does not refute my point. The difference between
> the hands is those times when they do not make a set. TT is likely to
> just be an underpair, and so you won't lose or win much. Whereas AA
> is going to be an overpair, which most people play much too strongly,
> and needs to be played very carefully.
Another difference is that when TT *does* make top set, it makes its
post-flop $s when up against an overpair, whereas this can't happen with
an AA. When AA makes a set, it makes its post-flop $s when up against a
lower *set*, which is a less frequent occurence.
Stuart
sres...@slip.net
http://www.slip.net/~sresnick/mypage.shtml
Jeffrey B. Siegal
>
> Jeffrey B. Siegal (j...@quiotix.com) wrote:
> : Patri Forwalter-Friedman wrote:
> : > I said that I would rather have TT than AA in a pot limit
> : > game, because TT builds top set, and AA builds an overpair.
>
> : That's pretty silly. AA can make a set just as easily as TT.
>
> hands is those times when they do not make a set. TT is likely to just be
> an underpair, and so you won't lose or win much. Whereas AA is going to
> be an overpair, which most people play much too strongly, and needs to be
> lose you big ones unless you learn to lay it down.
So learn to lay it down. If you can't lay down unimproved aces in a big
bet game, you're a fish. You might consider playing it a little less
strongly as well. Depends on the game of course but in many games by
playing it strongly you are just forcing out people who are drawing the
to second best hand and getting action from hands that beat you. Don't
do that.
> When I say "TT builds top set", I mean "if you are playing TT at all
> strongly or past the flop, you probably have a set". This is not true of
> AA, you will often be playing it strongly and past the flop when it is
> just an overpair. Thus while AA flops a set as often as TT, I would not
> say that "AA *builds* top set". Does that difference make sense?
Not really, but you're entitled to describe the hands any way you like.
I still think its silly.
Maverick
> 2) 41:1 sounds worse. When I tell a bad beat story, I want sympathy.
> 41:1 gets more sympathy. I completely admit that it is mathematically
> flawed. It is a wrong number. Explainable through flawed logic, but
41 is also a much more random number.
41:1 may also be correct if you include other aspects besides exact outs.
Gary T Philips
_________________________________________big?
Gary Philips
Patri Forwalter-Friedman wrote:
> Jeremy Balka (jba...@uoguelph.ca) wrote:
>
> : : Lee Daniel Crocker (l...@piclab.com) wrote:
>
> : : : into going all in as a 45-to-1 underdog, and he caught his one-
> : : : outer. I say Bravo for Mr. purple-hair. If he keeps doing
> : : : that, he'll have some bracelets to match his nose rings soon.
>
> : Okay, pet peeve time. The AA was clearly not a 45-1 dog. First of all,
> : even if you want to include the known AK mucked hand, with all of the
> : observed cards, it was only 41-1. But you can't just pick and choose
>
> Yes, this is true. When I whine about the bad beat, i call it a 41-1
> beat.
>
> : which cards to include. Before the river was dealt, we could have looked
> : at all the remaining cards except the river card, and found out that Patri
> : was actually drawing dead, since the remaining card must be an Ace.
> : Clearly, both of these analyses are flawed. You have to look only at the
> : information available to both players at the time the chips moved in.
>
> This is absolutely true. However:
>
> 1) 21:1 is still a pretty bad beat.
>
> 2) 41:1 sounds worse. When I tell a bad beat story, I want sympathy.
> 41:1 gets more sympathy. I completely admit that it is mathematically
> flawed. It is a wrong number. Explainable through flawed logic, but
Gary T Philips
prefer to flop a set of K's than A's for the simple reason opponents will make
a straight against you more often when an Ace is one board than when a King
is.
Gary Philips
Patri Forwalter-Friedman wrote:
> Jeffrey B. Siegal (j...@quiotix.com) wrote:
> : Patri Forwalter-Friedman wrote:
> : > I said that I would rather have TT than AA in a pot limit
> : > game, because TT builds top set, and AA builds an overpair.
>
> : That's pretty silly. AA can make a set just as easily as TT.
>
> That is true, but it does not refute my point. The difference between the
> hands is those times when they do not make a set. TT is likely to just be
> an underpair, and so you won't lose or win much. Whereas AA is going to
> be an overpair, which most people play much too strongly, and needs to be
> played very carefully. It will win you lots of medium pots, but it will
> lose you big ones unless you learn to lay it down.
>
> When I say "TT builds top set", I mean "if you are playing TT at all
> strongly or past the flop, you probably have a set". This is not true of
> AA, you will often be playing it strongly and past the flop when it is
> just an overpair. Thus while AA flops a set as often as TT, I would not
> say that "AA *builds* top set". Does that difference make sense?
>
> Patri
Maverick
> Thank you for elaborating, Patri. It makes perfect sense now. BTW, I would
> prefer to flop a set of K's than A's for the simple reason opponents will make
>
> a straight against you more often when an Ace is one board than when a King
> is.
Huh? The Ace makes the ace high and the wheel straight possible..the
King makes the Ace high and the King high straight possible....however,
it's more likely that people will play cards that work with a big straight
than with a wheel, so I question this logic of yours.
Gary T Philips
When the flop comes K-3-8 and you've flopped three Kings you are not worried about
any straight draws. But substitute A for the K and now with a flop of A-3-8 there
is a straight draw possible. Flopping a set of Kings will have less straight draws
than flopping a set of Aces. Which is why I prefer a set of Kings especially in a
PL or NL game.
Gary Philips
Rshattuck
>about
>any straight draws. But substitute A for the K and now with a flop of A-3-8
>there
>is a straight draw possible.
I hate to agree with Mav, but he is correct. You are using one specific flop
that fits your scenario. However, a flop such as A-J-6 is just as likely as
A-3-8. You are more likely to be playing against someone with K-Q, K-10 or Q-10
than 2-4, 2-5 or 4-5 especially if you raise with your pocket Aces or Kings.
Maverick
> When the flop comes K-3-8 and you've flopped three Kings you are not worried about
> any straight draws. But substitute A for the K and now with a flop of A-3-8 there
> than flopping a set of Aces. Which is why I prefer a set of Kings especially in a
> PL or NL game.
This makes no sense...you are picking and choosing a unique situation. I
could easily choose any number of situations that would favor the king for
making a straight over the Ace...i.e. a board like 8-9-K .
Gary T Philips
One more try then I give. An ace makes a straight two different ways A-K-Q-J-10 and
A-2-3-4-5. A king makes a straight also two different ways A-K-Q-J-10 and K-Q-J-10-9.
Of the cards that makes an ace a straight, how many of them are different? There are 8.
(K,Q,J,10,2,3,4,and 5) Of the cards that make a king a straight, how many are
different? There are only 5, Mav. (A,Q,J,10,and 9). So one more time, I prefer to make
a set of Kings as opposed to a set of Aces because the opponents will make less straights
when I have the set of Kings.
Gary Philips
Jeffrey B. Siegal
> This makes no sense...you are picking and choosing a unique situation. I
> could easily choose any number of situations that would favor the king for
> making a straight over the Ace...i.e. a board like 8-9-K .
What he was trying to say (straight out of SuperSystem) is that with an
ace on the board there is always a possible straight draw. Not true
with a king.
Maverick
> One more try then I give. An ace makes a straight two different ways A-K-Q-J-10 and
> A-2-3-4-5. A king makes a straight also two different ways A-K-Q-J-10 and K-Q-J-10-9.
> Of the cards that makes an ace a straight, how many of them are different? There are 8.
> (K,Q,J,10,2,3,4,and 5) Of the cards that make a king a straight, how many are
> different? There are only 5, Mav. (A,Q,J,10,and 9). So one more time, I prefer to make
> a set of Kings as opposed to a set of Aces because the opponents will make less straights
> when I have the set of Kings.
Gary...hate to have to point this out to you, but my whole point is it's
far more likely that you'll be playing against people with big cards than
small cards thereby making the K more important since it makes two
straights versus the A's single high straight....
Badger
> >Top set doesn't make enough money.
>
> Watch it buddy! I resemble that remark.
Yes, but you do agree with it.
Gary T Philips
low cards. In no limit an pot limit that kind of thinking will get you broke quickly.
Unfortunately I speak from experience.
Gary Philips
Matt D
> I said that I would rather have TT than AA in a pot limit
> clear which of those is more likely to get you broke and which to
> double you up.
The fact that people misplay AA more than TT is not the fault of the
cards. If you play it properly, AA is clearly better - just play it a
touch stronger than you would top pair, then wait till you get a flop
like AK7, AT3 etc and wait for some monkey with a set to move in on you.
--
Matt D
Patri Forwalter-Friedman
: > I said that I would rather have TT than AA in a pot limit
: > game, because TT builds top set, and AA builds an overpair. It seems
: > clear which of those is more likely to get you broke and which to
: > double you up.
: The fact that people misplay AA more than TT is not the fault of the
If you will read my statement, you will see that I did not say "TT is a
better hand than AA", as you seem to think. I said that "I WOULD RATHER
HAVE TT THAN AA". That is very different. AA is more difficult to play
correctly. I also said that most people misplay AA. I never said it was
a worse hand. I also said (well, implied) that AA is more likely to break
you and TT more likely to double you up. I think this is true for most
people.
: cards. If you play it properly, AA is clearly better - just play it a
: touch stronger than you would top pair, then wait till you get a flop
: like AK7, AT3 etc and wait for some monkey with a set to move in on you.
I agree with you on postflop play, although you do not mention preflop
play, where you can of course play it very strongly.
Patri
Winner777
set, therefore making it possible for one or more players to have top pair.
Ed Hill
Patri Forwalter-Friedman
Jeffrey B. Siegal (j...@quiotix.com) wrote:
: Patri Forwalter-Friedman wrote:
: >
: > Jeffrey B. Siegal (j...@quiotix.com) wrote:
: So learn to lay it down. If you can't lay down unimproved aces in a big
: bet game, you're a fish. You might consider playing it a little less
I never said that *I* couldn't lay down unimproved aces, only that many
people cannot. Deciding when to do so is a tricky choice that requires
good judgement. Simple situations are easier to play and I am less likely
to make a mistake. Big bet poker is a game of setting and escaping traps.
I feel much more confident in my ability to do both of those things with
TT than AA in a pot limit game.
Patri
Topset
Watch it buddy! I resemble that remark.
Greg Gensicki
I'm not live, it only looks like I play that way.
RazzO
RazzO *faINTZ*
hey matt. ltns!
See the pic of Patri on site?
http://pokerworld.com
heh, see ya
Matt D wrote:
> > I said that I would rather have TT than AA in a pot limit
> > game, because TT builds top set, and AA builds an overpair. It seems
> > clear which of those is more likely to get you broke and which to
> > double you up.
>
> The fact that people misplay AA more than TT is not the fault of the
> cards. If you play it properly, AA is clearly better - just play it a
> touch stronger than you would top pair, then wait till you get a flop
> like AK7, AT3 etc and wait for some monkey with a set to move in on you.
>