Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
RSS Feed
View Profile
« November 2004 »
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30
You are not logged in. Log in
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
Misc.
Poker
Politics
Religion
Television
Sleepless in Fulham: Rambling and gambling by David Young
Monday, 22 November 2004
Poker on ESPN.
Topic: Poker
I watched a couple of this year's WSOP finals at the weekend. One was the NL hold'em event that James Vogl won, the other was a 7-card stud event. Both were interesting for different reasons.

From the perspective of card play, I found the 7-card one much more interesting. Being a limit event, there were hands being bet on all the 'streets', which made a nice change from the all-ins that you get in most NLHE events. I have often wondered what Ted Forrest looked like and how he played, having read about how big he plays in the Bellagio. I was very impressed by him. In one hand he calls his opponent all the way to the river with only a pair of twos and wins! That is an amazing read. He was a worthy winner.

James' NLHE victory was interesting because of James himself. He was very self-effacing. He admitted the large role that luck plays and didn't seem too excited. I loved the bit at the end when he refused to be photographed holding the cash in the air, saying 'I'm not going to do that. It's vulgar. I'm British!'.

Separately, I can't help remarking on the commentator, Norman Chad. I didn't like him at the beginning but by the end I was warming to him. He reminds me of Nick Diamond, the commentator on MTV's Celebrity Deathmatch. After a while I started looking forward to his inevitable references to failed marriages. Great stuff.

_ DY at 4:35 PM GMT
Updated: Thursday, 25 November 2004 12:06 AM GMT
Post Comment | View Comments (2) | Permalink

Monday, 22 November 2004 - 9:53 PM GMT

Name: Pete Birks

David,

I have commented on this Forrest call before. Whenever I see something like that I have a long think on how and why the player took the actions that he did.

I concluded that he reckoned the actor guy was on a draw from the word go and that the second his hand improved, he would check (presumably because this was how the guy had played in previous pots). There are a number of limit players like this, but at Stud you have more streets to work on!

Since this guy kept betting right to the end, Forrest was fairly sure that he had not improved.

The call on seventh street was probably the easier call -- it was the call on fifth street that was impressive. I'm no stud player, but I would have been sorely tempted to pass or raise at this point. But Forrest got the maximum from the pot by playing the way he did.

As you said, very impressive.

I remain baffled at the way people deride limit. Yes, much of it is formulaic, but so is no limit (indeed, the latter is more so, I feel).

I spent an hour today looking through 150 hands where I had King Jack off, trying to figure out how I could improve my play of this notoriously difficult hand (see also, A9 off, AQ off, AJ off, KTs, and a pair of sixes). In no limit the hand is hardly worthy of a second look, unless you have reached all-in or nothing status.


Pete

Monday, 22 November 2004 - 10:48 PM GMT

Name: David Young

OK Pete, but the guy could have picked up a pair along with the draw on the way. I think that TF picked up on something in the body language, perhaps the speed with which the bets were made.

Meanwhile, I've been thinking that Stud is a game that would benefit from a 'Speed' championship, like the recent Hold'em one in the Baltics. Two dealers per table and only 15 seconds per decision would make it more exciting. For most people accustomed to hold'em, stud seems slow. This would change that.

Like you, I can appreciate limit. One of the most interesting WPT events, perhaps the most interesting one I've seen, was the limit one held on a cruise boat, which Howard Lederer won.

DY

View Latest Entries