You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Question for Mr Hartigan on EPT Berlin.
AMYBR
Member Posts: 3,432
Was watching EPT Berlin last night and I wanted to ask James about a bit of his commentary in a pretty significant hand.
Prior to this I'll brown nose a little and just state for the record that over the last few years Mr Hartigan has become, by far, my favourite commentator.
The hand was the Wilinofsky AA vs Bijgaart A9 on flop of Ac9c2.
You make an interesting comment of "I'm tempted to call that an incredible fold, or am I just being results orientated?"
The latter part of this question, is it a bit of a que to the "playing every hand in a bubble/vacuum" mentality?
I really lean towards the former part of the statement. The impression you give from the commentary is that Wilinpfsky is being super active, so folding top two to him would then be bad generally. However, as you say in the hand, he's just never really bluffing there plus will be folding Apic's to the action. But the way the action plays, Bijgaart check raising two opponents hard, yet still being 4bet jammed on when Wilinofsky knows Bijgaart is likely to be committed, just speaks for so much strength.
Bijgaart puts it perfectly "I'm just not beating anything", and he's right given the way the action plays, plus he very much know it. Its an incredible fold really, he has to make Wilinfskyfor a set.
I'm not a big fan of the playing in a vacuum scenario, I have always favoured using every scrap of info at your disposal to make a decision. When all signs point north, its silly to go south.
So just in your own words (if you dont mind), what exactly did you mean with the latter part of the highlighted statement?
(This is aimed at Mr. Hartigan, but if anyone else wants to weigh in feel free.)
Prior to this I'll brown nose a little and just state for the record that over the last few years Mr Hartigan has become, by far, my favourite commentator.
The hand was the Wilinofsky AA vs Bijgaart A9 on flop of Ac9c2.
You make an interesting comment of "I'm tempted to call that an incredible fold, or am I just being results orientated?"
The latter part of this question, is it a bit of a que to the "playing every hand in a bubble/vacuum" mentality?
I really lean towards the former part of the statement. The impression you give from the commentary is that Wilinpfsky is being super active, so folding top two to him would then be bad generally. However, as you say in the hand, he's just never really bluffing there plus will be folding Apic's to the action. But the way the action plays, Bijgaart check raising two opponents hard, yet still being 4bet jammed on when Wilinofsky knows Bijgaart is likely to be committed, just speaks for so much strength.
Bijgaart puts it perfectly "I'm just not beating anything", and he's right given the way the action plays, plus he very much know it. Its an incredible fold really, he has to make Wilinfskyfor a set.
I'm not a big fan of the playing in a vacuum scenario, I have always favoured using every scrap of info at your disposal to make a decision. When all signs point north, its silly to go south.
So just in your own words (if you dont mind), what exactly did you mean with the latter part of the highlighted statement?
(This is aimed at Mr. Hartigan, but if anyone else wants to weigh in feel free.)
Comments
I havent seen hand and dont know stack depth (could youy post rough stacks and action in hand?), but my overriding question would be
.
why is he checkraising top two if he thinks only better continues?
I watched it again and I think he gets the read because Wilinofsky goes all quiet when he directly challenges him, he even says "You must have aces!"
Wilinofski was very chatty up to the point of the checkraise and I think he gave it away by shutting up, very good read.
I think he gets the tell after the checkraise and therefore he is able to fold in this special circumstance, I don't think results oriented is a factor here as it's a clear tell he acts on, the way he folds it shows it is an unusual move for him.
He's never putting him on A's pre, why would he as the hand plays? But the layered betting can only mean one thing here really, Bijgaart having good enough instincts to realise it.
I think its just a perfect example of a player using all the info at his disposal to make a very difficult, yet correct decision. I dont see how he can call, given the action. He KNOWS he's not winning when the layered 4bet goes in, it just takes time for him to get used to it. Its a very very good fold.
Grantorino, you'd have to see the dynamic and how the action plays. His three bet is spot on, his fold is very diciplined. He goes from betting for perceived value/protection to getting the wrong kind of info.
If he acts on some massive tell he has on villain, thats prob fair enough
Wilinofsky AA call from the button (Chip leader )
Bijgaart A9 Hearts call from BB (medium stack)
Flop Ac 2c 9s
Bijgaart Check
Hakim bet 93k
Wilinofski Raise to 193k
Bijgaart Raise to 530k (1/3rd of his stack)
Hakim Fold
Wilinofski Raise All in
Tank time!!
Wow, Wow wow wow he says
"Such a big hand but I can't beat anything"
"Aces, you could have aces"
"The first time ever I don't know what to do"
"I hate myself"
" You show if I fold" - Wilinofski is silent
"Talking all the time and now you are not saying anything" - This is where he gets the tell, because Wilinofski heard him say "Aces you could have aces" he goes quiet and this is the tell for me
Wilinofski now makes some small talk and I reckon that seals the fold
Dave
The problem I have is if he has top two and he raises with these stacks surely its for value? Hes really unlikely to get flatted so surely if hes not calling a shove he shouldnt be raising. Its hardly that important to protect his hand
If he gets a big tell of villain and hes pretty sure hes reading it right he can fold, if thats what amybrs talking about using the information I guess thats ok . But when he says "I'm not beating anything" then if this is the case he shouldnt raise in the first place imo. What reason is he raising for?
Your making a pretty snap judgement of players making it down to the top 4% of field. He has to raise there 3 handed. Your massively oversimplifying a complicated spot bud.
Thanks Mr Hartigan. In your own time. Was just dead curious as it seemed such a nod to the purists I had to ask!
I've never been a believer in stacking off in these spots without really looking at the action, whereas I know many people snap it. Your comment seemed to be a medley of both approaches and was really interested to your thoughts.
No rush bud.
I think when he checks and it goes bet, raise into him its a horrible spot.
Why does he have to raise?
Why is flat pre, flop top 2, check/cold 3bet/fold ~50BB deep a good line?
If you can justify the raise/fold then fine, dont just say oh he has to raise and folding then is incredibly brilliant
My point is why raise with a strong hand if you are folding to further action? I think tbh it would be easier to justify it here than in a lot of spots but Im still not sure I like the line
I would imagine the results based thinking comment is to do with is that a good fold against villains range here not just the hand he happened to have this time. It may be a good fold, but again my quetion is if its a good fold why is he 3betting in the first place?
If your a big fan of letting cards come off cheap three handed or not betting for value then yes, i guess flatting flop is fine. But if your interested in protecting your hand and extracting value three handed then the c/r 3bet is fine. There's no way he can know what bad shape he's in till the 4bet comes back when he's mostly committed. If he hadnt of 3bet there he goes broke at the turn, the 3bet on flop being the only thing that allows him to get away.
What your saying can be all well and good, but checking oop then flating a raise then re-raise is also off form. Particularly as there is more than enough chips in pot to be happy with approaching FT, plus being oop on furthar streets vs fillers and action killers.
This thread isnt about picking apart the hand, its not the clinic. It really is a bit arrogant to armchair analyse here bud
You said anyone could weigh in, I commented on what I thought was a strange line from a pro, ie raise/folding a very strong hand with shallow stacks. Its only an opinion, feel free to agree or disagree. Its nothing to do with arrogance, I am aware the guys in the hand are all far better players than me. As for armchair analysis , its a poker forum what do you expect, and also what are you doing when you say its a good raise and an incredible fold?
Anyway, let James comment and let thread move on. GL
Grantorino and I have spoiken on this in PM, and I have to agree that his questions very clearly highlight the issues within this hand, so I really oughtn't to have been so grouchy.
Grantorino wanted to discuss this hand in detail, now tha you've answered i'm happy to do so. My only real argument on the hand is Bijgaart has to bet for value vs a better A in this spot. Opener is mostly insignifivant, as he cant really call a raise and re raise after opening, so it just leaves Wil band BIJ. Wil def re raises Apic here so Bij re raising top 2 here is fine IMO as otherwise we give opener odds to call. Any paint turn really makes us question our hand. I 3 bet here everytime, yet I understand Grantorino's POV. We are only betting to call all in or folding/flatting behind.
But Wil can be raising light enoughj here that a 3 bet means a healthy addition of chips approaching FT, without playing on furthar streets, When Wil 4betys when Bij is committed, a bluff really is in the super low end of his range with the 4 bet, plus I dont think he's playing Apic pre or post this way.
So I dont think this hand can be put in a EV+ bracket, due to there being such a flood of info contained in the hand, being layered bets and live reads.
This shouldnt be an auto stack off IMO, the way the action plays. I know Grantorino has strong online linss in regard to betting value/iinfo, but this is the exception that proves he rule that I tend to speak of.
Based on the way the action plays, I think this is a very difficult, yet clear fold. But grantorino is right to highlight the points that he does.