MUST WATCH-Unbelievable play from Ivey

willis · 26-03-2006 12:38pm #1

This hand is the infamous hand from the Monte Carlo Millions. Its Ivey vs Paul Jackson heads up. This hand is poker at a totally different level where the cards have no meaning.

Jackson limps ivey makes it 3bbs and Jackson calls, later saying in an interview that ivey had done this every single hand. Now watch the rest here:
http://www.youtube.com/p.swf?video_id=LEfLXr3eSxs

NickyOD · 26-03-2006 12:50pm

Omg!!

califano · 26-03-2006 1:13pm

I believe Jackson showed the most guts by virtue of the fact he was re-raising with less chips behind him.

brianmc · 26-03-2006 1:14pm

I think I was giving away tells just watching that.

ianmc38 · 26-03-2006 1:18pm

Its a good hand to watch alright. one thing. Would Jackson raise with a jack? I doubt it. Would he rereraise with a Jack - definitely not.

Iago · 26-03-2006 1:31pm

but would he with an A or with any medium PP??

c'mon it was Q8, jackson didn't need a J. Unbeliveable play by Ivey, my guess is he felt Jackson was holding a 7 or a medium pp. If he pushes Jackson has to fold after the pre and post flop action, unless he has a J.

pretty impressive, but what would I know, I'm an MTT idiot.

NickyOD · 26-03-2006 2:33pm

brianmc wrote:

I think I was giving away tells just watching that.

I agree. Jackson had weakness written all over him. When he reraises for the 147th time he should really just go all in. With the chip lead that Ivey already had it was pointless not to risk everything to try and win that pot.

cardshark202 · 26-03-2006 2:38pm

NickyOD wrote:

I agree. Jackson had weakness written all over him. When he reraises for the 147th time he should really just go all in. With the chip lead that Ivey already had it was pointless not to risk everything to try and win that pot.

In fairness, Jackson's rererereraise looked to have committed him to the pot so Ivey had to have a huge hand to continue in Jackson's mind.

And all this stuff about not raising when holding a jack is bollox. Thats exactly why he could raise with a jack. Every time I flop quads in a heads up match I bet out.

ditpoker · 26-03-2006 2:43pm

cardshark202 wrote:

Every time I flop quads in a heads up match I bet out.

how many times do you flop quads heads up!?

ianmc38 · 26-03-2006 2:48pm

I thought Jackson looked ridiculously weak in that hand. Then to top it off he instantly mucks his cards as if to say well done Phil, you were correct I had absolutely nothing

DubTony · 26-03-2006 2:54pm

cardshark202 wrote:

And all this stuff about not raising when holding a jack is bollox. Thats exactly why he could raise with a jack. Every time I flop quads in a heads up match I bet out.

Happens a lot, does it?

Edit: Damn ... did I really say that? I need to get rid of the hangover before posting here in future. My sarcasm switch was definitely in the off position

The OP · 26-03-2006 2:56pm

willis wrote:

This hand is poker at a totally different level where the cards have no meaning.

I've never heard of a type of poker where the cards have no meaning. How does that possibley work?

stephenoleary · 26-03-2006 2:59pm

What a great hand...

One question though... before Ivey moved all in he asked his opponent for a chip count. Does he have to reply?

My thinking is that against the class of Ivey you want to give as little away as possible, and perhaps he picked something up by the reaction or the voice of his opponent when answering.

Can you refer the question to the dealer and let him answer on your behalf? Or would this in itself be a big tell as well?

shoutman · 26-03-2006 3:21pm

Don't suppose anybody has a clue where to find the hand where Andy Black rebluffs Ivey off a pot, think it was in hte world series.

Marq · 26-03-2006 5:10pm

Standard.

Goodluck2me · 26-03-2006 6:26pm

did noone else notice the string bet from Ivey at the start, he didnt announce raise and put in the bet twice. IMO it should have been the first chips that hit the deck... would have changed everything.

NickyOD · 26-03-2006 6:37pm

goodluck2me wrote:

did noone else notice the string bet from Ivey at the start, he didnt announce raise and put in the bet twice. IMO it should have been the first chips that hit the deck... would have changed everything.

String betting is accepted int he states and in certain big events around the world.

Mr. Flibble · 26-03-2006 6:39pm

I think after Jackson's reraise Ivey probably put him on a 7 (it was JJ7 board right, or was it JJ6, anyway...). At that point Ivey could well have thought he was too pot-comited to throw over 2 overcards to a pair of 7s and an allin may make Jackson fold a 7, or morelikely he'd just try to outdraw him at showdown.

DeVore · 26-03-2006 6:53pm

I had the honour of watching this hand live in Monte Carlo when reporting for Antesup.com. Savage hand but it just confirmed what Ivey made perfectly clear during the whole event. He's in a different league.

He not only ridiculed everyone int he tournament by effectively having it sown up before the final table, he then went on and won the 100k STT that was played after it as an invitational.

Hellova hand, but I disagree with the comment that the cards are immaterial. They aren't, not at all.... they may seem that way but in fact they are more "material" then ever. Jackson can only fold if he has a stone cold bluff. Ivey has to read him for that... and does! In many ways, its MORE about the cards then ever but I know what you mean by the comment, it seems like they are just playing the player.

Even the other world-class pros drew a breath in when Ivey flipped his cards...

DeV.

Marq · 26-03-2006 7:52pm

String bet rules are somewhat different in the states (and presumably in this event) than here. in the states, you can bet whatever you have in your hand when it goes over the line, and it doesn't matter in what fashion you put the chips in. however, unless you declare how much you are raising, then you cannot then return to your stack for more chips.

delanec8 · 26-03-2006 8:36pm

Can someone explain how much was raised the 12 different times each player raised because it seems like there were under raises somewhere there?

cardshark202 · 26-03-2006 8:47pm

DubTony wrote:

Happens a lot, does it?

Edit: Damn ... did I really say that? I need to get rid of the hangover before posting here in future. My sarcasm switch was definitely in the off position

Eh I wasn't joking.

Samba · 26-03-2006 8:51pm

If Jackson thought Ivey was full of it, he should have pushed when the action came back around after Ivey's second raise.

White Knight · 26-03-2006 8:58pm

Samba wrote:

If Jackson thought Ivey was full of it, he should have pushed when the action came back around after Ivey's second raise.

i agree .. he probably could have taken pot as Ivey would have to put him on something higher than a Q.

Ste05 · 26-03-2006 9:20pm

Exactly what I thought but didn't think I have any right to criticise any player at this level. I think the final 150k re-raise was weak. He should have went all-in or folded. I just don't think the story he was trying to tell made any sense really. I think he played it like he had a 7 to begin with and then tried to change his story and represent the J with this final raise, he correctly put Ivey on air, but just didn't have the same confidence in his read that Ivey had first All-in wins this hand.

But honestly I'm in no position to comment, so who knows what the background story was and maybe he played it perfectly...

willis · 26-03-2006 9:43pm

Jackson looks pot committed and looks like hes milking it, thats why no allin. He wants to look as strong as possible,he stated this in a later interview.

Also phil told Paul that he was able to put paul all-in based on pot odds. Paul only had another 200k and had the nuts or stone cold bluff so ivey said it was worth the extra 200k based on pot odds and his calculations that jackson could be bluffing.

When i said the cards didnt matter i just meant that they were playing the player not the cards. They were so deep inside each others head that it didnt matter what cards either was holding. This was psychology at its best imho

Ste05 · 26-03-2006 9:50pm

The question is would Ivey call an All-in there or not? If Jackson went all-in he wins the hand, the small bet gives Ivey the chance to go over the top. Normally he'll be called, but Ivey had too much in to fold to this bet I think. But anyway, as I say, who am I to criticise

NickyOD · 27-03-2006 12:07am

willis wrote:

Jackson looks pot committed and looks like hes milking it, thats why no allin. He wants to look as strong as possible,he stated this in a later interview.

Also phil told Paul that he was able to put paul all-in based on pot odds. Paul only had another 200k and had the nuts or stone cold bluff so ivey said it was worth the extra 200k based on pot odds and his calculations that jackson could be bluffing.

When i said the cards didnt matter i just meant that they were playing the player not the cards. They were so deep inside each others head that it didnt matter what cards either was holding. This was psychology at its best imho

I think making himself look pot committed was what made him seem weak. The simple solution is if he believes Ivey is at then then he should be putting maximum pressure on him and go all in, leaving Ivey with no oportunity to turn it back on him. It amazes me how so many players, like Jackson, who have been around for quite a while can be physically so easy to read.

MUST WATCH-Unbelievable play from Ivey

Comments