a few coments on the high stakes poker on challenge

jem

I have been watching and enjoying vey much this program.I have noticed a few things.
1. Johnny chan plays far far tighter than you see in the tourneys.
2. D Nagranu playes even looser if thats possible.
3. he can make some unbelivable reads on the exact cards that others have.
4. Not 1 of the pros have any respect at all fro phil h. They enjoy rattelling him (easly done)
5. The same pros consider PH the fish of the table- even more than the non pros.
6. Ace rag is very good pre flop.
7. but they were suited is ok as well.
8. Ph in a donkey and realy is out of his league with most of these players.
at one stage after a small phil raise one of the players said- phil thats the type of play you do all the time in the tourneys to the internet players , it wont work here with the big boys.- or words to that effect.

careca

jem wrote:

I have been watching and enjoying vey much this program.I have noticed a few things.
1. Johnny chan plays far far tighter than you see in the tourneys.
2. D Nagranu playes even looser if thats possible.
3. he can make some unbelivable reads on the exact cards that others have.
4. Not 1 of the pros have any respect at all fro phil h. They enjoy rattelling him (easly done)
5. The same pros consider PH the fish of the table- even more than the non pros.
6. Ace rag is very good pre flop.
7. but they were suited is ok as well.
8. Ph in a donkey and realy is out of his league with most of these players.
at one stage after a small phil raise one of the players said- phil thats the type of play you do all the time in the tourneys to the internet players , it wont work here with the big boys.- or words to that effect.

I am enjoying these also and agree with most of what you say. However I was thinking the opposite about Neagreanu and his reads. Ok he has gotten a few right over the entire series but some of them were very obvious. And he has got a **** load of them wrong. The amount of times he has said something like "ok your 8s are good" and hes a mile of the mark, surprised me. Also in one hand Harmon's hands were clearly shaking when making a bluff and he had called a bet on the flop/turn and still didn't get a read. Freddie Deeb really impressed me with his reads and Sammy is the man. Ok Sammy got real lucky in some pots but he seems to be able to dodge bullets from all angles.

ps Estfandiari was one unlucky SOB.

jem

careca wrote:

ps Estfandiari was one unlucky SOB.

totally

Linford

I thought the first hand shown last night was strange - DN raised ($8k i think) with K8 and was called by Jennifer Harman (think thats who it was) with AQ. The flop came J86 and JH bet($8k i think), DN called, turn was another 6 and JH bet again (16k) and DN called relucantly saying that he had a sick feeling that JH had Aces. The river was a 2, there was no possible flush on the board and JH bets again (25k) and DN folds. What I think is strange here is that he calls the $16k turn bet with 2nd pair when the board is paired, if he was afraid that JH had Aces why would he call with only two outs (the remaining 8s) and then fold so quickly on the river.

careca

Linford wrote:

I thought the first hand shown last night was strange - DN raised ($8k i think) with K8 and was called by Jennifer Harman (think thats who it was) with AQ. The flop came J86 and JH bet($8k i think), DN called, turn was another 6 and JH bet again (16k) and DN called relucantly saying that he had a sick feeling that JH had Aces. The river was a 2, there was no possible flush on the board and JH bets again (25k) and DN folds. What I think is strange here is that he calls the $16k turn bet with 2nd pair when the board is paired, if he was afraid that JH had Aces why would he call with only two outs (the remaining 8s) and then fold so quickly on the river.

Ya, thats the hand I was talking about. I know Harman is a tight player but I thought DN would call the bet after calling the flop/turn bet plus, as I said, she was shaking like a leaf.

Iceman78

I agree with you about DN, he has made some great reads and been very unlucky as most times he lost a big pot, he was way ahead when he got them all in and got outdrawn on the river. Farha is great to watch and he makes some great plays with any 2 cards. Dont know what Sheiky is doing at the table as he seems to be another one that they all take the piss out of during the game.

Esfandiari looks to be very solid and has made some great reads too and got unlucky.

Wont say much about PH as although he is one of the top tourney players in the world, its obvious that he has no respect when it comes to cash games. He played all his hands so weakly and then pushed against Barry after telling everyone he thought he had trips. The funniest part last night was when PH said next time he came to the game, he was bringing 20million and the whole table were talking about how big the list would be to get into that game. That just shows that they all think he is a big fish and he gets no respect. I thought it was hilarious.

Jaden

I have to say this program makes for great watching. I can't believe how loose some of the calls and raises are. 4 x BB raise being called by 76os, I mean c'mon.....

PH is a complete Donkey at this game. I think he has fallen foul of his own ego telling him he's the greatest Poker player in the world. He seems to have convinced himself that he can play cash games at this level, when it is painfully obvious that he is way out of his league.

Sammy is indeed the man. When DN was all-in against Estfandiari and The Magician was comtemplating calling with K,T Vs JJ, Daniel really shot himself in the foot with his speech play. He may aswell have been wearing a T Shirt with "Call Me Please" on it.

karlh

i dont know if the episode has aired yet, but there is a classic fight when Freddy Deeb is accused of taking chips off the table when he goes for a leak.

the whole table basically accuses him of cheating and he goes beserk!

it was later seen on camera that he didnt but very funny stuff.

ianmc38

There was a thread about freddie going south on here last week.

ianmc38

http://www.gutshot.com/articles/634.html

shaydy

Absolutely brilliant series of poker. Anyone know what the players are getting by playing at these stakes on television?

Obviously exposure but surely it can't be worth that much monetary value to them when they are playing at these stakes. Also it gives their opponents the chance to analysis their play in great detail?

Shay

corblimey

DN has said on his site that they get $1250 per hour and did 24 hours of filming.

http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-forum/index.php?showtopic=47223

willis

Lol see last night Phil saying hed come to the Bellagio with $20milion and teach some people a lesson...the table cracks up, especially when Johnny remarked about how long the waiting list for that game would be!Phil is so bad at cash, his tiny bets are terrible but I love the guy, makes me laugh so much!

jem

I have to say that I have lost total respect for him,He is obviously a good tourney player, who has won 9 bracelets however I think this is largly because he is beter at playing the poor player than some of the other big name pros. however very very obvious that he was out classed at this table and that all the other players knew that had his outclassed,he looked like a poor pub player.

sunzz

I know im boardering here, but anyone got a place where I can get this series.

/pm


Ps: delete if needs be.

shaydy

corblimey wrote:

DN has said on his site that they get $1250 per hour and did 24 hours of filming.

http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-forum/index.php?showtopic=47223

I'm surprised at this as Negreanu will often mention amounts of $25k in his blog as being a "peanut":D .

I suppose they might be thinking that the high game exposure might bring in some high roller fish into the game with some new money.

S

Iceman78

Just been reading some of DN's blog and he says that Gus makes an appearance in series. Now that would be good to watch as this game looks like it would suit his style. Would like to see Huck Seed play at some stage too as he is usually good to watch.

Goodluck2me

me to....

ditpoker

anyone got a link to DN's blog? thanks.

delanec8

ditpoker wrote:

anyone got a link to DN's blog? thanks.

http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-journal.php

eggie

http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-journal.php

ocallagh

Great series. Sammy Farha and Freddie Deeb played amazing stuff. Deeb folded some monster hands when he was ahead, and made some amazing calls.

Sammy had some amazing ability to pick up large pots with 4 high...

DG played inconsitently.. He made an awful bluff against Freddie Deeb where it was totally obvious he had absolutely nothing at all! But for the most part I thought he played well..

Antonio and Doyle Brunson also impressed me.

PH and Shaun Sheik (not sure of the spelling) were awful.. and I'd actually fancy my chances against them!

The rest were fairly average..

eggie

What channel is the high stakes on? and when? or is it dvd?

Daithio

careca wrote:

I am enjoying these also and agree with most of what you say. However I was thinking the opposite about Neagreanu and his reads. Ok he has gotten a few right over the entire series but some of them were very obvious. And he has got a **** load of them wrong. The amount of times he has said something like "ok your 8s are good" and hes a mile of the mark, surprised me. Also in one hand Harmon's hands were clearly shaking when making a bluff and he had called a bet on the flop/turn and still didn't get a read. Freddie Deeb really impressed me with his reads and Sammy is the man. Ok Sammy got real lucky in some pots but he seems to be able to dodge bullets from all angles.

ps Estfandiari was one unlucky SOB.

I think jennifer harman was putting on the shaking hands. Normally that's the sign of a monster hand, which is exactly what D.N. put her on, and all she had was A high. She played it brilliantly, I don't think you can really fault D.N. for not calling. All he had was 2nd pair or something

RoundTower

Yes I'm shocked how many people here said shaking hands=bluff.

myflipflops

Daithio wrote:

jennifer harman........ and all she had was A high. She played it brilliantly, I don't think you can really fault D.N. for not calling. All he had was 2nd pair or something

Todd Brunson said in his interview that he'd be staying away from Harmon as much as possible because of her quality, solid play. can't recall a hand of note she's lost over the series so far (obviously we're not seeing everything). i've been really, really impressed with her play. she's also a hell of a lot better to look at than Jerry Buss and Bob Stugar.

Mr. Flibble

shaydy wrote:

Obviously exposure but surely it can't be worth that much monetary value to them when they are playing at these stakes. Also it gives their opponents the chance to analysis their play in great detail?

Shay

They're poker players - they play for the money. I was talking to Todd and he said he usually plays at higher stakes than that so I guess they're not all playing higher stakes than usual.

I heard season 2 is being aired in 2 weeks in the US

ocallagh

the general play in this series is quite interesting compared to how we all play/talk here on boards.

I would guess most of us here resort back to pre-flop action to determine how we proceed at later stages. And at the levels we play at, pre-flop action is key.

In this series we see so many loose calls pre-flop. They don't respect any pre-flop raise! Most of the "sussing out"/bluffing is done on the flop and on the turn. This is where poker is at IMO. All these pro's call pre-flop with a whole range of cards. The OP mentioned how they all like their ace rag hands, and their suited cards... they're not calling to hit! They're playing the player. Calling with 67o pre-flop is not a gamble in their minds.

ligger

I've been watching this on an off and it has struck me that there seems to be a huge amount of string bets going on, know you would not get away with this in town.... Anyone else noticed this.

Linford

ligger wrote:

I've been watching this on an off and it has struck me that there seems to be a huge amount of string bets going on, know you would not get away with this in town.... Anyone else noticed this.

I thought that too but one time I saw Deeb do it and I clearly saw his lips move but could not hear his voice, I guess you can't have all the mikes turned up high all the time.

Daithio

ligger wrote:

I've been watching this on an off and it has struck me that there seems to be a huge amount of string bets going on, know you would not get away with this in town.... Anyone else noticed this.

The string bet rule in Ireland is wrong. Anywhere else you can bet as much as you pick up in your hands, and you don't have to bet all of what you pick up in your hands. As long as you don't go back to your stack to pick up more it's not a string bet. The Irish rule is just a much stricter version of this.

ligger

I agree it is harsh here, got done in the SE last week for raising and then spliting it into 2 piles once it was over the line to make it easier to see what I had put in. Dealer called me for a string bet and only let me call. Do feel a bit of common sense would not go amiss when it is not being done for an advantage.

5starpool

ligger wrote:

I agree it is harsh here, got done in the SE last week for raising and then spliting it into 2 piles once it was over the line to make it easier to see what I had put in. Dealer called me for a string bet and only let me call. Do feel a bit of common sense would not go amiss when it is not being done for an advantage.

Thas just a bit of hitler syndrome creeping into the dealer. He was wrong if you did it as you described. Split it in 2 piles once over the line implied that you put the whole lot in at once then split it. If this is the case you should have called him an idiot, turned the table over in tantrum and then swung from the chandeliers.

If you dropped half of it first then the other half then technically, yes it was a string bet.

ligger

Ended up that the flop left me high and dry with my AK to an all in so he saved me 2BBs..:)

phantom_lord

ligger wrote:

I agree it is harsh here, got done in the SE last week for raising and then spliting it into 2 piles once it was over the line to make it easier to see what I had put in. Dealer called me for a string bet and only let me call. Do feel a bit of common sense would not go amiss when it is not being done for an advantage.

In the merrion once, I counted up my stack, a guy says to me are you going all-in and I said yep, picked up half my stack in each hand and put them over the line, there was a fraction of a stack between the two landing on the table and another player insists it was a string bet and the dealer relucantly agreed. Ridiculous call imho.

ligger

Verbal declaration should have taken preference, All in should have stood, totally wrong for this to be a string bet.


A written contract is not worth the paper it is printed on...:)

AllIn

ocallagh wrote:

In this series we see so many loose calls pre-flop. They don't respect any pre-flop raise! Most of the "sussing out"/bluffing is done on the flop and on the turn. This is where poker is at IMO. All these pro's call pre-flop with a whole range of cards. The OP mentioned how they all like their ace rag hands, and their suited cards... they're not calling to hit! They're playing the player. Calling with 67o pre-flop is not a gamble in their minds.

Sammy is famous for saying "The hand only begins with the flop" and watching his play here it seems very true. He's brilliant to watch, pure class:D

Had to laugh at the way Gerry Buss told DN last night he was going borrow 50grand, like it was 50 pence.

Also the Doctor guy seemed to be a bit of a laughing stock, was annoying them all with his slow play.

NickyOD

Daithio wrote:

The string bet rule in Ireland is wrong. Anywhere else you can bet as much as you pick up in your hands, and you don't have to bet all of what you pick up in your hands. As long as you don't go back to your stack to pick up more it's not a string bet. The Irish rule is just a much stricter version of this.

I agree. Even more ridiculous is the "minimum is double the raise" rule is which not implemented properly in most places here.

5starpool

NickyOD wrote:

I agree. Even more ridiculous is the "minimum is double the raise" rule is which not implemented properly in most places here.

I think the lazy approach is adopted here.

DeadParrot

wait, I've never been in a club in ireland before, but are you saying if
you raise lets say, 200, I cant raise any less than 400?

NickyOD

5starpool wrote:

I think the lazy approach is adopted here.

If there is a bet of 20 and a raise to 80, I allow the next raise to be to 140. Elsewhere it seems to be 160 minimum purely so as not to confuse the dealers. I'm not 100% not sure about the dublin cardrooms but its definitely been done wrong in the Macau but correctly at te pokerevents tournaments as long as Donal is near the table. Otherwise uproar ensues.

Daithio

DeadParrot wrote:

wait, I've never been in a club in ireland before, but are you saying if
you raise lets say, 200, I cant raise any less than 400?

Yep. Say the blinds are 25 - 50, and somebody makes it 200. You should be able to make it 350, but the minimum you can make it is double their entire bet, not double their raise.

5starpool

NickyOD wrote:

If there is a bet of 20 and a raise to 80, I allow the next raise to be to 140. Elsewhere it seems to be 160 minimum purely so as not to confuse the dealers. I'm not 100% not sure about the dublin cardrooms but its definitely been done wrong in the Macau but correctly at te pokerevents tournaments as long as Donal is near the table. Otherwise uproar ensues.

I have never seen it anything other than minimum of double the total (i.e. 160 in this example) in this country, including at PokerEvents games. Then again I havent played that many of them and min raising isn't something I generally see that often.

NickyOD

5starpool wrote:

I have never seen it anything other than minimum of double the total (i.e. 160 in this example) in this country, including at PokerEvents games. Then again I havent played that many of them and min raising isn't something I generally see that often.

The rule in our club is double the last raise not double the last bet. I have seen Donal make the correct ruling when there was a dispute about an under raise at one of his tournaments.

Flipper came across the ruling in Vienna when faced with what he thought was an underraise which wasn't. A player was allowed to reraise and isolate and he missed out on flopping Quads.

5starpool

Ya I know the way it should be. This is another thing that can and should be standardised, but won't be. If this is something that is allowed at PokerEvents tournies I would be interested to see it. I must reread that thread where Fintan posted their rules again.......

The_Chopper

Daithio wrote:

Yep. Say the blinds are 25 - 50, and somebody makes it 200. You should be able to make it 350, but the minimum you can make it is double their entire bet, not double their raise.

As far as I know the rule for "double the last bet" applies only to pot limit games. So if someone makes it 20, someone raises to 80 - the next bet must be at least 160.

In no limit games the rule is as Daithio has above

NickyOD

The_Chopper wrote:

As far as I know the rule for "double the last bet" applies only to pot limit games. So if someone makes it 20, someone raises to 80 - the next bet must be at least 160.

In no limit games the rule is as Daithio has above

No it applies to all forms of holdem.

Shortstack

This is just another example of why worldwide uniform rules are needed.

The 'double the last bet' is not a 'wrong' rule it is just a 'rule' that most Irish cardrooms employ and the rest of the world does'nt.

Because it is commonly used in card rooms that my players frequent it is a rule that I have adopted in my tournaments

NickyOD

Shortstack wrote:

This is just another example of why worldwide uniform rules are needed.

The 'double the last bet' is not a 'wrong' rule it is just a 'rule' that most Irish cardrooms employ and the rest of the world does'nt.

Because it is commonly used in card rooms that my players frequent it is a rule that I have adopted in my tournaments

But this would be like saying 3's are wild is not a "wrong" rule, It's just a rule that some casino's decide to employ.

It IS a wrong rule IMO. It is pretty much concretely accepted unioversally (except here) that the minimum you can raise is double the last raise, not double the last bet. I don't mind a cardroom or TD having a unique ruling if there is a good argument for it, but from what I've heard the only reason for the Irish doing it differently is because it avoids confusion and is "easier" for the dealers or as 5star put it. "the lazy way".

This isn't like string raising or verbal declarations which are a grey area all around the world. This is a very black and white rule that has been completely changed. Imagine the uproar at the Irish Open final table if someone was not allowed to isolate because of an under raise that wasn't actually an underraise. We would be the laughing stock of poker. It's a very important rule that should not be altered.

The_Chopper

NickyOD wrote:

No it applies to all forms of holdem.

We'll agree to disagree. I've never come across a form of pot limit holdem where the 2nd bet didn't have to be at least double the first bet. I've also come across this point in a few books, including "Championship No-limit and Pot Limit Hold'em (Championship Series) ~Tom McEvoy, T.J. Cloutier" where it is explained clearly.

Waylander

Chopper what you say in your last post is correct but also applies to No limit holdem. If you are reraising the min reraise is the same amount as the original raise. This applies to Pot Limit and No Limit holdem.