Tuesday, January 08, 2008


I purchased a new PC today as a back-up in case my other one crashes.

8k ROM, Z80A CPU, 1k RAM.

Muppet of the Day #13: DanOBrien

How can someone who plays 8 tables, as this guy does, call here? What does he think he's beating? What was his thought process?
"I have an overpair. I hope he's on a flush draw!"

What possible hand can I have, after having limp/called a 7.5BB raise, that he would hope to see here? It may be a justifiable call if he held the Qh- but as it is, it's absolutely fucking awful play.

Full Tilt Poker, $1/$2 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 9 Players
LeggoPoker.com Hand History Converter

UTG: $200
Hero (UTG+1): $197
UTG+2: $202
DanOBrien : $362
MP2: $79
CO: $130
BTN: $60
SB: $260.95
BB: $80

MP2 posts $2
Pre-Flop: 2c 2s dealt to Hero (UTG+1)
UTG folds, Hero calls $2, UTG+2 calls $2, DanOBrien raises to $15, 5 folds, Hero calls $13, UTG+2 folds

Flop: ($37) 9h Jh 2h (2 Players)
Hero checks, DanOBrien bets $30, Hero raises to $182 and is All-In, DanOBrien calls $152

Turn: ($401) Td (2 Players - 1 is All-In)

River: ($401) Qh (2 Players - 1 is All-In)

Results: $401 Pot ($3 Rake)
Hero showed 2c 2s (three of a kind, Twos) and LOST (-$197 NET)
DanOBrien showed Qd Qs (three of a kind, Queens) and WON $398 (+$201 NET)


Munchrs said...

what does that computer run at. 8MB/sec??

Very nice, enjoy your blog :D

gamboooool20 said...

lolz, 16 tabling on that should be a breeze

Kenny said...

overlap could be a problem!

tenbob said...

Brilliant, I want one :)

Amatay said...

how much?

Smart Money said...

It cost £70 but I expect it to pay for itself within a couple of months or so.

(That includes a tape recorder which I can also use to play my Wham! tapes.)

Anonymous said...

That machine is the sexiest thing I've ever seen on this blog, vintage! I am also pretty jealous of your black and white Poker Stars layout, it just reeks of style.

The latest muppet of the day hand (with Dan) is interesting. In your place, pf I would usually fold pairs lower than tens having to call 13 OOP without knowing if anyone else is in - is that too tight?

As for his call I think it's pretty terrible. The way I read the action I'd have thought he made a significant bet in order that could be sure he was beaten when reraised. Then again he may have just been a river psychic and cleverly sucked you in ;-)

Amatay said...

genius, i love wham!

Kenny said...

I would fold QQ without the queen of hearts here a lot, but I don't think it's as bad a play as you make out. Maybe you are just a little tilted because of the turn ;)

Villain has to expect you'd have raised the limper with JJ and, quite often, 99. He knows you'd not limp, let alone call a $13 raise, with J9,92 or J2 and thus your push is most likely to be a draw, combo draw, 22, or maybe 99.

I would also suggest that you'd not play a flopped flush this fast unless it was a low flush perhaps from you playing suited connectors. However, villain can expect that you'd hardly every limp SC's and call a $13 raise OOP as that really is a wank play.

Now I realize, because I know you fairly well, some of these hands wouldn't be in your range however, villain may range you something like:


In such a case his QQ has 36% equity against that range.

The final pot is $401 and his call $152 thus pot equity of 37.9%. So, if he ranged you as I suggest above his $152 call is only worth $145 to him and thus he loses $7 per hand. A marginal loss in a $401 pot and not something that could be calculate in the heat of battle.

Also, taking all the Q10 combo's out drops his equity to 34% and removing the AJ combo's takes him to 30%. So even when he is against just 99, 22 and AhQx combo's he's still not miles off the break even point.

In conclusion I think calling here is a losing proposition but not by such a margin to qualify for muppet of the week.

Bite me :D

raylapsley said...

not the kind of play you'd expect from a serious multi tabling chappie - let me at him!!

Anonymous said...

I dont understand why u called preflop? Isn't that raise a little big to be calling with a pair of two's. Heal me of my ignorance!

Kenny said...

The call isn't too bad to set mine. Very much on the borderline IMHO at 16:1 against the effective stack + preflop pot. Villains range is certainly far greater than QQ+ but at 16:1 I think the times you hit a set he'll pay off c-bets or have something often enough to make it profitable. Only JUST IMHO.

seanb said...

ha, no wonder the betfair sngs are broke today, you bought their server

Smart Money said...

lol Sean.

Smart Money said...


As Kenny says- it's a bit of a borderline call here.

I certainly wouldn't play 22 like this at $2/$4 or above- but at $1/$2 I show a decent profit with it UTG.

Smart Money said...


Even if that was my range (and, as you know, it isn't) then you couldn't weight each possibility equally. You'd have to lean strongly towards the PPs.

Besides, his flop call was fairly quick without much thought.

Kenny said...

"...then you couldn't weight each possibility equally. You'd have to lean strongly towards the PPs."

For the purpose of maths how exactly would you weight it? Common practice it to count possible combinations. For example if there is 16 ways villain could make one type of hand and 8 the other then he's twice as likely to have the first hand. I plugged that range into Pokerstove and it spewed the numbers out accordingly. I did sort of weight it by going to the trouble of individually selecting only the AQ and AJ hands with an Ah or Qh in them. It would have been easier just to click AJo+ ;o)

I won't do the exact maths but if we say for example villain was 100% sure you could ONLY have a set of 2s or AQ with the ace of hearts. If he is absolutely certain those are the ONLY two hands you can have then AQ with the ace of hearts is more likely than the set because there are more ways it can be made.

Kenny said...

Ok, I'm gay - I did the combos.

You can have AhQx 4 ways:

1. AhQd
2. AhQs
3. AhQc
4. AhQh

You can have a set of 2s 3ways:

1. 2s2d
2. 2s2c
3. 2d3c

Therefore the weighting is 4:3 on you having AhQx vs a set of 2s. If we say you never have the flush they are equally likely.

Smart Money said...

Too often people say "OK- his range is this... and weight each possibility equally."

Even allowing for the fact that different hands have more combinations than others- it's not practical to assume that each combination is equally likely.

E.g. In the initial range that you gave, 99/22 are far, far more likely than any of the others.

You're right that this is common practice for those who like to quote Pokerstove odds, but it's a mistake that skews equity estimations. I've never used Pokerstove but if you're unable to then it would be more relevant if you could assign a weighted probability to each element within the given range.

Kenny said...

I personally think if you have to start weighing parts of your range other than by the possible combinations then you haven't come up with a very good range.

In my simplified example you ARE 4:3 to have AhQx vs a set of 2s.

If you then turn round and say, "ah but actually, he's more likely to limp/call with 22 than AhQx, so I think a set is more likely" then you haven't really identified your range correctly because if that truly was the case then not all combo's of AhQx are being played all of the time.

In reaching such a conclusion you must go back and revise your range. Perhaps you think only AhQh and AhQd would be played because they are red - in such case the set of 2s is the more probable hand.

In fairness to your argument sometimes when ranging we might say, "villain will play all pairs 9 up all AKo/s and probably AQs" In this case you are not sure about the AQs part of the range so you might say he'll play them 50% of the time. When using poker stove you'd simply click just half the combo's of AQs and hey presto you have your numbers.

It should be noted though that this form of weighting usually involves plucking some numbers out of thin air (you might say judgement ;)) and is done because there must have been some uncertainty in the range.

It's actually this very same difference of view that causes us to debate KK AI preflop at FR. Facing a call I'm confident there would be a time where we both might agree that villain is pushing QQ+ and AK+ 100% of the time and only ever those hands.

I'd then weight the likelihood of each depending on the combo of cards (note: nobody does this in real time!) in which case villain is most likely to have AK followed by AA/KK/QQ assuming I have neither an A,K or Q.

From our previous conversations I get the impression that you, generally, ignore the likelihood of each of these hands having been dealt and weight each according to other factors (timing tells, 'feel', what your superuser accounts tells you ;o)). I personally like to put a little more faith in the maths :D

Kenny said...

"E.g. In the initial range that you gave, 99/22 are far, far more likely than any of the others."

Mathematically that is impossible.

They can only be more likely if my assumptions regarding the other hands in the range were inaccurate or simply incorrect (which for you they were; but I pointed that out early doors)

Alex Martin said...

I dont think his call is that bad. But then again i only play 6-max.
Nice computer baby!!!!

Smart Money said...

Well, the shorter-handed you get, the easier the call of course. I'd call if we were HU. :)

gamboooool20 said...

Mike he definitely seems to stack off easily with overpairs. Generally a solid regular but that appears to be a bit of a leak. I actually was cursing myself a little bit on this hand for reraising him so weakly trying to string him along and then seeing him put me in for my whole stack on the flop. Didn't think he'd stack off with this knowing my range, regardless of the little draw he picked up:

FullTiltPoker Game #4766990459: Table Magic Forest - $1/$2 - No Limit Hold'em - 22:22:44 ET - 2008/01/06
Seat 1: veritech100 ($197)
Seat 2: rean1mator ($122)
Seat 3: shurikin ($37)
Seat 4: brentdooley ($271.15)
Seat 5: Gamboooool20 ($325.55)
Seat 6: DanOBrien ($619.95)
Seat 7: Ryan_j37 ($415.55)
Seat 8: Narena ($394.35)
Seat 9: AdmiralTwill ($200)
DanOBrien has 5 seconds left to act
DanOBrien posts the small blind of $1
Ryan_j37 posts the big blind of $2
The button is in seat #5
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Gamboooool20 [As Ad]
Narena folds
AdmiralTwill folds
veritech100 folds
rean1mator folds
shurikin folds
brentdooley folds
Gamboooool20 raises to $8
DanOBrien has 15 seconds left to act
DanOBrien raises to $30
Ryan_j37 folds
Gamboooool20 has 15 seconds left to act
Gamboooool20 raises to $75
DanOBrien calls $45
*** FLOP *** [7h Ts 9s]
DanOBrien checks
Gamboooool20 bets $80
DanOBrien raises to $544.95, and is all in
Gamboooool20 calls $170.55, and is all in
DanOBrien shows [Jc Jh]
Gamboooool20 shows [As Ad]
Uncalled bet of $294.40 returned to DanOBrien
*** TURN *** [7h Ts 9s] [7d]
*** RIVER *** [7h Ts 9s 7d] [6h]
DanOBrien shows two pair, Jacks and Sevens
Gamboooool20 shows two pair, Aces and Sevens
Gamboooool20 wins the pot ($650.10) with two pair, Aces and Sevens
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $653.10 | Rake $3
Board: [7h Ts 9s 7d 6h]
Seat 1: veritech100 didn't bet (folded)
Seat 2: rean1mator didn't bet (folded)
Seat 3: shurikin didn't bet (folded)
Seat 4: brentdooley didn't bet (folded)
Seat 5: Gamboooool20 (button) showed [As Ad] and won ($650.10) with two pair, Aces and Sevens
Seat 6: DanOBrien (small blind) showed [Jc Jh] and lost with two pair, Jacks and Sevens
Seat 7: Ryan_j37 (big blind) folded before the Flop
Seat 8: Narena didn't bet (folded)
Seat 9: AdmiralTwill didn't bet (folded)

Smart Money said...

Nice pot. :)