Beating The Pros At Wsop

[pepper50000 0]

While watching footage of WSOP 2006, i saw an interesting hand between daniel and some amature.daniel raised 200 or something(this is on day one) and the guy moves all in over the top 5000 more, which we all know is a ridiculous overbetmy point...daniel was frustrated by this, and he made a point, saying to the guy, this isnt poker.and its true, its nothowever...what is my point...if im playing the WSOP, and am up against someone against Daniel. or phil ivey, or whoever. i might say, ok, im 99.99% gonna lose if we play 1000 hands, or 100 hands, or whateverlets say im playing heads up against Phil Ivey for the WSOP 2007...heh, yeah, right, well, and we're on even chipseveryman and his dog knows who is the better player, but the cards dontif i push all in EVERY SINGLE HAND...according to game theory, etc, your about a 40% chance of winnning...due to variations in calling hands, your hand, chances that the one time phil calls with QQ u have AA, etcisnt 40% chance alot better than 0.00001%same thing with playing long ball against dan, plus, u have the added advantage in knowing dan isnt going to commit all his chips early, i dunno, the guy who made this play might not know all this, he might just be a donk who doesnt know how to play poker, but u never know

[GrinderMJ 0]

While watching footage of WSOP 2006, i saw an interesting hand between daniel and some amature.daniel raised 200 or something(this is on day one) and the guy moves all in over the top 5000 more, which we all know is a ridiculous overbetmy point...daniel was frustrated by this, and he made a point, saying to the guy, this isnt poker.and its true, its nothowever...what is my point...if im playing the WSOP, and am up against someone against Daniel. or phil ivey, or whoever. i might say, ok, im 99.99% gonna lose if we play 1000 hands, or 100 hands, or whateverlets say im playing heads up against Phil Ivey for the WSOP 2007...heh, yeah, right, well, and we're on even chipseveryman and his dog knows who is the better player, but the cards dontif i push all in EVERY SINGLE HAND...according to game theory, etc, your about a 40% chance of winnning...due to variations in calling hands, your hand, chances that the one time phil calls with QQ u have AA, etcisnt 40% chance alot better than 0.00001%same thing with playing long ball against dan, plus, u have the added advantage in knowing dan isnt going to commit all his chips early, i dunno, the guy who made this play might not know all this, he might just be a donk who doesnt know how to play poker, but u never know

I don't know how to answer really because the numbers and situations are so vague and off base, but i'll start with. Nobody is ever "40% to win" by shoving every hand. Lol, it's not even close, it's more like < 1% to win a MTT by shoving every hand. Also, no player is good enough that you are < 1% to beat them playing small ball.

[pepper50000 0]

I don't know how to answer really because the numbers and situations are so vague and off base, but i'll start with. Nobody is ever "40% to win" by shoving every hand. Lol, it's not even close, it's more like < 1% to win a MTT by shoving every hand. Also, no player is good enough that you are < 1% to beat them playing small ball.

No, im not talking about the overall WSOP, im just talking about against any particularly good player, such as a daniel, etcobviously, ud be hard pressed to win the main event by shoving every single time, it would be an interesting experiment, however, me and my friend once tried it on a hubble tourney on PS, and we ended up winning a ridiculous amount of coinflips and 60/40s and 30/70's so much we were coming first with under 1000 people left. its interesting that people talk about the long run of poker evening out...but anyone with a backround in statistics knows you'll always get statistical anormallies. whose to say you win 80% of your all ins when u have the best of it by 80/20%. sure you'll get 95% of people lying within 1.96 Std. of the mean(this is taken from finance aka, stock movements) but i assume its relevent here too, maybe not, but what about the other 5%. or 3td, the 0.1%. this is all random irrevelant stuff, i know, but i think in a heads up battle with phil ivey, id take a guarenteed victory 40% of the time

[vbnautilus 49]

if im playing the WSOP, and am up against someone against Daniel. or phil ivey, or whoever. i might say, ok, im 99.99% gonna lose if we play 1000 hands, or 100 hands, or whatever

If that is how you estimate yourself against the players in a tournament you are entering, then why are you entering? That said, I'm sure the "I'm a stupid amateur and I don't know what I'm doing" routine can surely be exploited in the right situation.

[Snamuh 0]

You certainly aren't 99.9% to lose vs pros. It's not even close to that. Some well placed luck can easily win a match for you.

[pepper50000 0]

Yeah, i guess your right, but people still enter the US Open golf knowing Tiger and Phil and co...etc are 100% better then them, people enter for different reasons, i want to play the WSOP one day for the fun, and for the challenge, and experience i guessjust like one day i want to give regional qualifying for the US open a shot, i dont have any pretense of winning it, more for the experiencein my case id probably want to use that tactic.."im a stupid newbie" etc, and then discover i AM a stupid newbie etcbut i cant justify even a small WSOP event of $1500, its not about the money, i have the money, i just dont think it would be worth it at this stage of my lifeand as for shoving on every hand and winning, the odds would be astromonical, but they would still be above 0%. so in theory it could happen...of course this is a ridiclous example, but what odds are chris moneymaker winning the WSOP main event in 03. he had to get through a PS qualifier, probably 1000 people, and then 800 or something in the main event. so thats 0.000125%just goes to show u he was one lucky man, hell, anyone winning that thing is one lucky person

[vbnautilus 49]

If you're gonna take a shot, it still makes sense to try and make the best decisions you can. That's part of the fun of it too I think. Otherwise, just play roulette.

[ezmoney87 0]

Sklansky wrote about this in The Theory of Poker. He gave this strategy to a friends daughter and it worked rather well.

[CrazyJoe 0]

daniel said that to try and prevent him from doing it again, guilt him into seeing flops.

[pokerinc 0]

I believe Kill Phil is about this theory too.

[David_Nicoson 1]

While watching footage of WSOP 2006, i saw an interesting hand between daniel and some amature.daniel raised 200 or something(this is on day one) and the guy moves all in over the top 5000 more, which we all know is a ridiculous overbetmy point...daniel was frustrated by this, and he made a point, saying to the guy, this isnt poker.and its true, its not

Daniel should get over it. It makes perfect sense for an amateur to play a style that isn't traditional poker style. He knows he'll get his butt kicked.He bought those chips with his own money. They're his. If he wants to stick them all in pot or up his ***, that's his business. There are structures which don't allow it, but this isn't it.Who's going to say, "Wow, this style is frustrating my opponents. I'd better stop it!"?Maybe he'll be able to coerce this opponent through psychological warfare, but I truly doubt it. There are lots of players at 1/2 who have enough professionalism to keep quiet about this sort thing.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

This is a common approach to neutralizing the better player's Post Flop ability. It literally turns the game into a purely random event, rather than any sort of Strategic game. That is fine, but it will not work for long and you will quickly find yourself pushing preflop as a 4:1 dog. Any pro will take these odds - but then complain about the lousy play of the Amateur when he catches a card.This is what REALLY cracks me up is a player complaining about the poor decision making of a lesser player that winds up paying off in the short term. Even a one-outer comes on the river once in a while!!! You WANT the poor player to make the missively -ev moves, ESPECIALLY against you.

[Totalbluff 0]

This is the same arguement Hachem made about Dutch Boyd's play against him at a FT last year.Dutch put him all in 3 times with the worst hand and lost. But on the last all in, Dutch caught a card on the river to come from behind and win the bracelet.Even Daniel would admit that if you are a worse player than your opponent then you want to play as big of a pot as possible against them if you think you have a chance of winning the hand.If I ever had to play DN heads up, my goal would be to let him see as few cards as possible. Otherwise he crushes me. It would be my only shot.

[thebottomline 0]

but what odds are chris moneymaker winning the WSOP main event in 03. he had to get through a PS qualifier, probably 1000 people, and then 800 or something in the main event. so thats 0.000125%just goes to show u he was one lucky man, hell, anyone winning that thing is one lucky person

That doesn't take into account anything other than the number of his opponents though. Which I personally think you cannot do if you're trying to work out the probability of winning a poker tournament. How many of his opponents were worse than him? How many of his opponents did he read correctly? I don't think he go lucky on a 0.000125% chance. He certainly got lucky at some point, but it wouldn't have been a 0.000125% chance, all told.

[rogerwilco 0]

Daniel should get over it. It makes perfect sense for an amateur to play a style that isn't traditional poker style. He knows he'll get his butt kicked.He bought those chips with his own money. They're his. If he wants to stick them all in pot or up his ***, that's his business. There are structures which don't allow it, but this isn't it.Who's going to say, "Wow, this style is frustrating my opponents. I'd better stop it!"?Maybe he'll be able to coerce this opponent through psychological warfare, but I truly doubt it. There are lots of players at 1/2 who have enough professionalism to keep quiet about this sort thing.

To be fair, if I remember correctly, the conversation was a bit different - the amateur won the pot and then said "yeah, that's poker" (or something), and DN answered "no, it's not!".

[David_Nicoson 1]

To be fair, if I remember correctly, the conversation was a bit different - the amateur won the pot and then said "yeah, that's poker" (or something), and DN answered "no, it's not!".

That doesn't alter my opinion of the exchange.

[Jam-Fly 8]

This specific WILL NOT work. However, you are thinking along the right lines. Making bigger pre flop raises and shoving more than you should may be optimal (or the least -EV option if every option is -EV) playing against pros. But why shove every hand? It's simply stupid. And I think even against Phil Ivey you wouldn't be more than an 80-20 dog to play small ballI do remember reading something in Sklansky's book where he talk about something like this (only with more logic to it). I'd reccommend checking that out.

[cubsfan44 0]

daniel said that to try and prevent him from doing it again, guilt him into seeing flops.

[suicideking 0]

The kill Phil strat doesn't always work. Remember the guy that shoved AA and lost to trip 3s? I think he was against Farha.

[Chuck 0]

I don't know about the debate of whether it's "poker" or not to make a big overbet like that, but I personally wouldn't want to let Daniel see a cheap flop with 4-6 clubs or 3-5 of hearts when I am holding KK and the flop brings two to a flush or gives him a straight draw, two pair or trips. If you know you aren't as talented as your opposition...taking down the pot preflop when you hold a monster isn't a bad strategy IMO. The bet size was ridiculous...but I think raising enough to make it incorrect to call is fine in that spot. Of course the pros don't like it...they want to play every amateur after the flop because they know they can take the play away from them alot of the time.

[Jam-Fly 8]

I don't know about the debate of whether it's "poker" or not to make a big overbet like that, but I personally wouldn't want to let Daniel see a cheap flop with 4-6 clubs or 3-5 of hearts when I am holding KK and the flop brings two to a flush or gives him a straight draw, two pair or trips. If you know you aren't as talented as your opposition...taking down the pot preflop when you hold a monster isn't a bad strategy IMO. The bet size was ridiculous...but I think raising enough to make it incorrect to call is fine in that spot. Of course the pros don't like it...they want to play every amateur after the flop because they know they can take the play away from them alot of the time.

That is true

[NocturnalRob 0]

The kill Phil strat doesn't always work. Remember the guy that shoved AA and lost to trip 3s? I think he was against Farha.

yeah, he raised to 1000 preflop. the blinds were 25/50. everyone laughed, but farha called because he had just doubled up against that celeb noob on the first hand (A10 > 1010 on an AA10 flop). Farha had 33. Raising donk had AA. Farha hit his 3. Donk thought AA was nutz. Donk was sent to rail. GG, sir.Farha probably held on to that cigarette for a while...

[gsxraddict 0]

Pros aren't unbeatable, I could understand if they had x-ray vision or psychics.They just play their cards, why would you be so intimidated? If they play aggressive, adapt your play to it.

[SpiderGuard 0]

Daniel should get over it. It makes perfect sense for an amateur to play a style that isn't traditional poker style. He knows he'll get his butt kicked.He bought those chips with his own money. They're his. If he wants to stick them all in pot or up his ***, that's his business. There are structures which don't allow it, but this isn't it.Who's going to say, "Wow, this style is frustrating my opponents. I'd better stop it!"?Maybe he'll be able to coerce this opponent through psychological warfare, but I truly doubt it. There are lots of players at 1/2 who have enough professionalism to keep quiet about this sort thing.

I would argue a name pro like DN has a better chance of coercing his opponent for a couple reasons. 1) DN's a famous guy and if you're sitting next to him you probably at least subconsciously seek his validation.2) There's a decent chance that the exchance will be on TV, and you don't want to look like a donk on national TV.That being said, I agree that too many name pros seem to spend too much of their time maneuvering off the table with table talk, intimidation, and all that stuff that makes for great television and makes them famous but isn't directly related to the game of poker. I prefer guys like Allen Cunningham and Phil Ivey who basically seem to sit there quietly and just play the game. That seems more professional to me.