3 replies to this topic

[Nelson]

Priceless...He probably isn't the best actor to play Phil H but he did an ok job. Watching him lose with [k][10] vs [k][j] was entertaining but he just seemed to "under control" for it to be for real. Best part of the show for me.Anyone else find it entertaining?

[lokibeat]

I'm not sure about the hand that "busts" him, KJ vs KT, but there was a hand before that I seriously don't think Phil plays it that way. (I put it in quotes because I had thought Phil was chip leader - this may be a gaffe or simply an oversight not mentioning that Phil had lost the chip lead.) I'm trying to work from memory, but it's Everest with QQ vs Phil's J9s. Flop come A 8 x. Everest checks and Phil goes all-in. Everest folds and Phil shows the bluff.Regardless of assuming you are trying to create some kind of dramatic sense of desperation in Everest, I really don't think a player would have made that kind of play and Phil doesn't play it that way either.There are multiple things wrong with this play. To begin with I don't think Phil calls the raise. I recall that Everest had made an oversized raise, something like 50k with 8k blinds. Don't know quite how to interpret that. It could be trying to sucker Phil faking an overly strong bet faking strength when it's only a steal attempt. But with an authentic hand, QQ, you would like some action. I say the raise would be your standards 4xBB. That said, I don't see Phil calling with just J9s. Maybe JTs or even lower suited connectors. It's just too much money without a real hope of making a hand.When Phil calls (as opposed to raises), I'm not sure what you put him on. Maybe PP or what I mentioned, connectors. What is really off base is Everest's check with the Ace on the flop. It screams weakness in my mind unless he was hoping to check raise. I don't think you check raise into an A without having an ace or aces, do you? I think you make a pot sized bet (typically I'd make it smaller, but that would also show weakness in my mind). If he raises it's because he has the ace and if he raises on a bluff, the man has large rocks in between his legs. A truly fearless move. Regardless, if he just calls, I think you've got a case for knowing you have the best hand and can pick it up on the turn. With a big bet you can knock him on an ace with low kicker or a draw. Now, Phil's all-in with nada after Everest's check, I'm not sure he does that. I would be suspecting a trap with that check. With no pair no draw and a suspicion my opponent has a strong hand that might be a C/R I might try a small bet to fake strength and fold if re-raised or simply take the free card.Of course you could argue Phil picks up on Everest's insecurity and makes his all-in the bravado play, but I don't see Phil quite playing it that brutishly.Let's forget about the futility of critiquing a fictional hand, but I think this is part of what's wrong with tilt. It just doesn't quite "get it". What I loved about rounders is that it captured the "it" of poker and card playing. The seduction of good play and the intoxication of winning. Tilt, perhaps because it's not a movie, but a series is perhaps unable to portray it in the same fashion and resorts to lowest common denominator entertainment thinking young males with flock to see amazing hotties (Everest's daughter is soooo hot) and poker celebrity cameos. Wait, I do that...never mind...let me make sure the vcr is set for next week's episode.Thoughts?

[Absolute]

I think it's a play Phil is capable of making.It's not the kind of play he has made in years though.Phil is known for being able to put people on hands very accurately pre-flop.I do agree however that he lays down J9s to a raise of that size.