did anyone watch espn last night

there was an omaha hand where phil ivy had A 10 of spades

after the flop he had a flush draw vs two sets and was like 46% which seemed high to me - it didnt seem like he had much of a straight chances

anyone remember the details and why his proability was so high vs the top set?

Because the chances of the board pairing where very low. That's why.

Everybody and their mother had a set....even I had a set and I wasn't playing...I folded BTW.

i know but wouldnt his chances of hitting a flush be about 35%
he was 46% to win - did he have a 14 % chance of making some weird straight that i didnt see?

Good laydown.

yeah, there was a Q on the board and he had AT, KJ would have done it for him, I think he had a couple other backdoor straight draws too.

Post the board...and let's ANALize it.

well a lot of cards could be seen from all the hands that were in, and not many of them had spades. this means there were a lot of spades left in the deck. that along with the fact that everyone else had few outs to fill up made iveys hand the favorite.

Board was Q 8 2, 2 spades, of course

Ivey's hand was A 10 7 something

So there's 2 backdoor straights there, KJ and J9/J6/96. So that's probably your phantom 11%.

well tell us what the other peoples hands were

Could you have made that laydown Williamson did? I don't play Omaha, too much thinking for me.

eeesh, let's see if I can remember

One guy had QQ7x, the other 227x (wierd about the 7s)

Williamson had folded 88xx on the flop to massive aggression. One of the 2 guys had the case 8 (maybe Ivey did)

If Ivey did have the case 8, then he was also drawing to AA, which would give him the best FH.

I'm sorry, I can't remember every detail.

Absolutely. To two all-ins and the chip leader behind you seemingly willing to call, you gotta believe middle set is utter crap.

Yeah...easy fold actually.....considering the circumstances of course.

2 all-in's and a loose player with money already in the pot behind you? Hell yes I'd make the laydown with middle-set. You have to figure someone has the Queens with the two all-ins, and Williamson called Ivey on the flush draw the second he made the move to call. He knew his 8's were no good.

well from the looks of it ivey had some runner runner draws and i also noticed that with all those exposed cards not many people had iveys spades so that is why he was 46% or whatever

they were probably using the other players' hole cards too. Instead of drawing to 9 flush cards out of the usual 45, maybe he was drawing to 9 or 8 flush cards and some backdoors out of 37 remaining cards.

Right, all the runner runner draws plus a nearly totally live flush draw added up.

His chance of hitting the flush was higher than 35% because there are a lot fewer cards in the deck.

His chances of hitting the flush over 45%. There 's 8 spades left in the deck out of 29 remaining cards. Two cards to come:

1-(21/29 * 21/28) = 45.7%

His backdoor straight doesn't make up for the the boat possibilities when he does make his flush.

Of course he can't see the hole cards, so he can't know how spade heavy the deck is.

Or can he? I'm pretty sure that's what makes him so good.

What does the J-6 give him?

I think because it was Omaha and ESPN knew everyones cards... i think that they knew more of the discards therefor they knew that there were more spades left in the deck and they had seen more nonspade cards...

Yes,
ESPN calculates the odds based on cards left in the deck after knowing EVERYONES hole cards. It can be misleading sometimes. Given the fact that QQ has only four live boat outs on the turn is pretty shitty for that guy.

Well, duh, it gives him... uhm... yeah.

my bad.

Hot Pockets...

anyone else notice how the sense of humor of a certain espn broadcaster has seeped into alf's speech?

and btw alf, IMHO calling williamson's laydown of 88 in that spot an "easy fold" is pretty stupid. i dont believe u would've folded with a board of Q82 and the guys who had moved in not having that many chips. give williamson credit for being the brilliant omaha player he is

just noticed that a bunch of u geniuses supposedly woulda 'easily' made the laydown. to put it simply, ur all full of sh|t if u think that was easy.

no, actually it was a pretty easy fold


'good luck'

as smash would say

Nothing has seeped into my speech....it is called sarcasm and I sometimes talk and type like that.

AND YES...it was a VERY easy fold.

A Q82 board and everybody is moving in....what kinda moron thinks that his middle set is good in that spot? Well...I guess you kinda answered that question.

BTW...I will go further.....anybody who doesn't think that laying down that hand right there is EASY...is probably a HUGE OMAHA FISH...and quite possibly mentally retarded.

Good Luck re-tard.

Middle set is great in a heads up pot, but considering that two players were going bannanas, and the chipleader wanted to gamble, your odds of holding on (if you actually have the best hand) are not very good.

Good laydown by Willamson.

Did anyone else feel a little sorry for Phil Hellmuth last night? He flopped the set of Queens, and he held a King . That is a pretty tough way to go out.

NOW THAT WAS A TOUGH ONE TO GET AWAY FROM.....

(For the idiot that has never played a hand of PLO in his putrid life....you know who you are.)

I wouldnt say I felt bad for him, so to speak, but that was a freakin cold mf'in deck....or, in his words...."Wow....what a cooler"....lol...tough spot, nothing he couldve done.

????......If you dont think that is a tough spot, then you my friend are a moron....I hope thats not what you were insinuating....I apologize in advance if I misunderstood your remarks
P.S. I am a good plo player, and that was a freezing cold deck

HELLO?

I was saying that THAT WAS A TOUGH ONE TO GET AWAY FROM.

It was in english.....what are you smoking and can I buy some?

What was hard to understand?

I wrote: "THAT WAS A TOUGH ONE TO GET AWAY FROM."

am I missing something?

I guess I dont get what this remark was supposed to mean..... :?
Thought you were being sarcastic about it being a tough spot

1 - there were 2 spades
2 - both of the stacks that moved in were short, and the first one could easily hav moved with 2 pair or just thinking no one would call him with that board, and the second stack could've easily had a hand not as good as middle set

you all apparently dont understand that LATE in a final table is very different from that 'wait for the nuts' brand of omaha u are all so proudly acquianted with.
ESPN only shows you the hands where everyone on the table has the nuts, they dont show you the many many hands where crafty players like ivey take down pots with nothing. so as a result you all think that a shorthanded final table plays just like a full table ring game.
you all think you're like omaha experts 'bah bah bah yeah of COURSE middle set is no good! ' go watch a final table live one time, watch every hand and then you'll realize how dumb u sound.

btw if you watched you'd notice that even Williamson seemed unsure that he should have laid it down

It was for the moron that was making Williamson's laydown of middle set an incredible laydown....when it was a very easy fold when everybody went crazy on that flop.....

BTW...he also said that everybody had few chips......he was also wrong about that....it was his tourney on the line with middle set and like I said....two move ins and the chip leader with money in the pot....

Ahhhhhh....gotcha....sorry for the confusion...."I see" said the blind man pi$$ing in the wind....."Its all coming back to me now!!"........ :wink:

Listen idiot....

I read the transcripts....and have played PLO more than that one time you played in play money.... AND you got all the action wrong.....Williamson would have been crippled against the other players...Ivey had him covered.....

Crippled in a PLO tourney= DEAD.


You don't know what the fuk you are talking about so shut the fuk up.

1 - ivey could've bet at that pot with nothing
2 - the other players knew that and therefore 2 pair woulda looked like quads against ivey's bet.

there were other factors involved such as williamson considering himself a better player and therefore his chips more valuable.
im not saying it was an incredible laydown. but it wasnt 'easy' if u have any understanding of a final table. i've explained this sufficiently already

Ivey is not a DONKEY....Ivey would not have bet into a PLO pot with nothing into three other players....and whoever does ....doesn't like money....


This is basic stuff.....or should I say...basic PLO stuff.

"Bet into the pot with nothing." AGAINST THREE PLAYERS in PLO!!!! PRICELESS!!!!!

Ivey did not bet at the pot. Scharf checked from SB with set of deuces. Stockinger checked from BB with set of queens. Williamson bets his set of eights, Cunningham folds, Ivey calls, Scharf moves in, Stockinger moves in, Williamson folds, Ivey calls.

With two players all in, no re-draws, and the CL behind you this is not some mind-blowing laydown from Williamson.