Frankerberger destroyed Ivey HU, imagine how much cheese he denied Ivey from potential bracelet bets? All you microstakes hosers should rethink your hateful stance on this fabulous ginger.

There's always an optimal line in any defined context given a certain clearly defined objective.

If you're saying that online players ignore context and talk about optimal plays in a vaccum, you're talking about play money idiots who regurgitate theory they don't truly understand, good online players know very well and have always understood that poker is all about context and opponent tendencies.

But to be honest, I get the impression that you just don't really understand the meaning of the word "optimal".

"Andy Frankenberger was born in New York City and grew up in Andover, Massachusetts. He studied Russian in high school and spent a Semester in Siberia on an exchange program where he became fluent in Russian. Frankenberger earned a perfect 800 score in high school on his math SAT. He turned down Harvard University and graduated from Duke University with degrees in Economics and Russian. He then worked on Wall Street for 14 years, joining the team that founded the currency trading desk for JP Morgan in Moscow, and returned to the United States to work as an Equity Derivatives trader for JP Morgan and BNP Paribas."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Frankenberger

Well, are you haters not going to agree that Hellmuth is a great player? He plays nothing like guys obsessed with taking an "optimal line" and look at his stats. I mean, the guy limps rather than raises the in weird spots which would be a definite "wtf?" line to online guys. If Hellmuth can be considered non-standard and good, how is Frankenberger any different?

What I meant was than when online players have "optimal" I'm always going go with this hand with "X+Z" range or better with X BB because it would just be ridiculous if I did otherwise. Missing out on the live read that the fish did something completely out of the ordinary that had to equal a monster.

Or
"Optimal" line is to bluff here with "X" to give you "Y:1" pot odds to get him to fold "Z" percent of the time when the player clearly doesn't believe you for whatever reason.

There's more to the "mathematically optimal" play live. That's all I was saying.

lmao

this...


and also this...

run good gonna rungood...

So who can we get a bracelet next? How about a new trash thread on Matusow? It never seems to fail, Monette thread = Ship bracelet. Frankenberger = Bracelet. Chino = Win Epic title... There are more examples like this, I remember Greenstein talking about it years ago, every time 2+2 has a bashing thread on a player he ships a big title soon thereafter

How bout that Durrrr? He really sucks...

Then we agree to some extent, but as I said, good online players know that everything is about context and are smart enough to understand that there's a lot of additional things to potentially pick up on in a live setting, and they quickly adapt and work on developing their perception of these new factors.

Also, even online there's a lot more to optimal plays than what you name. Context includes very subbtle dynamics between players, timing tells, bet sizing etc...and I often make completely non-generic/std plays based on subbtle changes in opponent behavior, plays that seem outrageous without that context but are actually correct given the information at hand at the time.

There are online players of course who don't get that and still give generic strategy responses to HH situations based solely on hand strength, board texture and ranges, but I think it's a mistake to categorize online players in general as being like this.

Lol, are you joking? It's terrible etiquette, What evidence do you have that Ivey and Antonius do this in cash games?

lmao

Brad Booth will obv be shipping a bracelet soon...

Another win for a guy that 90% of 2p2ers think they are better than. Beat the unbeatable one.

Lol, this post demonstrates how exploitable people like you are; you just used an absolute when talking about poker strategy: "Always an optimal line." Anytime a player "always" does something with a partiular holding in a situation they become exploitable.

Poker isn't a game of mathematical certainty because the variables are infinite and can be assigned different values, everything from bluffs shown to the additional amount on the line for Phil with his bracelet bets etc.. Perhaps online when your sample size is in the millions and players tend to be more robotic one can be more profitable taking a mathematical odds approach to the game, but this was live, heads up for the title and Andy schooled Phil, who imo, played poorly and spewed badly. Calling a check raise and then checking after whiffing the river is lol bad.. Andy confused Phil with his play obv, Phil thought Andy had the nuts when he checked not being able to beat a K high, was that optimal? Was it optimal calling acheck raise on the turn not getting proper immediate odds and then checking after whiffing??? No, it wasn't optimal but here you sit bagging on the guy who won. lulz to the haters.

it's official, you definitely don't understand what the word "optimal" means.

I'm not trying to justify his plays, lord knows I'm the last person qualified to do so, I'm merely saying the sentiment emanating from the current experts reminds me a lot of the conversations that were taking place back when the poker boom was just starting.

I don't know much but I know its pretty damn hard to suck and continually make final tables, so I find the notion that he is an idiot luck box difficult to accept.

No you don't understand metagame.

If there is a best outcome move aganist an opponent, that opponent can counter the optimal move by reacting differently than he should. If Ivey's optimal move is to 3 bet bluff Andy early on in the heads up match because Andy's 4 bet range should be QQ+ and AK, then Ivey played optimally when he 3 bet Andy. Andy countered Ivey's "optimal" move by 4 betting extremely wide with A5 causing ivey to fold and negating Ivey's previous optimal move. Adapting to your opponents "optimal" play is a crucial part of the game, Andy came off as a nit previous to the HU match and then owned Ivey with a 4 bet bluff because he knew Ivey was playing optimally versus a nit. Andy played optimally with his previously accrued nit equity and pwned Ivey in this spot.

He's a big leader in the POY race at the WSOP now, obviously it's still to early to mean anything but yeah. Just wanted to the leave that here.

Have to give it to him. He came in this thread at the beginning of the WSOP and said he would show the haters w/his WSOP results and he has. Well done Andy.

Nice defense of the ole 2.7x on an 11 bb stack oop Ivey.

in b4 more people trashing Ivey

So is it confirmed now? Ivey is no longer the best in the world? (Not saying Berger is)

In the past I would've taken great pleasure in attacking someone like Frankenberger. But I can honestly say at this point that I think people like him are great. My entire livelihood is based on the fact that in poker people who don't seem to posses what most of us would consider a more theoretically sound approach to the game can still compete and win at the highest levels.* If people like Frankenberger never win at this game (assuming he truly is just on a heater and not a savant or the biggest level/image hustle in poker history) then we would all starve.

Frankenburger had a great strategy vs Ivey Heads up. He knew Ivey was the better player, and was trying to play small pots. So Frankenburger just kept betting pot not letting Ivey play small pots, and forcing him to gamble.

However, I feel bad for Ivey, he should've won the bracelet. He played the final table absolutely brilliantly, kept losing all of his flips, but continued to keep chipping away and maintaining the chiplead throughout without ever risking a large % of his stack or going all-in.

Frankenburger should have been eliminated about 4 times in Final Table itself, he ran like God and won every single All-In coinflip. I think he was 4/4 or 5/5 with All-In coinflips at the final table before heads up.

So you agree that there is an "optimal" way to play. Cool.