English often has words that mean/meant the same in Latin, French or proto-Germanic, but have different meanings now. The books often use the example of royal, regal and kingly.

This actually changed my opinion on this hand. Enjoyed reading it, well done.

Interesting take... Galfond was perhaps reading Colman's play based on experience in high-stakes cash games where Colman would be engaged in long term set-ups, establishing a reckless image for a few hands or sessions, and reloading.

I just don't think Colman bets out too often without something pretty decent in this situation, so close to a $1.3 million bubble, with blinds rising precipitously. There is no rebuy option and Colman had a "recklessly large" percentage of himself. It's not like he is simply risking $30,000 or whatever, which he can replenish.

I agree with the polarized range in theory, but would hazard that he is going to be bluffing significantly less than 50 percent of the time. Colman may very well have a read on Galfond's range and have something thin-valuish (and still a winner) like pocket tens or a jack-x. He could even have something like 10-9 in this situation, and be trying to get Galfond off a perceived jack. Again, with live poker a lot comes down to reads and Colman may have had a pretty good idea of Galfond's range.

Even given the polarized range possibilities, how often is Colman going to completely bluff in this situation?

I am toying with the idea that Colman intentionally set up some very subtle (apparently unconscious) tells throughout the tournament, which he then used to his advantage in critical hands. This gets back to someone's comment on a thread that Colman had a recognizable tell. Not so simple, I think.

Wish there was some streaming tape of the action surrounding to place this in context. ESPN really chopped up hands, put them in different orders from when they occurred. Should have sneaked in a camcorder

Coming from the clown who bets KK into trup QQ this analysis is pretty laughable.

(With all apologies to the excellent posters above):

I suspect Gandalf's thinking was, "You're a spazzy HU hyper turbo player. You could make Vanessa Selbst look like Chip Reese in this spot. You could seriously have air all the way."

What was edited out of the broadcast were the times Colman mucked his spazzy hyper turbo attempts to swipe the pot.

Bite me ESPN!

Here's my recollection, for what it's worth. There were a few instances of Colman bluffs, but not as many as you might think. Colman was not driving action that much. Salomon, Trickett, even Esfandiari were more aggressive. I think his reputation usurped his actual play. The thing ppl forget is that when Black Friday hit, Colman played a good number of live tournaments before moving to Montreal and crushing the super-hyper HU.

I should amend my statement slightly: after cautious play, Colman did go on a well-timed spree of all-ins against a haggard looking Esfandiari, which probably tilted him and led to his suboptimal calls against Reinkmeier shortly thereafter.

I hope you don't think you have to be good 50% of the time to call a 2/3 psb otr...

Also Colman ever punting stacks to destroy his image in a cash session is pretty lol too.

And Colman didn't have a recklessly large percentage of himself.

0/3 so far. And the rest of your comments make it seem like you don't have as strong a grasp of poker as you think. Why are you writing a book about a MTT? Is that what broke, outdated poker players do if they can't sucker someone into coaching?

1. "bluffing significantly less than 50 percent of the time" is what I actually said. I would put bluffing frequency at 20 percent or less, in that given situation.

2. Colman does play a high variance game, with a long term outlook. This is what he says: "“When playing regulars, I usually start off playing my normal game then make adjustments based on how they’re playing me. Almost all my graphs vs. weaker regs, I have started off losing EV and then turning it around after around 100 games.” My point is that Colman may make suboptimal plays in specific cash sessions–– to get a read on opponents' tendencies and to bolster a specific image of him in the opponent's mind. I think he would be less likely to make such a play in that particular tournament situation. He did make some effective preflop squeezes against Esfandiari, but that was different.

3. I was using the word "reckless" based on a Colman quote: “A lot of people have been saying that I had a super tiny %, but this wasn't the case. The amount I took of myself was probably a bit reckless after talking to some people whose opinions I respect.”

Sorry man, I have been researching this book project a lot. Why am I doing it, as an amateur player (and professional writer) whose single claim to fame is a victory in a one-off live tournament that was the deepest structured 100-200 player MTT, and "longest continuous" ever? Because I find the game strategy, and the stories behind it, incredibly interesting. I am aware that I am not an authority on the game/sport. Lots of people of varying intelligence lay claim to that. But I do have a good grasp of the English language and some interesting, fairly well-researched, stories to tell. My aim is not to impress the 2+2 crowd. My target market is probably general interest poker readers. But I don't aim to embarrass myself with my analysis either. I love good poker strategy talk and am basically a live tournament aficionado.

I posted about the hands in question here because I thought I would get some interesting feedback/opinions, not because I have all the answers. If my style leads you to believe I think I do, I assure you this is not the case.

>I think I remember that from a PG&C post, when the kid started to weave, in the immortal words of Mr. Wong, "the fabric of sickness."

I am also a professional writer. I don't know how many posts I need to PM, but I'll give it a try.

Will we ever see a clip of the Trickett vs. Selbst bustout hand? I'd really like to see it.

While ESPN did have portable video cameras on the floor on Day One (for no apparent reason, given their eventual coverage) I'm pretty sure they missed the Trickett-Selbst hand. Trickett did give a vivid description of "a very sick spot" to Poker News.

Almost finished with the rough One Drop Companion hand-for-hand analysis. Comparing the ESPN broadcast with previous ringside heads up Negreanu vs. Colman account (not knowing the hole cards) is interesting.

Sam 'the Squid' Grafton has written an excellent blog about the One Drop, including his thoughts on Colman's silence: http://www.runitonce.com/chatter/poker-and-silence/

Negreanu stated on the Gambling with an Edge podcast that he had 44% of himself

So in other words, he thought he was getting bluffed and made a fish call with garbage?

dress it up how you want but that was a terrible call. These days you can't even get fish at 5nl to make those kind of calls, yet apparently genius high level thinking makes the call. Funny.

Hello!

I haven't followed this AT ALL.
Is the tourney available as a tv production? (to buy or d/l) or is there just some random youtube clips available?

Edit: I'm also wondering this regarding the Main Event

So of all these players, besides the businessmen, which player had the most percentage of themselves?


I recall watching an interview where haralobos mentioned this tournament isn't sustainable every year and most pros... the most percentage they have on themselves on this tournament is max 20 percent which would be 200k. Would that be around right?


Very curious what percentage you guys think each poker pro has for themselves? I'm guessing the 5 percent or 50k is probably the lowest percentage a pro had for themselves in this tournaments? And 20 percent or 200k is probably the highest? So Salomon whose a celebrity had 100 percent of himself on this? Seems kind of ridiculous for him if true.

people have more money than you think

Daniel Had the most percentage of himself for sure.

It aired as 4 part ESPN highlights show. The full episodes are in YouTube. Just search 2014 one drop.

Which Daniel? And compared to whom? The field? Other poker pros?

And why are you sure of this? And approximately what % do you think that is?

Nice try sir

I am Anonymous Businessman #18. We can all think that anyhow until the time comes & official names registered are released.

Scratch all of this, Ive changed my mind about this guy.