notsureifserious

Obviously he knew Lamb had a really wide range and that there was less value in raising the flop / betting the turn then there was in giving Lamb some rope to put more money in the pot with a bigger portion of his range.

There are only a few hands that A9 beats that will call a raise on the flop or a bet on the turn, but Lamb is likely to fire at least one more barrel with a much wider range.

Obviously that allows Lamb a free shot at hitting some miracle card on the river, but that is exactly why playing out of position sucks. It is just so hard to extract value when you hit.

not enough Lon bashing

how do you f up 70% of the hands??

yeah its really embarrassing... making me respect him a lot less... I figured by now the most visible commentator for poker would actually know how its played

I've just tuned him out and look at the flop/action myself

You really need to take a break and reevaluate how this coverage actually affects you. If you actually take some time to study the poker economy, you will find that more people getting their hands wet with poker strategy means more money flowing around for all of us at all skill levels. The number of people that start to pick up on poker strategy and go from a losing player to a winning player is easily offset by the people who go from the sidelines to thinking they can play and start donking off lots of money in games above their newfound perceived skill level. Even those newly winning players will find ways to move the money up the tree to better players above them. More players in the pool is always better unless there is some new external force keeping people from playing above their actual skill level.

Dunning-Kruger ensures that there will always be money to be made no matter how much strategy gets exposed because there will always be players playing above their skill level. That's how you make money in poker, not by carefully guarding some strategy holy grail.

I don't think Lamb ever put villain on as strong as A9. More like weak tp/9x. I think he said he could do that with AK/AQ

Tristan Wade
It's not fair to have a select group of players cards exposed. 9 players but 100 in tourney, those 91 other players have info the 9 don't.
8 minutes ago

Read more: http://www.pokernews.com/twitter/tristancre8ive/

interesting point

Yeah. I shouldn't have emphasized know. More like "Educated guess" that a 2nd bullet is much more likely. I fully agree that's the exact analysis - likelihood that he fires again versus damage done by giving him a free card - but it's not like it was a super-dry board on the turn so the range of Ben's hands that takes a free card on the turn and hits something can't exactly be described only as "miracles".

I haven't watched until pretty much the last four hours or so, so those that did probably have a much better idea as to how many times Ben fires again, so yeah, I shouldn't have said it with such an absolute statement.

I mean - T8, JT, 86...those all pick up something to hit beyond a 2-outter for trips, and those are well within a range that includes 32 Do those really fire out a 2nd time? Backdoor diamonds? Heck, for that matter, are you that comfortable that hearts don't check behind on turn if you're Giannetti?

And there will always be delusional people like Kevmode that think they are above the game thus remaining stuck at the slightly bad-mediocre level level the entirety of their careers.

do you coach

Did anybody else notice the ESPN production crew made a HUGE mistake?

They briefly put up the "turn" and "river" on the board before they were dealt.

The thing is, they weren't the turn and river, they were Ben Lamb's hand!

If Matt had been able to wait 30 minutes and someone else figured that, he would have known Lamb had the 3-2. JUST A MATTER OF TIME ~~~~~

till someone hacks in to that feed and text/calls the players at the final table !!

this just proves the info is there and could be compromised


Don't get me wrong i think the hole cam thing is great TV

But=IT COULD LEAD TO THE DEMISE OF LIVE POKER!!!!!

There are TOO MANY GREEDY PEOPLE OUT THERE

lon knows how to play poker. he does the exact same thing that tuckman does, it is their job.

this is a common theme with commentary duos for a reason, it works. one expert and one relatively "normal" person.

Sure it's an interesting point, but I doubt you could argue that the slight loss of fairness offsets the overall gain from the TV coverage (for the sport as a whole). Until we start to see players avoiding these TV events because of a chance at ending up in a slightly less fair situation, it is better for the event to suffer this slight in order to make the coverage more exciting and bring fresh blood into the game.

Hell, even for the players put at this teeniest of potential disadvantages, the EV of being on a TV table easily offsets that.

True... but life isn't fair. Anyway, it's not gonna change.

pretty sure Ben Lamb is alien...

Or in his case

It will when they catch the cheaters

Of course it is not fair. But it is not about that! Is the Nov 9 concept with random TV time for different players before that fair? Of course not. Infact the whole poker on TV is not "fair" if you look at more then one tourney. It is all about ESPN and "better" entertainment.

There will always be people who...

1. Play too many hands
2. Play too predictably
3. Call big bets too often with mediocre hands
4. Over estimate implied odds
5. Make too many FPS plays
6. Bluff too much
7. Don't bluff enough
8. Play scared

And most importantly..

9. Tilt
10. Overestimate their playing ability

HOW DID THIS HAND GET TO THE RIVER ANYWAY?

The question isn't only how often Lamb will fire another bullet with a worse hand, but also what percentage of his range he is able to call a bet or a raise with. So the real question is whether the former is larger than the latter, and I think that unless Lamb is always shutting down after his cbet, we're better off hoping he fires again.

You also have to consider how many of the hands we would hope to get a call from would be value betting another barrel anyway. We're certainly not getting two more bets out of Lamb with a worse holding unless there is some kind of sick dynamic that I'm missing.

So basically, the only hands that we are hoping to extract value from with a bet/raise are the few hands that we beat that won't fire another bullet. That range seems pretty small to me.

You can tell the way tuckman talks he understands the lingo used and all that goes along with poker. Lon has on these streams called nearly every hand wrong. Were not talking about him asking questions to antonio. It is how cards go face up he literally doesnt know who is ahead. Take the hand with vanessa and bach. Lon had no idea when the 8 hit that it gave bach a straight. Earlier today when the guy went all in with 82 and he said on river he can win with an 7 for a straight or an 8. The 8 came and lon thought he won until he realised his mistake and giggled for about a minute.

I dont mind lon. He doesnt tilt me or anything but you would think someone who commentated as long as he did would be able to read a hand

To be clear, Lamb is obviously a way way better MTT player than I am, but no reason why I can't be a NVGtard and give my opinion if I feel like being one.

I do think that if Gianetti is tanking for 10 minutes before finally calling with the next best possible holding when his bluffcatching range was far far wider, that Lamb would agree a smaller sizing probably would have been better against his entire range.