Great Quote
 

Watching the WPT rerun this week. I must have missed this the first time around.

Antonius has been pushing regularly, he pushes with A2, Doyle calls with 44 which holds up.

Patrick: "How can you make that call?"
Doyle: "How can I make that call? How can you make that bet?

(pause)

Doyle: "This is poker, not solitaire."

I love Doyle. He doesn't say too much usually, but damn that's funny.

LOL @ anyone questioning Dolly's play.

LOL @ you for LOLing at Patrick Antonius.

Let the two of them play HU for long enough, and there is no question in my mind that Patrick would end up with all the money.

(But it's still a good quote)

LOL @ you for LOLing at me for LOLing at Dolly for... wait, I'm confused.

No question in your mind? Even if they're playing live? You think that kid is really that good?

I've never seen the guy play (really looking forward to seeing him on HSP), so I'll take TP's word... but I would have thought that Doyle could hold his own against pretty much anyone in a live game.

Yes, I do. I think he's Top 10 in the world material (of known pros). Doyle is not.

He's going to be on this season, yes? I'm really looking forward to that too.

No disrespect meant to Doyle, btw. I just don't think he's the best. I can name lots of pros I think are better - Daniel, Ivey, Barry, Chip, etc, etc... I put Patrick in that list too.

Just my opinion.

I'm not thaaaat good, but thanks. :cheers:

No disrespect intended, but just from his comment after that hand, I don't see how you can put Patrick anywhere near the top players in the game. The call with 44 is so much better a play than the push with A2. Patrick may understand aggression, but it seems to me he doesn't get the math.

No disrespect intended, but: Are you serious???

I don't remember the hand (I don't know that I ever saw it, honestly), so I don't know anything about stacks, position, etc... but TYPICALLY (generally speaking), calling an all in with 44 is a horrible play. Unless you put your opponent on 33 or 22 or A3/A2 (which you never would, of course), you're ahead of nothing else. Nothing. You're about even money with even complete bluffs - hands like Q5 - and you are way, way, way behind any larger pair.

Pushing with crap > calling with crap. Always.

antonius absolutely destroyes the high stakes full tilt games.

Antonius > every other human

I think you guys are looking too much into the hand, but i would think that it was a decision made on previous play. If Antonius is pushing regularly then maybe doyle just decided to make a stand, 44 is a favorite of any random hand. 57% favorite against any random two cards. I dont know how calling with 44 is calling with crap but okay.....I dont like Antonius' push and I dont like doyles call, but in no way can you fault doyles call. Now saying Antonius is good is a different story, i dont doubt he is good but i dont think this play is at all.

I disagree. We're 3 handed late in a WPT final table. So for all intents and purposes its a late stage SNG. ICM theory takes over. I assume Antonius is pushing regularly (ICM says push with any 2). The theory is you win with fold equity as most players will only call the all-in with approx 13% of their possible hands.

You cannot take away that edge by tightening up your calling range. You can only take it away by loosening up.

Theoretically (I stress this because obviously we do not get an infinite number of repetitions), if you know your opponent is pushing any 2, you call with any 2, which reduces fold equity to zero and over the long run renders the results 50-50.

Now we back off from "theoretically" and address opening up your calling range. If you even suspect your opponent is employing ICM strategy, your calling range *must* include any pair, and at the very least any 2 unpaired cards >8.

Thus when Antonius says "How can you make that call?" he demonstrates ignorance of basic (and I stress the word basic) SNG end game strategy.

Now, put yourself in Antonius' shoes. You've been bullying the table and one of your opponents is a very savvy player (unless of course Patrick has no clue who the old guy in the Stetson is), at some point you have to adapt and understand that your most dangerous opponent is a *gambler* first and a poker player second (or does Antonius really think poker isn't gambling?).

Does he really think Doyle Brunson is going to sit there and get bullied and wait for a premium hand to mix it up. Therefore at some point, Patrick has to tighten up his push range a bit to counterract any adjustment Doyle makes, and the first thing he must do is eliminate low kickers.

I don't remember the exact chip counts, but why would he push and risk his chip lead against a player who everybody knows is not timid about getting involved as an underdog when he(Patrick) has a hand that is, at best, slightly less than a 7:5 favorite over his opponent's calling range?

Sorry, but when he makes his comment, he shows he fundamentally misses both the math of the game *and* the psychology of his opponent.

Now I admit I'm being a bit extreme here, and I'll be willing to eat crow if Antonius handles the HSP old timers, but cash games and late-stage tourneys are completely different animals.

Finally! Some people giving some props!

I still think Ivey and Daniel are better, but I'd seriously put Patrick right up there with them. Give him 5 more years and he'll be killing - KILLING - the Big Game.

Do yourself a favor and don't get in the habit of calling off your stack with 44 in tourneys, ok? Seriously.

I know this was a WPT event and the blinds get crazy and there is lots of shoving, etc, etc... I'm not saying it was a bad play by Doyle. But I am saying that the logic you just spouted off in the post above is really, really ugly.

You are responding to this based on a LOT more information than I had when I made my comments about the play. I didn't even know we were three handed (which greatly supports my side of this). But, the fact remains, we will have to agree to disagree.

I understand what you are saying perfectly. I just disagree with you.

Fair enough. Differences of opinion are what make horse races. And poker games.