Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Mike Vick, Jeff Lisandro, and 7 card stud
So I guess just about everyone with an opinion has weighed in on the Michael Vick dog fighting story. Ya know what never ceases to amaze me? - How easy it is to get the closet idiots to come out when there's a controversial story in the news. Take any story, from the super serious (War in Iraq), to the not-so-serious (Miss USA drinking controversy) and you'll find a line of quasi intellectuals spouting some of the most ridiculous conclusions imaginable.
Take for example, the comments of the highly esteemed president of the NCAA in Atlanta who claims, "Michael Vick has received more negative press than if he had killed a human being."
Or the comments of basketball superstar Stephon Marbury who said, "We don't say anything about people that shoot deer or shoot other animals. From what I hear dogfighting is a sport. It's just behind closed doors."
Or the consummate humanitarian Roy Jones Jr. who came to Vick's defense, stating: "They are making this so bad, but really two dogs fighting can happen in anyone's backyard or on the street."
The best has to be from fellow NFLer Clinton Portis who told WAVY TV 10 in Virginia, "It's his property. It's his dog. If that's what he wants to do, do it....It can't be too bad of a crime. There's lots of stuff that's (a crime). There's killers on the loose...You want to hunt down Michael Vick over fighting some dogs, you know, I think people should mind their business."
Brilliant!
Speaking of brilliant, I really enjoyed watching the seven card stud coverage of the WSOP on ESPN last week. One particular play really caught my attention. I'll try to describe the play from memory (and embellish a little maybe).
Jeffery Lisandro with split 10s and a big card opens for a raise. With no overcards on the board, he is called by a single player who has 3 sequential cards (7-8-9). This player has 7 out of this 8 "first order" cards live (6s and 10s) and he has all of his "2nd order" cards live (5s and Js).
4th street looks likes bricks for both. Jeffery bets (a small, 4th street bet). The guy with the draw still has all of his drawing cards live and decides to call. Pretty standard stuff.
5th street looks like a brick for both. Jeffery keeps the lead and makes a bet and is called when the guy on the draw pairs a hole card. Still, pretty standard stuff.
6th street bricks for both players and it goes check, check.
7th street goes brick brick. Here's where it gets a little funny for me.
With an unimproved pair of 10s, Jefferey bets out. What?
I just couldn't understand why he would bet in this spot. By the way, at this level (WSOP $2000 buyin final table), I don't think players are just experimenting with different tactics that they spontaneously invent during the play of the hand. His lead bet was most definitely a deliberate, well-considered action.
Why not just check-call?
As I think through this, I'm really conflicted. On the one hand, I just read a really good book (The Mathematics of Poker by William Chen) who does a great job showing mathematically if an opponent will bluff on the river just a small amount of the time, you should call all the time. Conversely, if an opponent will fold only occasionally to a bet on the river, a player should bet/bluff all of time. This would seems to suggest that with such a mediocre hand (10s)- but a hand that can beat a bluff, Jeffery should just check and hope for a check behind but he should call if he is bet into. Isn't check/call the best play?
On the other hand, since Jeffery is going to be putting a bet into the pot anyway, there is a pretty strong argument for going ahead and just leading out. Here's the logic. Betting out continues to up your "aggressiveness quotient". It keeps the pressure on. It's just good poker.
Occasionally (let's say 1 out of 8 times), you might get an opponent to lay down a better hand. Plus, occasionally (let's say 1 time out of 8), you'll get called by someone who holds a worse hand but who can beat a busted draw, so you are getting some value. In essence, the few times you get someone to lay down a better hand plus the few times you get someone to call with a worse hand gives you a sort of "free roll" on a bet that you were planning to put into the pot anyway. You are just changing the "when" part of the river bet. When you change the timing of when this bet goes into the pot (you lead with the bet instead of calling with the bet), you get to free-roll on the occasional "bonus" outcome - when your opponent folds a winning hand or when he calls with a loosing hand.
Of course, the downside is that if you lead out with a bet and your opponent hits his draw, he'll probably raise you. I think this raise is such a reliable predication that you are beat, that you can safely just fold here and not give up any value. After all, how big of a donkey would you have to be to raise into the guy that has taken the lead the whole way on a pure bluff? I can't see this happening hardly ever. Its probably pretty safe that if you are raised after leading out, you can fold your mediocre hand.
So in the final analysis, Jeffery's lead bet on the river with a mediocre, unimproved hand in seven card stud was probably one of those advanced, world-class type plays that the rest of us small stakes chumps can't hardly appreciate.
