Check out our brand new Local Poker Communities! Get updates and interact with poker players in your area.
Visit the United States Poker Community | Visit the California Poker Community | Read more about the Launch of P5s Local

Dear Action Jeff .... (a few opinions?)

Reply to Thread
  1. Johnn1Mo Johnn1Mo is offline

    New York, NY
    United States

    Posts: 158
    Joined: Nov 05

    Apr 24th, 2006 (4/24/2006 10:55am)

    In light of the recent "Dear Action Jeff" post, I have begun rethinking the normal benefit associated with eliminating a tourney player, even at the final table, when such a thing is considered most beneficial to the remaining players.

    Not to re-hash an entire argument, but I am wondering about one specific issue and I understand both sides of the situation though I think I might tend to make a play similiar to Gobo's.

    In a broad sense, eliminating a tourney player, specifically at a final table, obviously moves you up one spot in the money but, how does it affect the overall dynamics of the remaining situation? Yes, sure, you get the extra hundred or two extra bucks between 9th and 8th if you fold and allow BR a freeroll at knocking this player out ...

    However, in the specific instance referenced in BRSavage's post, from Goboboy's perspective, would he fare better given the dynamics of an UTG push from a micro-stack, folded around to small blind, by folding an allowing the chip leader a chance at eliminating this player??

    The conservative play would definately be to allow BRsavage to call the small raise and knock out the small stack. However, with BRSavage on Gobo's left, is there a benefit to a defensive-type move in not allowing BRSavage to make this call??

    Is there anyone who believes that - from Gobo's specific perspective - that even if the short stack is elimated, in this specific case, by the chip leader who is on Gobo's left, that Gobo's chances have not been increased for cashing significantly higher in the tourney?? And, further, that worst case, he loses the isolation against the small stack, that his chances are marginally the same compared to if the short stack was eliminatied??

    I don't know, but I just think this might be a case where not allowing BR to gain the chips could also be considered a tactic worth exploring ...

    Anyone agrree / disagree?
  2. Johnn1Mo Johnn1Mo is offline

    New York, NY
    United States

    Posts: 158
    Joined: Nov 05

    Apr 24th, 2006 (4/24/2006 12:18pm) in reply to Johnn1Mo

    Have most of the people in the original post retired from this forum ... lol ... was hoping to hear more commentary ..
    Thread Starter
  3. Hodge05 Hodge05 is offline

    Madison, WI
    United States

    Posts: 2,356
    Joined: Nov 05

    Apr 24th, 2006 (4/24/2006 12:20pm) in reply to Johnn1Mo

    ActionJeff has left this forum due to some negativity. If you want to talk to him, go to 2+2 Forum i believe.
  4. Ollie79 Ollie79 is offline

    London
    United Kingdom

    Posts: 1,626
    Joined: Feb 05

    Apr 24th, 2006 (4/24/2006 12:38pm) in reply to Hodge05

    Im really hoping that Action Jeff hasnt left the forum because of this so called "negativity" as I appreciated his insights and hand analysis.

    With that being said I think he's amazingly childish if he has left, especially considering that BR's comments came less than a day after Jeff totally berated Wachovia and Lucky 7 in a thread in an unprovoked and spiteful way. His attack on them was far more harsh than BR's on him and I guess he really does have some growing up to do.

    Anyway, onto the original post, and yes I agree with what you are saying that it makes strategic sense to stop the chipleader from increasing his stack further, especially if he is to your direct left. I still can't bring myself to agree with the play however, as for me when you are at a final table the key thing is getting to the top 3 and the best way to do that is to eliminate players when the opportunity arises. In a way I find this argument similar to the argument about a chipleader at a SNg 4 handed should strive to ensure the bubble doesnt burst so that he can continue bullying and growing his stack. I don't personally like this argument as you run the risk then of unnecessarily extending the bubble period to the point where (especially in a bubble period with high blinds) the game turns around quickly and you find yourself crashing out on the bubble.

    Overall I am fairly conservative however and can see both sides of the argument and understand them, however my preference would be for the eliminate as many players as you can as quickly as you can approach.
  5. Adam Adam is offline Emperor

    Atlanta, GA
    United States

    Posts: 12,629
    Joined: Dec 04

    Apr 24th, 2006 (4/24/2006 1:02pm) in reply to Hodge05

    clever, hodge. I hope everyone knows you're not serious
     
  6. clizzark clizzark is offline has cockbreath

    Muskogee, OK
    United States

    Posts: 6,299
    Joined: Apr 05

    Apr 24th, 2006 (4/24/2006 1:06pm) in reply to Adam

    <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=4 width="100%" bgColor=#ffffff border=0><TBODY><TR bgColor=#eeeedd><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD> </TD><TD>Re(5): ActionJeff doing well in Stars Million..
    by jgarza on 4/24/2006 00:36 </TD><TD><NOBR> </NOBR></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD bgColor=#ffffff></TD><TD colSpan=2><TABLE cellPadding=2 border=0 celspacing="0"><TBODY><TR><TD>lol. you guys watched me the ENTIRE tournament, and I sucked out once... oh, and it was a pot where I commited 6 big blinds total. Other than that, I won like a coinflip. That is it. I consistently got it in with the best of it or took it down postflop, despite the awful structure. Did you see me lose every hand late in? AA lost to AJs preflop for a 25 bb pot???

    btw, I think the 99 call was OK, although it was a disaster for me.

    Cashrus,

    you are pretty bad huh? Awful advice.

    The fact is, maybe I come off as condescending but I am just tired of people attacking me and making dumb posts. It really pisses me off. I have contributed a lot in the past to this forum, but I think this is the end of the line.

    I will be producing videos for cardrunners now, and if anyone wants to talk shoot me an IM (if you have mine) or talk to me on the cardrunners forums or occasionally 2+2. I will not be posting anymore on these forums.

    Goodbye,

    -Jeff </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
  7. Hodge05 Hodge05 is offline

    Madison, WI
    United States

    Posts: 2,356
    Joined: Nov 05

    Apr 24th, 2006 (4/24/2006 1:09pm) in reply to Adam

    I wish i was joking and i hope that he wasnt serious. however this is from jeff on the post which talked about jeff doing good in the 200 on pokerstars.

    I will be producing videos for cardrunners now, and if anyone wants to talk shoot me an IM (if you have mine) or talk to me on the cardrunners forums or occasionally 2+2. I will not be posting anymore on these forums.

    Goodbye,

    -Jeff

    I hope it isnt so but this is what he said. if the poster wants an answer from him, then 2+2 or cardrunners are his options if he doesnt come back.
  8. Hodge05 Hodge05 is offline

    Madison, WI
    United States

    Posts: 2,356
    Joined: Nov 05

    Apr 24th, 2006 (4/24/2006 1:09pm) in reply to Hodge05

    yeah that works too
  9. PlayPerfect PlayPerfect is offline

    Greenwich, CT
    United States

    Posts: 146
    Joined: Apr 06

    Apr 24th, 2006 (4/24/2006 1:49pm) in reply to Hodge05

    I could see AJ being mad because someone said that he had a triple chin, receding hairline, and the face of a 50 year old man, but to quit over far less abrasive comments than he is so adept at handing out to anyone who dared to play a hand differently than he would have, is childish.
  10. MiamiNole MiamiNole is offline

    Posts: 4,038
    Joined: Mar 06

    Apr 24th, 2006 (4/24/2006 1:57pm) in reply to PlayPerfect

    I have seen many people tell him to get a life, and say things along the lines of "Jeff, go out, get drunk, poker will be there when you get back." Personally, I would get tired of people telling me what I should do with my time/life, so I dont blame him for leaving.
  11. Fitz420 Fitz420 is offline

    Ponte Vedra Beach, FL
    United States

    Posts: 6,090
    Joined: Oct 05

    Apr 24th, 2006 (4/24/2006 2:05pm) in reply to MiamiNole

    "Jeff, go out, get drunk, poker will be there when you get back." Umm if I remember correctly Jeff was the one who brought up that subject and that was just one of the responses. I know he is only 18 and he is a awesome player but if he is gonna act like a little brat then good riddance.
  12. MiamiNole MiamiNole is offline

    Posts: 4,038
    Joined: Mar 06

    Apr 24th, 2006 (4/24/2006 2:27pm) in reply to Fitz420

    http://www.pocketfives.com/5C17F59E-...8764064D9.aspx

    was this the thread?
  13. dtd069 dtd069 is offline

    San Marcos, TX
    United States

    Posts: 455
    Joined: Apr 06

    Apr 24th, 2006 (4/24/2006 7:01pm) in reply to MiamiNole

    ok that was funny
  14. bertminatti bertminatti is offline

    Buffalo, NY
    United States

    Posts: 5,547
    Joined: Dec 05

    Apr 24th, 2006 (4/24/2006 7:10pm) in reply to dtd069

    If he actually took my post to heart then he shouldn't be posting in OT. I highly doubt that is the case.
  15. Johnn1Mo Johnn1Mo is offline

    New York, NY
    United States

    Posts: 158
    Joined: Nov 05

    Apr 24th, 2006 (4/24/2006 7:32pm) in reply to bertminatti

    OK - How about this caveat to the infamous Gobo play vs. short stack with BR in big blind ....

    WHAT IF ... Gobo knew beforehand that BR would eliminate the short stack if he called -

    Would it STILL be in his interest to push BR out of the hand in an attempt to not allow him the extra chips even in lieu of the player elimination?

    OR, would that be counterintuitive?

    Can it ever be argued that keeping a short stack in the tourney is a better option that increasing the chip leaders stack??

    More strategy :)
    Thread Starter
  16. MiamiNole MiamiNole is offline

    Posts: 4,038
    Joined: Mar 06

    Apr 24th, 2006 (4/24/2006 7:44pm) in reply to bertminatti

    I'm not sure if he did (probably not), but it was one the first one that came to mind..okay how about this one... http://www.pocketfives.com/6B8D4806-...FD369D8BD.aspx

    I remember this from when I first started reading P5s (I basically have total recall which is why I remember the title of this post from dec.)...and I'm posting this b/c I feel bad about "singling" you out bert....either way if people were writing shit like this about me I would have been gone long ago.
  17. bertminatti bertminatti is offline

    Buffalo, NY
    United States

    Posts: 5,547
    Joined: Dec 05

    Apr 24th, 2006 (4/24/2006 7:51pm) in reply to MiamiNole

    I understand your point. But at the same time, does anyone take anything seriously in Off Topic? Wowswift had told the entire community to get aids on numerous occasions. Was she serious? Ok bad example.
  18. MiamiNole MiamiNole is offline

    Posts: 4,038
    Joined: Mar 06

    Apr 24th, 2006 (4/24/2006 8:05pm) in reply to bertminatti

    yeah......but the obv. difference is that these were directed to him not a group...neways, I kinda hijacked this thread and I'm done with it. And again sorry for picking on you bert when you were clearly joking.
  19. Tennis Bum Tennis Bum is offline

    Pensacola, FL
    United States

    Posts: 794
    Joined: Feb 05

    Apr 24th, 2006 (4/24/2006 8:17pm) in reply to Johnn1Mo

    Risk / Reward / Objective...... Means (chips) to an End (eliminating players)

    I enjoyed reading the stategic angles and found merit to most... I belive
    placing weight to one over or to the exclusion of the others would restrict
    a players abilities and potential. Math is a great tool... but the fundimental
    logic used in poker has too many variables and dynamic situations to limit
    yourself to a mathmatical formula imo.

    That said (and with incomplete information) I can't resolve Jeff's play as
    the correct strategic tournament play.

    I mean no offence to Jeff or anyone that provided mathmatical reasoning...
    perhaps we can just call it a difference of opinionand agree to disagree.
    I simply think eliminating that player should take a priority over the EV
    equation used to justify his play. Just because a play is profitable in the
    statistical long run does not mean it always increases your chances of
    winning THAT particular tournament.

    gl, Rich

    (pasted from other thread)
Reply to Thread

Similar Threads