Comments on: Two Deep Runs https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/08/two-deep-runs-2/ Weekly poker podcast hosted by Andrew Brokos and Nate Meyvis featuring interviews with famous and behind-the-scenes figures from the poker world as well as an in-depth poker strategy segment. Tue, 10 Aug 2010 05:03:05 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0 By: Lin Sherman https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/08/two-deep-runs-2/#comment-5659 Tue, 10 Aug 2010 05:03:05 +0000 http://www.thinkingpoker.net/?p=5749#comment-5659 In reply to Lin Sherman.

That was supposed to be a reply to the ADZ post.

]]> By: Lin Sherman https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/08/two-deep-runs-2/#comment-5658 Tue, 10 Aug 2010 05:02:27 +0000 http://www.thinkingpoker.net/?p=5749#comment-5658 He won’t get it, AB. Way too subtle.

]]> By: foucault https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/08/two-deep-runs-2/#comment-5657 Tue, 10 Aug 2010 04:12:05 +0000 http://www.thinkingpoker.net/?p=5749#comment-5657 In reply to Steve.

Thanks for stopping by Steve. If you find me too modest, I’m sure you’ll enjoy 99% of the other poker blogs on the internet. Perhaps ADZ’s blog would be more up your alley?

]]> By: Lin Sherman https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/08/two-deep-runs-2/#comment-5656 Tue, 10 Aug 2010 04:10:51 +0000 http://www.thinkingpoker.net/?p=5749#comment-5656 In reply to foucault.

Okay, I see what you’re saying now. I could have read it differently than I did.

Anyway, definitely a boo-boo to shove against that range.

I’d probably just fold. Is there a case for calling?

]]> By: foucault https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/08/two-deep-runs-2/#comment-5654 Tue, 10 Aug 2010 03:09:36 +0000 http://www.thinkingpoker.net/?p=5749#comment-5654 In reply to Lin Sherman.

Thanks, Lin. I’m afraid I didn’t explain myself very well. That 20% number was just what he’d done so far in the match, including when we were deeper stacked. What I meant to say was that I had a feeling that his 3-bet range would be considerably narrower and stronger given our current stack sizes, as 3-bet-folding is somewhat awkward. That’s what makes shoving AT pretty questionable. Sorry for the confusion.

]]> By: Lin Sherman https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/08/two-deep-runs-2/#comment-5653 Tue, 10 Aug 2010 02:52:26 +0000 http://www.thinkingpoker.net/?p=5749#comment-5653 Hand 1: Nice flop.

Hand 2: Awesome.

Hand 3: You have positive expectation even if he would call your four-bet only with TT+, AJ+ (about top 6% of hands, and assuming the 20% number is realistic):

70% (14 out of 20) you win 565.
7.5% (25% of 6 out of 20) you win 2100.
22.5% (the rest) you lose 1780.

]]> By: QandA201 https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/08/two-deep-runs-2/#comment-5650 Tue, 10 Aug 2010 00:41:40 +0000 http://www.thinkingpoker.net/?p=5749#comment-5650 You know you’ve made it when you have random haters who find microscopic things in your posts and make them seem important.

]]> By: Aussiesmurf https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/08/two-deep-runs-2/#comment-5649 Mon, 09 Aug 2010 23:49:12 +0000 http://www.thinkingpoker.net/?p=5749#comment-5649 Umm…I’m sure Andrew can defend himself, but he clearly said ‘two deep runs’ in reference to placing 2nd and 9th in two tournaments. Sounds like the right terminology to me, a humble grinder.

And Steve – I find it awe-inspiring that of all the pages on the Internet, you took enough time on one that you obviously don’t like to pause and write a critical comment.

]]> By: Steve https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/08/two-deep-runs-2/#comment-5648 Mon, 09 Aug 2010 23:09:15 +0000 http://www.thinkingpoker.net/?p=5749#comment-5648 The condescension in your post was overwhelming. You call finishing 2nd out of 1k “going deep.” What do you consider winning the whole thing? Just doing all right? I hope I’m missing out on some irony here or something.

I’ll hang on to the demo tapes and wait for your major label release so I can make some money off of posers. Thanks.

]]>