Sometimes a JB is not enough to get us to a JTB...
May 29, 2015 8:02 PM   Subscribe

 
Welp. That's why they call it gambling.
posted by mhoye at 8:08 PM on May 29, 2015 [2 favorites]


Interestingly the 6 of hearts was mucked by one of the other players. There were actually only 8 outs on the river, despite what their graphics said.
posted by axiom at 8:09 PM on May 29, 2015 [3 favorites]


Poker idiot here. So, when it says "$1 million buy-in tournament"... does that mean this dude actually ponied up a million bucks of his own cash to play?
posted by Atom Eyes at 8:34 PM on May 29, 2015


Yes, that's what it means. High buy-ins keep out amateurs, restricting things to serious gamblers and well-heeled idiots (fish).
posted by axiom at 8:37 PM on May 29, 2015 [1 favorite]


I.........think I understand what happened. Maybe. I never really got in on the whole poker thing, so maybe someone can break this down for us.

My wife watched this whole thing with me and believed until the end that it was a parody. She said "those guys can't possibly be like that in real life, right?".
posted by spikeleemajortomdickandharryconnickjrmints at 8:42 PM on May 29, 2015 [2 favorites]


I like that even the commentator for a million dollar buy in poker game thinks that student loans are usurious.
posted by phunniemee at 8:43 PM on May 29, 2015 [40 favorites]


Yeah, it sucks to lose a pot like that, but the only thing that's particularly unusual is that this occurred in a $1M buy in tourney. That's bad timing. Runner-Runner flushes happen all the time.
posted by mosk at 8:49 PM on May 29, 2015 [1 favorite]


For those who don't play poker:

Two aces is the strongest hand you can have in the kind of poker they're playing. It's very unlikely that two players would both get the best possible hand.

They then dance around each other for a while, each sure that they're in a better position than the other (because they each know *they* have the best possible hand, and it's so unlikely that the other player does as well). Eventually they both go all-in, which means that they've wagered all the money they have. They show their hands here, since it can't affect the outcome.

At this point, a tie is almost a certainty (the references to "chopping" refer to chopping the wagered money in two, each of them splitting it). The only way one of them can come out ahead is if, of the 5 community cards that will be dealt, 4 of them are of the same suit. This is also exceedingly unlikely, so they're both pretty confident that there will be a tie.

This is sort of painful to watch, because you see unlikely event after unlikely event happen that turns what morally should have been a tie into a hand that gives one of the players a big advantage, and knocks the other one out of a tournament that they paid a million dollars to enter.
posted by The Notorious B.F.G. at 8:54 PM on May 29, 2015 [23 favorites]


You call this poker? This is real poker.
posted by miyabo at 8:55 PM on May 29, 2015 [2 favorites]


So, when it says "$1 million buy-in tournament"... does that mean this dude actually ponied up a million bucks of his own cash to play?

Well, while he needed a million to enter it's not necessarily his personal money. Skilled players can get "staked" by other players or investors (I don't know if any of the players in this tournament were staked, I stopped playing and following poker awhile ago).
posted by edeezy at 9:06 PM on May 29, 2015 [1 favorite]


For those who don't play poker:

In other words: gambling.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 9:06 PM on May 29, 2015


Just one note. This is a bad beat no doubt. But it's not actually terribly uncommon.

I always thought Oliver Hudson's loss to Sammy Farha in the first hand of their first session was the worst I've seen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsuAoTlgdyc
posted by bitdamaged at 9:10 PM on May 29, 2015 [3 favorites]


It's not really a bad beat; it's not as though a substantial upset occurred when a hand that was strongly favored was beaten by a sudden reversal.

It's really just an unlikely outcome from the set of possible outcomes. And it's not even really that unlikely. It was, however, very very dramatic.
posted by Nerd of the North at 9:42 PM on May 29, 2015 [3 favorites]


Most, if not all, tournament players are staked.
posted by phaedon at 9:42 PM on May 29, 2015


a lungful of dragon: "In other words: gambling."

Not exactly. With all but 2 players folded and no cards on the table the guy holding the aces is looking at ~85% win probability if the hand is played out. Even if the opponent is holding a pair of kings it's still ~81% I think. So it's a rather low risk move to go all in. Of course depending on circumstances people don't necessarily go all in pre-flop hoping to actually play the hand out. More often than not you're really just trying to force the other player to fold by making a call risky and unprofitable for them. Especially if there have been raises and there is enough money in the pot to make stealing it worthwhile.
posted by Hairy Lobster at 10:04 PM on May 29, 2015 [4 favorites]


Cash games are non-tourneys where you just sit down with casino chips in a certain range, and play as long as you want. In cases where two players both go all-in with aces, before the community cards are dealt, they'll sometimes agree ahead of time to split the pot. The idea is that at this point there's 0 skill involved, and completely random. So winning a hand like shown in the clip isn't seen as "earning" the pot.

But, it's not allowed in tournaments, so when it does happen in those, you get those sorts of reactions.

(Also, in tourneys, chips have no cash value and are basically just for keeping score. So it was laughable when James Bond used them to tip the dealer.)
posted by TheSecretDecoderRing at 10:52 PM on May 29, 2015


Actually, this might have been a more painful way to lose. I can't even imagine the statistical improbability of not winning this one.
posted by SpacemanStix at 11:04 PM on May 29, 2015 [7 favorites]


I always thought Oliver Hudson's loss to Sammy Farha in the first hand of their first session was the worst I've seen.

Ouch. That had to hurt.

As for this.. Wow. I rarely play poker and when I do it's only for fun (pennies, who does the dishes, that sort of thing). I feel like for people playing at this level the money is largely irrelevant; it's solely bragging rights. Is that accurate?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:06 PM on May 29, 2015


[Post edited to not give away the final result, by request of OP. (Sorry about the delay, SpacemanStix; glitch in receiving mod emails!) ]
posted by taz (staff) at 12:06 AM on May 30, 2015 [1 favorite]


> As for this.. Wow. I rarely play poker and when I do it's only for fun (pennies, who does the dishes, that sort of thing). I feel like for people playing at this level the money is largely irrelevant; it's solely bragging rights. Is that accurate?

In this case, this was a $1M buy-in tourney, and first place paid back $15.3M. Bragging rights are nice, but the opportunity to win $15M against a small field was likely a bigger motivator. As was said above, the large buy-in meant the field was small -- not a lot of people are able to risk $1M on a single poker tournament. (NB: there was also a charity component to this tournament, and 11% of each buy-in went to a charity focused on improving drinking water in Africa.) Ultimately, 42 players bought-in for this tournament: most professional poker players, the rest wealthy amateurs. The presence of the amateurs, coupled with the small field, almost certainly made the pros feel that they had an overlay. They are sharks and big money + amateur players + good odds means there's a lot of blood in the water.

Poker is a form of gambling, but it has a very large skill component, and a skilled player can maneuver a weaker player into situations where the better player's actual risk is relatively low and mathematically speaking, their risk is over-compensated by the money they stand to win. But it's still gambling, and sometimes shit happens. This FPP is about one of those "that's poker/shit happens" moments.
posted by mosk at 12:23 AM on May 30, 2015 [8 favorites]


I'm not a poker fan, but I like the high-stakes, all-in moments decided on the river because of the If you look closely you can actually pinpoint the exact moment his heart breaks in two moments.
posted by lmfsilva at 2:27 AM on May 30, 2015 [8 favorites]


I always thought Oliver Hudson's loss to Sammy Farha in the first hand of their first session was the worst I've seen

They're both painful to watch but yeah Hudson's loss made me feel sick. With the OP they're both all-in and the outcome isn't definite until the river, but with Hudson you see the point where he's lost before he goes all-in, and you know he's feeling totally confident and that's horrible to watch. I play a lot of poker but only online and never for real money (because I'm too reckless). I'm always impressed at the composure of these guys when they suffer a horrible defeat. When I go all-in on a sure hand and then someone beats me with a sneaky royal flush you can hear my "Nooooooooo!!" for miles.
posted by billiebee at 2:53 AM on May 30, 2015 [1 favorite]


Normally, you can mitigate bad luck with skillful pay. This wasn't a normal hand, and reduced two top tier players, one of whom was capable of instantly calculating probabilities, to mere supplicants at the feet of Lady Luck.
Poker, man. It's like chess with a pulse.
posted by Slap*Happy at 4:35 AM on May 30, 2015 [4 favorites]


Standard.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 6:01 AM on May 30, 2015 [1 favorite]


One of the things this illustrates is the fundamental danger of going all-in pre-flop in tournament hold'em. This situation, which seems like it should be as safe as it is possible to be pre-flop, still results in the elimination of the player with the shorter chip stack because of an unfortunate outcome.

But the AA vs AA confrontation is a very uncommon one. It's more usual for a player holding AA who winds up all-in pre-flop against another player to be facing another player who is holding another high pair or two high-ranking cards, probably of the same suit.

In those cases the player holding the aces is generally in the neighborhood of a 4:1 favorite minimum. Which sounds like, and is, a great place to be, but it's still very, very dangerous.

Imagine that over the course of the tournament you find yourself in this situation multiple times. You have an 80% chance of surviving the first such encounter, but that still means you have a nearly 20% chance of being eliminated (not exactly, because some of the non-win outcomes that can occur are ties for both players.) But even worse, your odds drop more rapidly than most people expect if you have to be in this situation multiple times. You have only a 64% chance of surviving two such encounters. By the time you have had to go all-in pre-flop three times against an opponent with a hand from the next-ranked set of hands, you are down to 51% -- it has now become a coin flip whether you survive this sequence to continue in the tournament. On the fourth such confrontation you're now a 40%-surviving underdog. The lesson to take from this is basically that all-in, especially pre-flop when no other information is available, is a very dangerous place for a player to be, even when they have a large individual edge for a given hand.
posted by Nerd of the North at 6:13 AM on May 30, 2015 [5 favorites]


An uncommon but not unheard of occurrence but still hurts. I lost a hand once on a tournament where I had KK, player 2 had KK, and player 3 had QQ. The "expected" result was that player 2 and I would split the pot, but then player 3 won because one of the two remaining Queens in the deck showed up giving them 3 of a kind.

Busting out because your aces lost to aces is a pretty good way to go out. Not really a lot to criticize as far as player decisions.
posted by rmd1023 at 6:56 AM on May 30, 2015 [1 favorite]


Yeah it's tough but worthwhile to congratulate yourself when you play well but lose big. Making high-EV plays is the goal; the actual payout is just a noisy estimator of this value. In principle it is a good estimator, but it is subject to a lot of psychological distortions that make it inefficient or biased.

Of course it's also possible to fool yourself into thinking you played right and lost, when you played wrong and lost. But this hand is a pretty easy case. A good maxim is to get all your money in when you're the odds favorite (although the issue is more complicated in tournaments because of liquidity constraints).
posted by grobstein at 7:43 AM on May 30, 2015 [2 favorites]


You call this poker? This yt is real poker.

I was certain that was going to be a Tuff Fish video.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 8:02 AM on May 30, 2015 [2 favorites]


Yeah, I haven't played hold'em regularly for a long time, and every time I've played since my weekly cash games has resulted in me playing like shit and losing, but this was still exciting to watch.
posted by codacorolla at 8:36 AM on May 30, 2015


I'm not a poker fan, but I like the high-stakes, all-in moments decided on the river because of the If you look closely you can actually pinpoint the exact moment his heart breaks in two moments.

Not for statistical improbability (93% vs 7%), but for the emotional gut-punch, this is the worst beat I've ever seen
posted by obscure simpsons reference at 10:08 AM on May 30, 2015 [5 favorites]


Oh wow. His face.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:26 AM on May 30, 2015


I got a chill. A serious chill.
posted by Splunge at 10:30 AM on May 30, 2015


Ooof.
posted by billiebee at 10:31 AM on May 30, 2015


It's not really a bad beat; it's not as though a substantial upset occurred when a hand that was strongly favored was beaten by a sudden reversal.

Depends on your definition of bad beat. If you define it as "I played a killer hand right and got creamed anyway", this is a bad beat. If you define it as "the other guy had crap and should have *never* have stayed in, then got lucky on the draw and beat me", no, this wasn't a bad beat -- of course the other guy should have stayed in, he had a pair of aces. Heck, his decision to stay was exactly as smart/dumb as yours was, since he was sitting on the exact same hand. It was just dumb luck that he had the right ace in the end.
posted by eriko at 11:10 AM on May 30, 2015


obscure simpsons reference: Wow. The poker gods do love to punish hubris. That's a painful suck out to watch.
posted by rmd1023 at 11:18 AM on May 30, 2015


My just-friends game is a very casual affair, and a couple of weeks ago I pulled a Homer Simpson and won by "accident"; the river was the one card in the deck that could have helped me, but my opponent had already hit what I, in my "refreshed" state, had thought were the nuts on the turn, so I'd already leaned back in my chair and resigned myself to the loss. I didn't even know I'd won until I noticed everyone else at the table waiting for me to sweep in the chips. Textbook poker!
posted by The Card Cheat at 11:24 AM on May 30, 2015 [1 favorite]


Textbook poker!
posted by
The Card Cheat at 11:24 AM on May 30 [1 favorite +] [!]

Yeah, right.
posted by mistersquid at 11:52 AM on May 30, 2015 [3 favorites]


Watching that video reminded me of this quote by Lisa Simpson.
posted by 4ster at 11:53 AM on May 30, 2015 [1 favorite]


I'm no expert, but I've played enough friendly cash games to know it very easy to underestimate how often your great pre-flop advantage doesn't work out. Anyone can beat AA on any hand. Statistically, in the long run, no, but on any one hand.

The worst bad beats, to me, are the ones where the opponent plays absolutely fucking stupidly, like calling a huge all-in with a crap pre-flop hand and somehow lucking into winning anyway. At least in the linked ones so far, everyone was playing reasonably correctly based on what they knew.

That's why low-stakes or play-money hold 'em doesn't work. The penalty for playing stupid isn't high enough.
posted by ctmf at 12:47 PM on May 30, 2015


Losing with a full house to another, better full house was how I discovered I don't have the temperament for poker.
posted by kirkaracha at 2:47 PM on May 30, 2015 [2 favorites]


I've never watched poker on TV so the thing that struck me the most in the top video (and all other linked videos) is how casually dressed these guys are. Sunglasses, caps, hoodies, wifebeaters...

I feel like movies lied to me.
posted by bigendian at 3:09 PM on May 30, 2015


I've never watched poker on TV so the thing that struck me the most in the top video (and all other linked videos) is how casually dressed these guys are. Sunglasses, caps, hoodies, wifebeaters...

Dunno about the TANK-TOPS, but the sunglasses, hats and hoods are because the players are convinced they have a tell, a physical indication of what kind of hand they have, and want to hide it with accessories. No, they usually don't have tells at that level, but they have habits, and those habits - look left, toss unsuited face cards, recalculate the odds for every card revealed - allow them to win. So they keep the habit of wearing the sunglasses or hoodie. The very best players don't hide their face, or go blank. They use their face to mess with other players.

My little brother has the most annoying little brother smirk ever. You know the one. He knows something important, and lets you know he knows something important, and you know you can't noogie it out of him.

When he won his first tournament, at the second to last hand, he sat back in his chair, and smirked like that at a guy who was wearing aviator mirror-shades, a baseball cap, and a hoodie. He ripped off the hood, flung off the cap, and leeeeeeaned over the table to slowly take off his sunglasses to stare my brother in the eyes. I mean, inches away.

I trained him well! My "Two for Flinching" was most rigorous! He just sat there with his enragingly annoying little-brother smirk. Dude read it as a bluff, went all-in on a face-card flush draw, and my bro had pocket kings while there was garbage on the flop, the turn and the river, and took him to the cleaners.

On the other hand, I made it to the final table by simply tossing bad hands and raising like mad on a couple good hands and some bogus hands to establish my "crazy dude" cred, and it's a tournament with a reasonable buy-in, so we're not talking top tier pros, here... but still. The "Look me in the eye!" moments are real.
posted by Slap*Happy at 9:41 PM on May 30, 2015 [3 favorites]


The chance of AA v AA at a six player table is roughly 1/5,400. Given the pace of typical live games, this means it happens every 180 hours or so. In this situation, one player will hit a flush 1/23 of the time. As such, if you're the sort of pro who plays in million dollar tourneys, you've played enough that you've been on both the winning and the losing side of this matchup several times before.

As for the sunglasses and hats, they're more prevalent on the tv tables than the other tourney tables, because TV tables are lit up like the sun. That's not to say they're absent on the other tables, but they're multi-functional on the tv tables.
posted by whisk(e)y neat at 9:46 PM on May 30, 2015


And the casual dress is because tournaments are long and you want to be comfortable. You're looking at many hours (and multiple days in the bigger WSOP events) at the table, so dressing like a schlub is just practical.
posted by edeezy at 1:33 AM on May 31, 2015


« Older House of Secrets   |   FREMDAJ EN LA NOKT Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments