Re: Jamie Gold, genius or moron?

On Nov 22, 11:15 am, Ron Dworkin <toddbry...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

But seriously, I would easily put a T or a set in Jamie's range if it
were not for his rediculous speech throughout the hand.

Initially, it's hard to put Jamie on a range. He limped pre-flop, and
then flat-called a raise. It's all the flop betting, which was
actually done before the flop, which defines Gold's range.

A Ten is unlikely, IMO, since check-raising the flop in the dark, then
calling a substantial re-raise in the dark, then playing the remainder
of the hand out of position, isn't something anyone with half a brain
would do with a very marginal hand like AT/KT/QT/JT/etc., particularly
when your opponent has practically announced to the world (given all
the action) that he has AA or KK. Playing xT this way would be unusual/
very stupid/very reckless, even by Jamie Gold's standards. So, I don't
think a T is reasonably part of Gold's range.

For the same reasons as above, I'd rule out 66 almost for sure, and
very likely 99 as well. So, what could Gold actually have that's
consistent with this action? A *very* tight range: like KK, with an
outside chance of QQ or AA.

Also, can Gold really call a $100K turn bet with a pair of Tens, given
that's is obvious that Sammy has a premium pocket pair? Again, it's
unlikely Gold would make that call, his looseness not withstanding. In
addition, I think 66 or 99 would check-raise the turn all-in, or, at
the very least, lead the river. Check-calling the turn, and then
checking the river, is not consistent with a big hand looking to get
paid off (it is consistent with a large pocket pair, however).

On the river, any pairing of the board is good for Sammy, since it's
unlikely that Gold has paired those particular board cards (which were
all bricks, given the bets and raises prior to the flop). A paint
card, like K, Q, or J, would have been much more ominous.

Sammy made a bad check on the river. I think his opponent had a lot do
with it.

JG
.

Loading