Ivey-Mercier hand for televised 2-7TD tournament: why no bluff with pair?
I would have bluffed with a pair of 6s, even though a K probably calls.
Action folded to Phil Ivey who raised in the small blind as Jason Mercier came along in the big blind.
Both players drew two and Ivey bet. Mercier called and drew two more, while Ivey took one.
Ivey then bet again and Mercier called. Both players took one and the final draw was checked down.
Ivey made a pair with 86652 and Mercier won the pot with K8432.
5 Replies
I actually don't know how to construct ranges correctly here but we can reason out that an Ivey bet would offer 6:1. In a vacuum (i.e. if Mercier couldn't bluff raise) then that should also be the value:bluff ratio.
If Phil only bets three rivered 8s, then he should be betting (roughly) 18 cards: three 3s, three 4s [estimating to account for card elimination; he knows Mercier has some good cards but not which], four 7s, four 9s, four Ts. That seems a little too narrow of a betting range right?
Is there any blocker-related reason to check a pair of 6s and bluff 5s? The 6 is a less valuable card than a either a 5 or a 7 in 2-7, so blocking a bad card for your opponent is bad for a bluff. (But with wider ranges blind v blind I don't know if that matters.)
I actually don't know how to construct ranges correctly here but we can reason out that an Ivey bet would offer 6:1. In a vacuum (i.e. if Mercier couldn't bluff raise) then that should also be the value:bluff ratio.
If Phil only bets three rivered 8s, then he should be betting (roughly) 18 cards: three 3s, three 4s [estimating to account for card elimination; he knows Mercier has some good cards but not which], four 7s, four 9s, four Ts. That seems a little too narrow of a betting range right?
Is
T or better for value and top pair for bluff seems just right to me OOP. It was WP
I actually don't know how to construct ranges correctly here but we can reason out that an Ivey bet would offer 6:1. In a vacuum (i.e. if Mercier couldn't bluff raise) then that should also be the value:bluff ratio.
If Phil only bets three rivered 8s, then he should be betting (roughly) 18 cards: three 3s, three 4s [estimating to account for card elimination; he knows Mercier has some good cards but not which], four 7s, four 9s, four Ts. That seems a little too narrow of a betting range right?
Is
great post - not that i know if the math's precisely right eye-balling it (sounds right? but i fudge this stuff up all the time lol), but just the reasoning out of it all
I actually don't know how to construct ranges correctly here but we can reason out that an Ivey bet would offer 6:1. In a vacuum (i.e. if Mercier couldn't bluff raise) then that should also be the value:bluff ratio.
If Phil only bets three rivered 8s, then he should be betting (roughly) 18 cards: three 3s, three 4s [estimating to account for card elimination; he knows Mercier has some good cards but not which], four 7s, four 9s, four Ts. That seems a little too narrow of a betting range right?
Is
I think this is overthinking too much in Ivey's head
when Mercier drew 2 then only drew 1 it's pretty easy for him to have a hand. even if he doesnt get the hand he wants, he could easily have 2345 and end up with a 9/T/J or Q which would easily call any hand that drew 1 on the final draw.
I think this is overthinking too much in Ivey's head
when Mercier drew 2 then only drew 1 it's pretty easy for him to have a hand. even if he doesnt get the hand he wants, he could easily have 2345 and end up with a 9/T/J or Q which would easily call any hand that drew 1 on the final draw.
He’s not overthinking it, you are under thinking it
