I loved when Everest took him out on a bad beat, Williams' exit mocked Josh Arieh's sportsmanship upon finishing 3rd to Williams and Greg Raymer last summer. I thought the joke was one of the highlights of the show.
My favorite line overall was Nickel's "That's how we do it in Iowa."
yeah
It was fun to see him. I also enjoyed seeing Eric Siedel and Phil Hellmuth make guest appearances. I would have liked it more if they could have gotten a few more players to pop up (T.J, Dan Negreaneau, Farha) but I can't complain at the guests they got. I laughed when Williams popped up. And I thought it was a nice touch that he eliminated The Clark character.
T.J. Cloutier and Danny Negreaneau both popped up in the same scene! The Matador notices them stand up and invites them to come play a few hands, but both decline (knowing he is a cheat).
shareI really liked the little touch at the end with Williams. It totally reminded me of Arieh's line to Williams in the WSOP!
Ok a little bit off-topic here... clearly Williams is a strong player, and has done well in tournaments in the months after the WSOP. But am I the only who thought his performance in the WSOP itself was much below par for a top player? It seemed like his reads were off, he got lucky a few times, and he misplayed a few hands (both technically and situationally). I realize that they don't show all the hands that he played correctly, but the very best players rarely make that many mistakes in a tournament, let alone at the final table.
I dunno, he might have been nervous. I think he didn't necessarily play the odds all the time, and he was taking calculated risks. The dark check Arieh complained about, I think he knew perfectly well what he was doing. He dark checked to the hand that usually would dark check -- two high cards. He was lucky to make the set, and it was only a 1 in 7 chance, but he totally confused Arieh and he probably would have went all in on the turn as long as he wasn't bet at. I figure that if he wouldn't have hit the set he folds. I know he put half his chips in before the flop, but he had the odds with him. The dark check was a calculated risk by a player needing to make a move and get the most out of his luck. Possibly, you could argue it's a better play to just go all in before the flop, but Arieh may have folded. If he doesn't hit the set, then he goes all in to fold Arieh. If he does hit a set, he probably checks to Arieh and tries to slow play it. So since he's going to check on a set anyhow, he checks in the dark. Now, if he hits the set, Arieh won't know what to expect. If he doesn't hit a set, he might have confused Arieh into checking and, if no high cards were out, he goes all in on the turn and takes the pot. If he doesn't hit the set and Arieh bets at him, he cuts his losses and folds. The best thing that could happen is Arieh making a hand and Williams making a set so Arieh does the betting for him and he doubles up. He was lucky, but that last scenario is what happened.
It is probably the most talked about hand of the series because it was so interesting (and confusing). I'm sure most players would never consider that move and just have gone all in. That's playing by the book. But I think Williams knew quite well what he was doing, and was taking his chances to double up, even if he doesn't have the best hand. Maybe it's to Williams' credit that he could pull off a play most players would never attempt. I'm sure he had a plan to win the hand more often than he would if he moved in and Arieh called. I'm sure he also thought it improved his chances of doubling up.
I really don't like the play, and here's why. (For those of you that don't know the hand, Williams had 55 and Arieh AK preflop. Arieh raised to what amounted to 1/3rd of Williams' stack. Williams called preflop. Flop came Ax5, and the upshot is Williams doubled up.)
In a tournament situation, I believe at the final table it is essential to do two things: aggressively pursue marginal advantages, and protect your stack when you don't have the best of it. Williams called 1/3rd of his stack off on a small pair preflop. There are two legitimate possibilities for Arieh's hand:
-A big pair, i.e. AA, KK, or QQ, in which case Williams is drawing for a set. The chances that he hits his set are roughly 1/8. He was being charged 1/3 of his stack to play; there's no way he could justify the odds. Ok, so let's give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he read Arieh for...
-AK/AQ, i.e. two big overcards. Obviously at this point, Williams is a roughly 11 to 9 favorite win the hand. He has a marginal advantage. By calling, he is not charging Arieh to see the flop. In fact, the only flops that help him are Ax5 or Kx5. The odds of these flops (his set and Arieh hitting TPTK) is less than 1/3*1/8, or 1/24. (Odds of and Ace or King coming on the flop is roughly 1/3).
Not only that, he telegraphs his hand with the call and check in the dark. QQ doesn't call, QQ goes all-in preflop. Only AA or KK MIGHT call, but the fact of the matter is, Williams was pot-commited. You can't get away from 1/3rd of your stack in the pot. In fact, I believe the play is even worse because Arieh outchipped him, and could have gotten away from the pot easier if an A or K didn't fall. All this once again points to the odds of the right cards falling to make Williams' play correct 1/24.
(If Williams read Arieh for AK, and no big cards came on the flop, his check in the dark basically gives Arieh another free card! So basically he gave Arieh FOUR FREE CARDS! Yeah, it was imaginative, but the bottom line is he got very lucky that the play paid off.)
Arieh acted boorishly in criticizing Williams' play, but he was correct in his reasoning.
Personally, I'm pushing in w/ my 55 before the flop. I don't think it was the most sound play as well. BUT I do think it's justified if Williams line of thinking was that the likely thing to happen is that neither hand improves after four cards and Williams goes all in; he gets what he would have gotten if he pushed before the flop and area doesn't call. If that 1 in 24 happens, he's guaranteed a share. The upside of an ace or king hitting is that Williams doesn't have to push in and CAN still get away. He can push in on a coinflip. He can take 1/3 more chips 2/3 of the time (using your odds) without taking the risk of doubling up 50/50. If nothing comes on the flop and Arieh attempts to bluff at Williams, he has an excellent chance at doubling up. And if the miracle that happened happens, Williams is a virtual lock to double up.
What I'm saying is, it CAN be reasoned. What is questionable is if Williams had it reasoned improperly and got lucky or if he designed a very creative play and chose the perfect time to use it. He might have thought when he schemed it: if I pick up something on a guy, and I KNOW without a doubt he's holding two overcards to my small pair, and I think he will call my all in no matter what, I can raise my odds of winning from 1/2 to 2/3 by calling and dark checking. He took 2/3 odds that he'll take a pot that he has nearly half the chips in (right pot odds), with a chance that he can still double up. The biggest risk is that he gives Arieh that fourth card for free, but it's riskier to just call and have to make the first play.
Hmmm, good point. So I see what you're saying with the check in the dark. Yeah, that makes sense to do, given the flop call.
I'm with you in that I'm probably moving in with 55 before the flop as well, since a fold is a guaranteed 1/3rd added to my stack, or a call by an underdog. The one problem with moving in is that it gives Arieh odds to call and try to catch that A or K. I guess the call is protection against an A or K coming; if it does come, David can get away from the hand (if he's not mentally commited to the hand).
In any case, it was a complex decision. I guess it turned out well for Williams... I really would love to know why he took the line though. I.e. if he really had a sound reason, or if it just worked out for him.
By the way, in a cash game, if you have a strong read on a player, I think his play is excellent throughout. It might just be the perfect way to play a small pair against a deep stack with overs.
the bottom line is he had 1.5 mil and called 500,000 with two fives. That puts over 1 million in the pot and he has 1 million in chips. He should've been committed to the hand by putting in 1/3 of his chips. Checking in the dark takes away Williams position to act first and go all in and have a chance to pick up the pot without getting called and risking the rest of his chips with his small pair. If he hadn't have flopped a five which happens about 87% of the time then he's left with a difficult decision because I believe that Arieh was probably going to put him to a decsion in no matter what representing a high pair. Yeah he did a play that made him double up but if he'd played the hand correctly he would've still doubled up because Arieh gets three aces with top kicker on the turn.
This play was way worse than Harrington's final hand where he raised all in with a double gut shot.
Mic
[deleted]
haha
what a pro you are jsb
its 8/1 to flop a set.. do the maths. 3 cards coming, 2 cards help and 47 cards dont. On the Arieh vs Williams hand, however, Williams doesn't do too badly so long as he puts Arieh on big cards. By moving in preflop, he knows he is getting called. By just calling, he can push a low flop and get away when the flop is high so best of both worlds. Not that I'm saying it is better than pushing preflop but there is reasoning behind the play. The dark check has more merit than people credit for. Arieh is a super aggressive player and is not going to check behind on a low flop with AK. At that point, Williams can get the rest of the chips in when he thinks Arieh missed
it's 1 in 7, so i let 1 in 8 slide b/c, not only were the numbers a little less in Williams' favour, i could easily prove my point anyway
shareWilliams' game has grown exponentially since the WSOP.
At the time, he was extremely inexperienced, and, as a result, at times made bad plays.
I wouldn't mind the dark check if DW had more chips, but the above posts have a point, if 1/3 of your stack is going in, you might as well just push.
If you have a pocket pair, and you have no knowledge of your opponents' hole cards, then your pre-flop probability of hitting a set (or quads) on the flop is 1-C(48,3)/C(50,3), which is about 1 in 8.5. These odds increase to 1 in 6.45 by the turn, and 1 in 5.21 by the river.
I think the previous poster is confusing "1 in 7" with "7 to 1" -- the former means 1 in 7, the latter means 1 in 8.
(I realize I'm getting to this thread just a *little* late, but at some point somebody ought to get the math right, for future reference...)
I just came back and re-read my own post before seeing anything after it. My first thought: it's not 1 in 7, it's 1 in 8! My second thought: wow, what bad logic on my part, never give a guy 4 free cards!!!
My poker game is much more sound now than at this time last year.
Flopping a set = 11%, i.e. 1 in 9, or 8:1 odds against.
- - -
Chipping away at a mountain of pop culture trivia,
Darren Dirt.
I'm not sure which was more stupid: The way he played the hand or his recent amature video debut.
shareToo bad Dave Williams is a savage cheater i.e. 2001 Worlds in Toronto. I wonder if he bent the corners of his extended and limited decks as well. Maybe one of these days he can show me his 'special' shuffling technique so I can be a pro, too.
shareNegreanu was the dice thrower in the opening scene of the pilot too
share