blonde poker forum

3 handed in the EPT Main

Blinds were 80,000/160,000 ante 20,000.

Button: Valentin Messina, 13,900,000 (87 big blinds)
Small blind: Dominik Panka, 4,655,000 (29 big blinds)
Big blind: Jean Montury, 8,300,000 (52 big blinds)

From the button Messina opened to 325,000,

Panka then three-bet to 850,000 with pocket tens,

only for Montury to four-bet to 2,085,000.

Messina folded and action was now back on Panka.

i believe you can see the hand from that point on at https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=942378639136201&set=vb.477783065595763&type=2&theater


great fold, or more routine than that?

Haven't watched it. But seems fairly standard, given the stack sizes.

It would be extremely standard to get it in, not fold.

I would guess this is a sizing based tell/read on villain to ever be able to fold.

http://www.pokerstarsblog.com/en/blog/tournaments/ept/2015/ept11-malta-pankas-fold---sick-or-standa-155038.shtml (http://www.pokerstarsblog.com/en/blog/tournaments/ept/2015/ept11-malta-pankas-fold---sick-or-standa-155038.shtml)

The explanation brings in some interesting issues with the delayed feed. 

i was going to lead onto that when the hand had been discussed

but seeing as it is mentioned

""I'd got a lot of information from my friends watching the feed about the way he plays and the way he was acting during hands as he gives off a decent amount of tells. I'm not an expert with tells but we were pretty quickly able to identify that how he touches and moves his chips depends on the strength of his hand. If he had a decent hand but he wasn't really comfortable with it then he was stroking his chips. But, if he had a good hand he was either shuffling his chips or moving them in a different way. Additionally he was raising smaller with weaker hands. If he had ace-queen or nines here he would probably have raised to around 1,600,000. So, he pretty quickly gave away the strength of his hand. Obviously he can have ace-king there but I was pretty comfortable with this fold. In other circumstances against other players, tens, three handed with 30 big blinds is a premium hand and you get it in."

no one else go "wow" at the first sentence?

live feeds/external influences aren't meant to be able to influence the live action are they?

The next sentence too, where he states....


 but we were pretty quickly able to identify

"we" as in "me & my mates on the rail", can we assume?

If that's the case, no, I don't like that at all. Not blaming the lad, he was just using what was available to him, but it feels wrong to me.

Live streams can, potentially, be dangerous.

Is this too much different than being drawn on a table with somebody, then one of your mates telling you a few reads on him?

All the information is there, its not like they've been peeking at his cards from the rail and getting information like that.

Impressive fold regardless.

The guy didn't have a 4b/f range so not a hugely surprising fold, esp vs a 30bb stack.

The reason he didn't have a 4b/f range was because he was being dealt top 2% of hands >80% of the time

It's a seriously impressive fold. Love all the "super standard fold" responses on Twitter from the people asking to get the freeroll password :D

Good fold, i mean easy fold for sure if the guy is not creative and you got a whole team investigating reads for you. #teampoker

honestly though high stakes just really gets to me, how much outside influence should one really have when you are at the table? I am not against giving a friend a tip but good mainly young HS regs playing by themselves is about dead now.

I remember watching pca this year and funking for pratyush buddiga off the back of a nice run, loved his style and mannerisms at the table, he got a quick interview day4/5 and was asked why he's so chilled and always on his phone and not taking it as seriously as you'd expect and his answer was along the lines of 'yeah just talking to my boys about hands I've played what they think ect...' After that I was just like gtfo, disgusts me that from the off learning and playing live you're told you cant do really do anything to influence play at your local ROFL fest, but playing the highest stakes games where you should be trusting the integrity more than anywhere else you can just basically be against a villain asking friends wug as the game runs.

Rant over. Sorry but if you disagree, I'd really like to see a valid point for #teampoker at the table.

I was the guy who interviewed Dominik about this hand and wrote up what he said. Some things to consider:

1) He speaks very good English but English is not his first language.

2) The hand in question took place six hours into the cards-up coverage. The length of delay really isn't an issue with regards to this hand IMO. If you disagree with him being able to get information on hands from people watching the feed then you need to sequester people like they did at the WSOP a few years back. It didn't go very well. Because, if you disagree with players getting information from a friend watching the feed then what about information from friends on the rail who're not watching the feed? They can give him real time info on physical tells/anything else (with card info if the hand goes to showdown) if he wants to go to the rail and chat.

3) Everyone who makes the final table should have someone/does have someone watching the coverage. This is an option open to everyone. Eugene Katchalov is on record as saying ElkY was his wing man when at the EPT Deauville final table. I don't personally know anyone who's made a EPT final table, but it'd be interesting to know if Ludo, Jake, Middy had anyone on the feed. Pretty certain Middy did IIRC.

4) We have incomplete info. We don't know how much of the 'we' was Panka and how much of it was friends or even if it matters. But for arguments sake is Panka saying: "I've spotted a tell on how he handles chips, can you watch the feed and see what him stroking his chips means please?" any better than a mate saying: "Dominik we've noticed that when he strokes his chips it means..."

@oxford. What do you suggest? Ban all communication, lock everyone in a room? It's completely unavoidable. You can't use your phones in a hand but outside of that people can talk to whoever they want.

It's just part of the modern game and it's a level playing field.

What do you think about people talking about hands on a tournament break at the bar? Is that #teampoker?

I don't see a problem with it. At the end of the day these guys are sharing information by having their hole cards revealed for the entertainment of Joe public watching streams and tv. It would just be foolish not to use the information at hand

assuming player 1 is loose and player 3 is tight it seems very standard.

i initially thought it was 3b/f vs the initial guy and i was telling everybody panka HAD to be the worst :D wp, nf, gg

32% against his actual range right?

Haha wp.

It seems like an aggro 3 handed game from what I saw. He wasn't tight or anything, was defo mixing it up a little. From what I saw anyway, didn't watch loads.

(http://media.tumblr.com/78789231ca3829787f530c38fc4796cc/tumblr_mm90ympNL91qcmptjo3_250.gif)

math is idiotic.

didn't stroke his chips tho

You go to Malta with your pro mates, he is there with his wife (not specific to this fella as I don't really know who he is). I don't see how you think this is a level playing field. 

I think there is quite a difference between chatting about hands at the break and having a wingman there watching for tells too.  Where does your wingman stop?  Is this only cheating if he signals you in a hand?

Certainly isn't going to make me play more EPTs.

If his wife isbt his wingman that's his fault.

I love this "level playing field" argument. U think its a level playing field when this guy sits down with Pleno who's 3xing the turn to make this guy fold his pair of wild deuces on the turn?

The kids today prepare to win. It's what they do. If this guy wants a jolly and play the ept cos he's seen it on the telly im sure he doesn't give a shit that someone has picked on the fact he eats Oreos with his left hand when he bluffs

I think you are absolutely wrong on this.  If you have an arrangement with a friend to watch your opponents to pick up tells then you are cheating in my book.  I don't think it matters much if he has a percentage or not. 

If you say at a break to your mate I think I screwed up in how I played kings then that is fine.  I also think it is fine if he replies saying player x is tight/spewy/3 bets too much.  All these things are fine, it is the arrangement to do this before you sit down that makes it bad.  From memory I think that is where stars draws the line too, but can't check now.

Of course, policing this is going to be very difficult, but maybe not so hard if people admit it in interviews?

you didn't know who you were playing online, and now you don't know who you are playing live.

What do i suggest.. I suggest we are in too deep to find a fair resolution.

lets give a rather simple and probably common scenario.

Professional online player been crushing for years, hasn't really got much of a social life and doesn't interact with people face to face that often, they build a poker relationship with a few sickos and end up going to a live stop with them. His poker friends are regs on the circuit and over the decades have developed some serious skills on judging character, understanding and extracting live reads ect.

Now, this info is clearly there to see for everyone, but you need to have developed your own set of skills to extract this info that can be easily missed by most people dependant on their abilities. Final table is where most of the live reads are available to make exploitable play as the pressure cracks people.

Does this online guy deserve to gain an unfair advantage based on his natural ability and be gifted this information he cant extract irl from his mates or should he play with his own ability and judgement?

It definitely isn't a level playing field, with regard to the information advantage you can get from live streams.
All the people who argue that it is are serious poker-players, with large groups of serious poker-playing friends.

You're also overplaying the impact of said wingmen imo. Buddiga went in 2/8 and came 7th iirc. It's still you two cards and your opponents

but here, he has said that he goes with the tens against any other opponent except he's got info from third parties which contains stuff that suggests he shouldn't

at this point the live stream with hole cards has gone way too far in having an impact on the outcome of the tournament

events have got to be stricter if this is the norm, in my opinion

The amount of players whom do not wish to participate in EPT's because of the inevitable issues the live stream brings are far far outweighed by the amount of new participants the live stream brings not only to the EPT, but to the poker world in general.

The positives outweigh the negatives in my opinion.

I know the bigger picture, but the bigger picture doesn't count for much if the tournament itself lacks integrity (in its processes). First and foremost it has to play out with complete transparency. everything else, including the numbers who watch live streams and subsequently sign up to online poker sites, is secondary to this, i think

on a general point, the interview Panka gave was naive. Perhaps it is so standard, the asssitance from frieds watching the stream, he didn't think twice of it, but i can't think an occasional recreational watching and reading that would think the same

The WSOP support, encourage, advertise and promote this interestingly.

Wonder if Panka folds if the guy cold 4s to like 1,475,000. Got to assume vs cold 4 of this size he's up against 88+ AQ+, maybe even as tight as TT+ AK. At least vs something <1.6 or 1.7, he can feasibly have a range he's not calling it off with.

edit: not saying I think everyone who cold 4-bets to 2.1 here has a range as tight as 88+ AQ+, some would do it with any pair making it a size where they have to call off vs the ss, making it look strong, but having some equity vs the range villain goes with as well as stuff like ATs+ some suited broadways. Less likely at a massive FT though, vs a guy i assume he has a read on as being unlikley to get very OOL or take hugely high variance lines.

It's fairly obvious that this will be argued along partisan lines, & be self-advocating, & nobody is going to change their mind any time soon.

It begs the question though, if we find it acceptable in "Live" poker, which probably amounts to less than 0.01% of all poker played....

What happens Online, on a Sunday night, when all the Big Boys come out to play, & are able to do so in the privacy of their homes, or maybe with a bunch of like-minded mates?

We have players who are staked, or stakees, who are horses or have horses, who run stables or are part of stables, & people taking action in each other.

Do we all get on Skype & help each other with info?

Have to add, I have zero knowledge of how all this works, or even if it does, but if we can defend it in Live poker, it must surely happen a great deal more often Online?

 

people regularly buy accounts deep in major tournaments online. previously if there was a german or a russian who was deep in a tournament and went from tight to loose you could know who it was pretty easily. now almost every countries grinders are monopolized by one big staking group. spanish, portuguese, brazilian, bulgarian, romanian, they all have these super stables ran by the top players in the respective countries and i would bet a lot of money they are taking over when deep

That's scary.

It's unpoliceable though, I assume?

I guess poker players will get what they deserve - whatever that is.  

I'm now digging anyone out here btw, I just find the topic disturbing, & I'm trying to see how it extends Online.

yeah unpoliceable, done over team viewer given control. or simply on Skype saying the exact bet sizes/timings etc to do.

oh and the group of indians who are playing the early phase of tournaments for high stakes grinders and then they take over whichever guy has the deepest stacks.. i should probably stop!

You should probably continue, imo. ;)

Seriously though, this can't end well for poker generally, can it?

Are there any instances of players being disqualified for such things? 'Stars, for example, always seemed to me to carry their responsibilities as "the" Online poker provider to deal with these matters very responsibly.

I'm wayyyy out of touch, but other than the Telscher thing, & that 16 year old kid who got the lot then chirped about it, I don't know of any examples. Presumably a few have been disqualified?

Do 'Stars (not picking on them, but you'll get my drift) have specific rules, T & C's etc to deal with it? Do they consider it a problem, do you know?

if this sort of thing was widely known by the recs, it would be terrible news for poker wouldn't it?

just seems like a PR disaster waiting to happen. Again.

I can't imagine for a moment they would envisage such a thing. It would certainly not encourage them to keep investing in these big buck Tourneys. 

I can't imagine it happens at the lower end much though. 

Exactly.

It's stuff like this that completely puts me off wanting to play an EPT or similar.

People pretend the game's moved on from Puggy Pearson and Amarillo Slim.

You never hear about the ones who just leave poker though because of these issues.  I could name numerous people who have stopped playing poker at semi serious levels for various reasons because of live streams but no one knows about them and/or the reason why they stopped playing they just leave the game quietly.

Probably an excuse for not being able to win anymore

It can be but not always.  I could name 5 people who stopped playing low stake donkfests at genting stoke on a nightly basis (events these guys could easily afford obviously and had played for years) when they were being streamed on the net for a few months for various reasons not involving cheating (ie benefit cheats/family/boss potentially finding out they were gambling/owing people money and not wanting to be seen etc etc).  I don't think people really think through this live stream stuff fully.  There is a reason why casinos don't live stream roulette wheels with punters on them in their casinos (because they wouldn't have any punters left if they did - i could think of numerous roulette sessions with certain punters who would be much more entertaining for the average live stream loner at home to watch than a bog standard £30 donkfest).  Yet they charge poker players a lumpy risk free rake to host an event and expect them to gamble in the full view of the public without receiving anything in return.  A lot of people just choose not to play.

IMO you should be able to play any poker event with total discretion and you should never be forced to show your hole cards if you choose not to.  I have played in numerous GPS's etc and been warned if i don't put my cards in the spot for the camera to pick them up i will be thrown out of the event. If casinos think they have this right then they need to be paying players a fee to play their events imo.  I just choose not to play any more.  If you want to say i can't beat the game any more then you have that right to believe that.  When i pay big money to gamble i expect to have total control over the situation and not give away any information i don't want to when i pay a 10% risk free fee for the event to take place to the casino.  I don't pay 10% rake to entertain people at home for free and allow professional staking groups to use my info to their stables advantage.

I don't see what realistically can be done about the live situation with streaming. They either keep it as it is where friends may relay information (that potentially they could have picked up on breaks) or isolate the players away from any external viewers killing the atmosphere but not being able to receive this information (and I imagine legally they wouldn't be able to implement this, stopping people from going outside, contacting friends/family etc.). There's nothing stopping a player from setting up a recording of the live stream then running to see what happened between hands or on breaks in any key hands.

I might be a little off with my comparison, but the way I see it is two low league teams playing one another, team A get a penalty. A fan catches eye contact with the penalty taker and says "I've seen him train, he ALWAYS dives to the left". Inevitably he slots it away to the right as the keeper dives to the left. The fan shouldn't come under fire for offering advice, the goalkeeper should come under fire for implementing an exploitable strategy.

Think this is entirely different to 'ghosting' that may occur online. In the live situation the player goes into and comes out of the hand making all the decisions himself, the online situation means the player can hand his account over, go to sleep and wake up to find out where "he" finished.

This wouldn't put me off playing an EPT, the whole having to go to places like Malta and Monaco does that  :)

Oh, and the €5k plus buy in

If your point is I'm not good enough to play in a tournament of that standard, fine. But, if I were to luckbox a satellite, I'd be 1.01 to sell it rather than travel and play. It just isn't attractive to me, personally.

I do consider poker to be going back to the dark ages of hustlers, swindlers and conmen. Perhaps it was ever thus but they seem both more prominent and - worryingly - more accepted than they were since the seventies.

I wouldn't presume to offer any judgement of your abilities..

I was attempting humour. Failed obviously.

Hustlers Swindlers and Conmen LLP will always be around the game. You don't need to travel that far to find them. Fast food outlet owners rinsing the undeclared cash from last night's sales; dodgy dealings with stakee facing staker (or staker's buddy) late in a tourney; running mates registering late for a tournament and all being seated at the same table. There's money to be made, why would we ever imagine the game is pure?
It's not a level playing field.


And yet, in the same way that clean athletes compete with the drug cheats we keep coming back.

Vicky won two EPTs. I'd be utterly shocked and very very sad to discover that she had any sort of team monitoring the stream for her.

I wouldn't worry about it being a failed joke; it's true!

But if people like me don't want to try to play in these tournaments, the tours have no future.

And poker loses the veneer of legitimacy that is crucial to its appeal to a wider audience.

Don't really love any of this, and points towards returns from Pro poker trending lower and lower when people feel they must push for every extra edge.

On the other hand, I don't expect "A Level Playing Field" in the stock market, Sport or business, so why should poker be different