Poker Coverage: Poker Legislation Poker Business Poker Tournaments Daily Fantasy Sports 2015 WSOP

Phil Ivey Makes Mind-Boggling Play At No-Limit Deuce-To-Seven Triple Draw

Opponent Stands Pat Three Times, And Ivey Shoves With Q-7-5-3-2

Print-icon
 

On Tuesday on Full Tilt Poker, there was an highly volatile session of no-limit deuce-to-seven triple draw featuring some of the game’s most aggressive players. Phil Ivey was one of the big losers in the game, partly thanks to an astonishing maneuver against unknown “patpatpanda”.

The hand began with Phil Galfond raising to $1,050 from the cutoff. Patpatpanda raised to $3,750 from the small blind. Ivey called from the big blind. Galfond folded.

Patpatpanda stood pat, and Ivey drew two.

After the draw Ivey was faced with a $7,650 bet, and he called.

Patpatpanda stood pat again, and Ivey took one.

Ivey elected to raise his opponent’s $18,600 bet to $51,000. Patpatpanda called.

Both players stood pat, and patpatpanda checked this time to the eight-time World Series of Poker bracelet winner. Ivey put his opponent all in for $123,805.

Patpatpanda called with 7Spade Suit 6Diamond Suit 4Spade Suit 3Club Suit 2Heart Suit, and was good against QDiamond Suit 7Club Suit 5Spade Suit 3Spade Suit 2Diamond Suit.

In deuce-to-seven, Patpatpanda’s hand is considered No. 2, or the second nuts.

The losses have resulted in Ivey being a nearly $1-million loser over the past week, according to tracking data from HighstakesDB. He’s now down about $500,000 on 2013.

 
 
 
 

Comments

Sazzle
over 2 years ago

Brian,

I certainly am not here to flame you. I do feel, however, that the adjectives used to describe this hand are misplaced. "Mind-boggling" and "astonishing" are hardly the terms that any seasons draw player would use to describe this hand. Patpatpanda played the hand VERY well but that he also had an incredibly strong hand dealt to him, while Ivey had a draw to the nuts. When Ivey missed his wheel draw, he decided that based on the range of his opponent (all rough 8's will play the hand this way... possible even 9's) he could represent a strong hand by patting behind and getting his opponent to fold a 9 or 8. In short... it was a calculated bluff. Obviously Patpatpanda had an absolute monster and his bluff failed. But Ivey's play is hardly "mind-boggling".

 
Reply
 

liudawg
over 2 years ago

AGREED. Obviously those words were used to draw people in to read this dumb article.

 
Reply
 

liudawg
over 2 years ago

AGREED. Obviously those words were used to draw people in to read this dumb article.

 
Reply
 

L2K4FC
over 2 years ago

I'm going to disagree with Liudawg. I don't think you need adjectives to draw people to read these articles. People read these articles anyway especially when it involves big pots or Phil Ivey.

And yeah Ivey bluffed but maybe the astonishing thing is that he would bluff for all panda's chips given the way the hand played out and what was in the pot at that time. Maybe he could've effectively bluffed for less. Maybe he should have known better that in this spot that he was crushed and any decent player isn't folding a shove here.

 
Reply
 

LisaJax
over 2 years ago

Sazzle and liudawg,
I'm amazed that there are still Phil Ivey sycophants like you out there considering that PhoneyPhil left you holding a $100M+ bag when FullTilt Poker imploded. Good luck getting your money back from the Dept of Justice!

 
Reply
 

SpencerTracey
over 2 years ago

lol - based on the content of their posts, you obviously don't know the definition of a sycophant.

 
Reply
 

L2K4FC
over 2 years ago

I had to look it up. Now I'm lmao!! Good call.

 
 

Dave112
over 2 years ago

I love these articles about the god Ivey and his six figure all in bluffs. As far as LisaJax and her sychophant comments. LJ you are the PROTO-sychophant!! You will be eating your own dog food when FullTilt gets back into the U.S. through New Jersey!

 
Reply
 

LisaJax
over 2 years ago

Keep dreaming boys. When the Dept. of Justice and the IRS finish wringing your FullTilt money through their fingers, you'll be fortunate to get 10 cents on the dollar.

Perhaps the synonyms would apply better. I was being kind by NOT referring to Phoney Phil fans as "fawning parasites" though. :-)

Synonyms
toady, yes man, flunky, fawner, flatterer.

Defiition:
syc·o·phant
[sik-uh-fuhnt, -fant, sahy-kuh-]

Noun
A servile self-seeker who attempts to win favor by flattering influential people.

a self-seeking, servile flatterer; fawning parasite.

 
Reply
 

TheJok3r
over 2 years ago

Only labeled as Mind boggling and astonishing because the person writing the article is clearly results oriented and doesn't understand the logic behind Ivey's play.

If his opponent doesn't have #2 and folds an 8 or a 9, Ivey looks like a genius. His play here is great, and it only looks bad because his opponent was dealt an unfoldable hand.

 
Reply
 

Sazzle
over 2 years ago

That sounds like what I said.

 
Reply
 

Michael44
over 2 years ago

It definitely is a mindbloggling play by any standard. Just consider these facts:

Pat/Ivey
stand/draw 2
stand/draw 1
stand/stand.

Any fool would know better than to try to bluff your unknown opponent off the hand with that last all in bet. Think about it, how good can your hand be if you draw two then 1 then stand? And you are trying to use that to bluff a hand that stand the whole way? Just what is the chance that you got a great hand?
Perhaps Ivey is too conceited. Perhaps Ivey is drunk at the time, perhaps he is exhausted and not thinking. But that level of play is certainly far from distinguished.

 
Reply
 

Sazzle
over 2 years ago

Michael44 asked a few questions, so I would like to take a moment to answer him.

Question: "Think about it, how good can your hand be if you draw two then 1 then stand?"

Answer: The best hand possible is 75432. Also, a hand will generally improve after several draws. You seem to be under the impression that the opposite is true for some unknown reason.

Question: "And you are trying to use that to bluff a hand that stand the whole way?

Answer: Yes. I thought that appeared to be rather obvious. Is this a real question?

Question: "Just what is the chance that you got a great hand?"

Answer: Many variables factor into calculating one's chances at drawing to a certain hand, especially deads cards that have already been thrown away. But since we know Phil drew just one card and that he held 7532, than that means he has two draws at making #3 or #1. ( I assume you would classify those as "great hands" even though only #1 would have won this hand)

 
Reply
 

Michael44
over 2 years ago

A detailed discussion of probability would be required for you to understand why this is a bad play on ivey's part. But that would be way too detailed for this purpose.

Let's just say, Ivey has a decent hand. He went all in either because he think he got the best hand or he was trying to bluff.
Either one of these are bad logics or play.
If pat had a mediocre hand, it is unlikely he is going to call. So Ivey would not win a penny more.
If Pat had a better hand, of which there are hundreds of hands better than ivey's hand, Ivey would lose like he did.
The fact that pat stand stand stand make it more likely that pat's hand was among the better ones.
The correct play would be to check and showdown.
It is clearly mindboggling poor play on Ivey's part.

In this particular case, I think Ivey made the bad read that he had the better hand. The comments are not really result oriented.

 
Reply
 

Jonathan15
6 months ago

"If pat had a mediocre hand, it is unlikely he is going to call. So Ivey would not win a penny more."
Ivey is bluffing, he profits if patpatpanda folds too often.
Also you may think it's "unlikely" but it's not so unless patpatpanda's range is only the nuts and hands that cannot beat any bluff, in which case he calls with the nuts and folds his "air" - if patpatpanda got to this point with "air" more than 49.59% of the time then he loses money and if less he makes money in the long-run in that scenario.
However, it is much more likely given the actions that patpatpanda was dealt a pretty good hand to start with and now has the nuts or a bluff-catcher. If Ivey has nuts/air and patpatpanda has nuts/bluff-catcher then patpatpanda should call with all his nuts and 49.49% of his bluff catchers to make Ivey indifferent to bluffing. If we imagine patpat will get to the third draw in this way with #52- (98764-) (having folded his tens and worse on the previous betting round, and that Ivey has seen 2c, 2s and 7h in addition to the 2d and 7c in his hand and that patpatpanda considers #9- (86543-) as nuts then patpatpanda should call (without knowing card removal from Ivey's hand) to bluff catch with #30-#10 (97643-87432). Due to the severe card removal Ivey knows (or roughly knows) patpatpanda only has 2,552 combos of nuts not the a priori 9,180 furthermore the range patpatpanda is folding is less affected (22,154 -> 9,728) than the range he is bluff-catching (21,706 -> 6,034). In fact the effect is so great that unless patpatpanda considers the cutoff to the nuts as at least #13 (87543) here an attempt to call optimally earns Ivey in the long run. Given the pot sized bet Ivey should, of course, be bluffing 1/3 of the time here to be optimal (that is 1 combo of bluffs for every two of value) he makes #1 4 ways, so if he is correct about patpatpandas ideals and he decides to bluff if he draws a red queen and not otherwise it's good. (Phil's profit per hand is maximised with a gto approach at $8,158.63 in the case where patpatpanda thinks only #1 (75432) is the nuts. Further profit comes Ivey's way if patpatpanda thinks, as you do, and does not bluff catch - the extreme of this would be to call #1 (2,552 combos) and fold everything else (43,860 combos), at which point Ivey profits a whopping $42,984.70 per hand. The extra profit here would be the result of an exploitation of too many folds. Whether Ivey's made this analysis or not is hard to judge of course - but in the end poker is a game of people and their ranges, not individual hands.
You say there are hundreds of hands better and indeed there are, in fact there are 258,060 a priori combos better than Ivey's #254 (Q7532) hand, but they are certainly not all calling - Would you be calling with Q7432? JT986? ....?; if you are then a different exploit is in order of course.

 
 

IamAfter5
over 2 years ago

hey question for everyone and i hope i dont get freaking bombed for this question lol but if you cant play in the us how does PI and others have a real money account?

 
Reply
 

Joseph7
over 2 years ago

The big name pros(and a lot of the lesser ones too) basically make trips to Mexico or Canada and play online there. So a guy like Ivey can do a couple weeks down there, then a couple back in the USA playing live/family time, and so on.

 
Reply