This might be the craziest hand I’ve ever seen.
What would possess him to fold?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueTulcI81AY
This hand isn't crazy at all, and the You Tube title "Monster Laydown" is highly misleading. It's a "monster" laydown to only fish, who marry big pocket pairs, and can't ever imagine turning one loose. That's what separates fish from players: a fish would have paid off that flopped underfull, then come to a forum like this one to whine about how he got coolered. Players never look at even pocket rockets as a "till death do us part" proposition, and are perfectly capable of laying it down if the situation warrants that fold.
Chan had pocket aces, and is looking at (J, J, 6) on the flop. This is a dangerous flop, as there are a lot of calling
hands that include jacks: AJ, KJ, QJ, JT, J9. This isn't what you want to see when you have a big pocket pair. Furthermore, Chan had a line on his opponent's play, and figured he was beat. Sometimes, you can pinpoint specific reasons why your opponent is making a play, and sometimes you can't. I do that two/three times a session: "something"
tells me that I can make that hero call or hero fold. Or i'll just know I can shove it all in on thin value, get a call, and be good. Still, I'm always paying attention to how the opposition is playing, and gathering information for future reference, whether consciously or subconsciously. This was a rather routine laydown AFAIC.
17 min mark, Ivey 3-bet AQ, and then folds getting over 2.5:1. He shouldn't have 3-bet if he was planning on folding, but it's worse to fold in that spot getting that price. There's almost no two cards you can fold.
What you're forgetting is that this occurred during a tournament close to the bubble. In situations like that, the chip value isn't just that of the denominations of the chips themselves, but what they're worth in terms of tournament winnings. Ivey wasn't planning on a 3-bet then fold here. He was looking to steal that pot uncontested. He failed. He figured the worth of future tournament winnings outweighed the nominal chip value, and decided to give up his bluff steal. This is the correct play for a tourney, though would rarely be correct in a cash game.
As in, you have AK and you keep betting into the pot hoping you get either an A or K. Odds are, you won't. In the end, a pair of 5's beats your useless AK hand. Once you learn this, maybe you limp in to see the flop, or stay in when it's head to head, but I don't keep betting into the pot hoping I get an A or K. (24% odds of hitting)
This is apropos to playing hot-and-cold. Yeah, I'll take a pair of fives every time for that. However, in actual poker play, it's much better to have (A,K) than (5,5). The
odds are that you'll miss, and those are the
same odds your opponent(s) miss. They don't know you missed, do they? You have a lot more flexibility with (A,K) than you do with (5,5). The latter hand has very little room for improvement, and even if the best, it will be going against flops with one or more overcards. Can you
really be sure you're not up against a bigger pair? With (A,K) you can flop gut straight draws, a nut flush draw, a 2nd nut flush draw, and have overcards to the board. Combine those possibilities with
pot odds, implied odds, and fold
equity, and you have a more flexible holding with Big Slick than you do with a small pair that initially beats it.
