Why re-raise all in with 23 big blinds??

[Samango]

If you think Daniel raised quite light, (6'6s) at this point....

Am I missing something here? I thought we'd established that it wasn't Daniel Negreanu or any other Daniel and in fact, that there was never any reason to suppose that it was!

I think that the pro was probably advocating a squeeze, not a wild shove but a tactical play against weakness shown. Of course the squeeze only works if 23 BB is enough to make the original raiser fold (we don't know the original raise!, do we?)

...and calling multi-way is not great if the pot will grow as big as your remaining stack, but we don't know that either, 2 or 3BB into a multi-way is not terrible imo

With hindsight and the knowledge of TT as the hand, the shove is the right move, but with so little information on how the whole hand played and what was actually said in the article it is difficult to guess what the pro meant

 

[OzExorcist]

With hindsight and the knowledge of TT as the hand, the shove is the right move, but with so little information on how the whole hand played and what was actually said in the article it is difficult to guess what the pro meant

Actually it's very easy to know exactly what the pro meant. the player only had a 23BB stack there was no hand he could possibly be holding for which calling was a good play. Calling is a terrible play no matter what he's holding. Despite this the player elected to call and therefore it's safe to assume that this is a weak player.

 

[Egon Towst]

The second call seems weak, unless it`s a deliberately deceptive move.

shoving 23blinds in a spot like that is 'correct play'.. not shoving isn't.

Calling is a terrible play no matter what he's holding. Despite this the player elected to call and therefore it's safe to assume that this is a weak player.

And so on, ad infinitum.

 

[RamdeeBen]

Am I missing something here? I thought we'd established that it wasn't Daniel Negreanu or any other Daniel and in fact, that there was never any reason to suppose that it was!

I think that the pro was probably advocating a squeeze, not a wild shove but a tactical play against weakness shown. Of course the squeeze only works if 23 BB is enough to make the original raiser fold (we don't know the original raise!, do we?)

...and calling multi-way is not great if the pot will grow as big as your remaining stack, but we don't know that either, 2 or 3BB into a multi-way is not terrible imo

With hindsight and the knowledge of TT as the hand, the shove is the right move, but with so little information on how the whole hand played and what was actually said in the article it is difficult to guess what the pro meant

Erm - It was daniel cates raising up as far as I'm aware.

 

[Samango]

No, Daniel Cates was featured on the front cover of the magazine, but as the OP already stated in post #6 it was James Obst playing the hand and commenting on the other players who are only referred to as Villain1 and Villain2. Only the first raise is actually revealed as a min raise to 600 on 150/300 blinds and after that there are only vague descriptions of 'small continuation bet' on the flop and turn. The 'inexperienced player' is ahead of Obst the whole way but he just keeps passing his chips over gently without ever challenging him and then even calls Villain2's all-in on the river to ensure that he loses the maximum chips!!

 

[Poker Orifice]

Huge sigh..... I just wrote out a fairly lengthy response to your post Ram... but didn't save it & the site timed out on me argh!!!! (was feeling tilted which prompted me to respond.. & then not having it go thru has increased the tilt factor, lol)

 

[BrentD22]

Because this villain is most likely flatting a random drawing hand or baby pair. Both hands that should be folding or shoving.