Gus and Danny\'s set over set
 

I don't care how much money is in the pot on the end, the check-raise on the river by Gus is a fold by Daniel. There's no hand he's beating that makes that play. Gus isn't doing that with an overpair or 5x or straight. Danny has show what a POW (pay off wizard - like they enjoy saying on the show) he really is.

Re: Gus and Danny\'s set over set
 

full house vs quads?

Re: Gus and Danny\'s set over set
 

With the board reading 9 6 5-5-8, after being check raised on the flop and check raised again on the river, with anybody else other than Gus it's a logical laydown, but $130K or so to call to win a $300K+ pot, I can see how there was reason to call if Gus had fives full.

Re: Gus and Danny\'s set over set
 

Why do people keep saying that you could fold it to others but not Gus? Sure he plays really loose pre flop but he knows what he's doing post flop and isn't gonna check raise the river in that pot with anything Negreanu beats.

Re: Gus and Danny\'s set over set
 

[ QUOTE ]
With the board reading 9 6 5-5-8, after being check raised on the flop and check raised again on the river, with anybody else other than Gus it's a logical laydown, but $130K or so to call to win a $300K+ pot, I can see how there was reason to call if Gus had fives full.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gus plays loose an aggressive UNTIL someone shows strength... he then slows down unless he has you beat. Standard LAG play.

I think the fact that Danny is getting over 3:1 and Gus knows he knows that, should make for a more obvious fold. Really... maybe Gus makes this move with 65, but that's it. Does he have the case 6 25% of the time... don't think so.

Re: Gus and Danny\'s set over set
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think the fact that Danny is getting over 3:1 and Gus knows he knows that, should make for a more obvious fold. Really... maybe Gus makes this move with 65, but that's it. Does he have the case 6 25% of the time... don't think so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would he make this move with 65, but not 85 or 95?

Re: Gus and Danny\'s set over set
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the fact that Danny is getting over 3:1 and Gus knows he knows that, should make for a more obvious fold. Really... maybe Gus makes this move with 65, but that's it. Does he have the case 6 25% of the time... don't think so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would he make this move with 65, but not 85 or 95?

[/ QUOTE ]

65 is more realistic considering the action.

Re: Gus and Danny\'s set over set
 

I bet Hellmuth would've been able to make that laydown.

Re: Gus and Danny\'s set over set
 

[ QUOTE ]
I bet Hellmuth would've been able to make that laydown.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe even on the flop.

Re: Gus and Danny\'s set over set
 

Of all the classic "hands" we've seen on HSP, this one has to be #1 on the list.

Gus' check on the river was brilliant.

Re: Gus and Danny\'s set over set
 

[ QUOTE ]
65 is more realistic considering the action.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice edit. Why exactly is 65 more realistic, especially from Daniel's POV?

Re: Gus and Danny\'s set over set
 

[ QUOTE ]
Of all the classic "hands" we've seen on HSP, this one has to be #1 on the list.

Gus' check on the river was brilliant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I think that was by far the worst action that Gus took in the whole hand.

How do you figure it was so brilliant?

Re: Gus and Danny\'s set over set
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
65 is more realistic considering the action.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice edit. Why exactly is 65 more realistic, especially from Daniel's POV?

[/ QUOTE ]

Even Gus most likely wouldn't be raising 95 preflop.

He probably wouldn't be raising 85 preflop, for that matter. Regardless, Gus' flop + turn action would be horrible if he had 85.

Edit: Mathematically, 95 is a bit more likely than 55 and 65, which have the same chance of being Gus' holdings.

Re: Gus and Danny\'s set over set
 

[ QUOTE ]
Of all the classic "hands" we've seen on HSP, this one has to be #1 on the list.

Gus' check on the river was brilliant.

[/ QUOTE ]

I already went through this in the other thread. Name one hand that Daniel calls a river bet with, but would check behind if checked to, with a $100K+ pot on a 9 6 5 8 5 board? Seriously, name one.

Re: Gus and Danny\'s set over set
 

[ QUOTE ]
Even Gus most likely wouldn't be raising 95 preflop

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously, preflop 65 is more likely than 85 or 95. Given the fact Gus is laggy and Daniel holds 66, I think we can even the scales a bit. So move to postflop.

[ QUOTE ]
He probably wouldn't be raising 85 preflop, for that matter. Regardless, Gus' flop + turn action would be horrible if he had 85.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? He can't CR a raggy flop with a pair + straight draw to find out where Daniel's at? And then turn trips and lead? And then fill up on the river and check-raise, under-reading a passive Daniel the whole hand? I know it's not his most likely holding, but this is just as easy to conceive as the action if he had 65.

Re: Gus and Danny\'s set over set
 

An overpair?

Re: Gus and Danny\'s set over set
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of all the classic "hands" we've seen on HSP, this one has to be #1 on the list.

Gus' check on the river was brilliant.

[/ QUOTE ]

I already went through this in the other thread. Name one hand that Daniel calls a river bet with, but would check behind if checked to, with a $100K+ pot on a 9 6 5 8 5 board? Seriously, name one.

[/ QUOTE ]

(Forgot the quote)

But yeah, an overpair. He would call a river bet with Aces or Jacks, but would check behind if Gus checked.

Re: Gus and Danny\'s set over set
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of all the classic "hands" we've seen on HSP, this one has to be #1 on the list.

Gus' check on the river was brilliant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I think that was by far the worst action that Gus took in the whole hand.

How do you figure it was so brilliant?

[/ QUOTE ]

I just think if Gus didn't check on the river, he wouldn't have made as much off of Daniel that he did. If Gus bet $65k on the river, Daniel would just call. He knew Daniel would bet his full house on the river.

I saw Gus do the same move against Johnny Chan in Poker Superstars I when they were heads up - Gus had A-7 and a full house when all the cards came down. Gus checked on the river and Johnny bet nearly 85% of his stack and Gus went all in and Johnny had no choice but to call. (okay not exactly the same scenario as the Gus/Daniel hand but on both occasions Gus checked the river with the nuts knowing he would get his opponent to bet on the river).

Re: Gus and Danny\'s set over set
 

[ QUOTE ]
But yeah, an overpair. He would call a river bet with Aces or Jacks, but would check behind if Gus checked.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has been discussed already, but I don't think so. Some have opined that he doesn't even call the turn bet with an overpair. I think that might be wrong, but certainly once the 8 hits the river, and Gus leads out strong again, I really doubt if DN calls a $50K+ bet there with just an overpair.

Re: Gus and Danny\'s set over set
 

The now infamous hand is now on youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5k8mdvx0RWM

Re: Gus and Danny\'s set over set
 

The call was 167k, with the pot already at 408. If you lay down 6's full the table will walk all over you.

Re: Gus and Danny\'s set over set
 

I agree the check on the river was very risky. If Negreanu had flopped a straight he'd get no action. Maybe he knew DN started with a pair, but 87 suited is certainly possible. An all-in would look enough like a bluff to get a call from a boat.

Re: Gus and Danny\'s set over set
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
65 is more realistic considering the action.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice edit. Why exactly is 65 more realistic, especially from Daniel's POV?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice attitude. I didn't edit anything. I didn't mention the hands you said because they don't fit the action. Even Daniel wasn't considering them. He was most worried about 99 or 55 and not really 88 (according to his own mumblings), and I think his analysis was right on of course. He just could follow through. Lot of money in the pot.

Re: Gus and Danny\'s set over set
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you lay down 6's full the table will walk all over you.

[/ QUOTE ]

i dont think anyone in there right mind will make a super sophisticated huge multi street bluff trying to make you lay down a set.

Re: Gus and Danny\'s set over set
 

A huge bluff is required to win a huge pot, and would probably force a laydown of trips, a straight, or maybe 65.

Re: Gus and Danny\'s set over set
 

pretty sure this proves the show has certain hands that are fixed for TV. as ive said before on here a friend of mine heard directly from bobby hoff, who was asked to be on the show, that that was the case.

Re: Gus and Danny\'s set over set
 

This was brought up in another thread...but Daniel played his hand like he had an overpair...which if Gus put him on that overpair, he could be making that check raise move on the river with a straight...that is ONE of the reasons Daniel called.

This was one of those what do I think, he thinks I have, kind of hands.

Re: Gus and Danny\'s set over set
 

[ QUOTE ]
pretty sure this proves the show has certain hands that are fixed for TV. as ive said before on here a friend of mine heard directly from bobby hoff, who was asked to be on the show, that that was the case.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your previous thread

I don't think it proves anything. I don't even think it's evidence.

Why is Bobby Hoff supposed to be a credible source about this? Why should we believe him?

Re: Gus and Danny\'s set over set
 

[ QUOTE ]
The call was 167k, with the pot already at 408. If you lay down 6's full the table will walk all over you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going out on a limb and guessing you don't play high stakes.

Re: Gus and Danny\'s set over set
 

"Why is Bobby Hoff supposed to be a credible source about this?"

he's some sort of NL godfather and a lot of people give him a lot of props. that's all.

Re: Gus and Danny\'s set over set
 

[ QUOTE ]
This was brought up in another thread...but Daniel played his hand like he had an overpair...which if Gus put him on that overpair, he could be making that check raise move on the river with a straight...that is ONE of the reasons Daniel called.

This was one of those what do I think, he thinks I have, kind of hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

no WAY daniel bets an overpair there much less calls an all in check raise with it.

Re: Gus and Danny\'s set over set
 

First of all, we all know that DN is somewhat of a calling station. Furthermore there is no doubt that Gus is capable of bluff-raising the river and that he will do that at a certain percentage. Last but not least DN was aware that he was about to run into a somewhat insane bad beat and was prepared to pay off the 1-outer. There is certainly a cutoff to everything, but with that much money in the pot, not paying off a 1-outer on the end would probably have required a re-raise of something like 5 million on Gus' part, probably even more.

That hand was a cold deck all the way and well played from both sides. I give Gus huge credit for checking the river.

Re: Gus and Danny\'s set over set
 

[ QUOTE ]
pretty sure this proves the show has certain hands that are fixed for TV. as ive said before on here a friend of mine heard directly from bobby hoff, who was asked to be on the show, that that was the case.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heard it from a friend who
Heard it from a friend who
Heard it from another you been messin' around

Re: Gus and Danny\'s set over set
 

[ QUOTE ]
pretty sure this proves the show has certain hands that are fixed for TV. as ive said before on here a friend of mine heard directly from bobby hoff, who was asked to be on the show, that that was the case.

[/ QUOTE ]
LOL

Re: Gus and Danny\'s set over set
 

[ QUOTE ]
Even Daniel wasn't considering them. He was most worried about 99 or 55 and not really 88 (according to his own mumblings), and I think his analysis was right on of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

Daniel was mumbling about the hands that beat him. He always does that. But that was not his analysis. He said himself he couldn't believe Gus wouldn't bet the river with those hands- that's why he called. And I guarantee he also considered 95, 85, and 65 as possibilities.

I'm waiting to hear why 95 and 85 don't fit the action, but 65 does.

Re: Gus and Danny\'s set over set
 

I like how the mods thought another thread on this was a good idea. Maybe I'll go start a "Jamie Gold asked to be on HSP!" thread.

Re: Gus and Danny\'s set over set
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even Daniel wasn't considering them. He was most worried about 99 or 55 and not really 88 (according to his own mumblings), and I think his analysis was right on of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

Daniel was mumbling about the hands that beat him. He always does that. But that was not his analysis. He said himself he couldn't believe Gus wouldn't bet the river with those hands- that's why he called. And I guarantee he also considered 95, 85, and 65 as possibilities.

I'm waiting to hear why 95 and 85 don't fit the action, but 65 does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, because it's like 50 times less likely Gus raises PF and calls a reraise with 95/85 than with 65.

Re: Gus and Danny\'s set over set
 

[ QUOTE ]
Dude, because it's like 50 times less likely Gus raises PF and calls a reraise with 95/85 than with 65.

[/ QUOTE ]

We're talking about Gus Hansen here. I agree 65 is more likely preflop than 85 or 95 (your 50x estimate is hyperbole in action, but you know that), but considering Daniel holds two 6s, I think you have to balance the probabilities out. And the postflop action could represent any of those hands. Even Kaplan said Daniel probably put Gus on 85 or 75 on the turn. But whatever, I'm not trying to be combative, I was just asking why the OP said Gus would make that river move with 65 but not 85 or 95?

Re: Gus and Danny\'s set over set
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dude, because it's like 50 times less likely Gus raises PF and calls a reraise with 95/85 than with 65.

[/ QUOTE ]

We're talking about Gus Hansen here. I agree 65 is more likely preflop than 85 or 95 (your 50x estimate is hyperbole in action, but you know that), but considering Daniel holds two 6s, I think you have to balance the probabilities out. And the postflop action could represent any of those hands. Even Kaplan said Daniel probably put Gus on 85 or 75 on the turn. But whatever, I'm not trying to be combative, I was just asking why the OP said Gus would make that river move with 65 but not 85 or 95?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't even know why I waste my time sometimes... Gus is not raising and calling a raise with 85 or 95 out of position against Daniel. MAYBE he might make this kind of move against a weaker player when he has chips to spare in a tournament... MAYBE. Gus is an aggresor who doesn't like calling unless he has a big hand. He would either fold those hands or re-raise them, not call with them... good lord.

Other than that if you think Gus is checking raising the flop with 85, you're out of your mind.

You've obviously never played high stakes...

Re: Gus and Danny\'s set over set
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even Daniel wasn't considering them. He was most worried about 99 or 55 and not really 88 (according to his own mumblings), and I think his analysis was right on of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

Daniel was mumbling about the hands that beat him. He always does that. But that was not his analysis. He said himself he couldn't believe Gus wouldn't bet the river with those hands- that's why he called. And I guarantee he also considered 95, 85, and 65 as possibilities.

I'm waiting to hear why 95 and 85 don't fit the action, but 65 does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gus may raise, then call a reraise, with a hand like 56s. Gus is not raising and then CALLING A RERAISE with a hand like 85 or 95. Maybe in a tournament, but not in a cash game.

You seem to think Gus is a stupid tournament donkey, when that is about as far from the truth as possible. Gus is capable of raising with 85 or 95, especially suited, trying to make a move or misrepresent his hand. He will not call a friggin reraise with those hands. With 56s I think he may, since the hand has a chance to flop really well, even against AA.

I also love everyone saying they would toss the hand. The only thing most people here would toss in that situation is their cookies. (Myself included)