*Official* HSP 8/14

[legend42]

Gus doesn't have to put Daniel on a hand. Checking is always going to be best. Remember, he knows DN doesn't have a 5- which is the only hand that would call a river bet but check behind if checked to. So Gus knows he's either doubling up (if DN is boated), making whatever DN bets on the river (if DN has a straight or decides to bluff the end), or not getting another chip (if DN has anything else- he does NOT call a significant river bet with an overpair). And with those options, checking is clearly best.

It might be tempting to bet like $25K to make it look like a blocking bet- and which also might squeeze a call from an overpair, but makes less from a straight- but he'd be sick if DN just called it with his 66. And bet/3-betting is even stronger than CRing, so DN might really get away from a small boat vs. that line. Gus played it perfectly, though it wasn't too difficult, and of course got very lucky on the turn.

[SpeakEasy]

[ QUOTE ]
To say it's an "easy fold" is either some ridiculously tight-weak poker, or ego-driven results-based thinking.

Daniel was trying to represent an overpair - everything he did in the hand was consistent with that. If he did think that he (Daniel) successfully planted the idea in Hansen's mind, then he would expect Hansen to be very aggressive with a wide range of hands. If he has nothing, he might be able to scare off Daniel's overpair on the kind of board that hits the sort of hands Gus will play. If he has a strong, but second best hand like 59, then he'll try to get value against an overpair.

Either way, the way Daniel acted throughout the hand was designed to encourage action - and so when he actually gets action, he's not going to take it as a conclusive sign that he's beat. Both of them know Gus' image, and Daniel could've made Gus think that Daniel thought he was calling off a bluff raise and bet on the turn with a medium strength hand like an overpair. And if Daniel thinks that's what Gus is thinking, then Daniel's actions are a natural conclusion to that, based on what Daniel thinks Gus is thinking.

You say Gus couldn't have played that way without a hand that beat Daniel, but that's nonsense. Gus certainly doesn't come from that weak-tight camp, so you can't base Daniel's analysis of his action based on that. Gus could've had a range of hands there that Daniel beat, and Daniel is getting like 2:1 on it. Still, it's not like Daniel is pot-committed at that point, so a bluff is still a viable option.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is the best analysis of the hand. This was poker at its absolute best, and the river check by Gus was brilliant.

The river check was the key to the payoff. DN thought that Gus put DN on an overpair with the river C/R, which was part of DN's plan through the whole hand. DN said as much in his blog. DN verbalizes the possible hands that beat him before he calls, but I think this was just to let everyone know that he was considering all the possibilities before he called with his boat, thinking that he had trapped Gus into thinking that he (DN) sold Gus that his (DN's) hand was simply an overpair.

This is 4th or 5th level thinking, and maybe more, and Gus went one level deeper in the analysis. Like others have said, I would really like to hear how Gus analyzed this hand as it rolled out. Gus's giant brain was one step ahead of DN at the end, and the river check was superior poker.

[ravenfan1733]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Daniel would have had more chips left if he didn't raise with 4 high, call the $10K re-raise with 4 high, and then call $35K after the flop with bottom pair (deuces). That was $50K wasted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, results oriented. Doyle could have had any number of non-king hands there that Daniel's flop call would have frozen out.

We all know it's not generally smart to call big raises preflop with 42s, but Daniel knows how to play position and he knows his opponents. Plus, it's part of his meta-game strategy. I think he takes that pot away after the flop (or hits) enough times to make it okay for him to play.

[/ QUOTE ]

It sounds to me like you are saying calling re-raises with 4 high and calling pot size bets on the flop with bottom pair is +EV. I don't agree regardless of how the hand turns out.

[Pokerlogist]

All this analysis of the Hansen-DN hand is really excellent. One more thing to add:

The potential for embarassment may have played the biggest role in DN's decison to call on the river. The hand was in front of an important audience. DN has publically derided "nit" style play. It would be much more embarrassing to Daniel to fold a fullhouse only to find GH with trash, then to lose to quads. With that FH, he was going to call 100% no matter what.

[cbloom]

[ QUOTE ]
it was kinda cool how the producers were encouraging the different players who were railing to go and socialize with the table. it just makes for a little more interest to see random players crusining around in the background.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh yeah, "David Gray has stopped in; he's doing a dance behind the camera". Fascinating.

Re: Gus & DN. It seems to me Gus plays a pretty standard LAG style mostly; loose preflop, stabs at pots if everyone looks weak, but then check-folds if someone shows strength. He doesn't play big pots without the goods and he sets you up to make you think he's nuttier than he is. From the table talk it seems like DN is still falling for this ancient trick.

[pwalsh21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Daniel was trying to represent an overpair - everything he did in the hand was consistent with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except for betting the river; what overpair bets that river?
Likewise, Gus isn't check-raising the trip 5s or the straight on the river, and he's probably betting a lot more than 24k on the turn with trip 5s.

Now, whether or not anyone could make that fold in the heat of battle is a different question, but when Daniel makes the large river bet Gus almost certainly has 99 or 55 to c-r all in.

[/ QUOTE ]

So isn't it possible that Gus may have thought, "If I c/r all in, Daniel will put me on exactly 99 or 55 and fold anything less than that"? Gus wasn't at the table when Daniel folded the nut flush to Brunson, but he probably knows Daniel is capable of laying down a big hand. Gus could also have been steaming from losing a bunch of pots, that he'd be crazy enough to make a move like that.

I think everything saying Daniel has to fold 4th nuts b/c Gus "obviously" has 99 or 55 is exactly why there's a chance Gus could be bluffing.

[legend42]

[ QUOTE ]
It sounds to me like you are saying calling re-raises with 4 high and calling pot size bets on the flop with bottom pair is +EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

When that call is against an opponent with an incredibly high continuation bet %, whose vast majority of his range is going to be scared crapless by an in position $35K call on a drawless king high flop, and you're both extremely deepstacked, with a deceptive pair and two backdoor draws, yes it can be quite +EV.

What do you think Doyle does on the turn with anything less than AK?

[BigSoonerFan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Daniel would have had more chips left if he didn't raise with 4 high, call the $10K re-raise with 4 high, and then call $35K after the flop with bottom pair (deuces). That was $50K wasted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, results oriented. Doyle could have had any number of non-king hands there that Daniel's flop call would have frozen out.

We all know it's not generally smart to call big raises preflop with 42s, but Daniel knows how to play position and he knows his opponents. Plus, it's part of his meta-game strategy. I think he takes that pot away after the flop (or hits) enough times to make it okay for him to play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought it was impressive for him to know Doyle had kings-full, but then I didn't understand how he said he might have paid him off if a 2 hit.

[Nielsio]

Also Daniel could have taken a little more time on the river IMHO. Remember how long Farha took with KK vs AA? The amount to call was about the same as here.

[cbloom]

[ QUOTE ]

I thought it was impressive for him to know Doyle had kings-full, but then I didn't understand how he said he might have paid him off if a 2 hit.


[/ QUOTE ]

DN pretty much just names the nuts and then either calls or folds based on his own hand. Watch him - "I think you have [the nuts], oh well, I call (with top pair)", or "I think you have [the nuts], but I missed, so I fold".