Gus and Danny's set over set

[dogdrool]

I've watched the hand and read all the comments on here. I really think he could have folded. Dan was only beating an absolutely sick bluff, and it just seems impossible for Gus to make it all the way to the river with a bluffing hand, given the action. In particular, Gus made a very non-bluffing bet on the turn.

I don't think Gus would have raised a weak boat like that. He'd only get called by the straight, and I don't think he put Daniel on the straight.

As Gus said, he wasn't happy with his hand after the flop action. After the flop action he put Daniel on a higher set. What did Daniel put Gus on?

[theseus51]

Just something I remembered from Harrington on Holdem Vol. 2, page 38, the funniest part of the book, in my opinion:

Trips.

These are good slow-playing hands, and are much more common than the stronger hands. Some authors tell you to be careful when you flop middle or bottom trips, because you might lose to higher trips. Nonsense. If you get knocked out of the tournament because you lost in a set-over-set confrontation, then it just wasn't your tournament. When your set gets outflopped, you're supposed to lose a lot of money. When I hear someone telling a story about how he shrewdly laid down middle set after some intricate chain of reasoning convinced him he was beaten, my quick (but silent) reaction is "Idiot."

[pwalsh21]

[ QUOTE ]
If you get knocked out of the tournament because you lost in a set-over-set confrontation, then it just wasn't your tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

[dogdrool]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you get knocked out of the tournament because you lost in a set-over-set confrontation, then it just wasn't your tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, totally. You're no supposed to get all in every time you have a set in a deep-stacked cash game. I think there were many signals in the hand that indicated Gus had flopped a set.

Also, I don't believe Dan's analysis that he posted in his blog. He claimed to be holywooding when that 5 hit the turn, but I think he was legitimately concerned that he was in trouble.

[theseus51]

The concept still applies. I really wish they showed the hand with Gus's hand blacked out. Then show Daniel fold on the end, and see how many people post "yeah, that was a good laydown, he had to have been beat".

[dogdrool]

[ QUOTE ]
The concept still applies. I really wish they showed the hand with Gus's hand blacked out. Then show Daniel fold on the end, and see how many people post "yeah, that was a good laydown, he had to have been beat".

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a lot of people would still put Gus on a winning hand. Not quads, but a hand that beat Daniel's. Either that, or people would have to claim Gus pulled off a $300k bluff.

What is the range of hands that you can put Gus on at that river bet, given all the action?

[primetime32]

What everyone is discounting is that gus is notorious for playing any 2 cads preflop and when faced with a raise he is also known to call to see a flop.

And since some would think that DN should have folded that hand, shouldn't we also think that gus would know that and possibly do that move with air? You can't have it both ways.

I proudly donate my chips in that situation.

[dogdrool]

[ QUOTE ]
What everyone is discounting is that gus is notorious for playing any 2 cads preflop and when faced with a raise he is also known to call to see a flop.

And since some would think that DN should have folded that hand, shouldn't we also think that gus would know that and possibly do that move with air? You can't have it both ways.

I proudly donate my chips in that situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

This action didn't happen on the flop. Gus somehow had to make it to the river, where, along the way he:

1) check raised the flop, and was greeted by Daniel just calling.
2) leading out with a pretty clear value bet on the turn when a pretty innocuous card hits (board pairs bottom rank). Daniel still calls.
3) check raising the river when the board is a one-rank gap, paired board and Daniel has made a pretty clear value bet.

When Daniel ticked off the hands that Gus might have, he never ticked off hands that he could beat.

There's some chance that Gus had nothing, but given all that action, that seems very unlikely. I think 56 is the only possible holding that Daniel could beat. 99, 88, and 55 are all much more likely.

It's possible, given some past hand history on bluffs that Gus has run, the call was correct. But anybody who makes the argument of "Hey, he had a set, turned into a boat -- you have to go bust there" is wrong.

Also, the "Gus is well known to play any two cards" line isn't sufficient. Gus is wild, but he's not a maniac. He's not the local junkie looking to just shove the chips in at a loose 5/10 NL game. When he raises $167k, I suspect he often has a hand.

[mutigers5591]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the more i think about it, between this hand and the AA vs. KK hand barry and sammy have at the end of last season, there are rigged hands to create drama/interest.


[/ QUOTE ]


Do you think this happen at the World Series of Poker too?

Last year, Sammy Farha was dealt AT on the very first hand of the Main Event on the TV table. His opponent was dealt TT. The flop came A,A,T giving them both full-houses.

In 2003, ESPN produced a segment on Robert Varkonyi's attempts to repeat as champion. Then, they showed him betting busted with KK vs. Scotty Nguyen's AA. Not only was it AA vs. KK but it was also against a former WSOP champion.

What about the strange final hands of so many tournaments?

2000: Ferguson hits a three outer when the 9[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] hits on the river and A9 beats AQ (all-in pre-flop)

2001: Tomko's AA gets cracked when Mortenson flops both a flush draw and OESD and wins when a red 9 determines the championship for the second year in a row (9[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] this time)

2002: Varkonyi's magic hand, QTo, makes runner-runner full house while Gardner makes a flush

2003: Moneymaker flops middle and bottom pair against Farha's top pair.

2004: Raymer and Williams both make full-houses. It's the third year in a row, the winner makes a full-house on the final hand.

2005: Hachem flops a straight while Dannenmann turns top pair with the striaght draw.

You could go back before 2000 and find many more "suspicious" final hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

they dont rig the hands, a tourney is prolly gonna end when both players think they have the best of it, the only way this wouldnt happen is if someone was bluffing or someone had a severe short stack

[tewall]

If he's getting better than 2 to 1 to call, his question is, given the range of hands Gus could have been playing that way, is there (a little worse than) a 1 in 3 chance that he is good? DN thought he was. It's easy to second guess after the fact. I would have like to see if Gus could have gotten away from his hand had he not hit the case five. I doubt it. Then people could have said what an idiot Gus is.