Gus and Danny's set over set

[dogdrool]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but if that five doesn't hit, the hand would play much differently. I think Gus would have check/called the turn and that Daniel would have checked down the river. Gus really didn't like Dan flat-calling that CR on the flop.

It would be interesting to read Gus's comments on the hand.

[d240t]

I think all of you guys advocating a fold have read Gus's range preflop and on the flop as way too tight.

Preflop: Any hand he decides to raise with he will call that DN small reraise with. That said, if you think he could have raised 65, 57, 58, 59, then you must assume he'd call the reraise with it. He is known for playing weak hands out of position.

Flop: He check-raises a wide variety of hands. If you watched him play in the NBC Heads Up tourney, you'd know this. He didn't just check raise heads up with sets and straights, he did it with one pair hands. And since it is Gus, I'm going to assume he has a relatively balanced strategy, meaning he has to check-raise the flop with some bluffs/draws, too.

Turn: After he check-raises the flop, he leads the turn. If he was bluffing or semi-bluffing with a hand like 57/58, he'd continue here since he has made an even stronger hand.

River: The check-raise is the only clue that something weird is up, as all other streets are consistent with a wide range of hands that DN beats and doesn't beat. That said, getting 3:1 with a boat, that's a really tough laydown that I think requires your opponent to be very predictable, or you need to have a strong physical read, neither of which DN had.

If that 5 didn't hit, there is no way that DN is still checking behind on the river. The play might have gone down differently, but maybe not. Gus still would not have folded his set, IMO.

[dogdrool]

[ QUOTE ]
I think all of you guys advocating a fold have read Gus's range preflop and on the flop as way too tight.

Preflop: Any hand he decides to raise with he will call that DN small reraise with. That said, if you think he could have raised 65, 57, 58, 59, then you must assume he'd call the reraise with it. He is known for playing weak hands out of position.

Flop: He check-raises a wide variety of hands. If you watched him play in the NBC Heads Up tourney, you'd know this. He didn't just check raise heads up with sets and straights, he did it with one pair hands. And since it is Gus, I'm going to assume he has a relatively balanced strategy, meaning he has to check-raise the flop with some bluffs/draws, too.

Turn: After he check-raises the flop, he leads the turn. If he was bluffing or semi-bluffing with a hand like 57/58, he'd continue here since he has made an even stronger hand.

River: The check-raise is the only clue that something weird is up, as all other streets are consistent with a wide range of hands that DN beats and doesn't beat. That said, getting 3:1 with a boat, that's a really tough laydown that I think requires your opponent to be very predictable, or you need to have a strong physical read, neither of which DN had.

If that 5 didn't hit, there is no way that DN is still checking behind on the river. The play might have gone down differently, but maybe not. Gus still would not have folded his set, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the problem with this analysis is it leaves out both the texture of the board and Daniel's actions. At the same time Daniel's trying to put Gus on a hand (which you argue is a wide range), Gus is also putting Daniel on a hand.

Just looking at the river action alone, I think Gus knows that Daniel isn't making a clear value bet into that pot with that board without a beast. Gus went for the river CR because he had Daniel on a monster as soon as Daniel called his flop CR.

Daniel thought Gus had him on an overpair, but Gus had him on a higher set. After the hand he said, "yeah, on the flop, I really thought I was in trouble."

[AceLuby]

There are like 3 hands that beat DN. How many people are laying that down? Seriously, this is such a dumb thread. Gus got really lucky and DN got really unlucky. If the turn was a 6 instead of a 5 Gus is very likely not getting away from it either, and would probably make the same move IMO.

[d240t]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the problem with this analysis is it leaves out both the texture of the board and Daniel's actions. At the same time Daniel's trying to put Gus on a hand (which you argue is a wide range), Gus is also putting Daniel on a hand.

Just looking at the river action alone, I think Gus knows that Daniel isn't making a clear value bet into that pot with that board without a beast. Gus went for the river CR because he had Daniel on a monster as soon as Daniel called his flop CR.

[/ QUOTE ]

I intentionally left out board texture in my argument, because I was simply trying to point out that the range that people put Gus on is simply too narrow to allow for a fold, because his preflop/flop/turn actions do not significantly narrow his range. Some people have argued that Gus would only check raise a set or 2pr on that flop...I think he could check-raise as little as a gutshot to the nuts or a pair+gutshot combo, like T7 or 57.

That said, DN was probably thinking Gus put him on higher cards. Gus didn't have to put DN on a tight range because he already had the nuts. By the time the action gets to the river, he only has to put him on a range of a) calling a bet but not betting, b) a hand worthy of a bet, or c)a draw/bluffing hand. Since Gus decided it was either b or c and very unlikely to be a (based on the board texture), he check-raised the river.

Now on to the check-raise. This check-raise is one of 3 things, a) the nuts or near nuts (ie any boat), b) a straight (doesn't seem like he'd c/r all in with this hand very often on that board, unless it was T7 exactly giving him the 2 card nut straight on a board with a 4 straight, or perhaps 57 giving him the trips+1card straight, making a full house less likely), or c) a bluff.

What kinds of hands could he bluff? I think he thinks DN is capable of folding the straight on that board, so he could be bluffing with an overpair, trying to represent a full house to get Daniel to fold a straight.

Do I think that the bluff or the straight or the straight+trips or the weaker boat are more likely than the higher boat or quads? Not really...but even if they are even money, DN profits by calling. I think there is enough doubt here to make calling clearly correct, although really confusing and somewhat sickening.

But what I really wanted to point out is, I don't believe DN could have or should have eliminated hands like 57, 58, 59, or T7 from Gus's range based on the preflop and flop action...perhaps he could eliminate them based on the river action, but definitely not by the flop, as other posters have suggested.

[bilbo-san]

[ 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 ]

Word. Everyone saying that Gus folds 85 and 95 preflop? Read what players who play with him all the time have to say:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...rue#Post6970700

[Jooka]

sorry if someon already posted this as I havent read the whole thread, but DN talks quite a bit about this hand in this thread on his forum:


http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poke...72124&st=0

[darom03]

And here is what Gus Hansen was thinking during the hand:

This exerpt is taken from a danish newpaper, that Gus writes for, and its translated by me, so count on some errors along the way:

"Blinds and antes are 1700. I open in early position with a standard raise to 2100, and Daniel reraises with his two sixes to 5000. Daniel plauys a lot of hands and generaly likes to do small reraises before the flop in position. That way he feels he can control the the pot, and it makes it hard to put him on a hand. He can play sc, middle pairs or AK. His reraises are so small that its never a question of throwing my hands awaybefore the flop.

The flop comes 965 rainbow. Even if I hit my set its possible that a man like Negreanu has me beaten.
I decide to play the hand reverse to find out how glad aniel was about the flop. I check and he leads out with 8000.
Now its time to test if he just has an overpair. i raise to 26.000 and Daniel chooses, after a brief time to pay. Now I'm sure that he has a hand, and I actually doubt that my hand is good

Then the dreamcard comes. The nuts. A 5! A lot of people wil think: why lead out when you have him in the bag? I leads with 24k, which is a small amount in comparison with the pot. My bet is a continuations bet, that shall signal to Danny I have a good hand, but that its not nessesarily got improved by the turn card. It shall give him the opportunity to trap, if he has hit his full house. I actually think Daniel would play the hand the same way, and maybe thats why it works.

Now comes the last card. An 8, and I choose to check to signal: ok, I hit a good hand on the flop, but now I'm not sure its good anymore. From earlier matchups with Daniel I know he likes to valuebet the river when I check. That way I at least get a valuebet from him, and possibly all his money with a checkaraise.

That he sticks out 65k i perfect. That makes it really hard for him to get away I move all in and the pot grows to more than 400k. After some time to think, Daniel calls his last 179.000.

That - of course - was perfect for me, but if he had thought it through he should have concluded that it was a sick call. What hand could I have? 8-5? 6-5? 9-5? 8-7?

I know that I'm known for playing hands like that, but in a cash gaime I would never (or rarely) raise with a hand like that before the flop in first position.

Besides look at the action: Blinds is 300-600, with a 100$ ante.

Raise-reraise before the flopp, check-raise-reraise on the flop, bet-call onthe turn, check-raise-reraise all-in on the river. With all that action – you better have the [censored] nuts."

http://ekstrabladet.dk/poker/article189353.ece

[phaesis]

[ QUOTE ]
And here is what Gus Hansen was thinking during the hand:

This exerpt is taken from a danish newpaper, that Gus writes for, and its translated by me, so count on some errors along the way:

"Blinds and antes are 1700. I open in early position with a standard raise to 2100, and Daniel reraises with his two sixes to 5000. Daniel plauys a lot of hands and generaly likes to do small reraises before the flop in position. That way he feels he can control the the pot, and it makes it hard to put him on a hand. He can play sc, middle pairs or AK. His reraises are so small that its never a question of throwing my hands awaybefore the flop.

The flop comes 965 rainbow. Even if I hit my set its possible that a man like Negreanu has me beaten.
I decide to play the hand reverse to find out how glad aniel was about the flop. I check and he leads out with 8000.
Now its time to test if he just has an overpair. i raise to 26.000 and Daniel chooses, after a brief time to pay. Now I'm sure that he has a hand, and I actually doubt that my hand is good

Then the dreamcard comes. The nuts. A 5! A lot of people wil think: why lead out when you have him in the bag? I leads with 24k, which is a small amount in comparison with the pot. My bet is a continuations bet, that shall signal to Danny I have a good hand, but that its not nessesarily got improved by the turn card. It shall give him the opportunity to trap, if he has hit his full house. I actually think Daniel would play the hand the same way, and maybe thats why it works.

Now comes the last card. An 8, and I choose to check to signal: ok, I hit a good hand on the flop, but now I'm not sure its good anymore. From earlier matchups with Daniel I know he likes to valuebet the river when I check. That way I at least get a valuebet from him, and possibly all his money with a checkaraise.

That he sticks out 65k i perfect. That makes it really hard for him to get away I move all in and the pot grows to more than 400k. After some time to think, Daniel calls his last 179.000.

That - of course - was perfect for me, but if he had thought it through he should have concluded that it was a sick call. What hand could I have? 8-5? 6-5? 9-5? 8-7?

I know that I'm known for playing hands like that, but in a cash gaime I would never (or rarely) raise with a hand like that before the flop in first position.

Besides look at the action: Blinds is 300-600, with a 100$ ante.

Raise-reraise before the flopp, check-raise-reraise on the flop, bet-call onthe turn, check-raise-reraise all-in on the river. With all that action – you better have the [censored] nuts."

http://ekstrabladet.dk/poker/article189353.ece

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you so much darom03. I think a lot of people have been wondering what Gus was thinking during the hand. There's also a thread on the FCP forum where Daniel insists that Gus put him on an overpair throughout the entire hand. Glad to finally find out what Gus was thinking. Thanks again.

[Brocktoon]

[ QUOTE ]
There's also a thread on the FCP forum where Daniel insists that Gus put him on an overpair throughout the entire hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

link?