Hellmuth 27 Bluff Makes Matusow Fold KK

[LonesomeFugitive]

must...see....youtube of this!!!!!!!!!

[bsheck]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpv6_J-Zw7E

[Veil]

For me, this single hand eclipsed the entire boring season three. If Hellmuth never leaves, the show may well be better than Poker after Dark.

[Moovyz]

Wow, It's been a really long time since I've been, or posted, to/on this site.

Everybody here is really tightly wound. I've never seen so much complaining (about the title of this thread being a spoiler), calm down guys!

In response to this actual hand, and specifically to the guy who said "I can't fault Matasow's play on any street"... here goes.

It was a great hand, one of the best I've ever seen (I believe it's 100% on the level). I think Matasow played the hand horribly! Phil too. I think it came down to the Helmuth "getting over on him/Matasow wanting to "teach " Phil a lesson, made for a huge psycological meltdown for Matasow.

I see it like this... Matasow gets KK and thinks about what a big payday he gets on this hand. "OOOOH, Phil's raising.... my chance to suck him in".

I don't believe he ever thought about Phil having a set of Q's or J's until the bet on the river when the $40K bet is NOT something that Phil ever does on a straight bluff. Up to that point, he was just slow-playing, waiting to crack Helmuth. He smooth called the raises and bets on the flop and turn hoping to raise Phil on the river. Typically, Mikey always waits too long, too greedy. If the board doesn't pair the 6, Mikey surely raises. But the real reason he folds on the river is he just couldn't live with himself if he paid off $40K on trips for Phil. He wanted to get credit for making a huge laydown. That's why he mucked face up. And he's right about one point, Phil almost never bluffs on the river after 2 attempted bluffs. But he failed to realize that Phl could ONLY win that way. Out-thunk himself into what I thought was the woest play I've ever seen on HSP.

Phil comes off looking great, but in reality, he should have known EXACTLY where Mike was at (and probably did) and his bet on the river is actually horrible, because if Mike did IN FACT have an over pair to the board, Mike HAS to call and Phil knows that.

That hand was 100% the psycological "ego" game that those two play all the time. (Mikey does the same with Daniel) Each hates to lose to the other, each hates to be bluffed by the other. But Mike is still not a very good player and only a bad play, but timely "out-of-charachter" bet by Phil made this outcome.

And wasn't it classic of Phil to ask Mikey for the $500 for the 2-7 prop? LMAO!

[bsheck]

[ QUOTE ]

I see it like this... Matasow gets KK and thinks about what a big payday he gets on this hand. "OOOOH, Phil's raising.... my chance to suck him in".

[/ QUOTE ]
If Matusow 4-bets there he's ONLY getting action from AA. Hellmuth isn't going to put his whole stack in with QQ or worse, even if he thinks Matusow would 4-bet weak sometimes.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe he ever thought about Phil having a set of Q's or J's until the bet on the river when the $40K bet is NOT something that Phil ever does on a straight bluff. Up to that point, he was just slow-playing, waiting to crack Helmuth. He smooth called the raises and bets on the flop and turn hoping to raise Phil on the river. Typically, Mikey always waits too long, too greedy. If the board doesn't pair the 6, Mikey surely raises. But the real reason he folds on the river is he just couldn't live with himself if he paid off $40K on trips for Phil. He wanted to get credit for making a huge laydown. That's why he mucked face up. And he's right about one point, Phil almost never bluffs on the river after 2 attempted bluffs. But he failed to realize that Phl could ONLY win that way. Out-thunk himself into what I thought was the woest play I've ever seen on HSP.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't see it this way at all. I think Matusow was trying to keep the pot small. That Q[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]6[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] flop is a really bad one for Mike. QQ got there, JJ got there, AA still has you beat. Hellmuth isn't reraising with AK, TT or worse (JJ is even a stretch for him). I think he realized Hellmuth could have 72 there as well as the big hands, so when Phil checked the flop (which he'll do with strong and weak hands alike) he checked behind. Way ahead/way behind.

On the turn Phil leads strong ($17k into $15k) and Matusow knows that Hellmuth doesn't bet big very often, so he just calls. Good play. It's still a WA/WB situation, so you have to exercise pot control there and just close the action.

The river pairs the 6, and I have no idea why you'd think Matusow would raise on a different river. The 6 changes nothing. Besides, what worse hand possibly calls a river raise? Phil bets $40k into $49k. Matusow realizes Phil never bets big on the river without a hand, so he folds face up. If this hand got posted on the High Stakes Forum, everybody and their mother would've said instafold, even if they knew about the 72 prop.

[ QUOTE ]
Phil comes off looking great, but in reality, he should have known EXACTLY where Mike was at (and probably did) and his bet on the river is actually horrible, because if Mike did IN FACT have an over pair to the board, Mike HAS to call and Phil knows that.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believed Phil put Mike on a fairly strong hand when he called the big bet on the turn. Perhaps AQ, but perhaps AA, KK, maybe QJ, and perhaps a set. I think Matusow would've called the preflop reraise with any hand he raised with because he has position and it's Hellmuth. On the river Hellmuth knows that Matusow knows that he never (or maybe almost never) bets strong without a hand, and he never fires a 3rd barrel. He has to be confident Matusow will throw away AA, KK, AQ, and now QJ, and maybe he even makes a super laydown with 88 or 66. I think Phil played this hand very well and did a great job of using his image to his advantage.

[kypreanus]

[ QUOTE ]
McCutter, you should be banned for this, what a donk.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Veil]

[ QUOTE ]
[...] so when Phil checked the flop (which he'll do with strong and weak hands alike) he checked behind. Way ahead/way behind.


[/ QUOTE ]
Over-pairs are indeed the trickiest hands to play. I believe in this situation, PH was hoping to get a check-raise in on the flop. Now, if MM makes a half-pot bet, and PH decided to raise and MM then calls (which he certainly has to) - it's going to be extremely difficult (reasonably going by what I know regarding PH/MM and their tendencies from watching many of their hands) - for PH to continue firing now. But if he does fire big on the turn/river, Mike can safely get away and it doesn't look as bad in my eyes. If the hand was played this way, PH would either have folded the flop bet or gave up afterwards.

Okay, but what if PH merely calls this bet? Well this again makes it harder for him to continue firing (and more expensive in relation to the pot if he decides to play big bet poker as was self-evident). If PH checks, it should be played as if it was the flop (the turn card was surely irrelevant). However, if PH big bets the turn, I agree that raising here would be silly for obvious reasons. But again, after MM's turn call, it will be much harder for PH to fire again at the river. Well, even if he does, it might not go down the same way because MM may feel he is pot-committed at this point.

Aside: on average, this way isn't more expensive then the way it went down (especially if we count in PH's final bet, as not calling was a mistake).

[LearnedfromTV]

lol @ harabolos "so you did some quick calculations and realized queens full was more likely than 72"

[Moovyz]

I just woke up after a long night (no, I wasn't drinking) and so my mind is not clear enough to think this one completely through right now.

I'm going to watch the tape again later, but I think you are thinking more about a standard cash game or tournament hand with this. HSP is not the same and the same logical thinking does not apply. You've put Helmuth (from Matasow's prospective) on way too few hands. He could be on any ace suited, any pair, and maybe even A6, which is what Mike eventualy ends up believing by his "you hit a 2-outer on the river" comment.

I'll post again later with other possible scenarios, but I hold to my first and second instincts on this hand... both played it horribly, given the possible and actual situations. That being said, Phil LOOKS like a genius but I think he got lucky (possibly designed but unlikely) that Mikey got all turned "up-side down in his head" on this one because of ego.

[donkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, It's been a really long time since I've been, or posted, to/on this site.

Everybody here is really tightly wound. I've never seen so much complaining (about the title of this thread being a spoiler), calm down guys!

In response to this actual hand, and specifically to the guy who said "I can't fault Matasow's play on any street"... here goes.

It was a great hand, one of the best I've ever seen (I believe it's 100% on the level). I think Matasow played the hand horribly! Phil too. I think it came down to the Helmuth "getting over on him/Matasow wanting to "teach " Phil a lesson, made for a huge psycological meltdown for Matasow.

I see it like this... Matasow gets KK and thinks about what a big payday he gets on this hand. "OOOOH, Phil's raising.... my chance to suck him in".

I don't believe he ever thought about Phil having a set of Q's or J's until the bet on the river when the $40K bet is NOT something that Phil ever does on a straight bluff. Up to that point, he was just slow-playing, waiting to crack Helmuth. He smooth called the raises and bets on the flop and turn hoping to raise Phil on the river. Typically, Mikey always waits too long, too greedy. If the board doesn't pair the 6, Mikey surely raises. But the real reason he folds on the river is he just couldn't live with himself if he paid off $40K on trips for Phil. He wanted to get credit for making a huge laydown. That's why he mucked face up. And he's right about one point, Phil almost never bluffs on the river after 2 attempted bluffs. But he failed to realize that Phl could ONLY win that way. Out-thunk himself into what I thought was the woest play I've ever seen on HSP.

Phil comes off looking great, but in reality, he should have known EXACTLY where Mike was at (and probably did) and his bet on the river is actually horrible, because if Mike did IN FACT have an over pair to the board, Mike HAS to call and Phil knows that.

That hand was 100% the psycological "ego" game that those two play all the time. (Mikey does the same with Daniel) Each hates to lose to the other, each hates to be bluffed by the other. But Mike is still not a very good player and only a bad play, but timely "out-of-charachter" bet by Phil made this outcome.

And wasn't it classic of Phil to ask Mikey for the $500 for the 2-7 prop? LMAO!

[/ QUOTE ]

Moovyz, you are my new favorite poster. please post more