What did Yang have when Childs folded QQ?

[ericicecream]

[ QUOTE ]
For the record, I think he had AcKc.

[/ QUOTE ]

[stan1541]

[ QUOTE ]
For the record, I think he had AcKc.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ditto

[Whitewash]

That was a weird insta-AI from Yang considering he was very deliberate with his decisions every other hand.

[sweetjazz]

The way he played this hand seemed more consistent with the way he played A3s and 44 as described in his interview -- I'm going to put all my chips in no matter what and please God let it work out for me. I really doubt he had QQ beat and I don't think he necessarily had to have a flush draw there either.

Of course some of this is hindsight bias, but given that he came out with a kamikaze approach in the first orbit, I think you have to get it in there with QQ. There's just too good of a chance he has a worse hand that he thinks is good + he's making a pure bluff + it's just not that easy to pick up AA/KK. The hand is way different if Childs get reraised by Watkinson UTG+2 instead of Yang; then I can easily see not committing my stack with QQ on a 742 flop.

[betgo]

I think Childs was probably ahead. There is a good chance Yang had KK/AA, but he could have AK, a mid pp, or some junk.

I don't think Yang had 22-88, as he would probably call and play for a set against the UTG raiser. If he was making a play, he probably had something like a suited connector/gapper, Axs, Ks or broadway cards.

Yang could have had a read Childs was weak/tight from playing him the previous day and was making a play with any 2 cards. If so, it will become one of the most famous hands ever, and Yang's reputation as a player will be enhanced.

[PokerFink]

I'm with ElD and Doug. No idea what Yang had, but I really, really doubt it beat QQ.

That fold (and the 8 Yang spiked) will haunt Childs for the rest of his life. Which really sucks.

[gvegas]

"its just not that easy to pick up AA/KK"

actually at a nine handed table, one of your opponents will have AA or KK around 8% of the time. Not exactly like getting struck by lightning.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
"its just not that easy to pick up AA/KK"

actually at a nine handed table, one of your opponents will have AA or KK around 8% of the time. Not exactly like getting struck by lightning.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeh, I wouldn't be suprised to see AA/KK. AK is also quite likely.

[heffmike]

first timer - if you want to believe this interview with Norman Chad - no reason to lie,
reraise an UTG raiser with 44. Geez. God is great, I guess...

http://blogs.tampabay.com/poker/2007...mment-76364328

[ QUOTE ]

Hey Lee,

Great lay down!! If you listen to Jerry's interview with Norman Chad he said he was in a hand where he had 4-4 and he prayed to the lord for a set, and the lord gave it to him. He also said that "the guy" had QQ, so I'm assuming that he was talking about that hand, since there was a 4 on the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

EDIT: haven't listened to the interview myself yet. anyone out there DVR it and confirm he's talking about this hand and not some other random hand?

[technologic]

i think once you commit that much of your stack in the pot on that board, you have to call there. too much of a chance he could be bluffing/overvaluing a worse hand.

i don't know much about yang's image prior, or if childs had a lot of history with him, but IIRC yang had gotten a bit feisty the orbit before the QQ hand.

if you play the hand preflop, why are you calling the raise OOP? what's the point in a lead if you're going to fold to an all in? although i wouldn't be too surprised to see AA/KK, i feel that this is a part of his MUCH larger range.