Harrington on Hold'em Vol. III - Contradiction

[PequDios]

Hello. First time posting here on 2+2.
Now I am fairly new to poker, I bought the Harrington books and have read both Vol. I and II. These books have definitely helped and even though I have only read one other poker book (Phil Gordon's little Green Book) I am sure that these are one of the best, if not the best poker books. It just really shows how a poker player should perceive each hand in itself.

But there is one thing I have a problem with and I would like to post it here. I have a problem with Vol. III the Workbook Problem 19 Harrington versus Hansen - Playing a Medium Pair. The situations is this:

[ QUOTE ]
Late in the first day of a major tourament. Allen Cunningham in he big blind has a tiny stack with an M of 4. Gus Hansen is the big stack at the table hand has been his usual aggressive self. I'm your playing partner, and I'm on the button with a moderate stack and an M of 16.

[/ QUOTE ]

The actions is: The blinds are at $200/$400 and an ante of $50 so the pot is $1,050 to start with. The stacks of our three players are:
Cunningham: $4,400
Hansen: $27,000
Harrington: %18,000
Players A, B, C and all fold.
Gus raises to $1,300
Harrington has 7h7s
Harrington calls %1,300
Small blind folds.
Allen Cunningham pushes all-in for his last $4,000.
Gus Hansen calls $2,700
The pot is %10,350
Harrington calls $2,700
Flop is Kh5s4d
Gus bets $3,200
Harrington folds
Gus shows 7d5c
Cunningham shows QQ
Turn is T and river is 5
Gus wins with two pairs, a 7 and a 5.

Now Harrington analyzes the hand:
[ QUOTE ]
I actually liked this flop, with two cards below my sevens, but as soon as Gus bet I understood just how big a blunder I had made on my last turn.

My problem is pretty simple. I may well still be beating Gus (assuming I was beating him to start), but how am I doing against Allen? If he went all-in with a higher pair than mine I'm still losing, and if he went all-in with a couple of picture cards, several of those combinations just beat me as well. If I call against Gus, I may be only playing to win the money in the side pot, since the main pot may be out of reach (unless I can spike a seven on the next two streets).

What's really happened here is that Gus and I are, in effect, locked in a game of "chicken," and whoever bets first wins by putting the opponent in an untenable position. Assuming Gus and I are playing the roughly the same type of hands, there's no advantage any longer to acting second. In fact, the advantage goes to the player who can act first, leaving his opponent a Hobson's choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now I am not gonna disagree with any of Harrington reasoning here. What I do not understand is why Harrington doesn't criticize Gus Hansen for not checking down the hand to eliminate the most dangerous player at the table. This was something he talked about I think in Vol. II. To check down a hand to eliminate an opponent. What was Gus doing there? What if he had 6-5 instead of 7-5 and he had chased Harrington out of the pot and wouldn't have hit his outs. And maybe Harrington would have hit his set but he didn't because of Gus, and now Cunningham would triple up. I thought this was a beginners mistake. But Harrington doesn't criticize him, instead he talks about how Gus is "one of the most astute tacticians around, and he's worked out many original ideas in his private laboratory". Not that I disagree with Gus being a great player, I just can't see how that was not a bad move by Gus Hansen.

[jeffnc]

These situations are not the clear cut "donkey" mistakes that we're sometimes led to believe. Now if Gus truly had trash and were bluffing into a dry side pot, then it would not be very good I don't think (although there might even be situations where that is OK.) One thing to keep in mind is this is not a satellite, or SnG bubble play. Eliminating an opponent is not as important as in those situations, although it might be important.

If you were Gus, what hand would you put Harrington on here? I think that's important. Gus probably figures there's a good chance he can get a better hand to fold, and protect his weak hand, if Harrington thinks Gus would not bluff into a dry side pot. Cunningham could have almost any halfway decent hand and there's no reason Gus should think he's behind Cunningham. Gus is weighing a higher chance of eliminating Cunningham with a lower (but decent) chance of eliminating Cunningham and a higher chance the chips go to him rather than Harrington. That is important to winning also. He chose the latter. He has to think beyond the current play, and on to how to win when it gets heads up. That's my guess anyway.

[Gonso]

Gus played it absolutely perfectly on the flop IMO. Almost anyone would check here without a second thought, including myself, but this hand shows a serious problem with that.

Cunningham's range is pretty wide to push here. Him coming over the top of Gus means relatively little since 'Gus is being Gus'. DAn showed no real strength preflop when given the opportunity to do so twice - the second time with an already large pot.

There's like 13k in the pot when the flop comes, which is huge in relation to even Gus's stack. If Dan should wind up with the pot he would be the new chip leader, even if Alan is eliminated.

Gus leads out for a quarter of the the main pot into a dry side pot. Dan obviously knows Gus's safe play is to check it down, so despite the small bet this is a good sign of strength. Gus would also know Dan can't call here without a hand, and even if called it's still likely to get checked down the rest of the way.

Now, if Alan can beat Gus's pair, then it's likely he was going to beat Dan had he stayed anyway - it's not as if Harrington is folding a set. Occasionally Dan might fold a winner with KT or something, but it's certainly not a sure thing.

In any case, Gus would be a coinflip against even around a top-20 pushing range by Alan - and you know Alan can push more than that here so I'd say Gus is slighty ahead.

So, best case/worse case scenarios:

a) Gus raises, Dan calls, Gus is probably done raising and the hands will likely check down - unless Dan has a big hand. Gus loses a little and Cunningham is almost certainly gone.

b) Gus raises, Dan pushes, Gus folds, Cunningham is doomed. Dan is chip leader, but Gus is still in it and in the top 2.

c) Gus raises, Dan folds, Cunningham wins. Again, Gus is at least 50% equity against the ranges you expect from Cunningham. If Alan wins, well he was probably going to the majority of the time if Dan had stayed anyway.

d) Gus raises, Dan folds, Gus beats Cunningham - the situation that actually occured and obviously the best case scenario. Gus is HU with the chip lead.

This just illustrates why checking it down isn't always automatic. The worst thing that could happen is it's anyone's game, three way, and the best thing is that Gus is in position to take 1st.

[Gonso]

[ QUOTE ]
If you were Gus, what hand would you put Harrington on here? I think that's important.

[/ QUOTE ]

Preflop, yes, but not on the flop. Gus is spending little here. If Dan can call or reraise even a small flop bet, his actual hand is irrelevant, it's ahead of yours and you can't bet again. He's not on a draw.

[PokerTourist6]

If Gus is being Gus and Dan is being "action Dan" then shouldn't Harrington have reraised here to get heads up against a short stack? If so, by how much?

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
If Gus is being Gus and Dan is being "action Dan" then shouldn't Harrington have reraised here to get heads up against a short stack? If so, by how much?

[/ QUOTE ]

That does not seem like a bad play to me. I'm not sure why he didn't discuss it. The obvious amounts are
a) to $4,400
b) all-in

I don't think any other raise makes much sense. I prefer a) since if Gus comes back over the top and puts me all-in, I still have the option of folding if I want to.

[Gonso]

Wait a second, put the brakes on.

My analysis is way off. I went back to refresh on the book again to re-read this problem. My analysis above was based on a three-handed scenario - I read the "our three players" part in the OP.

The table actually had 9 players sitting, to include the big stack just behind Dan. The alters the whole situation both preflop and postflop.

[PequDios]

[ QUOTE ]
Wait a second, put the brakes on.

My analysis is way off. I went back to refresh on the book again to re-read this problem. My analysis above was based on a three-handed scenario - I read the "our three players" part in the OP.

The table actually had 9 players sitting, to include the big stack just behind Dan. The alters the whole situation both preflop and postflop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry if I mislead you. I should have noted that this was a full table. This changes a lot since Allen Cunningham can wait for a better chance since he will only have pay the small blind next and then he gets a couple of blinds without the blinds.

But your analysis was still good.
"Now, if Alan can beat Gus's pair, then it's likely he was going to beat Dan had he stayed anyway - it's not as if Harrington is folding a set. Occasionally Dan might fold a winner with KT or something, but it's certainly not a sure thing."

Gus probably thinks that if the chips aren't going to him it's better to keep Cunningham alive than for Action Dan to take the chiplead.

Still I think Dan should have analyzed this hand much better and explain what Gus was actually doing there. Bit of a tricky hand. But the main point in this hand was that Dan should have raised pre-flop to chase Gus out, because Gus didn't raise and that proabably meana that he hasn't got a strong hand.

[Jeff76]

[ QUOTE ]
What I do not understand is why Harrington doesn't criticize Gus Hansen for not checking down the hand to eliminate the most dangerous player at the table.

[/ QUOTE ]Because, simply put, winning the chips was more important than eliminating a player.

People use the check down co-op play way to often. Yes there are times to do it, but it's funny how people just expect it to be the default move in all situations. When you are at the FT with big jumps in pay increases, checking down the hand is +EV. When you are not on the bubble and far away from the FT, chips are your most important focus.
Hansen had a hand and he needed to protect it from getting drawn out on. He played his hand well; Harrington, as he correctly assess, did not.

[Mcbrag]

I agree with Jeff76. The accumulation of chips at this point of the tourney is more important than knocking a player out. If it was a final table then it would be a different story.