Poker Superstars: Barry Greenstein TT vs Gus 75-s

[DonkeyKong]

It occurs to me that when Gus plays poker, he just chooses to discount the existence of big pocket pairs... He might be doing this with mathematical logic but his exit on the last Poker Superstars demonstrates this. His call was a close one but the real issue was his first raise.

Gus had 75 and the flop came 7-high, rainbow.

Barry had TT and bet out. Gus raised nearly 3x. Barry moved all-in and Gus called. He had 5 outs for 20% chance and already had 1/2 his chips in so this wasn't a bad call but how he got himself into this situation is what strikes me. It was short-handed...

[TheJackal]

I dont believe he discounts big pairs, but he has a range of hands that BG opens with, which includes both big pairs and overcards. Gus flopped top pair and since BG is an aggresive player, than Gus believed he probably might have the best hand given the rag flop. I think his mistake was betting too much of his chips which pot committed himself, sinced he'd have to call an all-in from BG.

[DonkeyKong]

I agree with what you say. When he moved in on Antonio Esfandiari with T8-s, he did the same thing. (yes I know that was a freeroll yada yada yada)...

You can rationalize almost any call with pot odds by stating the 'range of hands' argument after almost anytime you stick a bunch of money in the pot.

by playing small cards as aggressively as Gus does, he is inherently choosing to discount and virtually ignore pocket pairs.

Barry G made a comment about how the pair of 7's was a 'big hand for Gus.' If the hands were reversed, I doubt Barry would have gone broke with a pair of 7's.

it is interesting to think about the rationale and assumptions being made by top pro's. I have been nailed many times playing small pairs short-handed using the same argument of 'range of hands'...

I agree with you that he pot-committed himself with his raise but I don't think Gus thinks he made much of a mistake. That is just his fearless style.

This obviously isn't groundbreaking material... My point was just to think out loud and see what perspective others had on this play.

[Walter Pullis]

Hansen's play of this hand was just plain wrong. It is hands like this that make me feel he will never even make the final table at the Main Event at the WSOP.

[cornell2005]

[ QUOTE ]
Hansen's play of this hand was just plain wrong. It is hands like this that make me feel he will never even make the final table at the Main Event at the WSOP.

[/ QUOTE ]

its aggressive plays like this that will give him a chance to make the final table at the wsop crapshoot. if anything, you could argue that gus's style is better suited for large entry touranaments like the wsop as compared to small wpt type tourneys. and gus has done extremely well in the wtp events, so...

[Walter Pullis]

Your comment that the current ME at the WSOP is a crap shoot is
correct to a point, but makes it even more essential that you don't play a pair of 7's after the flop like Hansen did, unless you are trying to bluff a weak player. Note
that Dan Harrington is the only player to make the final table the last 2 years.

[Cleveland Guy]

[ QUOTE ]
Note
that Dan Harrington is the only player to make the final table the last 2 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Marcel Luske was Top 15 both years. I'd say it's a feat that is almost as impressive. Luske and Harrington have different playing styles. I don't think one is "right" and the other is "wrong"

[CrisBrown]

Hi D.K.,

Doyle Brunson suggested that Gus' style was probably best suited for the PSI format. The stacks aren't very deep, so there's likely to be a lot of all-in coups. Given that, there are likely to be many all-ins with overcards plus backdoor draws, etc. that you wouldn't normally see in deep stack play. And given that, yes, I think Gus does tend to discount the possibility of overpairs, because a reraise often won't mean what it would if the stacks were deeper.

Doyle also noted, however, that Gus wasn't accustomed to playing with this caliber of opponent. He didn't expound on that, but it seems apparent that the others players have finally solved The Danish Question by responding with equal aggression. (Paul Phillips also hit on this in one of this year's WPT events.) That has become more effective as more players recognized it, because they begin to play the role of a posse, whether intentionally or by a confluence of individual decisions. They are distributing the risk of "policing" Gus, and collectively forcing him to show down winners.

If they continue to do this, and they will so long as it's in each player's interest to do so, Gus will have to adjust his game in order to survive.

Cris

[DonkeyKong]

<PSI format> The stacks aren't very deep, so there's likely to be a lot of all-in coups. Given that, there are likely to be many all-ins with overcards plus backdoor draws, etc. that you wouldn't normally see in deep stack play.

Just like your standard SNG at Party or Stars...

It seems Howard Lederer knew this going in and everybody else finally caught up.

Did you see the hand where Gus actually laid down AQ on a Q high board to Barry's all-in on a flush draw? The normal Gus Hansen definitely calls that... Suddenly he was playing in fear of a set when he hasn't been doing that all along...

[CrisBrown]

Hi D.K.,

[ QUOTE ]
Did you see the hand where Gus actually laid down AQ on a Q high board to Barry's all-in on a flush draw? The normal Gus Hansen definitely calls that... Suddenly he was playing in fear of a set when he hasn't been doing that all along...

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the posse effect is making him gunshy, and that is very un-Gus. If they keep doing it, unless he can find a way to adjust his game, he's toast.

Cris