WSOP Hachem JJ Hand

[Huskiez]

Stack sizes were as follows:

Hachem 28,695,000
Dannenmann 22,000,000
Barch 5,650,000

Payouts were $7.5m for first, $4.25m for second, and $2.5m for third.

Not sure exactly what the blinds were.

Dannenmann (Button) raises to 750,000.
Hachem (SB) flat calls with JJ.
Barch (BB) moves all in.
Dannenmann calls.

Note: For the postflop questions, assume Hachem calls.

[Exitonly]

i'm cheecking this down unless i hit a set.

[Huskiez]

The reason I made this poll is because when watching, I was really surprised when Hachem just flat called when it came back to him. I thought for sure he would reraise. However, Dannenmann's call may have been a little worrying to him. Or maybe he wanted to maximize his chance of moving up the money ladder.

And I don't really understand this whole business of checking it down. If there was no player all in, I am sure he would have gotten more chips in the pot at some point. Is it really worth it to check it down to move up the ladder? What if Dannenmann hits a free card you gave him and wins this huge pot? It seems this has become the standard play, and it happened several times in this year's WSOP. But to me it seems like a huge mistake, similar to folding a premium hand on the bubble.

Thoughts?

[ QUOTE ]
The reason I made this poll is because when watching, I was really surprised when Hachem just flat called when it came back to him. I thought for sure he would reraise. However, Dannenmann's call may have been a little worrying to him. Or maybe he wanted to maximize his chance of moving up the money ladder.

And I don't really understand this whole business of checking it down. If there was no player all in, I am sure he would have gotten more chips in the pot at some point. Is it really worth it to check it down to move up the ladder? What if Dannenmann hits a free card you gave him and wins this huge pot? It seems this has become the standard play, and it happened several times in this year's WSOP. But to me it seems like a huge mistake, similar to folding a premium hand on the bubble.

Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

In addition to the fact that playing it passively lets him move up the ladder, playing it aggressively is only good if he 1) gets called and beats the D guy or 2) gets a fold and beats the shorty.

[Arnett23]

You check it down because, say if Tex had queens, Hachem bets out at the flop and third guy folds, turn is a 7, Hachem possibly costs himself a few million dollars.

[DDBeast]

[ QUOTE ]
You check it down because, say if Tex had queens, Hachem bets out at the flop and third guy folds, turn is a 7, Hachem possibly costs himself a few million dollars.

[/ QUOTE ]
...and if Tex doesn't have queens he probably cost himself a few million dollars by letting that 7 hit and Dan wins that huge pot. Got to bet.

[Arnett23]

No, he doesn't cost himself anything, he gains a couple million because 1 person is eliminated.

[Jman28]

[ QUOTE ]
i'm cheecking this down unless i hit a set.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would push preflop when it got back around to me, and I would bet the flop as it played out. Actually, I'd bet the flop if I were Danneman too. Am I way off here?

If you want first prize here I think you need to raise all in preflop. If you let Dannenman win this pot he becomes chip leader. I'm prepared to go all in here, the only bad point being if I'm called and I loose to Dannenman and he looses to Barch (not likely). JJ is a great hand 3 handed and likely to be the best hand here. Dannenman probably wants to check down and take 2nd place. I'm not going to let him. He probably already thinks he has 2nd. He isn't going to want to call an all in unless he has a monster.

and if he does have had the monster? then hachem wouldve cost himself 3 mil dollars? bit costly for a hand

[ QUOTE ]
and if he does have had the monster? then hachem wouldve cost himself 3 mil dollars? bit costly for a hand

[/ QUOTE ]

If he does he does. The chance he doesn't seems high enough for this play to be the right one in my book. All potential hands are costly on the final table of WSOP. Don't look it at as $3 million look at it as say $30 difference and the decision becomes easier.

[PFrese]

Guys - please stop spreading any kind of misinformation on the correct strategy here - there is only one correct answer - calling and checking it down.

THIS IS FUNDEMENTAL TOURNEMENT POKER - When a short stack is all in, anyone else in the hand MUST CHECK IT DOWN, unless you have the stone cold nuts. Please do a search on IMPLIED COLLUSION (also in HOH, and TPFAP and THFAP) and study it.

If Hachem or Dannennman bets here, they run the risk of pushing the other off of the winning hand and allowing Tex to win the pot and then they are all even again. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HORRIBLE!!! Whether Hachem or Dannen wins the hand is irrelevant, it ONLY matters that Tex DOES NOT WIN.

I play a lot of MTTs and SNGs, and I see this mistake all the time by newbie donkeys. They bet, push the winner off his hand and then they lose to the all in player allowing him to stay in the game. HUGE MISTAKE.

Check it down, keep everone in the pot, and eliminate the short stack. Learn it, live it, love it.

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]
Guys - please stop spreading any kind of misinformation on the correct strategy here - there is only one correct answer - calling and checking it down.

THIS IS FUNDEMENTAL TOURNEMENT POKER - When a short stack is all in, anyone else in the hand MUST CHECK IT DOWN, unless you have the stone cold nuts. Please do a search on IMPLIED COLLUSION (also in HOH, and TPFAP and THFAP) and study it.

If Hachem or Dannennman bets here, they run the risk of pushing the other off of the winning hand and allowing Tex to win the pot and then they are all even again. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HORRIBLE!!! Whether Hachem or Dannen wins the hand is irrelevant, it ONLY matters that Tex DOES NOT WIN.

I play a lot of MTTs and SNGs, and I see this mistake all the time by newbie donkeys. They bet, push the winner off his hand and then they lose to the all in player allowing him to stay in the game. HUGE MISTAKE.

Check it down, keep everone in the pot, and eliminate the short stack. Learn it, live it, love it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets say Dannenman has AK and Hachem has JJ. He has a hand with legitimate showdown value and he does not want to give Dannenman two free cards to draw to 6 outs.

The "MUST CHECK IT DOWN RULE" comes into play when discussing bluffing. You should never bet with a hand that has no chance of winning the pot because obviously that would keep the short guy in. But the payout structure is so steep here that it's much more crucial that Hachem gives himself the best chance to win the pot.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
IMPLIED COLLUSION

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I would bet this everytime, as far as I can tell checking is a very bad mistake, I might even go in preflop (in fact probably if the opportunity arose).

Mack

[Sluss]

I was kind of shocked he didn't re-raise all-in pre-flop. However, once he just calls preflop he has to check it down there unless he improves.

[MrMoo]

Funny how I was recently reading THFAP and Sklansky explicitely says that checking it down is usually wrong.

[PFrese]

Guys -

I respectfully disagree. It does not matter to Hachem or dannenman if they win that pot or not, it ONLY matters that Tex gets eliminated. The pot was only 15M, if Hachem loses he has 25M to daannen's 37M. If Tex wins, he and Dannen are tied. So, if you are Dannen, you definitely want Hachem in. If you are Hachem, you want Dannen in, just in case Tex has AK, and say the board comes up 4A5T6. You need that extra hand, just in case Tex's overcards hit.

here is the deinition and explination of implicit collusion (I thought it was implied, sorry).


[ QUOTE ]
In implicit collusion, all opponents come to an independent agreement--that is, without consulting among each other--to all play in such a way as to minimize the chance of the player with the best hand winning the pot. For example, in a hold 'em tournament, a small stack may go all in and get called by one or more players with larger stacks. Those players collectively have a better chance of beating the all-in player than any does individually, and they may check down the hand till the end, that is, with no one making a bet that might drive anyone else out. The all-in player may have the best hand and be the favorite against any one of the others, but collectively, the remaining players have a better chance against the all-in player, and if they all understand--even though nothing is ever said to that effect--that all will check the hand down, that is implied collusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

This can be applied to snapping off bluffs in a cash game, but that is a different deal (trying to bluff one player is easier than bluffing many). And also, in a cash game, this is the wrong play, since the all in player can rebuy. THIS IS A TOURNEMENT STRATEGY ONLY.

This paramount issue here is you want many players to go up against the small stack so that you have the best COLLECTIVE chance of knocking him out. ESPECIALLY, since by him getting knocked out, Hachem and Dannen each got an extra 2Million bucks!

[bugstud]

[ QUOTE ]
And I don't really understand this whole business of checking it down. If there was no player all in, I am sure he would have gotten more chips in the pot at some point. Is it really worth it to check it down to move up the ladder? What if Dannenmann hits a free card you gave him and wins this huge pot? It seems this has become the standard play, and it happened several times in this year's WSOP. But to me it seems like a huge mistake, similar to folding a premium hand on the bubble.

Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

you also don't get 5.6 million in preflop either. Once he flat calls preflop, his best course is clearly to call.

1. Payout jumps indicate that getting the third guy out ia huge boost

2. Barch to me seemed to me, at least, to be much more dangerous. Keeping dannemann in increases the chance barch is gone and you're HU with a presumably worse player.

if there were 5-6 people left, hachem shoves preflop on his second decision point. With these circumstances though, calling is clearly best.

for those peopl saying "blah blah blah, dannemann hits a 7"...what if barch actually has a better overpair? or flopped a set? you need those outs. He gets to draw if he's behind regardless.

[TheBlueMonster]

[ QUOTE ]
Guys - please stop spreading any kind of misinformation on the correct strategy here - there is only one correct answer - calling and checking it down.

THIS IS FUNDEMENTAL TOURNEMENT POKER - When a short stack is all in, anyone else in the hand MUST CHECK IT DOWN, unless you have the stone cold nuts. Please do a search on IMPLIED COLLUSION (also in HOH, and TPFAP and THFAP) and study it.

If Hachem or Dannennman bets here, they run the risk of pushing the other off of the winning hand and allowing Tex to win the pot and then they are all even again. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HORRIBLE!!! Whether Hachem or Dannen wins the hand is irrelevant, it ONLY matters that Tex DOES NOT WIN.

I play a lot of MTTs and SNGs, and I see this mistake all the time by newbie donkeys. They bet, push the winner off his hand and then they lose to the all in player allowing him to stay in the game. HUGE MISTAKE.

Check it down, keep everone in the pot, and eliminate the short stack. Learn it, live it, love it.

[/ QUOTE ]
agree completely. There's 2 million dollars at stake here. Don't get caught up on "what if Dannenman becomes chip leader." The 15 million in that pot wouldn't make either player such an overwhelming chip leader especially with the blind size etc.

[locutus2002]

Hachem should push the flop and its not even close.

If this were a $50 SNG paying 52%/30%/18% this hand wouldn't get a reply.

Dannenmann should fold all hands behind JJ which still have substantial equity in the pot because it will reduce the variance of his outcome.

If Dannenmann has the JJ beaten (bigger pair: unlikely 18 hands out of 100 or more) then its unlikely that Barch will win the pot so Hachem will most likely come 2nd.

Can you cooperate to eliminate a player? It depends on the situation, but don't kid yourself and say your playing to win the tournament. The 18M chips in the middle are worth alot.

Checking it down is RARELY the correct strategy. That being said, I think this is one of those rare cases. With a nearly $2 million pay jump, clearly the most +EV move is to get Tex Barch out. If there were five players left instead of three, then you would have to bet, especially with the flat pay increases until third. Also, Dannenmann is clearly the least skilled of the three players, giving him all those chips is not as dangerous as making Barch whole again. A lot of people on this forum react to TV poker as if the players know each other's cards. What if Dannenman had AK and Barch had QQ or something like that. Then betting is a HORRIBLE move for Hachem.

[Huskiez]

There are certain pros and cons to keeping Dannenmann in there and agreeing to implicit collusion. You can either maximize the chance of winning the pot or maximize the chance of knocking a player out. I think that, for the purposes of winning the tournament, the former is a more important aim.

Here is another problem with implicit collusion in this case. Using the definition supplied by PFrese:

[ QUOTE ]
In implicit collusion, all opponents come to an independent agreement--that is, without consulting among each other--to all play in such a way as to minimize the chance of the player with the best hand winning the pot. For example, in a hold 'em tournament, a small stack may go all in and get called by one or more players with larger stacks. Those players collectively have a better chance of beating the all-in player than any does individually, and they may check down the hand till the end, that is, with no one making a bet that might drive anyone else out. The all-in player may have the best hand and be the favorite against any one of the others, but collectively, the remaining players have a better chance against the all-in player, and if they all understand--even though nothing is ever said to that effect--that all will check the hand down, that is implied collusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hachem has to suspect that in a three handed game, the chances of his JJ being the best hand is extremely high. But implicit collusion minimizes the chance of the best hand winning. If he reraises the first time after Dannenmann calls, he greatly improves his pot equity and therefore chance to win the hand.

A lot of posters have mentioned that Hachem can get an extra guaranteed 2 million by keeping Dannenmann in and knocking Barch out. But he can still get that by knocking out Dannenmann and knocking out Barch himself. And while everyone is quick to point out what if Dannenmann > Barch > Hachem at showdown, what about when Dannenmann > Hachem > Barch?

The latter will probably happen more often because Hachem > Barch preflop (almost always). Also when Dannenmann has a lower pocket.

The former will happen more often when both Dannenmann and Barch have an ace and an ace hits the board.

As durron597 mentioned, another important factor here is that Hachem's hand has legitimate showdown value. If he had T9s, I can understand softplaying it, mainly because in that case, he almost certainly does not have the best hand. Those advocating softplay here, would you also do the same with AA and KK?

If anyone has a link to an article or citation in a book that elucidates the situation, I would love to hear it.

[PFrese]

[ QUOTE ]
Those advocating softplay here, would you also do the same with AA and KK?

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely. The only time I would advocate coming out of "softplay" mode is with the stone cold nuts. AA or KK is not the nuts. It is afterall, just one pair. No one argues that JJ is not a very powerful hand, but it aint the nuts and can be beat by a whole range of hands. How many times have we seen the all in short stack suck out two pair with say K6 on a board of K6xxx, and stay in the game? Happens all the time. Hachem needed Dannenman to make sure tex was gone.

The object in this hand is NOT TO WIN THE POT. It is to knock out the short stack.

TO illustrate, lets change the hands and board around -

Hachem has JJ
Tex has AA
Dannen has 66

Same preflop action. Tex allin. Hachem and dannen call.

FLOP - T32

Hachem pushes, Dannen folds being fearful of the K and not wanting to risk it all, folds. Hachem flips over jacks, Tex flips the aces and Hachem wants to throw up.

Turn is an 8 and river is a six!!

If Hachem had checked it down, tex is knocked out and he makes an extra two million. But, instead, he has 25M and the other two have about 15M each, and he has a real dog fight on his hands.

I think what is clouding everyones thinking on this is that you saw everyones hands during the hand and you saw how the hand played out. You are being a little results oriented here.

[locutus2002]

[ QUOTE ]
... clearly the most +EV move is to get Tex Barch out.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong. Expected Value in the long run is that the jacks are the best hand and betting them will win the most.

There is no evidence that Hachem is a better player than Dannenmann.

What if ... has nothing to do with either players range of hands. I do not know what happened in the hand. Hachem is ahead against both players range.

[PFrese]

[ QUOTE ]
This is wrong. Expected Value in the long run is that the jacks are the best hand and betting them will win the most.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does not matter at this stage in the tourney.


[ QUOTE ]
... Hachem is ahead against both players range.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does not matter at this stage in the tourney.

You guys are thinking about this like it is a cash game where the obeject is to win the most money/bets from your opposition. That is NOT this case here. The object is to knock out the short stack. Period. Who wins THIS pot is irrelevant (as long as it aint Tex).

BTW - if it were a cash game, I would defnitely push on the flop. Do you see why?? /images/graemlins/smile.gif (sorry could not resist).

[ajmargarine]

[ QUOTE ]
Expected Value in the long run is that...

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, this made me LOL. This isn't a NL100 cash game.

[Arnett23]

[ QUOTE ]
Lets say Dannenman has AK and Hachem has JJ. He has a hand with legitimate showdown value and he does not want to give Dannenman two free cards to draw to 6 outs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Same scenario, except barch has AQ, now hachem bets dannenmean out of the pot and the A hits the turn. Wouldn't you be feeling a bit foolish? Tex Barch seemed to be the toughest player at the table, I would much rather play at a slight chip disadvantage against dannenman than 3 way with the tougher player still in.

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Those advocating softplay here, would you also do the same with AA and KK?

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely. The only time I would advocate coming out of "softplay" mode is with the stone cold nuts. AA or KK is not the nuts. It is afterall, just one pair. No one argues that JJ is not a very powerful hand, but it aint the nuts and can be beat by a whole range of hands. How many times have we seen the all in short stack suck out two pair with say K6 on a board of K6xxx, and stay in the game? Happens all the time. Hachem needed Dannenman to make sure tex was gone.

The object in this hand is NOT TO WIN THE POT. It is to knock out the short stack.

TO illustrate, lets change the hands and board around -

Hachem has JJ
Tex has AA
Dannen has 66

Same preflop action. Tex allin. Hachem and dannen call.

FLOP - T32

Hachem pushes, Dannen folds being fearful of the K and not wanting to risk it all, folds. Hachem flips over jacks, Tex flips the aces and Hachem wants to throw up.

Turn is an 8 and river is a six!!

If Hachem had checked it down, tex is knocked out and he makes an extra two million. But, instead, he has 25M and the other two have about 15M each, and he has a real dog fight on his hands.

I think what is clouding everyones thinking on this is that you saw everyones hands during the hand and you saw how the hand played out. You are being a little results oriented here.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is such a results oriented example. How about this one. Say that Dannenman has AK, and Barch has 66. Hachem bets, Dannenman folds, and the river is a King! Suddenly Hatchem wins the 15 million chips (1/3 of all chips in play) and has a 3:1 chip advantage over Dannenman going into HU play. If he doesn't bet, Dannenman has a 3:2 chip advantage the other way. That's a HUGE $EV difference, given the $3.25 million dollar difference between first and second.

With your example, Barch has 15 million chips, and Hatchem has 23 million and Dannenman has 17 million. Hatchem is still in good shape to win here too. Why risk Dannenman winning the hand when even if you lose to Barch you are still in good shape, and if you beat Barch you increase the amount of time you have a massive chip lead going into HU!

[ismisus]

Checking down is probably EV-, but its not like this was an online tourney where if a miracle hits you can always play the next sit-n-go. This is life-changing money, this is not kiddie games!

You can even say that all players at the final table were underbankrolled to make EV+ decisions. I am sure the jump from 3rd to 2nd place was more than the net worth of those two guys combined. There's no way in hell I would not check jacks here. What if Danneman has AK, and Tex has QQ, why would I risk 2.5 million of REAL money on a hand that I am not even guaranteed to win. For sure its EV+ in a normal tourney situation, but its not that much EV+ to risk 2.5 million dollars

[PFrese]

Durron - I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this one! :-)

You are essentially arguing that it is more important to win the chips than it is to knock out the short stack. I am arguing that is is more important to knock out the short stack than win the pot.

I want to eliminate the SS at all costs. If I could GIVE danneman the pot and eliminate the Tex, I would in a second!

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]
Durron - I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this one! :-)

You are essentially arguing that it is more important to win the chips than it is to knock out the short stack. I am arguing that is is more important to knock out the short stack than win the pot.

I want to eliminate the SS at all costs. If I could GIVE danneman the pot and eliminate the Tex, I would in a second!

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad you are willing to sacrifice what amounts to probably about a million bucks (ballpark) in $EV just to guarantee that you don't bust in third when you have a substantial chip lead. Yes, it's THAT not close.

I bet you're one of those guys that folds his way into small money in every tournament and busts shortly afterwards.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
... clearly the most +EV move is to get Tex Barch out.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong. Expected Value in the long run is that the jacks are the best hand and betting them will win the most.

There is no evidence that Hachem is a better player than Dannenmann.

What if ... has nothing to do with either players range of hands. I do not know what happened in the hand. Hachem is ahead against both players range.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tournament EV and Cash game EV are two different things. Usually they are the same, but in this case they are not. This is actually an interesting question because there is obviously a point where the "implied collusion" play goes from +EV to -EV (Tourney EV that is). This question is closer than I first thought. Out of the two "bad" outcomes that can arise for Hachem this hand.

1. Barch wins main pot (all three approx. even in chips)
2. Dannenman wins main pot, Barch eliminated. Hachem heads up down 2-1 in chips.
3. Hachem wins main pot, Barch eliminated (heads up with 2-1 chip lead).

The gap in tourney EV between outcomes 1 and 2 is MUCH greater than the gap between 2 and 3. So I believe the checkdown is the best play to maximize the chance that outcome 1 doesn't happen. If this were a cash game, outcome 1 would be no worse than outcome 2 so clearly betting would be the correct play. Also, like I said earlier, if there were two more players left, the chips would be more important than the player being eliminated.

[Huskiez]

So because it seemed we could go in circles ad infinitum, I decided to use Pokerstove, put in some hand ranges, and figure out Hachem’s equity in each situation.

I used the following ranges:

Barch: 66+, A2s+, KJs+, ATo+, KQo
Dannenmann: 55+, A2s+, KTs+, QJs, JTs, A8o+, KJo+

I gave Dannenmann a looser range for two reasons:
1. He is not as tight as Barch
2. He probably wants to knock out another player like many of you are advocating and is hoping Hachem will call and they can check it down.

Part One: Hachem softplays his JJ.

From Pokerstove, E(H) = .459, E(D) = .256, E(B) = .284.

.459 of the time, H has 39.995m chips, D has 16.35m.
.256 of the time, H has 23.045m, D has 33.3m.
.284 of the time, H has 23.045m, D has 16.35m, B has 16.95m.

I used the following model to calculate $EV:
Guaranteed money + (% of chips in play * difference of guaranteed prize from first prize).

For example, if H wins this pot, then
$EV(H) = 4.25m + (39.995/56.345 * 3.25m) = 6.56m.

If B wins this pot, then
$EV(H) = 2.5m + (23.045/56.345 * 5m) = 4.54m.

If D wins the pot, then
$EV(H) = 4.25m + (23.045/56.345 * 3.25m) = 5.58m.

Then overall, when Hachem decides to softplay,
$EV(H) = .459 * 6.56m + .284 * 4.54m + .256 * 5.58m = 5.729m.

OK, one part done.

Part 2: Hachem plays aggressively

Now let’s assume Hachem reraises all in. For Dannenmann to call, he will need a premium hand. Let’s say he would call with the following hands: AA, KK, QQ, and AK.

For the hand range given, he will have
QQ+, AK 34 ways (6*3 + 16)
55-JJ, A2s+ (-AKs), KTs+, QJs, JTs, A8o+ (-AKo), KJo+ 185 ways (6*6 + 1 + 4*16 + 12*7)

Or a premium hand 34/219 times, or 15.5% of the time.

First, let’s look at when he does not have one of those hands and folds. Then Hachem is heads up against Barch. In this case, E(H) = .612, E(B) = .389.

.612 of the time, H has 39.995m chips, D has 16.35m.
.389 of the time, H has 23.045m, D has 16.35m, B has 16.95m.

$EV(H) = 5.781m.

Now what about when Dannenmann does have a premium hand?

For the main pot, E(H) = .306, E(D) = .479, E(B) = .215.
For the side pot, E(H) = .362, E(D) = .638.

.479 of the time, H has 6.695m chips, D has 49.65m.
.306 of the time, H has 56.345m.
.078 of the time (when Barch wins, and Hachem wins the side pot), H has 39.395m, B has 16.95m.
.137 of the time (when Barch wins, and Dannenmann wins the side pot), H has 6.695m, D has 32.7m, B has 16.95m.

$EV(H) = 5.453m.

So then overall, when Hachem decides to play aggressively preflop,
$EV(H) = .845 * 5.781m + .155 * 5.453m = 5.729m.

In other words, this is way too close to call.

I will admit that I was very surprised when the $EV for playing aggressively wasn’t definitively higher.

Keep in mind I am a cash game player, so I don’t really know whether the $EV model I used was the best.

Any thoughts or reactions to my calculations would be appreciated. But please try to minimize the number of “Dude, Dannenmann is NOT calling A2s there. He’s not an idiot.” I guess the most controversial point will be whether he calls AK and QQ. He called an all in against Black with AK earlier, but I realize that wasn’t a dry side pot. I also realize that Barch isn't going to push A6s there every time. But keep in mind that he may not push AA there every time and instead try to win a big pot by trapping or by raising less than all in preflop.

Of course, this doesn't put any light on the postflop play, but that's for another day.

[locutus2002]

No, this is the final table of the WSOP. Show me that cooperating is going to win more money.

It depends substantially on Dannenmann's range of hands to call the push. I estimate that it costs Hachem $2000 in $EV for each hand that Dannenmann has in his range above 80 hands (roughly 99-AA,AK,AQ,KQs,AJs). So if Dannenmann's range is more speculative (which I think it is) Hachem gives up:
$200,000 for a moderate range
$400,000 for a loose range

His EV is about $5.5M so Hachem gives up about ~3.5% to 7% in $EV.

Certainly you wouldn't do this in a cash game (if I ever played one)
Nor would you do this in a SNG

Can you give up 3.5% to 7% EV to have a better chance to fold up a notch in the WSOP? Very player dependent. But not a winning move.

Anyone care to see the calculations PM me they are complicated.

My basic assumptions are:

$EV using ICM
Dannenmann only calls push with AA-QQ.
Barch's Pushing range is { AA-55, AKs-ATs, KQs, AKo-AJo, KQo }
Barch's average hand contains 1 card that is an ace,king, or queen.

[SoloAJ]

[ QUOTE ]

My basic assumptions are:

$EV using ICM
Dannenmann only calls push with AA-QQ.
Barch's Pushing range is { AA-55, AKs-ATs, KQs, AKo-AJo, KQo }
Barch's average hand contains 1 card that is an ace,king, or queen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well...apparnatly Barch's range is much more, since the move was made with A6o...So....

[locutus2002]

its much more dependent on Dannenmann's range to call the PF push.

[Exitonly]

[ QUOTE ]
THIS IS FUNDEMENTAL TOURNEMENT POKER - When a short stack is all in, anyone else in the hand MUST CHECK IT DOWN, unless you have the stone cold nuts.

[/ QUOTE ]


it depends on when this is happeneing, people expect it to happen any time there is a short stack alline. In this particular situation, there were MILLIONS of dollars on the line, so whatever the course of actino to get Barch out is the best way. But people get in a hissy fit all the time online when someone doesnt check it down everytime, and it's used way too much.

[mlagoo]

[ QUOTE ]
THIS IS FUNDEMENTAL TOURNEMENT POKER - When a short stack is all in anyone else in the hand MUST CHECK IT DOWN, unless you have the stone cold nuts.

[/ QUOTE ]

i seriously thought you were being sarcastic here. /images/graemlins/grin.gif but then you weren't /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[tpir90036]

[ QUOTE ]
THIS IS FUNDEMENTAL TOURNEMENT POKER - When a short stack is all in, anyone else in the hand MUST CHECK IT DOWN, unless you have the stone cold nuts.

[/ QUOTE ]
Normally checking it down makes sense. But the part about needing the stone cold buts is silly. There was 15M in the pot. If Hachem has the best hand and Dannenmann has live overcards getting him out is a very big deal when more than 1/4th of all the chips in play are sitting out there...even if doing so somehow keeps the short stack alive.

[gergery]

Paul Philliips says bet it, baby (http://www.livejournal.com/users/extempore/), bet it.

-g

[Huskiez]

Paul Philliips says bet it, baby , bet it.

[ QUOTE ]
On barch's elimination hand danenman open-raised with 77 and hachem bravely flat called with JJ, leading barch to jam with A6. I might have posted about this before but after danenman flat called the all-in I think hachem made a huge mistake by not jamming and getting heads-up. It would have been so sweet if danenman had bet hachem out of the pot when the queen hit the turn and promoted his pair over barch's ace-high. Oh how I hope if I'm ever playing for $7.5M that everyone thinks we have an agreement not to bet without monsters in elimination situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. Initially (when I made this post) I was thinking the same thing. But after going through the math it doesn't appear to be nearly as clear any more.

I agree with him that it would have been hilarious if Dannenmann had broken the implicit collusion pact and bet on the turn, thereby winning the main pot.

[mlagoo]

i would call preflop and bet the flop.

[locutus2002]

look up ICM calculator on google.

Poker is a game of small percentages, you can't round the EV like that.

I have the softplay at 5.5M$ for Hachem.

You have about 360+ hands in Dannenmann's range: that's pretty loose.

I doubt Dannenmann calls AK.

[Exitonly]

[ QUOTE ]
Barch: 66+, A2s+, KJs+, ATo+, KQo
Dannenmann: 55+, A2s+, KTs+, QJs, JTs, A8o+, KJo+

[/ QUOTE ]

Ranges don't make that much sense.. If he's pushing A2s he's pushing worse than A8o, Same with Dannenman.

[gergery]

[ QUOTE ]
Paul Philliips says bet it, baby , bet it.

[ QUOTE ]
On barch's elimination hand danenman open-raised with 77 and hachem bravely flat called with JJ, leading barch to jam with A6. I might have posted about this before but after danenman flat called the all-in I think hachem made a huge mistake by not jamming and getting heads-up. It would have been so sweet if danenman had bet hachem out of the pot when the queen hit the turn and promoted his pair over barch's ace-high. Oh how I hope if I'm ever playing for $7.5M that everyone thinks we have an agreement not to bet without monsters in elimination situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. Initially (when I made this post) I was thinking the same thing. But after going through the math it doesn't appear to be nearly as clear any more.

I agree with him that it would have been hilarious if Dannenmann had broken the implicit collusion pact and bet on the turn, thereby winning the main pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I liked your analysis and mostly agree -- i think its very close.

Only nitpicks would be -- 1) I think Barch was probably a significantly tougher competitor for Hachem than Danneman was -- meaning the value in eliminating him makes his equity significantly stronger in those scenarios, and 2) for most people, the utility value of money goes up more at lower amounts, meaning that the difference in value to Hachem between 5 million and 2.5 million is likely to be more than the value between 7.5 million and 5 million, to use a simplified example.

Also, its very possibly that he was able to narrow either Danneman's or Barch's range down further here based on tells or the way they were playing, and as such be able to make a better decision once the flop came.

-g

[jwvdcw]

I think many of you are failing to consider that Hachem probably considered Barch his greatest obstacle since Dannenman was just an amateur. Getting Barch, another pro, out was huge.

[PFrese]

[ QUOTE ]

I bet you're one of those guys that folds his way into small money in every tournament and busts shortly afterwards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Durron - no need to be jerk. I have respected you and your opinion, even though I think you are incorrect. The point of 2+2 is to debate these things so that we can all get better. Why do you want to start making this personal? As for my MTT track record, I have several wins and many final table appearances. Maybe that is why I am so sure that this strategy is correct!

Also, it is not a +EV or -EV problem to solve. We are talking FINAL TABLE strategy here. +EV and -EV are useful over the LONG RUN. In this case, THERE IS NO LONG RUN at the final table of the WSOP!! And, if you read a few posts up, you will see where the math proved that this was too close to call even over the long run. So your asertion that "Yes, it's THAT not close.", is simply incorrect. Even the math bears out to be too close to call.

Lets say I am given one of these choices:

Choice A:
20% of the time, win nothing
60% of the time, win $2
20% of the time, win $5
(EV $2.20)

Choice B:
40% of the time, win nothing
20% of the time, win $2
40% of the time, win $5
(EV $2.40)

I pick B. Multiply the amounts by 1 million and give me the choice once in my life, and I pick A.

For nearly $2 million in the hand, I'll check it down and give Dannenman a shot to outdraw me.

[locutus2002]

I saw the hand on TV last night.

I ran the calculations to figure out how EV- the cooperation play was and I still get about 3% EV- for Hachem to check it down against Barch's and Dannenmann's ranges. ~ $200,000 $EV- assuming Dannenmann cooperates all the way otherwise its much more $EV-. I urge you to do this calculation if its not intuitively obvious to you and you can't get to the number (clearly slightly EV-).

I suppose many players will give up EV to fold up the most important notch in the most important tournament. I could see on their faces as they checked the hand down how they were thinking they wouldn't have to work another day in their lives if they could just fold up another notch.

Given the straightforward way that Dannenmann played, I doubt he would have smooth called Barch's push with QQ-AA. This significant observation leaves only 3 sets that beat Hachem after the flop (9 hands out of ~250-300), so with my limited read its about ~$400,000 EV-.

Overall a very disappointing hand which characterized a very disappointing final table (aside from the fact that I bet on Andrew Black).

It's a shame the prizes are so large and the fields so big that it affects the play. Certainly not world class poker.

[Exitonly]

[ QUOTE ]
We are talking FINAL TABLE strategy here. +EV and -EV are useful over the LONG RUN.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they're useful in the short term too, you just have to know how to calculate/estimate it.

[Exitonly]

[ QUOTE ]
Lets say I am given one of these choices:

Choice A:
20% of the time, win nothing
60% of the time, win $2
20% of the time, win $5
(EV $2.20)



[/ QUOTE ]

Dunno if this was supposed to eb a specific example or not, but if it was, then these percentages are off by quite a bit.

Yeah I know the percentages don't match those in this hand, just trying to show why I wouldn't make the decision just based on EV.

[rbenuck4]

A lot of people are talking about maximizing eliminating Barch, and others are talknig about maximizing winning the tournament. Most aren't realizing that you should try to maximize both. The best way to do this, in my opinion, is to flat call preflop, with the intention of betting the flop if it is benign.

I think the hand range for Dannenman is pretty good. He either has a pocket pair or two high cards. In the case where he has two high cards, you want him in preflop so that if a bunch of overcards hits, he will win versus the range of hands that Barch has. Your hand (JJ), while very good, is vulnerable once the flop hits. The chances of an overcard coming out are well over 50% (i think the real number is close to 60% but i'm not positive). You want Dannenman in to catch those flops to maximize Barch getting eliminated. once the flop comes 10 high and its checked to you, i think its very important at this point to bet to maximize your chances of winning this pot. Your JJ hand is now much stronger than it was preflop, now that you have an overpair and the chances of an overcard coming are greatly reduced, so you have to take the lead and get Dannenman out of the hand.

I think one of the key situations you were hoping for preflop was that Dannenman had a dominating hand over Barch (like AQ or AK). Now that you feel that this flop didn't help Dannenman or Barch, you need to get him out of the hand so you can maximize your chances of winning the hand. You don't want to see a Q or K on the turn, and you especially don't want to see an ace, and you can't let Dannenman see that turn card (or river card for that matter) for free.

[Huskiez]

[ QUOTE ]
Only nitpicks would be -- 1) I think Barch was probably a significantly tougher competitor for Hachem than Danneman was -- meaning the value in eliminating him makes his equity significantly stronger in those scenarios, and 2) for most people, the utility value of money goes up more at lower amounts, meaning that the difference in value to Hachem between 5 million and 2.5 million is likely to be more than the value between 7.5 million and 5 million, to use a simplified example.

Also, its very possibly that he was able to narrow either Danneman's or Barch's range down further here based on tells or the way they were playing, and as such be able to make a better decision once the flop came.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very good points.

The reason I made the thread was not really this exact situation per say, but more so because if I was faced with a similar situation, I wanted to know what to do. I tried not to factor in player ability in my analysis but your point is valid. Barch being a better player than Dannenmann makes a softplay more correct.

Also it's true that $EV does not equate with EU, which would make a softplay more appealing. One thing to keep in mind is that first prize also comes with the bracelet. Aggressive play would increase the chances of placing first and winning the bracelet, as well as placing third.

[Huskiez]

[ QUOTE ]
Well...apparnatly Barch's range is much more, since the move was made with A6o...So....

[/ QUOTE ]

Was it A6o? I thought it was As6s but I could be wrong.

If Barch's hand range is wider, that would make it more correct to play aggressively because Hachem's hand is more dominant against Barch's hand range, and softplay minimizes the chances of the best hand winning.

You say JJ is vulnerable. Well, even AA isn't gonna win every time. Would you bet that? What is the purpose of betting? To make sure that only you or Barch wins the pot? What if you bet and are called? Do you want a side pot?

I really think you all are underestimating Barch as a player. If I check down and discover that Dannenman outdrew me and so going heads-up it's say, 40 mil to 25mil, am I really worried that I won't be able to come back and beat him? If Barch outdrew me, then I have a really tough player with a bunch of chips to play with. Not to even mention moving up in the money by 2 mil in REAL money if EITHER I or Dannenman beat Barch's hand.

Conclusion: Barch has to go. If Dannenman takes the pot, I still feel like the favorite heads-up. If I win the pot, I have a very nice cushion is Dannenman gets a little lucky. If Barch beats out both of us, well, that's poker.

Admittedly, I first thought Hachem's play was WAAAAYYYY wrong, but after reviewing the circumstances, it was by far the best play.

-Gross

[locutus2002]

I was wrong about Dannenmann not wanting to work another day in his life.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/poker/columns/story?columnist=rosenbloom_steve&id=2239158

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
+EV and -EV are useful over the LONG RUN. In this case, THERE IS NO LONG RUN at the final table of the WSOP!!

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a demonstration of extremely confused thinking. If you think "+EV and -EV" are "not useful here", since there is no "long run" at the FT of the WSOP, you have no idea what EV means.

[PFrese]

I may not have the bext understanding of -EV and +EV, but I did read a post yesterday that summed up what I was trying to say. It essentially said --

If we bet on a coin toss, and you agreed to pay me $100,000 for each time it came up heads and I paid you $102,000 for each time it came up tails that would be slighting +EV for you. You would happily take the wager as it is +EV for you.

Now, what if I told you we would only flip the coin ONCE? Would you still take the bet?

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
I may not have the bext understanding of -EV and +EV, but I did read a post yesterday that summed up what I was trying to say. It essentially said --

If we bet on a coin toss, and you agreed to pay me $100,000 for each time it came up heads and I paid you $102,000 for each time it came up tails that would be slighting +EV for you. You would happily take the wager as it is +EV for you.

Now, what if I told you we would only flip the coin ONCE? Would you still take the bet?

[/ QUOTE ]

The answer has to do with the size of my bankroll, and the risks I'm willing to take as a gambler, when facing a clear +EV decision.

The answer has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that there will only be "one coin flip" in this _particular_ game.

[HesseJam]

[ QUOTE ]
2) for most people, the utility value of money goes up more at lower amounts, meaning that the difference in value to Hachem between 5 million and 2.5 million is likely to be more than the value between 7.5 million and 5 million, to use a simplified example.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is the key here. Situations like these are once-in-a-lifetime-events. $EV is clearly the wrong concept here and as we know the chip EV concept would be very wrong here.

It comes only down to Hachem's risk-utility-function. Then a lot of things come into play which we might not be aware of. Maybe he owed somebody a huge amount of money, let's say 2,5 Mio. Then I personally would be happy with a 2nd place and desolated with coming in 3rd. Maybe he had a backing deal where he had to share only up to 3rd place money.

For example, Dannenmann was accused of not using his big stack at the final stages of the tourney and giving away the win. His decision to play a bit too tight in the light of the ICM-model could also well have been very rational.

[HesseJam]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
+EV and -EV are useful over the LONG RUN. In this case, THERE IS NO LONG RUN at the final table of the WSOP!!

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a demonstration of extremely confused thinking. If you think "+EV and -EV" are "not useful here", since there is no "long run" at the FT of the WSOP, you have no idea what EV means.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right, you can use the EV concept here and calculate the $EV. Nonetheless, it is not sufficient as a decision making tool.