What I still don't get

[basshuntr]

Absolutely cracks me up when random internet posters belittle the play of pros (arguably the hottest pro in the world...Daniel) and a 24 yr old wonder kid with millions in winnings, while sitting in their basement in their underwear basing all of their observations on their own experiences playing the very tough $5 + $1 SNG on Party!

Go out and do as well as them in ONE tourney,,,then come back and say how much better you are than them.

[maryfield48]

So there are like, what, a couple hundred people in the whole world who are allowed to analyze & criticize Negreanu's play?

Either the criticism is worthy or it is not - it doesn't matter who makes it.

[legend42]

[ QUOTE ]
You missed the point of the analogy.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you're missing the entire point. Daniel's call was not an ego play (after all, if he's wrong, and especially if he goes on to lose the tournament, his ego figures to take a huge hit- as you are giving him, and I agree the call looks on the surface to be awful).

But upon closer examination, the call makes some sense. There are two hands Williams can have there- a monster or a total bluff, virtually nothing in between. Daniel obviously thought the call was +EV. Your kindergarden analysis of, "how can a guy call 500K with only king high" is completely irrelevant to the actual situation.

[Greeksquared]

I have no idea why you belittle me. I am just critiquing Daniel's play. I think he is one of the best NL players alive.

Would you ever criticize any of Negreanu's play, ever? Its ok to criticize the pros. I just accept the fact that we differ on my pre-first grade analysis. Maybe you can accept me as who I am. I am a man trying to point out faults in someone's game.

I can go on about some horrendous moves I saw Daniel make. For example, during the 2004 WSOP... on TV it appeared that he was giving away his hand with what he said and how his emotions were expressed. To me he clearly gave away his hand on more than one occasion. Like saying "oops" right after he got called on a turn bet.

I could also go on about all his great plays, but its easier to remember the bad plays rather than the good ones.

I think my golf analogy is great and so right on...it should be bookmarked by everyone.

[bolgenmod]

This is a long post, and as I read it again, I really want to say that I'm not trying to kiss any butt by defending anyone's play. I'm just trying to use my (admittedly limited) understanding to see why the players played as they do. I certainly didn't think that either player played flawlessly, but I guess I didn't think that their flaws were quite the same as that of the OP or the respondents.

Here's my thinking, and I welcome corrections/comments on my thoughts.

I guess I understood why DN called the 500,000, although I disagreed with his call, and not just because I could see the holecards. It all goes back to the earlier 100,000 call and even earlier to another tournament.

Now I'm no expert, but I do try to remember how people play. And don't play. And surely DN (who is an expert) DOES remember.

Do you remember the monster bluff DN made against Deeb in the Plaza tourny? As I remember (and I don't remember all the details cause it's been a while since I saw it), DN raised Deeb on the river when Daniel had nothing, Deeb something, and the board was scary. As Deeb thought about calling, Lederer (as commentator) reminded us that a day earlier, Deeb had folded a winning hand in the exact same situation, and DN was at the table. Lederer assumed that DN remembered also and was thus trying to push Deeb out. As indeed happened: Deeb folded, Daniel showed his bluff, and it was the beginning of the end for Deeb. Deeb was annoyed, but afterwards he still said, "you make that bet, and I'm still going to lay it down."

Now, I'm sure I wouldn't have remembered the hand. Or had the cojones to raise with nothing. But that's why I'm a piker, and DN (and Deeb) are winning all the money. But that Plaza hand was in my mind when I watched how DN played at the Borgata.

So back to the Borgata, and the hand that made the 500,000 hand make sense to me. On the earlier hand (the 100,000, not K high hand), DW on the button calls with J9 of spades. DN knocks with A4 off. (Pot is 140,000.) Flop comes up 3JQ (2 diamonds). DN (with A of diamonds) checks, DW makes min bet (60,000), and DN calls. Turn is 6 diamond. Both check. River is J clubs. DN checks. DW bets 100,000. DN thinks, talks, and calls. He actually says, I think you have me beat, but I'm calling just to see your cards.

Now, I saw this as a good call -- before this hand, DN has DW 2 to 1 (about $4 million to $2). The pot is 360,000 before DN's call. Even if DN is beat (which he clearly thinks he is), another 100,000 is TOTALLY worth it, if he can get some more information about how DW plays. It seems very clear to me that DN felt that the 100,000 was worth finding out whether DW was slow playing 1 pair, 2 pair, a flush draw that made it on 4th street. So he loses the pot as he expects -- he's still got 3.5 to 2.5 million. And he's got a better read on what DW is up to. Information, like that about Deeb, that might help him later on.

Not that it does much good. DW plays beautifully and (it must be admitted) gets better cards. (As an aside, I have to say that I really enjoyed watching this: I admire both DN and DW, and I think that DW is a little like the younger DN -- when he gets a little more seasoning, he will be awesome! I wish I were as good as DW, and I'm just a bit older!)

Now the K high hand. No one knows what the chip counts are (due to stupid editing), but based on the last hand (which DW won), it seems they are almost even. DN with K2 off calls on the button, DW with nines knocks. Flop is 663 (2 spades -- DN has K of spades). DW checks, DN checks. Turn is 9 of spades. DW checks, DN bets 60,000 into a 140,000 pot with his second-nut flush draw and overcard. DW raises another 140,000 with his full house. DN quickly calls.

Now if you're going to criticize DN's play, I would say this is the worst call, not the river call. DW has not shown any strength until now. But if you're DN, what are you going to put DW on? Best guess, a pair of nines (for 2 pair). DW has been a very aggressive player. If he had an ace or even a low pair, he probably would have raised before the flop or on the flop. If he had high cards that included a spade, he surely would have bet the flop. An overpair to the flop? Again, probably would have bet the flop. DN probably thought his flush draw and overcard were good. But no matter how good my draw was, I would have to put DW on some kind of made hand, no matter how weak. And thus I don't see calling 140,000 for a 400,000 pot: the pot odds aren't there.

A third 6 comes on the river. DW makes a little under pot sized bet: 500,000. OK, yes, DN should know that he's beat. As I said, DW must have some sort of hand to checkraise the turn. If DW paired his 3 on the flop, even if he's got pocket 2's, he's got DN beat. But DN is a talker -- he says, you don't play like that...

To me, that is the key to his call (and the beauty of DW's play) -- DW has done the fabled changing of the gears (not to be confused with the changing of the guard) by moderately slowplaying his hand. Of course, I've never played with either, but from the crappy tv, it seems that DW is very aggresive, not a slowplaying guy, and DN's comment seems to back that up. DN is clearly unsure. So he calls.

Stupid maybe, and it makes DW 3 to 1 on chips. But let's say DN folded. DW now has $4 to $2 million on DN. Of course 3 to 1 is much better than 2 to 1, but by calling DN has information. Sure, he still gets beat up by DW. And gets cards to beat him in the end. But DN knows.

Now unlike the Plaza, DN gets beat in both hands. But I have to think that despite his losing chips, DN feels like the information was worth it. A lot of the heads-up play (that they showed), it seemed like DW was reading DN like a book. But in the end, DW made a few miscalculations, and DN was sure he was winning.

Was is the "information" calls? Better luck? Probably both, but if I had been in DN's shoes, I would want all the information I could get.

Bad call? Probably. Terrible call -- maybe not.

As for the 8-6 versus 6-6, DN raises before the flop on the button. No problem there. Flop comes KQ2, and DW checks, DN bets. Of course, he's the PF raiser, so he should bet if there's a check. But DW calls. So DN slows down, checking the blank turn after DW checks. After all, why bet? If DW has you beat, he probably would have check-raised the flop. Or the turn. On the river DW pairs his 8s, but DW checks. So why bet? If DW had a 3 or a 2, he wouldn't call a bet. Or would checkraise (which you couldn't call). If he had a K or Q and was slow playing (which DN saw before), he would again checkraise. Or maybe he has a pocket pair like nines, still beating you, but not kings or queens, so of course he would check. So DN checks behind. And ends up winning. DW says he knew that he had DN beat, but doesn't bet. Seems like coffeehousing to me: DW is pretty aggressive, and maybe he should have but iet if he KNEW.

But it sure is easy to KNOW when you see the cards...I'm not criticizing DW by any means, just all of us who love to say we would have played it differently. I certainly do not mean to criticize the OP either. I'm just trying to think about what they thought the other guy might be thinking. And I welcome someone else telling me that my thinking is really full of it....

[FoxwoodsFiend]

For example, I would call Aggie down with K-high most of the time and end up a winner...case in point [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[aggie]

That's what DN thougt when he called DW....What a chump!

[legend42]

Okay, no offense, I'm not trying to belittle you personally, but your anaysis of the play is results oriented, shallow, and way too general IMO.

Here are a few other hands (just among those they showed) from the headsup duel:

David re-raises 250K with Q9 on a A T 6 flop.

David re-raises all-in with Q7 on a J 5 2 flop.

David re-raises 700K with KT on a J 7 4 flop.

400K+ pot on the turn. Board is A 3 K J. David bets 400K with 84o.

500K+ pot on the river. Board is J 7 2 9 4. David pushes all in for more than 1 million chips with K6.

Some of these Daniel picked off, some he folded. The point is that David was more than capable of making that bet with nothing.

Daniel's hand isn't important. When faced with a big pot-sized bet on a board of 6 6 9 3 6 , with the way the action had gone, king high is pretty much the same hand as pocket 7s (if you understand NL poker, you know why). Would you have blamed Daniel if he called with 77?

[Greeksquared]

You forgot to mention daniels hole cards in any of the situations.

I am simply criticizing a bad move. Is it ok that I do this? Seriously, its ok to say he made a mistake. Pros make mistakes all the time. They admit it. His judgement was wrong. By your analysis, you could never criticize a pro. Have you ever done so? Your only argument is saying "results oriented."
Here is an argument you could make. You are basically giving DW a random hand so here is the analysis.

There are 45 choose 2 (990) random hands DW could have at the river. Of these daniel beats 420(I counted) hands and ties 48. This means he loses to 522 random hands. This makes his call slightly positive expected value against a random hand. I just don't see why he chose this hand to make a stand. There are many other factors involved, but I think he made a poor decision.

If you give DN 77 there are only 217 hands that beat him..so no its not the same as having K high.


Daniel also made a horrendous preflop call with A2 against QQ. What does he do when he doesnt flop an ace or 2 deuces.

[Prime Time]

What does your handle mean/ imply?
Just curious as I am of Greek decent in more ways than one.