Re: Wow... we need details on this hand
 

Are you saying you are certain Paul wouldn't do that with QJ or even air given how aggro Jennifer was playing?

Re: Wow... we need details on this hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm looking forward to seeing this one


[/ QUOTE ]

This wasn't at a final table. I doubt it will be televised.

Re: Wow... we need details on this hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying you are certain Paul wouldn't do that with QJ or even air given how aggro Jennifer was playing?

[/ QUOTE ]

No - I have no idea how "aggro" Jennifer was playing, other than the fact that she kept raising Paul's blind in LP, which is probably the case for pretty much every world-class pro in that situation. I said Given the range of {22,99,TT,JJ-AA}, you'd have to have a pretty damn good read to make that laydown. The one piece of information which I have no clue about is Paul's range, which is why I assumed for simplicity basically what seems like the minimum range for anybody going all-in in a spot like that. On the one hand, it could be significantly off because I don't know how he plays - on the other hand, they had comparable stacks and Harman would've left him with a below-average stack if she had called and won, making a bluff less likely, I think.

If you have reason to believe that his range is much wider than that, then you would need less of an accurate read to make the laydown, or could just make the laydown on mathematical grounds.

Re: Wow... we need details on this hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm looking forward to seeing this one


[/ QUOTE ]

This wasn't at a final table. I doubt it will be televised.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rats. You're right - nevermind.

Well it was such an interesting hand, they could at least do some kind of reenactment with cheap actors, don't you think?

*Cut to final table set and swarthy actor in Jennifer Harman wig with bushy cop-mustache*
"I think you've got a set, Paul."
"Maybe I do, Jennifer."
"I also think you're the one who killed my father."
*Jennifer pulls out a gun, fires, and scoops the pot.*

Re: Wow... we need details on this hand
 

There is definitely room for reenactments in televised poker.

Re: Wow... we need details on this hand
 

[ QUOTE ]

I don't think he had any right to expect a laydown of AA, but the fact that he did induce such a laydown demonstrates the power of this move.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do know her aces was the worst hand, right?

Re: Wow... we need details on this hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't think he had any right to expect a laydown of AA, but the fact that he did induce such a laydown demonstrates the power of this move.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do know her aces was the worst hand, right?

[/ QUOTE ]i think he realizes that, do you seee why????

Re: Wow... we need details on this hand
 

All right, I can see that Jennifer might have had an OESD or something. Still, Jennifer's play is more impressive than Paul's here.

Re: Wow... we need details on this hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
All right, I can see that Jennifer might have had an OESD or something. Still, Jennifer's play is more impressive than Paul's here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it was. I was responding to someone who incorrectly contended that Jennifer's play was no big deal because Paul "obviously" had to have a set to make that raise. I'm not sure why you think we disagree that her laydown was very good.

My point could be broken down something like this:

(1) Jennifer could have raised preflop and on the flop with a large number of hands;
(2) Paul's raise forces her to lay down something like 95% of possible holdings;
(3) Paul is well aware of both (1) and (2);
(4) Jennifer is aware that Paul is well aware of both (1) and (2);
(5) and therefore, Jennifer knows that Paul doesn't necessarily need a monster to make this play. Thus, why her laydown was both tough and impressive.

Re: Wow... we need details on this hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's sick...but then again there's a reason that Jennifer Harman is a world class player.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're going to "quote" someone but change their words, please put "FYP" or bold or something. Otherwise you're just misquoting them and misrepresenting what they said.