Re: GG Steve Danneman
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He's a Mortgage Banker/CPA I'm sure he can afford it whether he can play or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

?? Since when does that job = big money?

[/ QUOTE ]


Lots of Mortgage Banker's in this area make $1m+ yearly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mortgage banker is merely a mortgage lender. I just went to several sites and the average salary is approx $45k. I guess like any profession you have a few +9 std dev types that make big money, while the rest drive Hondas.

[/ QUOTE ]

the average salary is likely that low because there are a ton of people who have their license who do one loan a year. If you did a survey of the people who are full time, you would see a much different picture. Trust me, I'm in the industry, and $50-75k months are commonplace. (in this area anyway)

Re: GG Steve Danneman
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hell Kate Hudson's brother went bought in for 10k and lost on the first hand to Sammy Farha. Yeah it was a full house but it was tens full on a AAT board (first hand).

[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't go broke on that hand as well, then you truly are an NLFool.

[/ QUOTE ]

First hand of the WSOP against Sammy. I may lose a bunch but I don't go broke. I played with him and Hansen in 03 and in one hand in particular he flopped trips and with the A kicker and played pretty passively let his opponent bluff but never raised even on the river acting last.

It looks they are there to gamble loosey goosey but when it was deep early on they were fairly passive (maybe a better word is less aggressive) even on some big hands.

Against an unknown I maybe dunzo [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] but not against a top pro who I know isn't likely to go broke here with trips alone on the first hand with 10k chips and with blinds this minute.

EDIT: also it wasn't just AAT board it AATQ I believe. If it got in on the flop not believing someone would hold the A and case T so be it, I understand. But a top pro isn't going broke on an AATQ with trips alone on the first hand.

Re: GG Steve Danneman
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He's a Mortgage Banker/CPA I'm sure he can afford it whether he can play or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

?? Since when does that job = big money?

[/ QUOTE ]


Lots of Mortgage Banker's in this area make $1m+ yearly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mortgage banker is merely a mortgage lender. I just went to several sites and the average salary is approx $45k. I guess like any profession you have a few +9 std dev types that make big money, while the rest drive Hondas.

[/ QUOTE ]

You actually took time to look up information on this meaningless topic?

Re: GG Steve Danneman
 

If you are ever wearing a microphone you do not control, try to remember that anything you say can be recorded and used in anyway the person recording it wants.

Re: GG Steve Danneman
 

[ QUOTE ]
The point was not the time frame during which the call was made, but rather that the call was made at all.

And also, if you listed to his tone during the call it's obvious to anyone who isn't deaf and/or blind that the guy is a tool.

It wouldn't surprise me at all to hear him use the term "Pocket Rockets" or "American Airlines" to describe his pocket Aces.

[/ QUOTE ]

i can't change your opinion of what you consider rude, but i think this is a perfectly acceptable thing to do as long as it isn't slowing down or interrupting play (being hand to hand i don't think it did).

Re: GG Steve Danneman
 

He said "re-raise" when he raised Howard's flop bet. Do we need any more proof he learned everything he knows from watching ESPN?

Re: GG Steve Danneman
 

[ QUOTE ]
He said "re-raise" when he raised Howard's flop bet. Do we need any more proof he learned everything he knows from watching ESPN?

[/ QUOTE ]
Ooh. I forgot about this. For some reason that annoyed me. Kind of like when someone opens the betting and says "I raise."

Re: GG Steve Danneman
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He said "re-raise" when he raised Howard's flop bet. Do we need any more proof he learned everything he knows from watching ESPN?

[/ QUOTE ]
Ooh. I forgot about this. For some reason that annoyed me. Kind of like when someone opens the betting and says "I raise."

[/ QUOTE ]
I see this too often. Mostly when I am playing live. These donks have to learn the difference between a bet and a raise.

Re: GG Steve Danneman
 

[ QUOTE ]

I see this too often. Mostly when I am playing live. These donks have to learn the difference between a bet and a raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are people talking to their computers now?

Re: GG Steve Danneman
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hell Kate Hudson's brother went bought in for 10k and lost on the first hand to Sammy Farha. Yeah it was a full house but it was tens full on a AAT board (first hand).

[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't go broke on that hand as well, then you truly are an NLFool.

[/ QUOTE ]

First hand of the WSOP against Sammy. I may lose a bunch but I don't go broke. I played with him and Hansen in 03 and in one hand in particular he flopped trips and with the A kicker and played pretty passively let his opponent bluff but never raised even on the river acting last.

It looks they are there to gamble loosey goosey but when it was deep early on they were fairly passive (maybe a better word is less aggressive) even on some big hands.

Against an unknown I maybe dunzo [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] but not against a top pro who I know isn't likely to go broke here with trips alone on the first hand with 10k chips and with blinds this minute.

EDIT: also it wasn't just AAT board it AATQ I believe. If it got in on the flop not believing someone would hold the A and case T so be it, I understand. But a top pro isn't going broke on an AATQ with trips alone on the first hand.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yeah, I don't see going broke here with bottom full. Its the first friggin' hand and they got what...500x the BB, lol? Or whatever the level 1 blind is. I know Sammy's a nut sometimes but he isn't pushing or calling all-in for all his chips (I forget the turn action, I know the flop went check-check) with trips or str8 or whatever so kid shudda known better.

Theres really nothing in the pot on the turn. Now all the money goes in and kids got bottom full with AAQ on board. Nah.

Re: GG Steve Danneman
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I don't see going broke here with bottom full. Its the first friggin' hand and they got what...500x the BB, lol? Or whatever the level 1 blind is. I know Sammy's a nut sometimes but he isn't pushing or calling all-in for all his chips (I forget the turn action, I know the flop went check-check) with trips or str8 or whatever so kid shudda known better.

Theres really nothing in the pot on the turn. Now all the money goes in and kids got bottom full with AAQ on board. Nah.


[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't Omaha. Not that easy to fold bottom full. You could easily get action from a straight or trip aces. I assume the pot was raised preflop.

Re: GG Steve Danneman
 

Some of you guys are so good, you could fold the bottom end of a straight flush.

Re: GG Steve Danneman
 

Maybe you're right. El Diablo plays okay and he says its easy to lose all your money here so you're probably right, but I don't see it yet.

"I assume the pot was raised preflop."

Its a headsup raised pot. On the first hand. The flop was checked around. I can't see how its significant that there's $140 or whatever in the pot on the turn. Why did you point this out and how does it support you argument that its worth putting in $10,000 on the turn?

I am going to look at previous posts for the exact action and money in the pot. If you or anyone knows this already (or there has already been a discussion on this entire hand) please let me know.

Re: GG Steve Danneman
 

[ QUOTE ]
Some of you guys are so good, you could fold the bottom end of a straight flush.

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense, but this is a far cry from the FIFTH nut hand on the first hand of the tournament vs. a guy you know feels he's got a big edge over the field. No way is Farha calling all of his chips with just trips (or a straight with a paired board), and no way he is bluffing all of his chips on the first hand of the tournament.

I dunno. I just think it's tough to come up with a reason to risk your entire tournament here with fifth nut hand.

Re: GG Steve Danneman
 

The only way Im losing waaay huge on this is if I bet smallish on the *flop* and sammy comes over the top in a way that makes it look like he's shoving me out.

However, with the TIIIIINY pot, I hope I'd be able to get away. Sammy's not a donk.

Re: GG Steve Danneman
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hell Kate Hudson's brother went bought in for 10k and lost on the first hand to Sammy Farha. Yeah it was a full house but it was tens full on a AAT board (first hand).

[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't go broke on that hand as well, then you truly are an NLFool.

[/ QUOTE ]

First hand of the WSOP against Sammy. I may lose a bunch but I don't go broke. I played with him and Hansen in 03 and in one hand in particular he flopped trips and with the A kicker and played pretty passively let his opponent bluff but never raised even on the river acting last.

It looks they are there to gamble loosey goosey but when it was deep early on they were fairly passive (maybe a better word is less aggressive) even on some big hands.

Against an unknown I maybe dunzo [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] but not against a top pro who I know isn't likely to go broke here with trips alone on the first hand with 10k chips and with blinds this minute.

EDIT: also it wasn't just AAT board it AATQ I believe. If it got in on the flop not believing someone would hold the A and case T so be it, I understand. But a top pro isn't going broke on an AATQ with trips alone on the first hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if it went the other way around and Sammy pushed? You would fold?

Sike.

Re: GG Steve Danneman
 

[ QUOTE ]
Some of you guys are so good, you could fold the bottom end of a straight flush.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure if you are saying that TT played his hand correctly, but it sure sounds that way. How about some hand analysis for old times sake? (I thanked Clarkmeister in person but I never thanked you...I learned a lot from you back in the day and now I get by playing for a living so thanks my life is better because of you. Umm...Can I borrow $500? ) [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: GG Steve Danneman
 

[ QUOTE ]
I dunno. I just think it's tough to come up with a reason to risk your entire tournament here with fifth nut hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see your point AA, QQ, AQ, and AT are a decent percentage of the hands you would expect to be up against a a raised pot. A good player might realize this and avoid going bust.

What did Farha have? AT? Then he put all his money in with the 3rd nuts. Is that so much better than the 5th nuts?

A lot of times you could have a set and only have the 5th nuts on the turn. Say you have 66 and the board is T864. Then you have the 5th nuts. That is still a difficult hand
to get away from.

Re: GG Steve Danneman
 

If you have AT then you flopped the nuts here. The turn Q give you second nuts but since you flopped the nuts you have to go broke since if he has AQ you are just so friggin unlucky on the first hand that you just don't want to play anymore anyways.

Re: GG Steve Danneman
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you have AT then you flopped the nuts here. The turn Q give you second nuts but since you flopped the nuts you have to go broke since if he has AQ you are just so friggin unlucky on the first hand that you just don't want to play anymore anyways.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong AA is the nuts for quads.

Re: GG Steve Danneman
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you have AT then you flopped the nuts here. The turn Q give you second nuts but since you flopped the nuts you have to go broke since if he has AQ you are just so friggin unlucky on the first hand that you just don't want to play anymore anyways.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong AA is the nuts for quads.

[/ QUOTE ]

The flop is AAT, You have AT.

Re: GG Steve Danneman
 

Yeh, he probably overplayed it. But he is a relative of a celebrity not a professional player. People tend to think about the big hand thay have, not what the board may give someone else or how deep the money is.

Re: GG Steve Danneman
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hell Kate Hudson's brother went bought in for 10k and lost on the first hand to Sammy Farha. Yeah it was a full house but it was tens full on a AAT board (first hand).

[/ QUOTE ]



If you don't go broke on that hand as well, then you truly are an NLFool.

[/ QUOTE ]

First hand of the WSOP against Sammy. I may lose a bunch but I don't go broke. I played with him and Hansen in 03 and in one hand in particular he flopped trips and with the A kicker and played pretty passively let his opponent bluff but never raised even on the river acting last.

It looks they are there to gamble loosey goosey but when it was deep early on they were fairly passive (maybe a better word is less aggressive) even on some big hands.

Against an unknown I maybe dunzo [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] but not against a top pro who I know isn't likely to go broke here with trips alone on the first hand with 10k chips and with blinds this minute.

EDIT: also it wasn't just AAT board it AATQ I believe. If it got in on the flop not believing someone would hold the A and case T so be it, I understand. But a top pro isn't going broke on an AATQ with trips alone on the first hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if it went the other way around and Sammy pushed? You would fold?

Sike.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Sammy pushed The Flop AAT and I have TT I probably go broke but that's not the way Sammy would play it, first hand of the ME. The dynamics greatly change when it comes AATQ and I hold TT. My main mistake was saying that he went broke on a AAT board without including the facts that it was on the turn on a AATQ board.

Re: GG Steve Danneman
 

Can we please not get distracted from the real issue here, namely that Steve Daneman is a tool.

Re: GG Steve Danneman
 

[ QUOTE ]
Can we please not get distracted from the real issue here, namely that Steve Daneman is a tool.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah he is a tool. But I'm sure if I ever get my 1 min of TV you'll all be saying the same thing. Tool or not whatever 1/2 of 2nd place money would make him one happy retired tool.

Re: GG Steve Danneman
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can we please not get distracted from the real issue here, namely that Steve Daneman is a tool.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah he is a tool. But I'm sure if I ever get my 1 min of TV you'll all be saying the same thing. Tool or not whatever 1/2 of 2nd place money would make him one happy retired tool.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah, you'd be a fool ... an NJfool.

Re: GG Steve Danneman
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you have AT then you flopped the nuts here. The turn Q give you second nuts but since you flopped the nuts you have to go broke since if he has AQ you are just so friggin unlucky on the first hand that you just don't want to play anymore anyways.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong AA is the nuts for quads.

[/ QUOTE ]


If he has AA, when I have AT, and the board is AAQT, that's a lot of aces [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

the nuts:

AQ
AT
QQ
TT

Re: GG Steve Danneman
 

[ QUOTE ]
If he has AA, when I have AT, and the board is AAQT, that's a lot of aces

the nuts:

AQ
AT
QQ
TT

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to pick fly sh*t out of pepper here, but from the victim's perspective (which is really all that matters here), he had the fifth nut hand behind AA, QQ, AT, and AQ.

My only point was that I COULD (and, to be honest, WOULD) get away from this hand in this spot. I was surprised to hear Diablo (and Betgo) saying that it was so tough a spot as to be VERY tough to get away from. It has made me reassess a little bit. Doing a weak-tight check of myself.

Which is, of course, one of the things that makes 2+2 the nuts.

Re: GG Steve Danneman
 

It would be possible not to go entirely broke on this hand, but you're going to lose a LOT of chips. Even if there's only like $200 in the pot and they both check to see the turn, there are going to be some serious raises and re-raises going on. If you don't lose at least half of your stack here with TT, then you're playing this game incorrectly. There's just no way you can assume Sammy has AA, AQ, AT, or QQ here. If I remember correctly, Sammy limped in preflop and then called the raise, which would significantly discount the chances of AA and QQ here. Against an aggressive, loose player like Sammy whose range is huge, it's a terrible mistake not to play TT strongly here, IMO. It's just one of those hands where you have to lose a lot of money. Anyone claiming they wouldn't is kidding themselves.

Re: GG Steve Danneman
 

Wide range of salaries depending on the type of product. Kind of like stock brokers. Some guys make 50-100K, some guys make $400K. Just depends on the product, and how hard some one is willing to work. If you will put in all your time making contacts amoung people that are middle class and wealthy, if you hold free seminars on investing, if you work hard at maintaining those contacts, you can make in the hundreds of thousands annually.

BTW, this is exactly why the argument that there are some people incapable of doing anything about their poor standing in life is utter bs. Anyone willing to work hard enough can improve their standing in life. Anyone in this country can become very wealthy if they work hard enough. BTW, the definition of "hard enough" is often "all your awake hours over a period of many years."

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He's a Mortgage Banker/CPA I'm sure he can afford it whether he can play or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

?? Since when does that job = big money?

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: GG Steve Danneman
 

If your putting in the 2nd raise, then get reraised I think it's safe to assume Sam has more than A-x. Pretty reckless to just move in on a raise, why not raise more to find out more information? Regardless, a pretty damn cold deck.

Wow, this has gotten sooo off-topic.

Re: GG Steve Danneman
 

Off topic? That's kinda like distracted...

distracted, that's a funny word, I wonder if anybody ever gets "tracted"

oh well, better call the suicide hotline and ask them.

Re: GG Steve Danneman
 

[ QUOTE ]
The point was not the time frame during which the call was made, but rather that the call was made at all.


[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. He just bluffed Lederer out of a pot and was proud of himself. Of course he'd tell his buddies. If it were during normal play, he would have waited until the 20 minute break to make the call. But because it was hand for hand and he had to wait until each of the 60+ other tables were finished, he had some time to kill.

Re: GG Steve Danneman
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you have AT then you flopped the nuts here. The turn Q give you second nuts but since you flopped the nuts you have to go broke since if he has AQ you are just so friggin unlucky on the first hand that you just don't want to play anymore anyways.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong AA is the nuts for quads.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol

Re: GG Steve Danneman
 

[ QUOTE ]
There's just no way you can assume Sammy has AA, AQ, AT, or QQ here. If I remember correctly, Sammy limped in preflop and then called the raise, which would significantly discount the chances of AA and QQ here.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can eliminate AA, QQ, and AQ from his holdings in this hand.

Re: GG Steve Danneman
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I see this too often. Mostly when I am playing live. These donks have to learn the difference between a bet and a raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are people talking to their computers now?

[/ QUOTE ]
LOL. I should have clarified. I see it mostly when I play live, as opposed to seeing someone do it on tv. That better??

Re: GG Steve Danneman
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The point was not the time frame during which the call was made, but rather that the call was made at all.


[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. He just bluffed Lederer out of a pot and was proud of himself. Of course he'd tell his buddies. If it were during normal play, he would have waited until the 20 minute break to make the call. But because it was hand for hand and he had to wait until each of the 60+ other tables were finished, he had some time to kill.

[/ QUOTE ]

In all honesty, bluffing Lederer out of that pot would not have given me a huge enough boner to need to call my buddy back home and tell him about it like a giddy douche.

And I also don't give a crap about the time frame. I can say with 100% certainty that I would not have felt the need to call anyone at all.

Hell, the story would have been much better if he had waited until he got home and was playing poker with his buddies at their regular friday night game. "This one time at the WSOP Howard Lederer raised first in....blah blah"

Instead, the guy couldn't even wait until he got back to his room. From the sounds of it I think he might have actually jizzed in his shorts, when in reality it wasn't that big of a deal. It's not like it was down to 5 players and he bluffed him out of a 5 million dollar pot.

Why can't people just be humble? Seriously.

Tool.

Re: GG Steve Danneman
 

yeah, I agree that waiting would have been much smoother. In all honesty, if I had felt the need to call, it wouldnt have been done like that... I probably would have excused myself to use the restroom then skipped all the way there.

I wouldnt have made the phone call anyways.

anyone else wondering if he had just watched rounders and this was his johnny chan?

Re: GG Steve Danneman
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hell, the story would have been much better if he had waited until he got home and was playing poker with his buddies at their regular friday night game. "This one time at the WSOP Howard Lederer raised first in....blah blah"


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, we all know that he has a much better story to tell his buddies: "Did I ever tell you about the time I won $4.2 million dollars?"

Re: GG Steve Danneman
 

People are missing the point here. Most people on this forum are playing to win (or at least think they are). Dannenmann, like many others, probably entered this event for the thrill of bluffing the famous pro he saw on TV. To a lot of people, it would be like the baseball equivalent of hitting a home run off of Roger Clemens. I'm sure most people would call their friends after that. The thing is, that he probably should not have done it right away, but just because ESPN showed it right after doesn't mean it happened that way.