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.