Wow... we need details on this hand
 

After a flop of 10-9-2 Paul Phillips moves all in. Jennifer Harman goes into the tank for long time. "This is a tough hand," she says, as she pops out of her seat. Eventually, she decides to muck pocket aces face up. Paul Phillips gives her a surprised look, and says, "I'll let you off the hook." He then exposes pocket tens for top set.

After the hand Phillips has $196,000 in chips. Harman has $94,000 in chips.

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

That's sick...but then again there's a reason that they're both world class players.

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

There is one hand I probably overplayed but I'm not too broken up about it. Jennifer Harman is constantly raising my blind from late position. She has about 130K, I have about 180K. Par at this point is maybe 60K so we both have large stacks. I call her 4500 raise in the big blind with TT. The flop comes T92. I bet 9000 and she raises to 29000, leaving her with 94K. I move it all-in and she finds a way to lay down aces. Looked at from one perspective this is an egregious waste of a 10-1 favorite, but instead I'll give her credit for a monster laydown... one she might easily not have made.

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

man what a pro fold lol.. she listens to hellmuth huh

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

[ QUOTE ]

There is one hand I probably overplayed but I'm not too broken up about it. Jennifer Harman is constantly raising my blind from late position. She has about 130K, I have about 180K. Par at this point is maybe 60K so we both have large stacks. I call her 4500 raise in the big blind with TT. The flop comes T92. I bet 9000 and she raises to 29000, leaving her with 94K. I move it all-in and she finds a way to lay down aces. Looked at from one perspective this is an egregious waste of a 10-1 favorite, but instead I'll give her credit for a monster laydown... one she might easily not have made.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, any re-reraise at this point undoubtly means a set of 9's or 10's. You don't simply want to call; you need to score the money right there, it's too big and important. Only an all-in from her is worth the possible suckout. I don't really know if you would want her to call the all-in right there, because after you score that 29k you are already in a great position in the tournament. If you need at least a couple hundred k more to the final table, then a nice piece of acting to make her call would really be prefered, although I'd have no idea how to re-reraise all-in to Harman and not showing my cards painted on my forehead.

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

[ QUOTE ]
After a flop of 10-9-2 Paul Phillips moves all in. Jennifer Harman goes into the tank for long time. Eventually, she decides to muck pocket aces face up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seen her in a couple final tables now and her ability to read people seems just frightening. With that talent I'm suprised she doesn't place even more often.

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

There is one hand I probably overplayed but I'm not too broken up about it. Jennifer Harman is constantly raising my blind from late position. She has about 130K, I have about 180K. Par at this point is maybe 60K so we both have large stacks. I call her 4500 raise in the big blind with TT. The flop comes T92. I bet 9000 and she raises to 29000, leaving her with 94K. I move it all-in and she finds a way to lay down aces. Looked at from one perspective this is an egregious waste of a 10-1 favorite, but instead I'll give her credit for a monster laydown... one she might easily not have made.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, any re-reraise at this point undoubtly means a set of 9's or 10's. You don't simply want to call; you need to score the money right there, it's too big and important. Only an all-in from her is worth the possible suckout. I don't really know if you would want her to call the all-in right there, because after you score that 29k you are already in a great position in the tournament. If you need at least a couple hundred k more to the final table, then a nice piece of acting to make her call would really be prefered, although I'd have no idea how to re-reraise all-in to Harman and not showing my cards painted on my forehead.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with this. The reraise from Paul represents a strong hand but it is a pretty standard pro move as well. Or he could have something like QQ in this spot.

Look at it this way. Harman has been agressive and raising with a lot of hands. She could have a lot of things here. So her flop raise doesn't have to mean a real hand; it could simply be an attempt to continue the aggression in response to Paul's probe bet. So Paul can make a move on the pot at this point with a lot less than a set.

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. After all, if there's a certain bet that a pro will expect me to only make with a set, then I should probably make that bet with a lot of hands.

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

[ QUOTE ]

There is one hand I probably overplayed but I'm not too broken up about it. Jennifer Harman is constantly raising my blind from late position. She has about 130K, I have about 180K. Par at this point is maybe 60K so we both have large stacks. I call her 4500 raise in the big blind with TT. The flop comes T92. I bet 9000 and she raises to 29000, leaving her with 94K. I move it all-in and she finds a way to lay down aces. Looked at from one perspective this is an egregious waste of a 10-1 favorite, but instead I'll give her credit for a monster laydown... one she might easily not have made.

[/ QUOTE ]

You forgot to link to his blog

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

[ QUOTE ]
After a flop of 10-9-2 Paul Phillips moves all in. Jennifer Harman goes into the tank for long time. "This is a tough hand," she says, as she pops out of her seat. Eventually, she decides to muck pocket aces face up. Paul Phillips gives her a surprised look, and says, "I'll let you off the hook." He then exposes pocket tens for top set.

After the hand Phillips has $196,000 in chips. Harman has $94,000 in chips.

[/ QUOTE ]

...Wow.

She has to have a read and a half on him to make this laydown, I think.

If we can give Paul a range of {22,99,TT,JJ-AA}, then she's ahead over two-thirds (19/28) of the time. It looks like she could make the laydown strictly on a mathematical basis (if she were playing this hand online against a complete stranger, for example) if she could eliminate say JJ and QQ - then she'd be a dog to a set 6/13ths of the time, a favorite overpair vs overpair 6/13ths of the time, and AA vs AA the remaining 1/13th. Though of course that's a very rough calculation.

I'm looking forward to seeing this one and Hachem's AA laydown to the set of nines on the 9-high flop in the ME.

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

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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.

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

Jennifer was overheard saying something about Paul being easier to read than the big E on the eye chart.

(joke [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img])

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

I'm sure you mean jopke.

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

Yeah, that was a mis-reading. I started classes this week, so my brain is rather throughly asploded. My bad.

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

TL;DR