What could Dannenman have put Hachem on in the last hand?
 

I just can't get my mind around the last hand at the WSOP. I forget the exact betting sequence (I'm liable to get it wrong here, so please correct me) but I remember that Hachem called a PFR from the BB with 7-3 off suit. The flop came 4-5-6, with two diamonds. Dannenman bet out like $500,000 with A-3 off suit, and Hachem raised $1 million more. Dannenman called, and the turn came an ace. Dannenman bet out, and Hachem came big over the top of him (I don't remember if that would put Dannenman all in or not, but he went all in shortly thereafter).

Now what in the world could Dannenman have put Hachem on here that would make him call? Hachem obviously wasn't concerned about the ace, so if he's playing reasonably it seems to me you have to put him on a better ace or a set or think that he flopped the straight, which of course he did. Even a decent ace has Dannenman beat at that point, and the only other thing he's got going is the straight draw, but everything I can see puts him behind in the hand at that point. So what could Dannenman have put Hachem on that would make him go all in like that and risk the whole tournament?

Re: What could Dannenman have put Hachem on in the last hand?
 

Danneman simply isn't good enough to get away from a hand like that. He could have put him on something dumb like K6, 36, 67 or anything like that. Note this is just what it seems from what I've watched on the WSOP. He is an amateur, so top pair AND a up and down straight draw is too much for him to fold. He probably thinks he either has a better ace or just a draw, and he has outs against either. Once I saw the Ace, I knew that if Hachem moved in, Danneman would definitely call given the way he played the rest of the tournament.

Re: What could Dannenman have put Hachem on in the last hand?
 

Both players were delirious after 13.5 hours of poker, added to the stress of the tournament, a week of hair-pulling decisions, TV cameras, cheering crowds, and a pile of $7.5 million dumped on the table behind them.

I'm surprised they could even sit upright in their chairs and handle chips, let alone play solid poker. And you're wondering why Dannenmann didn't get away from a hand after turning top pair?

Re: What could Dannenman have put Hachem on in the last hand?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Both players were delirious after 13.5 hours of poker, added to the stress of the tournament, a week of hair-pulling decisions, TV cameras, cheering crowds, and a pile of $7.5 million dumped on the table behind them.

I'm surprised they could even sit upright in their chairs and handle chips, let alone play solid poker. And you're wondering why Dannenmann didn't get away from a hand after turning top pair?

[/ QUOTE ]

nh

Re: What could Dannenman have put Hachem on in the last hand?
 

He was thinking turning top pair in a heads up match that there was enough of a possibility he was ahead and if not probbaly had alot of outs. He was wrong but that was probably thinking. I didn't see how it went preflop. And not sure if sequence you said was right. Cant rmemebr exactly but it sounded different than way you described. But it is hard to get away from the hand after alot of money goes in then you turn top pair of aces in a headsup match. Although the wsop might be different as they had alot fo chips in relaiton to blinds so maybe he could have. They didnt make it clear size of stack blinds and pot size so hard to say.

Re: What could Dannenman have put Hachem on in the last hand?
 

I definitely think the long session contributed to the questionable play by Dannenman on the end, but he played great the whole tournament otherwise so good for him.

Re: What could Dannenman have put Hachem on in the last hand?
 

I'd add to the long session the fact that this was early on heads up and Hachem had a huge chip lead. It's reasonable to put him on a bluff, and that the aces were good plus the added outs for a straight draw.

Can't fault Dannenmann for not figuring out that Hachem flopped the miracle straight.

Re: What could Dannenman have put Hachem on in the last hand?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Danneman simply isn't good enough to get away from a hand like that. He could have put him on something dumb like K6, 36, 67 or anything like that. Note this is just what it seems from what I've watched on the WSOP. He is an amateur, so top pair AND a up and down straight draw is too much for him to fold. He probably thinks he either has a better ace or just a draw, and he has outs against either. Once I saw the Ace, I knew that if Hachem moved in, Danneman would definitely call given the way he played the rest of the tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

He has to double up sometime. What the hell is he supposed to wait for? I would have a hard time laying that down myself.

Re: What could Dannenman have put Hachem on in the last hand?
 

Top pair with a straight draw looks good heads up, plus all the emotion in that room and the long hours of play.

Re: What could Dannenman have put Hachem on in the last hand?
 

I don't know what he put Hachem on but I put Dannenman on $4.5 million already in his pocket and very little sleep.

Re: What could Dannenman have put Hachem on in the last hand?
 

[ QUOTE ]
What could Dannenman have put Hachem on in the last hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

7-3 offsuit maybe? Was there any betting preflop? If there wasn't, I don't see how it's impossible to put him on something better then top pair on a coordinated low board with no preflop action

Re: What could Dannenman have put Hachem on in the last hand?
 

Dannemman had raised pre-flop...so it is tough to put Hachem on 7-3 based him calling a pre-flop raise

Re: What could Dannenman have put Hachem on in the last hand?
 

The thing about heads up, and those giant chip stacks is that it's really hard to say "he's not calling with 73o" there.

I think Dannenman can play that hand and not get all in, but given by badly Hachem had him outchipped, it's hard to find too much fault in his play, especially given all of other circumstances.

I think ESPN did a really bad job of showing just how long this took and the toll that it would have put on the players.

Re: What could Dannenman have put Hachem on in the last hand?
 

[ QUOTE ]
He has to double up sometime. What the hell is he supposed to wait for? I would have a hard time laying that down myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ditto for me. Once I saw that hand last night I couldn't understand what the big stink was about.

I also totally changed my mind about Dannenman between the first episode and the last. I think he had a great attitude and played really, really well considering his experience level.

Re: What could Dannenman have put Hachem on in the last hand?
 

Dannemann lost this hand on the flop. His only chance to get away from this hand was to fold after he got raised $1 million. I'm not saying this is a slam dunk fold with a straight draw and overcard but once he turned the A, there was not much chance he was folding.

But that being said, he didn't have to go broke on the hand. Sometimes, it's ok to be a calling station. Hachem is going to try and milk his straight and probably not go all-in on the River, so why not just call instead of raising and not go broke.

Re: What could Dannenman have put Hachem on in the last hand?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Dannemman had raised pre-flop...so it is tough to put Hachem on 7-3 based him calling a pre-flop raise

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that it would have been hard to put him on that kind of hand before the flop, but with the action on the flop and turn from Hachem, I can't imagine putting Hachem on any reasonable hand that doesn't have Dannenman beat.

Re: What could Dannenman have put Hachem on in the last hand?
 

[ QUOTE ]

But that being said, he didn't have to go broke on the hand. Sometimes, it's ok to be a calling station. Hachem is going to try and milk his straight and probably not go all-in on the River, so why not just call instead of raising and not go broke.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hachem went all-in on the turn, Danneman called.

[ QUOTE ]
Hand 232 - Steve Dannenmann has the button, he raises to $700,000, and Hachem calls. The flop comes 6h-5d-4d, Hachem checks, Dannenmann bets $700,000, Hachem raises to $1,700,000, and Dannenmann calls. The turn card is the As, Hachem bets $2,000,000, and Dannenmann slowly raises to $5,000,000, Hachem reraises all in, and Dannenmann immediately calls. Hachem shows 7c-3s (seven-high straight), while Dannenman has Ad-3c (top pair). Dannenmann needs to catch a seven on the river to chop the pot with equal straights.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the big stack heads up makes the same play on the turn with K6, 76, 75, or even T7. He's trying to push Dannenman out of what has become a huge pot. It's headsup, and either opponent can be bluffing with middle pair, or nothing.

If Dannenman had just called the turn, he probably doesn't face an allin on the river. But he also doesn't earn as much from middle pair and straight draws.

Re: What could Dannenman have put Hachem on in the last hand?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dannemman had raised pre-flop...so it is tough to put Hachem on 7-3 based him calling a pre-flop raise

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that it would have been hard to put him on that kind of hand before the flop, but with the action on the flop and turn from Hachem, I can't imagine putting Hachem on any reasonable hand that doesn't have Dannenman beat.

[/ QUOTE ]

From Danneman's perspective, I think 7,8 was a definite possiblity, which nullifies his straight draw.

Here\'s the actual sequence in the final hand
 

Stacks: Hachem $39.99 million
Dannenmann $16.35 million

Blinds: $150,000/$300,000 Ante: $50,000

Dannenmann raised to $700,000 and Hachem called. The flop came 4d-5d-6h. Hachem checked and Dannenman bet $700,000, Hachem re-raised to $1,700,000 and Dannenman called. The turn was the As. Hachem bet $2,000,000 and Dannenman raised to $5,000,000. Hachem went all-in and Dannenman instantly called. Hachem held the 7c-3s and Dannenman the Ad-3c. Hachem had flopped a straight and Dannenman was drawing to a tie with one of the 3 remaining sevens on the river. The river was the 4c.

So Dannenman still had $16.35 million going into this hand, and Hachem only had to call another $350,000 to see the flop. As I said, I agree that it's impossible to put Hachem on 7-3o going into the flop, but when Hachem check-raised Dannenman's $700,000 bet on the flop to $1.7 million I would've been immediately worried about a set. Then the ace hits the turn and Hachem doesn't care and bets out $2 million. I seriously consider getting away from the hand there, because at the very least I put Hachem on a better ace, and I still suspect a set. Maybe there's a chance that Hachem doesn't have it though, I suppose, so Dannenman goes big over the top and raises to $5 million to find out.

After this raise if Dannenman's ace is good I can't imagine Hachem doing what he does next--he goes all-in which of course would put Dannenman all in! At this point by my count Dannenman has $7.4 million in the pot. That means he has approximately $7 million left. Obviously he's way behind in the chip count and likely to lose the tournament, but of course he still has 7 million chips and a chair. The problem with calling the all-in though and risking your entire tournament on this hand at this point is that I just see *no way* that Dannenman can think he has the best hand.

Re: Here\'s the actual sequence in the final hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with calling the all-in though and risking your entire tournament on this hand at this point is that I just see *no way* that Dannenman can think he has the best hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. Hachem plays 88,99 the same way. Hachem is unlikly to have a set or the top end of the straight since he would likely slow play it until the turn. There are many hands that Dannenman is ahead of that Hachem plays this way. And he still has a great redraw against every hand that beats him except for a made straight.

You are forgetting the essential part of this hand, they are "heads up". The hands a big stack will be aggressive with in this context are much weaker than usual. Unfortunately you know Hachem's hand, so it's difficult to get past the actual results, but if you didn't know his hand you'd put him on the following.

A pair, a great draw, or better. That's a fricken wide range of hands.

Re: What could Dannenman have put Hachem on in the last hand?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Both players were delirious after 13.5 hours of poker, added to the stress of the tournament, a week of hair-pulling decisions, TV cameras, cheering crowds, and a pile of $7.5 million dumped on the table behind them.

I'm surprised they could even sit upright in their chairs and handle chips, let alone play solid poker. And you're wondering why Dannenmann didn't get away from a hand after turning top pair?

[/ QUOTE ]

After he turned top pair Hachem bet out $2 million, then re-raised Dannenman's raise to $5 million all-in. The easiest read in the hand was probably putting Dannenman on that ace when he re-raised the turn, so yeah, I guess I am wondering why he thought he had Hachem beat when Hachim put him all-in after the ace fell.

Re: What could Dannenman have put Hachem on in the last hand?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Top pair with a straight draw looks good heads up, plus all the emotion in that room and the long hours of play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, unless your opponent is coming over the top of you on both the flop and the turn and putting you all-in. Or so it seems to me.

Re: What could Dannenman have put Hachem on in the last hand?
 

Anyone remember what time this finished? I was listening barely, but didnt check the clock. 7AM Vegas time or so?

Re: What could Dannenman have put Hachem on in the last hand?
 

i don't think dannenman thought this through nearly as much as most of you have.

Re: What could Dannenman have put Hachem on in the last hand?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone remember what time this finished? I was listening barely, but didnt check the clock. 7AM Vegas time or so?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. According to Cardplayer.com, they started close to 5pm and ended at nearly 7AM.

Re: Here\'s the actual sequence in the final hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
You are forgetting the essential part of this hand, they are "heads up". The hands a big stack will be aggressive with in this context are much weaker than usual.

[/ QUOTE ]

I buy the overexhausted excuse much more than this analysis. They were still plenty deep, there's no need to go broke on this hand. The board was 3 to a straight. You don't want to go broke with top pair weak kicker when your stack is still 25 rounds strong.

I'm not syaing it was an easy laydown, but I think a better player could have gotten away from it. The value of the draw that he has is pretty small at that point, given that it makes a weak straight at best and there's only one card to come.

Re: Here\'s the actual sequence in the final hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hachem went all-in and Dannenman instantly called. Hachem held the 7c-3s and Dannenman the Ad-3c.

[/ QUOTE ]

It looked like there was actually some confusion when this happened. Could anyone pick up on the dialog? I thouhgt I heard Hachem say "all-in", the Dannenman said something I couldn't understand, then Hachem said "no wait", then Dannenman said "I'm all-in". What the hell was going on there?

Re: Here\'s the actual sequence in the final hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem with calling the all-in though and risking your entire tournament on this hand at this point is that I just see *no way* that Dannenman can think he has the best hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. Hachem plays 88,99 the same way. Hachem is unlikly to have a set or the top end of the straight since he would likely slow play it until the turn. There are many hands that Dannenman is ahead of that Hachem plays this way. And he still has a great redraw against every hand that beats him except for a made straight.

You are forgetting the essential part of this hand, they are "heads up". The hands a big stack will be aggressive with in this context are much weaker than usual. Unfortunately you know Hachem's hand, so it's difficult to get past the actual results, but if you didn't know his hand you'd put him on the following.

A pair, a great draw, or better. That's a fricken wide range of hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hachem would go over the top of Dannenman's raise to $5 million on the turn when the ace hit and put him (Dannenman) all-in with 88 or 99? Isn't that basically like saying "I know you're representing at least the ace with that raise and I can't beat top pair but I think you're bluffing so I'll raise you all-in"? I mean, Dannenman's not representing a pair of 6's or 5's or just a draw with that raise to $5 million is he?

Re: What could Dannenman have put Hachem on in the last hand?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But that being said, he didn't have to go broke on the hand. Sometimes, it's ok to be a calling station. Hachem is going to try and milk his straight and probably not go all-in on the River, so why not just call instead of raising and not go broke.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hachem went all-in on the turn, Danneman called.

[ QUOTE ]
Hand 232 - Steve Dannenmann has the button, he raises to $700,000, and Hachem calls. The flop comes 6h-5d-4d, Hachem checks, Dannenmann bets $700,000, Hachem raises to $1,700,000, and Dannenmann calls. The turn card is the As, Hachem bets $2,000,000, and Dannenmann slowly raises to $5,000,000, Hachem reraises all in, and Dannenmann immediately calls. Hachem shows 7c-3s (seven-high straight), while Dannenman has Ad-3c (top pair). Dannenmann needs to catch a seven on the river to chop the pot with equal straights.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the big stack heads up makes the same play on the turn with K6, 76, 75, or even T7. He's trying to push Dannenman out of what has become a huge pot. It's headsup, and either opponent can be bluffing with middle pair, or nothing.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. To say nothing of the diamond draw. Hachem easily could have played a hand like Jd Td that way. Figuring even if Dannenmann flopped a pair he still has 15 outs. A hand like that could certainly be played the same way. And if Dannenmann did flop a pair then Hachem might think the turn ace is a scare card for Dannenmann.

Re: What could Dannenman have put Hachem on in the last hand?
 

So Hachem is calling a preflop raise with 73o, um second worst hand wha!

What isnt he calling with? How can you put him on anything? He flopped the nuts with 73o (LOLZ), how can danneman get away from this hand?

its easy to over analyze after the fact but seriously.

Re: What could Dannenman have put Hachem on in the last hand?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I just can't get my mind around the last hand at the WSOP. I forget the exact betting sequence (I'm liable to get it wrong here, so please correct me) but I remember that Hachem called a PFR from the BB with 7-3 off suit. The flop came 4-5-6, with two diamonds. Dannenman bet out like $500,000 with A-3 off suit, and Hachem raised $1 million more. Dannenman called, and the turn came an ace. Dannenman bet out, and Hachem came big over the top of him (I don't remember if that would put Dannenman all in or not, but he went all in shortly thereafter).

Now what in the world could Dannenman have put Hachem on here that would make him call? Hachem obviously wasn't concerned about the ace, so if he's playing reasonably it seems to me you have to put him on a better ace or a set or think that he flopped the straight, which of course he did. Even a decent ace has Dannenman beat at that point, and the only other thing he's got going is the straight draw, but everything I can see puts him behind in the hand at that point. So what could Dannenman have put Hachem on that would make him go all in like that and risk the whole tournament?

[/ QUOTE ]

a simple fact could've been that dannenman thought he had plenty of outs going into the river if he was behind, and that dannenman could've also thought hachem was a better player. (he did read dannenman for a set earlier) if dannenman believes that hachem is a better player, this spot was as good as any to try to double through on a draw if he was behind, with a somewhat reasonable chance that he could have the best hand.

Re: What could Dannenman have put Hachem on in the last hand?
 

[ QUOTE ]
He flopped the nuts with 73o (LOLZ)

[/ QUOTE ]

87 was the nuts.

Re: What could Dannenman have put Hachem on in the last hand?
 

Put 7.5M on the table and most people will play their best poker.

Re: What could Dannenman have put Hachem on in the last hand?
 

Stop defending Danneman's play here. It just wasn't correct. Remember, he didn't push, he called a push. On that board you should get away from the hand after your opponent shows strength several times.

It wasn't a terrible, Tiffany Williamson-style call, but I think a better player could have gotten away from it.

Re: Here\'s the actual sequence in the final hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hachem went all-in and Dannenman instantly called. Hachem held the 7c-3s and Dannenman the Ad-3c.

[/ QUOTE ]

It looked like there was actually some confusion when this happened. Could anyone pick up on the dialog? I thouhgt I heard Hachem say "all-in", the Dannenman said something I couldn't understand, then Hachem said "no wait", then Dannenman said "I'm all-in". What the hell was going on there?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Hachem was saying something like "big hand?" Acting like he was trying to get a tell on Dannenman, maybe. And then held up his hand and said: "wait. all-in."

Re: What could Dannenman have put Hachem on in the last hand?
 

I think it's laughable how all these people know that they could lay these hands down.

"Matusow blowup with KK."

"Black's 2 donkey plays"

"Hachem should have pushed with his jacks"

It's easy to be a critic when you see all the cards. It's poker, players bluff. Do you throw away your cards every time someone raises? Dannenman is the one who's been sitting there for 14 hours, I think he has a little better insight to Hachem's play than we have watching 20 hands over 2 hours.

Nobody plays perfect.

Re: What could Dannenman have put Hachem on in the last hand?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Nobody plays perfect.

[/ QUOTE ]

The guy who cried when his 2nd nut flush lost played perfect poker for 3 days. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: What could Dannenman have put Hachem on in the last hand?
 

[ QUOTE ]
i don't think dannenman thought this through nearly as much as most of you have.

[/ QUOTE ]

bear in mind it was like 6:45am i believe when it was all said and done.

Re: What could Dannenman have put Hachem on in the last hand?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's laughable how all these people know that they could lay these hands down.

"Matusow blowup with KK."

"Black's 2 donkey plays"

"Hachem should have pushed with his jacks"

It's easy to be a critic when you see all the cards. It's poker, players bluff. Do you throw away your cards every time someone raises? Dannenman is the one who's been sitting there for 14 hours, I think he has a little better insight to Hachem's play than we have watching 20 hands over 2 hours.

Nobody plays perfect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many 2+2ers make better laydowns every day.

Danneman's play throughout the final table was based on such surface level play its laughable to hear you defend him. He basically looked at his cards, looked at the board (if it had been dealt yet) and decided whether his hand was better than average strength. If so, he pushed.

You think Hachem (an oviously experienced pro) didn't notice that? He was looking to trap him as soon as he got heads up. He knew that Danneman couldn't make a good laydown of any reasonably strong hand. Danneman only got as far as he did because (as seems to happen often at the WSOP) very good players failed to recognize how much of a rookie he was and tried frequently to bluff him or tried to induce bluffs.

He didn't even think twice about calling. He didn't even look and say "geez, how much will I have left if I fold? What could he have?" He was just hoping the ace was good or that he'd catch if it wasn't. And so into the middle goes - what? 3.5M in dollar terms that they were contending for at that point? - with only about 5% pot equity.

So fine, its easy if you see the cards on TV, sure. But based on what I saw there was no evidence that Danneman really even made a thoughtful decision. And I tell you, it may be easy to say now, but if were HU for the bracelet I believe I would have thought about a lot of things, such as:

I raised preflop, I have been raising mostly aces since we have been shorthanded, there's an ace on board - why isn't he worried about that?

He's relaxed, he's talking to me - when have I seen that before from him?

Could he have the nuts?

Has he bluffed me all-in before? Does he expect a call or fold based on the last 13 hours of my play?

If he is bluffing, does he have outs? What are they?

Where do I stand if I fold?


If you are going to defend his call, defend it with some logically deducted theory of why he should think his hand is best. But what people are saying (that top pair is a monster heads up, its late and he's tired, or its easy for you to say cause you know the cards) is not a very compelling defense.

Re: What could Dannenman have put Hachem on in the last hand?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Top pair with a straight draw looks good heads up, plus all the emotion in that room and the long hours of play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, unless your opponent is coming over the top of you on both the flop and the turn and putting you all-in. Or so it seems to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. However fatigue and time could've made your hand look like the nuts. I think ESPN didn't do a good enough job in exploring this but that's being covered in another string I believe.