WSOP Hachem JJ Hand
 

Stack sizes were as follows:

Hachem 28,695,000
Dannenmann 22,000,000
Barch 5,650,000

Payouts were $7.5m for first, $4.25m for second, and $2.5m for third.

Not sure exactly what the blinds were.

Dannenmann (Button) raises to 750,000.
Hachem (SB) flat calls with JJ.
Barch (BB) moves all in.
Dannenmann calls.

Note: For the postflop questions, assume Hachem calls.

Re: WSOP Hachem JJ Hand
 

i'm cheecking this down unless i hit a set.

Re: WSOP Hachem JJ Hand
 

The reason I made this poll is because when watching, I was really surprised when Hachem just flat called when it came back to him. I thought for sure he would reraise. However, Dannenmann's call may have been a little worrying to him. Or maybe he wanted to maximize his chance of moving up the money ladder.

And I don't really understand this whole business of checking it down. If there was no player all in, I am sure he would have gotten more chips in the pot at some point. Is it really worth it to check it down to move up the ladder? What if Dannenmann hits a free card you gave him and wins this huge pot? It seems this has become the standard play, and it happened several times in this year's WSOP. But to me it seems like a huge mistake, similar to folding a premium hand on the bubble.

Thoughts?

Re: WSOP Hachem JJ Hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
The reason I made this poll is because when watching, I was really surprised when Hachem just flat called when it came back to him. I thought for sure he would reraise. However, Dannenmann's call may have been a little worrying to him. Or maybe he wanted to maximize his chance of moving up the money ladder.

And I don't really understand this whole business of checking it down. If there was no player all in, I am sure he would have gotten more chips in the pot at some point. Is it really worth it to check it down to move up the ladder? What if Dannenmann hits a free card you gave him and wins this huge pot? It seems this has become the standard play, and it happened several times in this year's WSOP. But to me it seems like a huge mistake, similar to folding a premium hand on the bubble.

Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

In addition to the fact that playing it passively lets him move up the ladder, playing it aggressively is only good if he 1) gets called and beats the D guy or 2) gets a fold and beats the shorty.

Re: WSOP Hachem JJ Hand
 

You check it down because, say if Tex had queens, Hachem bets out at the flop and third guy folds, turn is a 7, Hachem possibly costs himself a few million dollars.

Re: WSOP Hachem JJ Hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
You check it down because, say if Tex had queens, Hachem bets out at the flop and third guy folds, turn is a 7, Hachem possibly costs himself a few million dollars.

[/ QUOTE ]
...and if Tex doesn't have queens he probably cost himself a few million dollars by letting that 7 hit and Dan wins that huge pot. Got to bet.

Re: WSOP Hachem JJ Hand
 

No, he doesn't cost himself anything, he gains a couple million because 1 person is eliminated.

Re: WSOP Hachem JJ Hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
i'm cheecking this down unless i hit a set.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would push preflop when it got back around to me, and I would bet the flop as it played out. Actually, I'd bet the flop if I were Danneman too. Am I way off here?

Re: WSOP Hachem JJ Hand
 

If you want first prize here I think you need to raise all in preflop. If you let Dannenman win this pot he becomes chip leader. I'm prepared to go all in here, the only bad point being if I'm called and I loose to Dannenman and he looses to Barch (not likely). JJ is a great hand 3 handed and likely to be the best hand here. Dannenman probably wants to check down and take 2nd place. I'm not going to let him. He probably already thinks he has 2nd. He isn't going to want to call an all in unless he has a monster.

Re: WSOP Hachem JJ Hand
 

and if he does have had the monster? then hachem wouldve cost himself 3 mil dollars? bit costly for a hand

Re: WSOP Hachem JJ Hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
and if he does have had the monster? then hachem wouldve cost himself 3 mil dollars? bit costly for a hand

[/ QUOTE ]

If he does he does. The chance he doesn't seems high enough for this play to be the right one in my book. All potential hands are costly on the final table of WSOP. Don't look it at as $3 million look at it as say $30 difference and the decision becomes easier.

Re: WSOP Hachem JJ Hand
 

Guys - please stop spreading any kind of misinformation on the correct strategy here - there is only one correct answer - calling and checking it down.

THIS IS FUNDEMENTAL TOURNEMENT POKER - When a short stack is all in, anyone else in the hand MUST CHECK IT DOWN, unless you have the stone cold nuts. Please do a search on IMPLIED COLLUSION (also in HOH, and TPFAP and THFAP) and study it.

If Hachem or Dannennman bets here, they run the risk of pushing the other off of the winning hand and allowing Tex to win the pot and then they are all even again. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HORRIBLE!!! Whether Hachem or Dannen wins the hand is irrelevant, it ONLY matters that Tex DOES NOT WIN.

I play a lot of MTTs and SNGs, and I see this mistake all the time by newbie donkeys. They bet, push the winner off his hand and then they lose to the all in player allowing him to stay in the game. HUGE MISTAKE.

Check it down, keep everone in the pot, and eliminate the short stack. Learn it, live it, love it.

Re: WSOP Hachem JJ Hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
Guys - please stop spreading any kind of misinformation on the correct strategy here - there is only one correct answer - calling and checking it down.

THIS IS FUNDEMENTAL TOURNEMENT POKER - When a short stack is all in, anyone else in the hand MUST CHECK IT DOWN, unless you have the stone cold nuts. Please do a search on IMPLIED COLLUSION (also in HOH, and TPFAP and THFAP) and study it.

If Hachem or Dannennman bets here, they run the risk of pushing the other off of the winning hand and allowing Tex to win the pot and then they are all even again. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HORRIBLE!!! Whether Hachem or Dannen wins the hand is irrelevant, it ONLY matters that Tex DOES NOT WIN.

I play a lot of MTTs and SNGs, and I see this mistake all the time by newbie donkeys. They bet, push the winner off his hand and then they lose to the all in player allowing him to stay in the game. HUGE MISTAKE.

Check it down, keep everone in the pot, and eliminate the short stack. Learn it, live it, love it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets say Dannenman has AK and Hachem has JJ. He has a hand with legitimate showdown value and he does not want to give Dannenman two free cards to draw to 6 outs.

The "MUST CHECK IT DOWN RULE" comes into play when discussing bluffing. You should never bet with a hand that has no chance of winning the pot because obviously that would keep the short guy in. But the payout structure is so steep here that it's much more crucial that Hachem gives himself the best chance to win the pot.

Re: WSOP Hachem JJ Hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
IMPLIED COLLUSION

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

I would bet this everytime, as far as I can tell checking is a very bad mistake, I might even go in preflop (in fact probably if the opportunity arose).

Mack

Re: WSOP Hachem JJ Hand
 

I was kind of shocked he didn't re-raise all-in pre-flop. However, once he just calls preflop he has to check it down there unless he improves.

Re: WSOP Hachem JJ Hand
 

Funny how I was recently reading THFAP and Sklansky explicitely says that checking it down is usually wrong.

Re: WSOP Hachem JJ Hand
 

Guys -

I respectfully disagree. It does not matter to Hachem or dannenman if they win that pot or not, it ONLY matters that Tex gets eliminated. The pot was only 15M, if Hachem loses he has 25M to daannen's 37M. If Tex wins, he and Dannen are tied. So, if you are Dannen, you definitely want Hachem in. If you are Hachem, you want Dannen in, just in case Tex has AK, and say the board comes up 4A5T6. You need that extra hand, just in case Tex's overcards hit.

here is the deinition and explination of implicit collusion (I thought it was implied, sorry).


[ QUOTE ]
In implicit collusion, all opponents come to an independent agreement--that is, without consulting among each other--to all play in such a way as to minimize the chance of the player with the best hand winning the pot. For example, in a hold 'em tournament, a small stack may go all in and get called by one or more players with larger stacks. Those players collectively have a better chance of beating the all-in player than any does individually, and they may check down the hand till the end, that is, with no one making a bet that might drive anyone else out. The all-in player may have the best hand and be the favorite against any one of the others, but collectively, the remaining players have a better chance against the all-in player, and if they all understand--even though nothing is ever said to that effect--that all will check the hand down, that is implied collusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

This can be applied to snapping off bluffs in a cash game, but that is a different deal (trying to bluff one player is easier than bluffing many). And also, in a cash game, this is the wrong play, since the all in player can rebuy. THIS IS A TOURNEMENT STRATEGY ONLY.

This paramount issue here is you want many players to go up against the small stack so that you have the best COLLECTIVE chance of knocking him out. ESPECIALLY, since by him getting knocked out, Hachem and Dannen each got an extra 2Million bucks!

Re: WSOP Hachem JJ Hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
And I don't really understand this whole business of checking it down. If there was no player all in, I am sure he would have gotten more chips in the pot at some point. Is it really worth it to check it down to move up the ladder? What if Dannenmann hits a free card you gave him and wins this huge pot? It seems this has become the standard play, and it happened several times in this year's WSOP. But to me it seems like a huge mistake, similar to folding a premium hand on the bubble.

Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

you also don't get 5.6 million in preflop either. Once he flat calls preflop, his best course is clearly to call.

1. Payout jumps indicate that getting the third guy out ia huge boost

2. Barch to me seemed to me, at least, to be much more dangerous. Keeping dannemann in increases the chance barch is gone and you're HU with a presumably worse player.

if there were 5-6 people left, hachem shoves preflop on his second decision point. With these circumstances though, calling is clearly best.

for those peopl saying "blah blah blah, dannemann hits a 7"...what if barch actually has a better overpair? or flopped a set? you need those outs. He gets to draw if he's behind regardless.

Re: WSOP Hachem JJ Hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
Guys - please stop spreading any kind of misinformation on the correct strategy here - there is only one correct answer - calling and checking it down.

THIS IS FUNDEMENTAL TOURNEMENT POKER - When a short stack is all in, anyone else in the hand MUST CHECK IT DOWN, unless you have the stone cold nuts. Please do a search on IMPLIED COLLUSION (also in HOH, and TPFAP and THFAP) and study it.

If Hachem or Dannennman bets here, they run the risk of pushing the other off of the winning hand and allowing Tex to win the pot and then they are all even again. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HORRIBLE!!! Whether Hachem or Dannen wins the hand is irrelevant, it ONLY matters that Tex DOES NOT WIN.

I play a lot of MTTs and SNGs, and I see this mistake all the time by newbie donkeys. They bet, push the winner off his hand and then they lose to the all in player allowing him to stay in the game. HUGE MISTAKE.

Check it down, keep everone in the pot, and eliminate the short stack. Learn it, live it, love it.

[/ QUOTE ]
agree completely. There's 2 million dollars at stake here. Don't get caught up on "what if Dannenman becomes chip leader." The 15 million in that pot wouldn't make either player such an overwhelming chip leader especially with the blind size etc.

Re: WSOP Hachem JJ Hand
 

Hachem should push the flop and its not even close.

If this were a $50 SNG paying 52%/30%/18% this hand wouldn't get a reply.

Dannenmann should fold all hands behind JJ which still have substantial equity in the pot because it will reduce the variance of his outcome.

If Dannenmann has the JJ beaten (bigger pair: unlikely 18 hands out of 100 or more) then its unlikely that Barch will win the pot so Hachem will most likely come 2nd.

Can you cooperate to eliminate a player? It depends on the situation, but don't kid yourself and say your playing to win the tournament. The 18M chips in the middle are worth alot.

Re: WSOP Hachem JJ Hand
 

Checking it down is RARELY the correct strategy. That being said, I think this is one of those rare cases. With a nearly $2 million pay jump, clearly the most +EV move is to get Tex Barch out. If there were five players left instead of three, then you would have to bet, especially with the flat pay increases until third. Also, Dannenmann is clearly the least skilled of the three players, giving him all those chips is not as dangerous as making Barch whole again. A lot of people on this forum react to TV poker as if the players know each other's cards. What if Dannenman had AK and Barch had QQ or something like that. Then betting is a HORRIBLE move for Hachem.

Re: WSOP Hachem JJ Hand
 

There are certain pros and cons to keeping Dannenmann in there and agreeing to implicit collusion. You can either maximize the chance of winning the pot or maximize the chance of knocking a player out. I think that, for the purposes of winning the tournament, the former is a more important aim.

Here is another problem with implicit collusion in this case. Using the definition supplied by PFrese:

[ QUOTE ]
In implicit collusion, all opponents come to an independent agreement--that is, without consulting among each other--to all play in such a way as to minimize the chance of the player with the best hand winning the pot. For example, in a hold 'em tournament, a small stack may go all in and get called by one or more players with larger stacks. Those players collectively have a better chance of beating the all-in player than any does individually, and they may check down the hand till the end, that is, with no one making a bet that might drive anyone else out. The all-in player may have the best hand and be the favorite against any one of the others, but collectively, the remaining players have a better chance against the all-in player, and if they all understand--even though nothing is ever said to that effect--that all will check the hand down, that is implied collusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hachem has to suspect that in a three handed game, the chances of his JJ being the best hand is extremely high. But implicit collusion minimizes the chance of the best hand winning. If he reraises the first time after Dannenmann calls, he greatly improves his pot equity and therefore chance to win the hand.

A lot of posters have mentioned that Hachem can get an extra guaranteed 2 million by keeping Dannenmann in and knocking Barch out. But he can still get that by knocking out Dannenmann and knocking out Barch himself. And while everyone is quick to point out what if Dannenmann > Barch > Hachem at showdown, what about when Dannenmann > Hachem > Barch?

The latter will probably happen more often because Hachem > Barch preflop (almost always). Also when Dannenmann has a lower pocket.

The former will happen more often when both Dannenmann and Barch have an ace and an ace hits the board.

As durron597 mentioned, another important factor here is that Hachem's hand has legitimate showdown value. If he had T9s, I can understand softplaying it, mainly because in that case, he almost certainly does not have the best hand. Those advocating softplay here, would you also do the same with AA and KK?

If anyone has a link to an article or citation in a book that elucidates the situation, I would love to hear it.

Re: WSOP Hachem JJ Hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
Those advocating softplay here, would you also do the same with AA and KK?

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely. The only time I would advocate coming out of "softplay" mode is with the stone cold nuts. AA or KK is not the nuts. It is afterall, just one pair. No one argues that JJ is not a very powerful hand, but it aint the nuts and can be beat by a whole range of hands. How many times have we seen the all in short stack suck out two pair with say K6 on a board of K6xxx, and stay in the game? Happens all the time. Hachem needed Dannenman to make sure tex was gone.

The object in this hand is NOT TO WIN THE POT. It is to knock out the short stack.

TO illustrate, lets change the hands and board around -

Hachem has JJ
Tex has AA
Dannen has 66

Same preflop action. Tex allin. Hachem and dannen call.

FLOP - T32

Hachem pushes, Dannen folds being fearful of the K and not wanting to risk it all, folds. Hachem flips over jacks, Tex flips the aces and Hachem wants to throw up.

Turn is an 8 and river is a six!!

If Hachem had checked it down, tex is knocked out and he makes an extra two million. But, instead, he has 25M and the other two have about 15M each, and he has a real dog fight on his hands.

I think what is clouding everyones thinking on this is that you saw everyones hands during the hand and you saw how the hand played out. You are being a little results oriented here.

Re: WSOP Hachem JJ Hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
... clearly the most +EV move is to get Tex Barch out.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong. Expected Value in the long run is that the jacks are the best hand and betting them will win the most.

There is no evidence that Hachem is a better player than Dannenmann.

What if ... has nothing to do with either players range of hands. I do not know what happened in the hand. Hachem is ahead against both players range.

Re: WSOP Hachem JJ Hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is wrong. Expected Value in the long run is that the jacks are the best hand and betting them will win the most.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does not matter at this stage in the tourney.


[ QUOTE ]
... Hachem is ahead against both players range.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does not matter at this stage in the tourney.

You guys are thinking about this like it is a cash game where the obeject is to win the most money/bets from your opposition. That is NOT this case here. The object is to knock out the short stack. Period. Who wins THIS pot is irrelevant (as long as it aint Tex).

BTW - if it were a cash game, I would defnitely push on the flop. Do you see why?? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] (sorry could not resist).

Re: WSOP Hachem JJ Hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
Expected Value in the long run is that...

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, this made me LOL. This isn't a NL100 cash game.

Re: WSOP Hachem JJ Hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
Lets say Dannenman has AK and Hachem has JJ. He has a hand with legitimate showdown value and he does not want to give Dannenman two free cards to draw to 6 outs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Same scenario, except barch has AQ, now hachem bets dannenmean out of the pot and the A hits the turn. Wouldn't you be feeling a bit foolish? Tex Barch seemed to be the toughest player at the table, I would much rather play at a slight chip disadvantage against dannenman than 3 way with the tougher player still in.

Re: WSOP Hachem JJ Hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Those advocating softplay here, would you also do the same with AA and KK?

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely. The only time I would advocate coming out of "softplay" mode is with the stone cold nuts. AA or KK is not the nuts. It is afterall, just one pair. No one argues that JJ is not a very powerful hand, but it aint the nuts and can be beat by a whole range of hands. How many times have we seen the all in short stack suck out two pair with say K6 on a board of K6xxx, and stay in the game? Happens all the time. Hachem needed Dannenman to make sure tex was gone.

The object in this hand is NOT TO WIN THE POT. It is to knock out the short stack.

TO illustrate, lets change the hands and board around -

Hachem has JJ
Tex has AA
Dannen has 66

Same preflop action. Tex allin. Hachem and dannen call.

FLOP - T32

Hachem pushes, Dannen folds being fearful of the K and not wanting to risk it all, folds. Hachem flips over jacks, Tex flips the aces and Hachem wants to throw up.

Turn is an 8 and river is a six!!

If Hachem had checked it down, tex is knocked out and he makes an extra two million. But, instead, he has 25M and the other two have about 15M each, and he has a real dog fight on his hands.

I think what is clouding everyones thinking on this is that you saw everyones hands during the hand and you saw how the hand played out. You are being a little results oriented here.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is such a results oriented example. How about this one. Say that Dannenman has AK, and Barch has 66. Hachem bets, Dannenman folds, and the river is a King! Suddenly Hatchem wins the 15 million chips (1/3 of all chips in play) and has a 3:1 chip advantage over Dannenman going into HU play. If he doesn't bet, Dannenman has a 3:2 chip advantage the other way. That's a HUGE $EV difference, given the $3.25 million dollar difference between first and second.

With your example, Barch has 15 million chips, and Hatchem has 23 million and Dannenman has 17 million. Hatchem is still in good shape to win here too. Why risk Dannenman winning the hand when even if you lose to Barch you are still in good shape, and if you beat Barch you increase the amount of time you have a massive chip lead going into HU!

Re: WSOP Hachem JJ Hand
 

Checking down is probably EV-, but its not like this was an online tourney where if a miracle hits you can always play the next sit-n-go. This is life-changing money, this is not kiddie games!

You can even say that all players at the final table were underbankrolled to make EV+ decisions. I am sure the jump from 3rd to 2nd place was more than the net worth of those two guys combined. There's no way in hell I would not check jacks here. What if Danneman has AK, and Tex has QQ, why would I risk 2.5 million of REAL money on a hand that I am not even guaranteed to win. For sure its EV+ in a normal tourney situation, but its not that much EV+ to risk 2.5 million dollars

Re: WSOP Hachem JJ Hand
 

Durron - I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this one! :-)

You are essentially arguing that it is more important to win the chips than it is to knock out the short stack. I am arguing that is is more important to knock out the short stack than win the pot.

I want to eliminate the SS at all costs. If I could GIVE danneman the pot and eliminate the Tex, I would in a second!

Re: WSOP Hachem JJ Hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
Durron - I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this one! :-)

You are essentially arguing that it is more important to win the chips than it is to knock out the short stack. I am arguing that is is more important to knock out the short stack than win the pot.

I want to eliminate the SS at all costs. If I could GIVE danneman the pot and eliminate the Tex, I would in a second!

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad you are willing to sacrifice what amounts to probably about a million bucks (ballpark) in $EV just to guarantee that you don't bust in third when you have a substantial chip lead. Yes, it's THAT not close.

I bet you're one of those guys that folds his way into small money in every tournament and busts shortly afterwards.

Re: WSOP Hachem JJ Hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
... clearly the most +EV move is to get Tex Barch out.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong. Expected Value in the long run is that the jacks are the best hand and betting them will win the most.

There is no evidence that Hachem is a better player than Dannenmann.

What if ... has nothing to do with either players range of hands. I do not know what happened in the hand. Hachem is ahead against both players range.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tournament EV and Cash game EV are two different things. Usually they are the same, but in this case they are not. This is actually an interesting question because there is obviously a point where the "implied collusion" play goes from +EV to -EV (Tourney EV that is). This question is closer than I first thought. Out of the two "bad" outcomes that can arise for Hachem this hand.

1. Barch wins main pot (all three approx. even in chips)
2. Dannenman wins main pot, Barch eliminated. Hachem heads up down 2-1 in chips.
3. Hachem wins main pot, Barch eliminated (heads up with 2-1 chip lead).

The gap in tourney EV between outcomes 1 and 2 is MUCH greater than the gap between 2 and 3. So I believe the checkdown is the best play to maximize the chance that outcome 1 doesn't happen. If this were a cash game, outcome 1 would be no worse than outcome 2 so clearly betting would be the correct play. Also, like I said earlier, if there were two more players left, the chips would be more important than the player being eliminated.

Some Calculations
 

So because it seemed we could go in circles ad infinitum, I decided to use Pokerstove, put in some hand ranges, and figure out Hachem’s equity in each situation.

I used the following ranges:

Barch: 66+, A2s+, KJs+, ATo+, KQo
Dannenmann: 55+, A2s+, KTs+, QJs, JTs, A8o+, KJo+

I gave Dannenmann a looser range for two reasons:
1. He is not as tight as Barch
2. He probably wants to knock out another player like many of you are advocating and is hoping Hachem will call and they can check it down.

Part One: Hachem softplays his JJ.

From Pokerstove, E(H) = .459, E(D) = .256, E(B) = .284.

.459 of the time, H has 39.995m chips, D has 16.35m.
.256 of the time, H has 23.045m, D has 33.3m.
.284 of the time, H has 23.045m, D has 16.35m, B has 16.95m.

I used the following model to calculate $EV:
Guaranteed money + (% of chips in play * difference of guaranteed prize from first prize).

For example, if H wins this pot, then
$EV(H) = 4.25m + (39.995/56.345 * 3.25m) = 6.56m.

If B wins this pot, then
$EV(H) = 2.5m + (23.045/56.345 * 5m) = 4.54m.

If D wins the pot, then
$EV(H) = 4.25m + (23.045/56.345 * 3.25m) = 5.58m.

Then overall, when Hachem decides to softplay,
$EV(H) = .459 * 6.56m + .284 * 4.54m + .256 * 5.58m = 5.729m.

OK, one part done.

Part 2: Hachem plays aggressively

Now let’s assume Hachem reraises all in. For Dannenmann to call, he will need a premium hand. Let’s say he would call with the following hands: AA, KK, QQ, and AK.

For the hand range given, he will have
QQ+, AK 34 ways (6*3 + 16)
55-JJ, A2s+ (-AKs), KTs+, QJs, JTs, A8o+ (-AKo), KJo+ 185 ways (6*6 + 1 + 4*16 + 12*7)

Or a premium hand 34/219 times, or 15.5% of the time.

First, let’s look at when he does not have one of those hands and folds. Then Hachem is heads up against Barch. In this case, E(H) = .612, E(B) = .389.

.612 of the time, H has 39.995m chips, D has 16.35m.
.389 of the time, H has 23.045m, D has 16.35m, B has 16.95m.

$EV(H) = 5.781m.

Now what about when Dannenmann does have a premium hand?

For the main pot, E(H) = .306, E(D) = .479, E(B) = .215.
For the side pot, E(H) = .362, E(D) = .638.

.479 of the time, H has 6.695m chips, D has 49.65m.
.306 of the time, H has 56.345m.
.078 of the time (when Barch wins, and Hachem wins the side pot), H has 39.395m, B has 16.95m.
.137 of the time (when Barch wins, and Dannenmann wins the side pot), H has 6.695m, D has 32.7m, B has 16.95m.

$EV(H) = 5.453m.

So then overall, when Hachem decides to play aggressively preflop,
$EV(H) = .845 * 5.781m + .155 * 5.453m = 5.729m.

In other words, this is way too close to call.

I will admit that I was very surprised when the $EV for playing aggressively wasn’t definitively higher.

Keep in mind I am a cash game player, so I don’t really know whether the $EV model I used was the best.

Any thoughts or reactions to my calculations would be appreciated. But please try to minimize the number of “Dude, Dannenmann is NOT calling A2s there. He’s not an idiot.” I guess the most controversial point will be whether he calls AK and QQ. He called an all in against Black with AK earlier, but I realize that wasn’t a dry side pot. I also realize that Barch isn't going to push A6s there every time. But keep in mind that he may not push AA there every time and instead try to win a big pot by trapping or by raising less than all in preflop.

Of course, this doesn't put any light on the postflop play, but that's for another day.

Re: WSOP Hachem JJ Hand
 

No, this is the final table of the WSOP. Show me that cooperating is going to win more money.

It depends substantially on Dannenmann's range of hands to call the push. I estimate that it costs Hachem $2000 in $EV for each hand that Dannenmann has in his range above 80 hands (roughly 99-AA,AK,AQ,KQs,AJs). So if Dannenmann's range is more speculative (which I think it is) Hachem gives up:
$200,000 for a moderate range
$400,000 for a loose range

His EV is about $5.5M so Hachem gives up about ~3.5% to 7% in $EV.

Certainly you wouldn't do this in a cash game (if I ever played one)
Nor would you do this in a SNG

Can you give up 3.5% to 7% EV to have a better chance to fold up a notch in the WSOP? Very player dependent. But not a winning move.

Anyone care to see the calculations PM me they are complicated.

My basic assumptions are:

$EV using ICM
Dannenmann only calls push with AA-QQ.
Barch's Pushing range is { AA-55, AKs-ATs, KQs, AKo-AJo, KQo }
Barch's average hand contains 1 card that is an ace,king, or queen.

Re: WSOP Hachem JJ Hand
 

[ QUOTE ]

My basic assumptions are:

$EV using ICM
Dannenmann only calls push with AA-QQ.
Barch's Pushing range is { AA-55, AKs-ATs, KQs, AKo-AJo, KQo }
Barch's average hand contains 1 card that is an ace,king, or queen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well...apparnatly Barch's range is much more, since the move was made with A6o...So....

Re: WSOP Hachem JJ Hand
 

its much more dependent on Dannenmann's range to call the PF push.

Re: WSOP Hachem JJ Hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
THIS IS FUNDEMENTAL TOURNEMENT POKER - When a short stack is all in, anyone else in the hand MUST CHECK IT DOWN, unless you have the stone cold nuts.

[/ QUOTE ]


it depends on when this is happeneing, people expect it to happen any time there is a short stack alline. In this particular situation, there were MILLIONS of dollars on the line, so whatever the course of actino to get Barch out is the best way. But people get in a hissy fit all the time online when someone doesnt check it down everytime, and it's used way too much.

Re: WSOP Hachem JJ Hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
THIS IS FUNDEMENTAL TOURNEMENT POKER - When a short stack is all in anyone else in the hand MUST CHECK IT DOWN, unless you have the stone cold nuts.

[/ QUOTE ]

i seriously thought you were being sarcastic here. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] but then you weren't [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Re: WSOP Hachem JJ Hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
THIS IS FUNDEMENTAL TOURNEMENT POKER - When a short stack is all in, anyone else in the hand MUST CHECK IT DOWN, unless you have the stone cold nuts.

[/ QUOTE ]
Normally checking it down makes sense. But the part about needing the stone cold buts is silly. There was 15M in the pot. If Hachem has the best hand and Dannenmann has live overcards getting him out is a very big deal when more than 1/4th of all the chips in play are sitting out there...even if doing so somehow keeps the short stack alive.

Re: WSOP Hachem JJ Hand
 

Paul Philliips says bet it, baby , bet it.

-g