[gergery]

[ QUOTE ]
Paul Philliips says bet it, baby , bet it.

[ QUOTE ]
On barch's elimination hand danenman open-raised with 77 and hachem bravely flat called with JJ, leading barch to jam with A6. I might have posted about this before but after danenman flat called the all-in I think hachem made a huge mistake by not jamming and getting heads-up. It would have been so sweet if danenman had bet hachem out of the pot when the queen hit the turn and promoted his pair over barch's ace-high. Oh how I hope if I'm ever playing for $7.5M that everyone thinks we have an agreement not to bet without monsters in elimination situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. Initially (when I made this post) I was thinking the same thing. But after going through the math it doesn't appear to be nearly as clear any more.

I agree with him that it would have been hilarious if Dannenmann had broken the implicit collusion pact and bet on the turn, thereby winning the main pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I liked your analysis and mostly agree -- i think its very close.

Only nitpicks would be -- 1) I think Barch was probably a significantly tougher competitor for Hachem than Danneman was -- meaning the value in eliminating him makes his equity significantly stronger in those scenarios, and 2) for most people, the utility value of money goes up more at lower amounts, meaning that the difference in value to Hachem between 5 million and 2.5 million is likely to be more than the value between 7.5 million and 5 million, to use a simplified example.

Also, its very possibly that he was able to narrow either Danneman's or Barch's range down further here based on tells or the way they were playing, and as such be able to make a better decision once the flop came.

-g