GG Steve Danneman

[anatta]

[ 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 ]

The flop is AAT, You have AT.

[betgo]

Yeh, he probably overplayed it. But he is a relative of a celebrity not a professional player. People tend to think about the big hand thay have, not what the board may give someone else or how deep the money is.

[NLfool]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hell Kate Hudson's brother went bought in for 10k and lost on the first hand to Sammy Farha. Yeah it was a full house but it was tens full on a AAT board (first hand).

[/ QUOTE ]



If you don't go broke on that hand as well, then you truly are an NLFool.

[/ QUOTE ]

First hand of the WSOP against Sammy. I may lose a bunch but I don't go broke. I played with him and Hansen in 03 and in one hand in particular he flopped trips and with the A kicker and played pretty passively let his opponent bluff but never raised even on the river acting last.

It looks they are there to gamble loosey goosey but when it was deep early on they were fairly passive (maybe a better word is less aggressive) even on some big hands.

Against an unknown I maybe dunzo [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] but not against a top pro who I know isn't likely to go broke here with trips alone on the first hand with 10k chips and with blinds this minute.

EDIT: also it wasn't just AAT board it AATQ I believe. If it got in on the flop not believing someone would hold the A and case T so be it, I understand. But a top pro isn't going broke on an AATQ with trips alone on the first hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if it went the other way around and Sammy pushed? You would fold?

Sike.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Sammy pushed The Flop AAT and I have TT I probably go broke but that's not the way Sammy would play it, first hand of the ME. The dynamics greatly change when it comes AATQ and I hold TT. My main mistake was saying that he went broke on a AAT board without including the facts that it was on the turn on a AATQ board.

[slickpoppa]

Can we please not get distracted from the real issue here, namely that Steve Daneman is a tool.

[NLfool]

[ QUOTE ]
Can we please not get distracted from the real issue here, namely that Steve Daneman is a tool.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah he is a tool. But I'm sure if I ever get my 1 min of TV you'll all be saying the same thing. Tool or not whatever 1/2 of 2nd place money would make him one happy retired tool.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can we please not get distracted from the real issue here, namely that Steve Daneman is a tool.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah he is a tool. But I'm sure if I ever get my 1 min of TV you'll all be saying the same thing. Tool or not whatever 1/2 of 2nd place money would make him one happy retired tool.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah, you'd be a fool ... an NJfool.

[TheHip41]

[ 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 ]


If he has AA, when I have AT, and the board is AAQT, that's a lot of aces [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

the nuts:

AQ
AT
QQ
TT

[Rushmore]

[ QUOTE ]
If he has AA, when I have AT, and the board is AAQT, that's a lot of aces

the nuts:

AQ
AT
QQ
TT

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to pick fly sh*t out of pepper here, but from the victim's perspective (which is really all that matters here), he had the fifth nut hand behind AA, QQ, AT, and AQ.

My only point was that I COULD (and, to be honest, WOULD) get away from this hand in this spot. I was surprised to hear Diablo (and Betgo) saying that it was so tough a spot as to be VERY tough to get away from. It has made me reassess a little bit. Doing a weak-tight check of myself.

Which is, of course, one of the things that makes 2+2 the nuts.

[Salva135]

It would be possible not to go entirely broke on this hand, but you're going to lose a LOT of chips. Even if there's only like $200 in the pot and they both check to see the turn, there are going to be some serious raises and re-raises going on. If you don't lose at least half of your stack here with TT, then you're playing this game incorrectly. 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. Against an aggressive, loose player like Sammy whose range is huge, it's a terrible mistake not to play TT strongly here, IMO. It's just one of those hands where you have to lose a lot of money. Anyone claiming they wouldn't is kidding themselves.

[sternroolz]

Wide range of salaries depending on the type of product. Kind of like stock brokers. Some guys make 50-100K, some guys make $400K. Just depends on the product, and how hard some one is willing to work. If you will put in all your time making contacts amoung people that are middle class and wealthy, if you hold free seminars on investing, if you work hard at maintaining those contacts, you can make in the hundreds of thousands annually.

BTW, this is exactly why the argument that there are some people incapable of doing anything about their poor standing in life is utter bs. Anyone willing to work hard enough can improve their standing in life. Anyone in this country can become very wealthy if they work hard enough. BTW, the definition of "hard enough" is often "all your awake hours over a period of many years."

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He's a Mortgage Banker/CPA I'm sure he can afford it whether he can play or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

?? Since when does that job = big money?

[/ QUOTE ]