Gigabet hand in WPT event.

[illegit]

Considering this is a limped blind v. blind confrontation I don't really buy the extremely narrow hand range he assigns to Dan here.

[fnord_too]

[ QUOTE ]

I just really would want to see showdown here, and think he could have structure his line so that he saw one.. maybe check calling the turn and betting the river, or something.



[/ QUOTE ]

Checking the turn is definitely a line to think about. I think I like that line a lot better than betting out. Calling the flop and betting out shows so much strength that the turn raise scares the hell out of me. Check calling could easily get a worse hand to bet the turn. I'm not sure about the river, probably bet if it's checked through on the turn, check otherwise. Being OOP just sucks.

[billyjex]

[ QUOTE ]
Considering this is a limped blind v. blind confrontation I don't really buy the extremely narrow hand range he assigns to Dan here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Almost sounds like he underestimates Dan's ability to bluff or semibluff here. Giga's turn lead can look like a very weak "Where am I at?" that Dan could capitilize on.

I play it different, probably by check/calling the turn, reevaluating river.

[cferejohn]

I put this in the original thread, but the folks I know are more likely to be reading here:

You and Dan Harrington are better poker players than I will ever be, but I'm going to come out and say that I think this is a terrible fold. Dan is obviously a tight player, but from having watched him on TV and from reading his books, he certainly knows he has that image, and he certainly takes advantage of it from time to time, especially against players who are aggressive but smart enough to lay down (this is the exact profile of the sort of player one would try the sqeeze play that he advocates against). Gigabet fits that profile exactly.

Even if his range *is* 2 pair or better, it looks like you have a +EV call here, since you beat J3, T3, and T4 (I think this is a possible holding because he could certainly have raised an SB be who completed then bet the flop with second pair).

And I still think there is a chance he's on a complete bluff (not a very big one, but as I said before, it seems he's capable of running a complete bluff against exactly this sort of player in exactly this sort of situation, exactly because when he raises the flop and turn he knows Gigabet will put him on a big hand).

And what do we think he puts gigabet on? Calling the SB and then making a flop overbet when J-high flops? That should look like top pair who doesn't want to give a cheap card, and Dan's thinking might easily be "I think I can push him off top pair if I represent something that can beat it".

Fwiw, I also like the "check the turn" line. The way the hand has played so far, Harrington could also easily put giga on 89, 9Q, or even KQ, and a check the turn fits right in with this and will probably get a bet (and it also should keep the pot size under control since that seems to be a concern).

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
I put this in the original thread, but the folks I know are more likely to be reading here:

You and Dan Harrington are better poker players than I will ever be, but I'm going to come out and say that I think this is a terrible fold. Dan is obviously a tight player, but from having watched him on TV and from reading his books, he certainly knows he has that image, and he certainly takes advantage of it from time to time, especially against players who are aggressive but smart enough to lay down (this is the exact profile of the sort of player one would try the sqeeze play that he advocates against). Gigabet fits that profile exactly.

Even if his range *is* 2 pair or better, it looks like you have a +EV call here, since you beat J3, T3, and T4 (I think this is a possible holding because he could certainly have raised an SB be who completed then bet the flop with second pair).

And I still think there is a chance he's on a complete bluff (not a very big one, but as I said before, it seems he's capable of running a complete bluff against exactly this sort of player in exactly this sort of situation, exactly because when he raises the flop and turn he knows Gigabet will put him on a big hand).

And what do we think he puts gigabet on? Calling the SB and then making a flop overbet when J-high flops? That should look like top pair who doesn't want to give a cheap card, and Dan's thinking might easily be "I think I can push him off top pair if I represent something that can beat it".

Fwiw, I also like the "check the turn" line. The way the hand has played so far, Harrington could also easily put giga on 89, 9Q, or even KQ, and a check the turn fits right in with this and will probably get a bet (and it also should keep the pot size under control since that seems to be a concern).

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah. i'm also confused about why he thinks WAWB is a raise/fold situation.

[MLG]

Here's the thing about this hand. When Harrington raises the flop it could easily be either for value or to take control of the hand for pot control reasons. So when giga leads the turn he takes pot control away from Harrington and it seems Harrington doesnt care since he goes right ahead and raises. Harrington is almost certainly a lock for a big hand now (although there is a small chance of pure bluff) as a good draw almost certainly calls, same with a good one pair hand like KJ/QJ. After all that it seems like a bet on the turn is much better than a check, since it gets value out of worse made hands, charges draws, and forces Dan to define his hand for us. When Dan raises in this spot im petrified. So, what hands could Dan have. Seems to me, J10/J3/103/33 and maybe maybe maybe 44 that ran a play on the flop. I don't know why giga doesnt include 103 in his range, maybe he thinks Harrington just calls on the turn there. Given that im including 103 in the range I cant find a fold. I call the raise and lead the river for the same reasons I led the turn.

[SheepCookers]

Am I missing something but why everyone automatically excluding JJ and TT from possible Harringtons holdings just because he didn't reraise preflop?

[benneh]

because there is only 1 combination for each, and that coupled with dan not raising preflop makes for an extremely unlikely top or middle segt here

[Exitonly]

Wouldn't J4 play the same way too MLG?

[MLG]

maybe, but is less likely to raise the flop. there's a bigger chance he just calls the flop.