Bigger Mistake: Phillips or Hansen?

[bones]

[ QUOTE ]
Gus Hansen has been touted as a great tournament player. Even Sklansky has been up here touting his abilities. Why would a great tournament player risk his very good chance of winning the tournament on at best a toss up so early in the competition

[/ QUOTE ]

Paul and Dewey aren't exactly internet qualifiers. If Gus has any skill advantage, it isn't gonna be so great that he can pass up chances to double through against someone who is capable of making that play with such a wide range of hands, given the situation.

Gus doesn't strike me as someone who cares that much about waiting out Dewey for 2nd. And considering how well Dewey has played short stacks in the past, that isn't a given either.

I'm sure Paul would be thrilled if everyone laid down everything but JJ or better to his raises.

[morello]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that both Hansen and Philips made big mistakes on this hand. I know I'm right about that but I wonder which made the bigger mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd love to hear how you'd play this hand.


Paul played it absolutely correctly IMO. There is 325k of dead money in the pot for him to pick up. And even if he loses, he has 500k vs Tomko's 750k.

I think if Gus makes a raise to 150k, Paul is faced with a much more difficult decision.

[riverboatking]

[ QUOTE ]
pp knows that it will be hard for gus to call in that spot without aa or kk

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe you have never watched Gus Hansen play. PP knows Hansen WILL call with a heck of a wider randge of hands than A,A or K,K.

[/ QUOTE ]

which makes the play even more correct. if as you say PP knows gus will call with "a heck of a wider range then AA or KK" then why not reraise and welcome a call by a dominated hand? however PP doesn't in fact know this.
you talk as though all this happened after most of gus's tv appearances.
in fact this was one of the earlier episodes before PSI and the other wtp shows.
your assumptions as to PP thinking about what gus will call with are absurd and not really based on objective facts.
besides that maybe you should reread my intial response (the first in this thread) in which i clearly laid out why neither player made a mistake in this hand.
ITS CALLED POKER and sometimes in poker two hands go to showdown!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
besides that not one person has given a different opinion.
no one besides you has attempted to show that one player made a mistake and your attempts have not been compelling.


ps. how do you do the quote inside a quote?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
I believe that both Hansen and Philips made big mistakes on this hand. I know I'm right about that

-------------------------------------------------------------

Somehow that's cute when david does it. With you, the effect is to prove you should keep your psychiatrist on speed-dial.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice refutation.

Anyway, even though you don't agree with Vince on that point, would you care to comment on Vince's view that Gus played his hand less optimally than you played your hand?

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, even though you don't agree with Vince on that point, would you care to comment on Vince's view that Gus played his hand less optimally than you played your hand?

[/ QUOTE ]
Can one play less optimally than another? Are there degrees of optimal or is optimal an absolute? Hmmmm......

[Rushmore]

[ QUOTE ]
Notice how vince conspicuously evades telling us the "correct" way to play AQ in that spot. I sure wish he would so we could all learn how the real pros do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although I must admit to agreeing with your assessment about Vince's rather oblique analysis, in the interest of being at least somewhat constructive...

...could it not be a good spot here to simply call and take a flop? If we can agree that Gus is likely calling pairs tens and up (an assumption, I know, but not a huge stretch), AK, and AQ, seeing the flop relatively cheaply might not be the worst thing in the world. If you flop a pair and Gus doesn't have the goods, he might be in for the long haul. If you miss, you can get away, and 3rd place money is not even in the picture yet.

If you're dominated, you were, of course, going to be dominated anyway. Minimizing your commitment to this pot might definitely serve as damage control should the flop miss you both, particularly AK vs. your AQ.

I would think that minimizing 3rd place as a newly-distinct possibility would be a fairly large consideration.

I see no value in raising a smaller amount here.

The allin has two big advantages--moving Gus off a small/medium pair (and, I suppose, possibly off of AQ), and, obviously, pushing Dewey out of the pot. This (perhaps too liberally) assumes Gus will call with his tens.

God, how I hate AQ, especially short like this in a tough situation.

I'd like to see the math, even though I cringe at some of the math I see here, and weep at my woefully inadequate math skills.

OK. I've said too much.

[Rushmore]

[ QUOTE ]
If Paul just calls, he misses 2 flops out of 3 and will be forced to fold to a Gus bet, and Gus is first to act. If Paul reraises 750K, Gus would either go all in or call, and Paul has the flop problem again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seven words:

Implied odds, limited liability, and prize money consideration.

I like your thinking; it's some of the only potentially constructive posting in this thread.

I simply disagree. I think that we're all so (generally correctly) anti-calling that we fail to see that sometimes, it might make the most sense.

[Rushmore]

[ QUOTE ]
KQ clubs

[/ QUOTE ]

Different universe.

[realbad101]

A couple of notes here...

To second-guess Paul or Gus's play here shows a big misunderstanding of the game. Three handed TT and AQ are going to lead to a race 99% of the time.

During that episode, Paul talked about his "anti-Gus" strategy or something to the like. Obviously it was successful, and I think I see a lot of the other pros emulating Paul's strategy. So much so, that it looks like Gus has tightened up a bit and evolved his strategy. Since he doesn't get credit for having a hand he's been cashing in when he does and folding more small pairs and suited connectors than he has in the past. At least from what's shown on TV.

And about Tomko - he's a pro's pro tight player. Folded AJo on the button 4 or 5 handed on one of the earliest episodes. This risk aversion leads to him being short stacked on occasion, but he's got a couple of bracelets so he's doing something right.

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, even though you don't agree with Vince on that point, would you care to comment on Vince's view that Gus played his hand less optimally than you played your hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think Paul is bothering to respond to this part because he's rehashed this hand a ton already on his web site. I don't blame him for not wanting to do so again, when this tournament took place over a year ago.