What could Dannenman have put Hachem on in the last hand?

yeah, I understand. I think if you want a better picture of the final table you should listen to all 14 hours of the cardplayer.com commentary. Even Hellmuth and some others were impressed with the aggression Black and Kanter were showing. The commentary gives you a much better idea of the overall level of play, and it explains why Hachem's stand with Q8 (Q7?) made sense and also shows how terribly unlucky Black got since he was playing so well.


[ QUOTE ]
no keysar thats not what i said. but based on the tiny fraction of what i saw it wasnt even close to being called a world series. it was not good poker play based on the hands they saw fit for tv which means all the other ones were much worse if thats possible. an i have played with barch before an he is a decent player an hachem has some skill. but i would still sit down with these 9 including mike m. and feel comfortable with my skill level.[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i think that this is probably the ugliest play ive seen at a final table ever. what i wouldnt of gave to play with these 9 "very nice" poker players. the only two i give any respect for(and it aint much other than the fact they all made it through a sea of players) is hachem an tex and of course mike m. the rest of these guys musta had some super great runs.

[/ QUOTE ]


So after seeing a tiny fraction of the hands at the final table, you've come to the conclusion that you're much better than Tex, Hachem, and Andy Black?

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but I'm sure some of the players criticizing Dannenman's play are the same ones who criticized Farha's laydown of his top pair against Moneymaker.

The way that played out, Farha's top pair didn't look like the best hand at all. If he calls, he wins the WSOP.

I can't really defend the play beyond that, but I think it's worth noting a similiar situation from just two years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

I remember that hand between Moneymaker and Farha. I don't remember exactly how it played out, but I seem to recall it was a pure bluff by Moneymaker on the river, though he was shooting at the pot the whole hand. I remember thinking it was a very reasonable laydown by Farha, and a rather reckless play by Moneymaker.

[mlagoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but I'm sure some of the players criticizing Dannenman's play are the same ones who criticized Farha's laydown of his top pair against Moneymaker.

The way that played out, Farha's top pair didn't look like the best hand at all. If he calls, he wins the WSOP.

I can't really defend the play beyond that, but I think it's worth noting a similiar situation from just two years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

I remember that hand between Moneymaker and Farha. I don't remember exactly how it played out, but I seem to recall it was a pure bluff by Moneymaker on the river, though he was shooting at the pot the whole hand. I remember thinking it was a very reasonable laydown by Farha, and a rather reckless play by Moneymaker.

[/ QUOTE ]

what not a calculated, aggressive play by moneymaker? this forum has this pervasive attitude that moneymaker can do no right. if he put farha on a foldable hand, it was just a great, "balls of steel" bluff. just trying to give credit where credits due.

[primetime32]

When i read people questioning dannenman's play on the final hand i wonder if they have ever played head's up poker before.

[CEE]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm suprised no one has mentioned the psychological move Hachem made on Dannenman in this hand. When the Ace fell Dannenman went into his Happy Go Lucky Smiley Face routine. Hachem skillfully exploited it by asking something like, "have you been having fun here?". The question sends Dannenman into a Swoon over his good time and good fortune. It reminded me of the scene in the Hustler when Paul Newman, drunk on victory, is ripe to be beat. After Dannenman raises Hachem says, "I thought we were being friendly here". This confuses Dannenman a bit more and before Dannenman can explain how Sincere his Friendliness is Hachem smiles as if to say he already understands, holds up his hand and says, "Stop". Then "I'm all in". When he calls, Dannenman is Drunk on a "Let the good times roll" spirit which Hachem has skillfully catalyzed. Hachem set him up. He out Nice Guyed him.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Love this post... I think the points made are very true to this hand. Hachem recognized that Danneman had multiple motives, one was to win money, and another was to "have fun"... he allowed him goal #2 at the expense of goal #1.

Anyone think it is possible they made a deal to chop in the Men's room? Maybe 85/15 or something? If you were in Hachem's shoes, what would you accept? Maybe this possibility has already been covered.

[ QUOTE ]
When i read people questioning dannenman's play on the final hand i wonder if they have ever played head's up poker before.

[/ QUOTE ]

You forgot to mention why you thought his play was right.

Dannenman put Hachem on KK, as trying to trap him. Dannenman figured if he hit his open ended straight or A, he could bust Hachem.

Hachem didn't believe Dannemn had an A, since he raised so little preflop.

Or maybe I'm wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
Dannenman put Hachem on KK, as trying to trap him. Dannenman figured if he hit his open ended straight or A, he could bust Hachem.

Hachem didn't believe Dannemn had an A, since he raised so little preflop.

Or maybe I'm wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I think what you propose is interesting.

If it's true that Dannenmann initially put Hachem on K-K, then Dannenmann would indeed have to think that Hachem is trying to trap him, since there was no re-raise pre-flop by Hachem. If Hachem held K-K, he was willing to let Dannenmann see the flop pretty cheaply, which means, as you say, that he must've not thought Dannenmann had an ace, at least at that point in the hand.

So the flop comes 4-5-6 with two diamonds. Dannenmann bets out $700,000. Does he still have Hachem on K-K, because if he does he thinks he's way behind in the hand now, having to hit his straight draw, or an ace on the turn or river, to win. So why does he bet out $700,000? Well maybe he's testing the waters to see if his read was right, to see if Hachem indeed holds the stronger hand.

And now Hachem does exactly what someone who was holding a strong hand such as K-K would do, he raises to $1.7 million. Now Dannenman has some information and can get away from the hand and not lose any more money to K-K. He's got eight outs to his straight draw, and three outs to his ace; eleven outs, so he's at least a 4-1 dog on the turn.

But in fact he calls the $1.7 million. Maybe he's gambling, thinking that Hachem would have a hard time putting him on A-3, so that hitting any of his outs on the turn might pay off handsomely.

So he hits his ace on the turn. Hachem bets out $2 million. Suppose Dannenmann still thinks Hachem has K-K. He should at least have a healthy skepticism about that read at this stage, since if Dannenmann is holding an ace he has just become a huge favorite in the hand, yet Hachem bets out when the ace comes. Is a highly skilled player like Hachem really likely to still be relying entirely on his pre-flop read that Dannenmann has no ace b'c of the smallish raise that Dannenmann made pre-flop, and overlook the obvious possibility that Dannenmann is betting his ace and has Hacnem's K-K beat?

Despite these considerations, Dannenmann now raises to $5 million. What does he think Hachem must be thinking now? If Hachem has K-K, at the very least he's *got* to be concerned about the ace, because Dannenmann clearly thinks he has the best hand, and at this stage there aren't many hands that will beat K-K. But aces will, so clearly Hachem should be very concerned since Dannenmann has just put in a serious raise.

Yet what does Hachem do? He goes all in! Is this the move that someone who held K-K and so might naturally be worried about the ace on the turn would make? No. So why does he go all-in? *Because he's not concerned about the ace!* If Hachem has K-K, and Dannenmann does in fact have the ace--which is the most obvious hand that Dannenmann's raise to $5 million might represent--then Hachem must know that Dannenmann will call the all-in if he correctly puts Hachem on a big pocket pair, and if he does call and has the ace and so beats Hachem's K-K, Hachem goes from $23 million ahead to $9 million behind on this one hand. And all of this because he made the simple mistake of overlooking the possibility that Dannenmann held an ace and that the turn gave Dannenmann the lead.

But Hachem isn't worried about any of that because he's not concerned about the ace at all. And yet in calling the all-in raise Dannenmann was relying almost entirely on the chances that his aces were the best hand. If they're not, then he's got to hit another ace on the river, or his straight draw, to beat a set or better, and if that's the case he's in big, big trouble.

Given all that, at this stage how likely should Dannenman think it is that Hachem holds K-K? (or, indeed, that he has Hachem beat--what other hands for example could Dannenmann put Hachem on here that would be good for Dannenmann?)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dannenman put Hachem on KK, as trying to trap him. Dannenman figured if he hit his open ended straight or A, he could bust Hachem.

Hachem didn't believe Dannemn had an A, since he raised so little preflop.

Or maybe I'm wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I think what you propose is interesting.

If it's true that Dannenmann initially put Hachem on K-K, then Dannenmann would indeed have to think that Hachem is trying to trap him, since there was no re-raise pre-flop by Hachem. If Hachem held K-K, he was willing to let Dannenmann see the flop pretty cheaply, which means, as you say, that he must've not thought Dannenmann had an ace, at least at that point in the hand.

So the flop comes 4-5-6 with two diamonds. Dannenmann bets out $700,000. Does he still have Hachem on K-K, because if he does he thinks he's way behind in the hand now, having to hit his straight draw, or an ace on the turn or river, to win. So why does he bet out $700,000? Well maybe he's testing the waters to see if his read was right, to see if Hachem indeed holds the stronger hand.

And now Hachem does exactly what someone who was holding a strong hand such as K-K would do, he raises to $1.7 million. Now Dannenman has some information and can get away from the hand and not lose any more money to K-K. He's got eight outs to his straight draw, and three outs to his ace; eleven outs, so he's at least a 4-1 dog on the turn.

But in fact he calls the $1.7 million. Maybe he's gambling, thinking that Hachem would have a hard time putting him on A-3, so that hitting any of his outs on the turn might pay off handsomely.

So he hits his ace on the turn. Hachem bets out $2 million. Suppose Dannenmann still thinks Hachem has K-K. He should at least have a healthy skepticism about that read at this stage, since if Dannenmann is holding an ace he has just become a huge favorite in the hand, yet Hachem bets out when the ace comes. Is a highly skilled player like Hachem really likely to still be relying entirely on his pre-flop read that Dannenmann has no ace b'c of the smallish raise that Dannenmann made pre-flop, and overlook the obvious possibility that Dannenmann is betting his ace and has Hacnem's K-K beat?

Despite these considerations, Dannenmann now raises to $5 million. What does he think Hachem must be thinking now? If Hachem has K-K, at the very least he's *got* to be concerned about the ace, because Dannenmann clearly thinks he has the best hand, and at this stage there aren't many hands that will beat K-K. But aces will, so clearly Hachem should be very concerned since Dannenmann has just put in a serious raise.

Yet what does Hachem do? He goes all in! Is this the move that someone who held K-K and so might naturally be worried about the ace on the turn would make? No. So why does he go all-in? *Because he's not concerned about the ace!* If Hachem has K-K, and Dannenmann does in fact have the ace--which is the most obvious hand that Dannenmann's raise to $5 million might represent--then Hachem must know that Dannenmann will call the all-in if he correctly puts Hachem on a big pocket pair, and if he does call and has the ace and so beats Hachem's K-K, Hachem goes from $23 million ahead to $9 million behind on this one hand. And all of this because he made the simple mistake of overlooking the possibility that Dannenmann held an ace and that the turn gave Dannenmann the lead.

But Hachem isn't worried about any of that because he's not concerned about the ace at all. And yet in calling the all-in raise Dannenmann was relying almost entirely on the chances that his aces were the best hand. If they're not, then he's got to hit another ace on the river, or his straight draw, to beat a set or better, and if that's the case he's in big, big trouble.

Given all that, at this stage how likely should Dannenman think it is that Hachem holds K-K? (or, indeed, that he has Hachem beat--what other hands for example could Dannenmann put Hachem on here that would be good for Dannenmann?)

[/ QUOTE ]

My entire post was sarcastic.

However, if Dannenman was so bad at reading people that he put Hachem on KK, would you be surprised that he called with his pair of Aces on the turn?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dannenman put Hachem on KK, as trying to trap him. Dannenman figured if he hit his open ended straight or A, he could bust Hachem.

Hachem didn't believe Dannemn had an A, since he raised so little preflop.

Or maybe I'm wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I think what you propose is interesting.

If it's true that Dannenmann initially put Hachem on K-K, then Dannenmann would indeed have to think that Hachem is trying to trap him, since there was no re-raise pre-flop by Hachem. If Hachem held K-K, he was willing to let Dannenmann see the flop pretty cheaply, which means, as you say, that he must've not thought Dannenmann had an ace, at least at that point in the hand.

So the flop comes 4-5-6 with two diamonds. Dannenmann bets out $700,000. Does he still have Hachem on K-K, because if he does he thinks he's way behind in the hand now, having to hit his straight draw, or an ace on the turn or river, to win. So why does he bet out $700,000? Well maybe he's testing the waters to see if his read was right, to see if Hachem indeed holds the stronger hand.

And now Hachem does exactly what someone who was holding a strong hand such as K-K would do, he raises to $1.7 million. Now Dannenman has some information and can get away from the hand and not lose any more money to K-K. He's got eight outs to his straight draw, and three outs to his ace; eleven outs, so he's at least a 4-1 dog on the turn.

But in fact he calls the $1.7 million. Maybe he's gambling, thinking that Hachem would have a hard time putting him on A-3, so that hitting any of his outs on the turn might pay off handsomely.

So he hits his ace on the turn. Hachem bets out $2 million. Suppose Dannenmann still thinks Hachem has K-K. He should at least have a healthy skepticism about that read at this stage, since if Dannenmann is holding an ace he has just become a huge favorite in the hand, yet Hachem bets out when the ace comes. Is a highly skilled player like Hachem really likely to still be relying entirely on his pre-flop read that Dannenmann has no ace b'c of the smallish raise that Dannenmann made pre-flop, and overlook the obvious possibility that Dannenmann is betting his ace and has Hacnem's K-K beat?

Despite these considerations, Dannenmann now raises to $5 million. What does he think Hachem must be thinking now? If Hachem has K-K, at the very least he's *got* to be concerned about the ace, because Dannenmann clearly thinks he has the best hand, and at this stage there aren't many hands that will beat K-K. But aces will, so clearly Hachem should be very concerned since Dannenmann has just put in a serious raise.

Yet what does Hachem do? He goes all in! Is this the move that someone who held K-K and so might naturally be worried about the ace on the turn would make? No. So why does he go all-in? *Because he's not concerned about the ace!* If Hachem has K-K, and Dannenmann does in fact have the ace--which is the most obvious hand that Dannenmann's raise to $5 million might represent--then Hachem must know that Dannenmann will call the all-in if he correctly puts Hachem on a big pocket pair, and if he does call and has the ace and so beats Hachem's K-K, Hachem goes from $23 million ahead to $9 million behind on this one hand. And all of this because he made the simple mistake of overlooking the possibility that Dannenmann held an ace and that the turn gave Dannenmann the lead.

But Hachem isn't worried about any of that because he's not concerned about the ace at all. And yet in calling the all-in raise Dannenmann was relying almost entirely on the chances that his aces were the best hand. If they're not, then he's got to hit another ace on the river, or his straight draw, to beat a set or better, and if that's the case he's in big, big trouble.

Given all that, at this stage how likely should Dannenman think it is that Hachem holds K-K? (or, indeed, that he has Hachem beat--what other hands for example could Dannenmann put Hachem on here that would be good for Dannenmann?)

[/ QUOTE ]

My entire post was sarcastic.

However, if Dannenman was so bad at reading people that he put Hachem on KK, would you be surprised that he called with his pair of Aces on the turn?

[/ QUOTE ]

I know, but some kind of read like that from Dannenmann (If he had any read at all) would not be surprising to me given what I saw, at least, of Dannenmann's play. And that was my point in the first place--that Dannenmann's play made no sense to me, b'c there really isn't a hand that he can put Hachem on that makes Dannenmann's play in the last hand sensible. There have been a number of people defending it you know.