Hasan Habib : Good 4 Poker

Sorry, Didn't know how to link. Thanks 4 posting it.

I would'nt call it exactly soft play when Hasan raised Tuan Le's BB with 3 4 off suit and then check raised him with no pair no draw when the flop came 8 8 9. At that point Hasan had approx. 9m in chips. The check raise left Tuan with approx. only 2m in chips.

[yaaaflow]

[ QUOTE ]
I would'nt call it exactly soft play when Hasan raised Tuan Le's BB with 3 4 off suit and then check raised him with no pair no draw when the flop came 8 8 9. At that point Hasan had approx. 9m in chips. The check raise left Tuan with approx. only 2m in chips.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't have to influence every decision to influence one decision, and even having it influence one decision is bad enough (from a fairness in tournaments standpoint, anyhow).

[Willy]

The question I would like to see answered is:

Why did Lee tell you "WE" did it after he placed first?
What was the "we" all about

[transmitt]

no comment, but the hulkster avatar is the coolest ever, I'm singing Real American in my head as I type.

[detroitplayer]

Ok, so let me get this straight. It is 3 handed. People think Hasan was soft playing Le when he moved all in and Hasan folded KJ?

Ask yourself this. Why would Hasan rather have Le win and not have a shot to win it himself? Do you think he'd rather have a percentage of Le's first place, or (presumably) 100% of his own first place?

The only situation where this would even make sense is if Hasan gave up a piece of himself that was greater than the percentage Hasan had of Le. And if Hasan is backing other players, there's a lesser chance of him needing to be backed himself.

[Autocratic]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, so let me get this straight. It is 3 handed. People think Hasan was soft playing Le when he moved all in and Hasan folded KJ?

Ask yourself this. Why would Hasan rather have Le win and not have a shot to win it himself? Do you think he'd rather have a percentage of Le's first place, or (presumably) 100% of his own first place?

The only situation where this would even make sense is if Hasan gave up a piece of himself that was greater than the percentage Hasan had of Le. And if Hasan is backing other players, there's a lesser chance of him needing to be backed himself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh, that's not how it works.

A. Not knocking Lee out means Lee moves up in the money, assuring Habib more dough.
B. Habib and Lee had 50% of each other, so if they finished 1st and 2nd, they would each get the same amount of money, as they split winnings directly.

[rheaume]

[ QUOTE ]
no comment, but the hulkster avatar is the coolest ever, I'm singing Real American in my head as I type.

[/ QUOTE ]

TRAIN SAY YOUR PRAYERS AND EAT YOUR VITAMINS! NOW THAT'S *punches palm* A REAL AMERICAN!

[TomHimself]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, so let me get this straight. It is 3 handed. People think Hasan was soft playing Le when he moved all in and Hasan folded KJ?

Ask yourself this. Why would Hasan rather have Le win and not have a shot to win it himself? Do you think he'd rather have a percentage of Le's first place, or (presumably) 100% of his own first place?

The only situation where this would even make sense is if Hasan gave up a piece of himself that was greater than the percentage Hasan had of Le. And if Hasan is backing other players, there's a lesser chance of him needing to be backed himself.

[/ QUOTE ]wow

[m bozeman]

I actually think Hassan is a great player, it's a shame these "allegations" have come up. To finish 2nd and 3rd in back to back years in the biggest buy-in tournament we have, and against the best players in the world, that is a great accomplishment.