|
|
#51
11-18-2005, 01:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: What could Dannenman have put Hachem on in the last hand?
[ QUOTE ]
Why isn't anyone getting on Hachem for calling a preflop raise with 7,3? He had to know he was behind. He got a lucky flop and Dannenman couldn't put him on that hand. Oops. There are very few hands when you have the nuts. If you lay down every hand to someone who represents a bigger hand than you have, you aren't going to do very well at poker. Just my opinion. [/ QUOTE ] He called because he had a $23 million chip lead, the raise was only about twice the BB, and he knew he could trap Dannenman if he got lucky on the flop, and get away from the hand easily enough if he didn't. His strategy makes perfect sense to me. Your other comment--about laying down every hand to someone that represents a bigger hand than you have completely glosses over the absolutely crucial details of the hand and the relative chip count. I'm not talking about "laying down every hand..." I'm talking about that particular hand under those specific conditions. The fact of the matter is, if Dannenman calls that all-in raise from Hachem and Hachem can't beat the ace then Hachem goes from a $23 million chip lead to a $9 million chip deficit on one hand. I don't know what others think about making that sort of play, but there is no way I'm risking a commanding lead HU at the WSOP final table by bluffing and hoping that he'll lay down his ace because I can't beat it, or relying on the river to bail me out if he doesn't. Those are just some of the facts of the hand, the betting sequence screams out to me, at least, that Hachem knew he had Dannenman beat. 
|
|
#52
11-18-2005, 02:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What could Dannenman have put Hachem on in the last hand?
[ QUOTE ]
I think ESPN did a really bad job of showing just how long this took and the toll that it would have put on the players. [/ QUOTE ] I agree. They obviously wanted it to seem like a 'seemless' type broadcast...so they didn't want to show the fact that this final-table took forever. but it did...and I think that showing that fact would have really added to the drama. As it stands now...there are very few people around to say "wow....that thing went till 7am!!" which is exactly what everyone WOULD be saying if they had a little clock in the upper-corner to really drive this point home. Someone mentioned early in this thread that this hand was early into heads-up play. I don't think that is correct. Weren't these guys battling heads-up forever? I don't know for sure but I thought that's how it went down. They showed 2 or 3 heads-up hands didn't they? Really thought they played longer than that. If they did then that is a big consideration for the final-hand. We have no idea how many times these guys battled back and forth in similar-action type pots where Hachem showed some kind of bluff or vice-versa. It's not just about this hand...there might have been serious meta-game considerations that went into Danneman's call. He's pretty ready to get the damn thing over with because he's about to collapse....PLUS maybe he's remember some hand from 30 or 60 minutes earlier where Hachem showed him 99 on an A-high board and bluffed Danneman out with his KK or A2 or something. Without knowing how long they had been playing against each other heads-up and some of the other hands they showed each other and played there's virtually no way we can accurately analyze the final hand.
|
|
#53
11-18-2005, 02:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What could Dannenman have put Hachem on in the last hand?
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.
|
|
#54
11-18-2005, 03:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What could Dannenman have put Hachem on in the last hand?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I think ESPN did a really bad job of showing just how long this took and the toll that it would have put on the players. [/ QUOTE ] I agree. They obviously wanted it to seem like a 'seemless' type broadcast...so they didn't want to show the fact that this final-table took forever. but it did...and I think that showing that fact would have really added to the drama. As it stands now...there are very few people around to say "wow....that thing went till 7am!!" which is exactly what everyone WOULD be saying if they had a little clock in the upper-corner to really drive this point home. Someone mentioned early in this thread that this hand was early into heads-up play. I don't think that is correct. Weren't these guys battling heads-up forever? I don't know for sure but I thought that's how it went down. They showed 2 or 3 heads-up hands didn't they? Really thought they played longer than that. If they did then that is a big consideration for the final-hand. We have no idea how many times these guys battled back and forth in similar-action type pots where Hachem showed some kind of bluff or vice-versa. It's not just about this hand...there might have been serious meta-game considerations that went into Danneman's call. He's pretty ready to get the damn thing over with because he's about to collapse....PLUS maybe he's remember some hand from 30 or 60 minutes earlier where Hachem showed him 99 on an A-high board and bluffed Danneman out with his KK or A2 or something. Without knowing how long they had been playing against each other heads-up and some of the other hands they showed each other and played there's virtually no way we can accurately analyze the final hand. [/ QUOTE ] They only played about 4-5 hands HU IIRC.
|
|
#55
11-18-2005, 04:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What could Dannenman have put Hachem on in the last hand?
[ QUOTE ]
Put 7.5M on the table and most people will play their best poker. [/ QUOTE ] well really it's more like 3.25m on the line cause second gets 4.25m or something right?
|
|
#56
11-18-2005, 06:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Here\'s the actual sequence in the final hand
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Hachem went all-in and Dannenman instantly called. Hachem held the 7c-3s and Dannenman the Ad-3c. [/ QUOTE ] It looked like there was actually some confusion when this happened. Could anyone pick up on the dialog? I thouhgt I heard Hachem say "all-in", the Dannenman said something I couldn't understand, then Hachem said "no wait", then Dannenman said "I'm all-in". What the hell was going on there? [/ QUOTE ] I think Hachem was saying something like "big hand?" Acting like he was trying to get a tell on Dannenman, maybe. And then held up his hand and said: "wait. all-in." [/ QUOTE ] Hachem said "I thought we were being friendly," then they showed this look on D's face, then Hachem held up his hand and said "Wait...I'm all in." The way they edit these things it's very hard to tell exactly how things went down.
|
|
#57
11-18-2005, 07:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What could Dannenman have put Hachem on in the last hand?
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.
|
|
#58
11-18-2005, 07:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What could Dannenman have put Hachem on in the last hand?
[ 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?
|
|
#60
11-18-2005, 09:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What could Dannenman have put Hachem on in the last hand?
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 ]
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
