Negreanu v.s. Williams, heads up

[Elaboration]

[ QUOTE ]
A high

[/ QUOTE ]

K high, but c'mon its not like he called him with J high!

[3rdEye]

[ QUOTE ]
FWIW I actually thought David Williams played the better heads up match last night and probably would have won, save for Daniel catching huge cards.

Early in heads up action David had Daniel visably shaken. He was so routinely checkraised, he began checking through a lot of hands I think he would normally bet. If my memory serves it wasn't until Daniel's A2 snapped David's QQ that he regained a litte momentum. However, I noticed that after the next commercial break David had regained a decent chip lead.[img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

Granted, David goofed big time against in the KK hand. It was apparent Daniel was going all the way after committing 3/4ths of his stack. In the final hand he just got unlucky, having hit a K with Daniel holding AA again.

In the end both played well, but I didn't see as big a gap in skill as one might think before watching the action.

Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

If I didn't know the outcome before watching the episode, I would've thought Williams was clearly on the way to winning the event after the early heads-up action.

Unfortunately, however, any half-wit can figure out that, when the heads-up match starts at ~10:15, and the show isn't over until 11:00, there is a lot of action to come and anything can happen.

I thought both Williams and Daniel N. played well, but I was highly mystified by Daniel's 500K call with King high. I mean, you have to be EXTREMELY certain about your read to make that call.

Like I tell my friends sometimes in our home games, sometimes it just isn't profitable to call with a marginal hand, even when you're almost certain your opponent is bluffing with the worst hand. I think this was one of those cases.

[3rdEye]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It was a lot more than the typical WPT episode IMO. David Williams played great, and seeing Daniel getting upset is hilarious. He can be quite obnoxious.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, they did show a great deal of heads up play. I like that. I thought Daniel's AA slow roll at the end was particularly lame. This guy seems to continuously get free passes.

Regards,

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, come on...it wasn't really a slowroll. First, he asked David to confirm that he had bet all-in, then he obviously played to the camera for no more than 4 or 5 seconds before calling.


Did David W. miss a BB in a big side game because Daniel took SOOOO damn long to call with his AA?

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
Like I tell my friends sometimes in our home games, sometimes it just isn't profitable to call with a marginal hand, even when you're almost certain your opponent is bluffing with the worst hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

what?????

if i'm almost certain my opponent is bluffing with the worst hand, i call.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]


if i'm almost certain my opponent is bluffing with the worst hand, i call.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a friend who, when playing against me, always says, "Well, I know that I have the best hand. In fact, I'm sure of it. But I'm going to do the right thing and lay it down."

It's funny, and I tell him so.

[3rdEye]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Like I tell my friends sometimes in our home games, sometimes it just isn't profitable to call with a marginal hand, even when you're almost certain your opponent is bluffing with the worst hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

what?????

if i'm almost certain my opponent is bluffing with the worst hand, i call.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there are some circumstances in which you must be so sure that your opponent is bluffing that it is almost impossible for a call to be +EV in the long run.

Let's put it this way: Is there anyone here who can justify Daniel N's call of 500K on the river in the hand in question, given the way the hand was played?

500K was a very large bet at that point. I would have thought that Daniel would have possibly thought that DW bet that much with a real hand in order to induce a call under the assumption that DN would have guessed that DW was bluffing because he bet such a large amount.

[3rdEye]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


if i'm almost certain my opponent is bluffing with the worst hand, i call.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a friend who, when playing against me, always says, "Well, I know that I have the best hand. In fact, I'm sure of it. But I'm going to do the right thing and lay it down."

It's funny, and I tell him so.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, I see what you guys are saying, and I admit that you are right. Yet, I think the point I am trying to make is valid. Am I doing a poor job of articulating my point?

[3rdEye]

[ QUOTE ]
My impression was that David Williams had become a very tough player. Of course I've only seen him play on television and obviously they choose selected hands, but Williams seemed far more agressive in this event than in the WSOP last year. He played well enough to win and didn't get the key breaks, like when his QQ got beat by the A2.

The q7 hand was definitely a waste of chips, but overall I thought his agressive play was keeping his stack large without him holding many knockout hands. Negreanu on the other hand, did get some big hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

It didn't really seem like David W. even had a chance to get aggressive heads-up against Raymer in the WSOP. Didn't they only play ~10 hands heads-up?