WSOP Hachem JJ Hand

Checking it down is RARELY the correct strategy. That being said, I think this is one of those rare cases. With a nearly $2 million pay jump, clearly the most +EV move is to get Tex Barch out. If there were five players left instead of three, then you would have to bet, especially with the flat pay increases until third. Also, Dannenmann is clearly the least skilled of the three players, giving him all those chips is not as dangerous as making Barch whole again. A lot of people on this forum react to TV poker as if the players know each other's cards. What if Dannenman had AK and Barch had QQ or something like that. Then betting is a HORRIBLE move for Hachem.

[Huskiez]

There are certain pros and cons to keeping Dannenmann in there and agreeing to implicit collusion. You can either maximize the chance of winning the pot or maximize the chance of knocking a player out. I think that, for the purposes of winning the tournament, the former is a more important aim.

Here is another problem with implicit collusion in this case. Using the definition supplied by PFrese:

[ QUOTE ]
In implicit collusion, all opponents come to an independent agreement--that is, without consulting among each other--to all play in such a way as to minimize the chance of the player with the best hand winning the pot. For example, in a hold 'em tournament, a small stack may go all in and get called by one or more players with larger stacks. Those players collectively have a better chance of beating the all-in player than any does individually, and they may check down the hand till the end, that is, with no one making a bet that might drive anyone else out. The all-in player may have the best hand and be the favorite against any one of the others, but collectively, the remaining players have a better chance against the all-in player, and if they all understand--even though nothing is ever said to that effect--that all will check the hand down, that is implied collusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hachem has to suspect that in a three handed game, the chances of his JJ being the best hand is extremely high. But implicit collusion minimizes the chance of the best hand winning. If he reraises the first time after Dannenmann calls, he greatly improves his pot equity and therefore chance to win the hand.

A lot of posters have mentioned that Hachem can get an extra guaranteed 2 million by keeping Dannenmann in and knocking Barch out. But he can still get that by knocking out Dannenmann and knocking out Barch himself. And while everyone is quick to point out what if Dannenmann > Barch > Hachem at showdown, what about when Dannenmann > Hachem > Barch?

The latter will probably happen more often because Hachem > Barch preflop (almost always). Also when Dannenmann has a lower pocket.

The former will happen more often when both Dannenmann and Barch have an ace and an ace hits the board.

As durron597 mentioned, another important factor here is that Hachem's hand has legitimate showdown value. If he had T9s, I can understand softplaying it, mainly because in that case, he almost certainly does not have the best hand. Those advocating softplay here, would you also do the same with AA and KK?

If anyone has a link to an article or citation in a book that elucidates the situation, I would love to hear it.

[PFrese]

[ QUOTE ]
Those advocating softplay here, would you also do the same with AA and KK?

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely. The only time I would advocate coming out of "softplay" mode is with the stone cold nuts. AA or KK is not the nuts. It is afterall, just one pair. No one argues that JJ is not a very powerful hand, but it aint the nuts and can be beat by a whole range of hands. How many times have we seen the all in short stack suck out two pair with say K6 on a board of K6xxx, and stay in the game? Happens all the time. Hachem needed Dannenman to make sure tex was gone.

The object in this hand is NOT TO WIN THE POT. It is to knock out the short stack.

TO illustrate, lets change the hands and board around -

Hachem has JJ
Tex has AA
Dannen has 66

Same preflop action. Tex allin. Hachem and dannen call.

FLOP - T32

Hachem pushes, Dannen folds being fearful of the K and not wanting to risk it all, folds. Hachem flips over jacks, Tex flips the aces and Hachem wants to throw up.

Turn is an 8 and river is a six!!

If Hachem had checked it down, tex is knocked out and he makes an extra two million. But, instead, he has 25M and the other two have about 15M each, and he has a real dog fight on his hands.

I think what is clouding everyones thinking on this is that you saw everyones hands during the hand and you saw how the hand played out. You are being a little results oriented here.

[locutus2002]

[ QUOTE ]
... clearly the most +EV move is to get Tex Barch out.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong. Expected Value in the long run is that the jacks are the best hand and betting them will win the most.

There is no evidence that Hachem is a better player than Dannenmann.

What if ... has nothing to do with either players range of hands. I do not know what happened in the hand. Hachem is ahead against both players range.

[PFrese]

[ QUOTE ]
This is wrong. Expected Value in the long run is that the jacks are the best hand and betting them will win the most.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does not matter at this stage in the tourney.


[ QUOTE ]
... Hachem is ahead against both players range.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does not matter at this stage in the tourney.

You guys are thinking about this like it is a cash game where the obeject is to win the most money/bets from your opposition. That is NOT this case here. The object is to knock out the short stack. Period. Who wins THIS pot is irrelevant (as long as it aint Tex).

BTW - if it were a cash game, I would defnitely push on the flop. Do you see why?? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] (sorry could not resist).

[ajmargarine]

[ QUOTE ]
Expected Value in the long run is that...

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, this made me LOL. This isn't a NL100 cash game.

[Arnett23]

[ QUOTE ]
Lets say Dannenman has AK and Hachem has JJ. He has a hand with legitimate showdown value and he does not want to give Dannenman two free cards to draw to 6 outs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Same scenario, except barch has AQ, now hachem bets dannenmean out of the pot and the A hits the turn. Wouldn't you be feeling a bit foolish? Tex Barch seemed to be the toughest player at the table, I would much rather play at a slight chip disadvantage against dannenman than 3 way with the tougher player still in.

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Those advocating softplay here, would you also do the same with AA and KK?

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely. The only time I would advocate coming out of "softplay" mode is with the stone cold nuts. AA or KK is not the nuts. It is afterall, just one pair. No one argues that JJ is not a very powerful hand, but it aint the nuts and can be beat by a whole range of hands. How many times have we seen the all in short stack suck out two pair with say K6 on a board of K6xxx, and stay in the game? Happens all the time. Hachem needed Dannenman to make sure tex was gone.

The object in this hand is NOT TO WIN THE POT. It is to knock out the short stack.

TO illustrate, lets change the hands and board around -

Hachem has JJ
Tex has AA
Dannen has 66

Same preflop action. Tex allin. Hachem and dannen call.

FLOP - T32

Hachem pushes, Dannen folds being fearful of the K and not wanting to risk it all, folds. Hachem flips over jacks, Tex flips the aces and Hachem wants to throw up.

Turn is an 8 and river is a six!!

If Hachem had checked it down, tex is knocked out and he makes an extra two million. But, instead, he has 25M and the other two have about 15M each, and he has a real dog fight on his hands.

I think what is clouding everyones thinking on this is that you saw everyones hands during the hand and you saw how the hand played out. You are being a little results oriented here.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is such a results oriented example. How about this one. Say that Dannenman has AK, and Barch has 66. Hachem bets, Dannenman folds, and the river is a King! Suddenly Hatchem wins the 15 million chips (1/3 of all chips in play) and has a 3:1 chip advantage over Dannenman going into HU play. If he doesn't bet, Dannenman has a 3:2 chip advantage the other way. That's a HUGE $EV difference, given the $3.25 million dollar difference between first and second.

With your example, Barch has 15 million chips, and Hatchem has 23 million and Dannenman has 17 million. Hatchem is still in good shape to win here too. Why risk Dannenman winning the hand when even if you lose to Barch you are still in good shape, and if you beat Barch you increase the amount of time you have a massive chip lead going into HU!

[ismisus]

Checking down is probably EV-, but its not like this was an online tourney where if a miracle hits you can always play the next sit-n-go. This is life-changing money, this is not kiddie games!

You can even say that all players at the final table were underbankrolled to make EV+ decisions. I am sure the jump from 3rd to 2nd place was more than the net worth of those two guys combined. There's no way in hell I would not check jacks here. What if Danneman has AK, and Tex has QQ, why would I risk 2.5 million of REAL money on a hand that I am not even guaranteed to win. For sure its EV+ in a normal tourney situation, but its not that much EV+ to risk 2.5 million dollars

[PFrese]

Durron - I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this one! :-)

You are essentially arguing that it is more important to win the chips than it is to knock out the short stack. I am arguing that is is more important to knock out the short stack than win the pot.

I want to eliminate the SS at all costs. If I could GIVE danneman the pot and eliminate the Tex, I would in a second!