WSOP Hachem JJ Hand

[Huskiez]

Paul Philliips says bet it, baby , bet it.

[ QUOTE ]
On barch's elimination hand danenman open-raised with 77 and hachem bravely flat called with JJ, leading barch to jam with A6. I might have posted about this before but after danenman flat called the all-in I think hachem made a huge mistake by not jamming and getting heads-up. It would have been so sweet if danenman had bet hachem out of the pot when the queen hit the turn and promoted his pair over barch's ace-high. Oh how I hope if I'm ever playing for $7.5M that everyone thinks we have an agreement not to bet without monsters in elimination situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. Initially (when I made this post) I was thinking the same thing. But after going through the math it doesn't appear to be nearly as clear any more.

I agree with him that it would have been hilarious if Dannenmann had broken the implicit collusion pact and bet on the turn, thereby winning the main pot.

[mlagoo]

i would call preflop and bet the flop.

[locutus2002]

look up ICM calculator on google.

Poker is a game of small percentages, you can't round the EV like that.

I have the softplay at 5.5M$ for Hachem.

You have about 360+ hands in Dannenmann's range: that's pretty loose.

I doubt Dannenmann calls AK.

[Exitonly]

[ QUOTE ]
Barch: 66+, A2s+, KJs+, ATo+, KQo
Dannenmann: 55+, A2s+, KTs+, QJs, JTs, A8o+, KJo+

[/ QUOTE ]

Ranges don't make that much sense.. If he's pushing A2s he's pushing worse than A8o, Same with Dannenman.

[gergery]

[ QUOTE ]
Paul Philliips says bet it, baby , bet it.

[ QUOTE ]
On barch's elimination hand danenman open-raised with 77 and hachem bravely flat called with JJ, leading barch to jam with A6. I might have posted about this before but after danenman flat called the all-in I think hachem made a huge mistake by not jamming and getting heads-up. It would have been so sweet if danenman had bet hachem out of the pot when the queen hit the turn and promoted his pair over barch's ace-high. Oh how I hope if I'm ever playing for $7.5M that everyone thinks we have an agreement not to bet without monsters in elimination situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. Initially (when I made this post) I was thinking the same thing. But after going through the math it doesn't appear to be nearly as clear any more.

I agree with him that it would have been hilarious if Dannenmann had broken the implicit collusion pact and bet on the turn, thereby winning the main pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I liked your analysis and mostly agree -- i think its very close.

Only nitpicks would be -- 1) I think Barch was probably a significantly tougher competitor for Hachem than Danneman was -- meaning the value in eliminating him makes his equity significantly stronger in those scenarios, and 2) for most people, the utility value of money goes up more at lower amounts, meaning that the difference in value to Hachem between 5 million and 2.5 million is likely to be more than the value between 7.5 million and 5 million, to use a simplified example.

Also, its very possibly that he was able to narrow either Danneman's or Barch's range down further here based on tells or the way they were playing, and as such be able to make a better decision once the flop came.

-g

[jwvdcw]

I think many of you are failing to consider that Hachem probably considered Barch his greatest obstacle since Dannenman was just an amateur. Getting Barch, another pro, out was huge.

[PFrese]

[ QUOTE ]

I bet you're one of those guys that folds his way into small money in every tournament and busts shortly afterwards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Durron - no need to be jerk. I have respected you and your opinion, even though I think you are incorrect. The point of 2+2 is to debate these things so that we can all get better. Why do you want to start making this personal? As for my MTT track record, I have several wins and many final table appearances. Maybe that is why I am so sure that this strategy is correct!

Also, it is not a +EV or -EV problem to solve. We are talking FINAL TABLE strategy here. +EV and -EV are useful over the LONG RUN. In this case, THERE IS NO LONG RUN at the final table of the WSOP!! And, if you read a few posts up, you will see where the math proved that this was too close to call even over the long run. So your asertion that "Yes, it's THAT not close.", is simply incorrect. Even the math bears out to be too close to call.

Lets say I am given one of these choices:

Choice A:
20% of the time, win nothing
60% of the time, win $2
20% of the time, win $5
(EV $2.20)

Choice B:
40% of the time, win nothing
20% of the time, win $2
40% of the time, win $5
(EV $2.40)

I pick B. Multiply the amounts by 1 million and give me the choice once in my life, and I pick A.

For nearly $2 million in the hand, I'll check it down and give Dannenman a shot to outdraw me.

[locutus2002]

I saw the hand on TV last night.

I ran the calculations to figure out how EV- the cooperation play was and I still get about 3% EV- for Hachem to check it down against Barch's and Dannenmann's ranges. ~ $200,000 $EV- assuming Dannenmann cooperates all the way otherwise its much more $EV-. I urge you to do this calculation if its not intuitively obvious to you and you can't get to the number (clearly slightly EV-).

I suppose many players will give up EV to fold up the most important notch in the most important tournament. I could see on their faces as they checked the hand down how they were thinking they wouldn't have to work another day in their lives if they could just fold up another notch.

Given the straightforward way that Dannenmann played, I doubt he would have smooth called Barch's push with QQ-AA. This significant observation leaves only 3 sets that beat Hachem after the flop (9 hands out of ~250-300), so with my limited read its about ~$400,000 EV-.

Overall a very disappointing hand which characterized a very disappointing final table (aside from the fact that I bet on Andrew Black).

It's a shame the prizes are so large and the fields so big that it affects the play. Certainly not world class poker.

[Exitonly]

[ QUOTE ]
We are talking FINAL TABLE strategy here. +EV and -EV are useful over the LONG RUN.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they're useful in the short term too, you just have to know how to calculate/estimate it.