WSOP Hachem JJ Hand

[ QUOTE ]
and if he does have had the monster? then hachem wouldve cost himself 3 mil dollars? bit costly for a hand

[/ QUOTE ]

If he does he does. The chance he doesn't seems high enough for this play to be the right one in my book. All potential hands are costly on the final table of WSOP. Don't look it at as $3 million look at it as say $30 difference and the decision becomes easier.

[PFrese]

Guys - please stop spreading any kind of misinformation on the correct strategy here - there is only one correct answer - calling and checking it down.

THIS IS FUNDEMENTAL TOURNEMENT POKER - When a short stack is all in, anyone else in the hand MUST CHECK IT DOWN, unless you have the stone cold nuts. Please do a search on IMPLIED COLLUSION (also in HOH, and TPFAP and THFAP) and study it.

If Hachem or Dannennman bets here, they run the risk of pushing the other off of the winning hand and allowing Tex to win the pot and then they are all even again. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HORRIBLE!!! Whether Hachem or Dannen wins the hand is irrelevant, it ONLY matters that Tex DOES NOT WIN.

I play a lot of MTTs and SNGs, and I see this mistake all the time by newbie donkeys. They bet, push the winner off his hand and then they lose to the all in player allowing him to stay in the game. HUGE MISTAKE.

Check it down, keep everone in the pot, and eliminate the short stack. Learn it, live it, love it.

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]
Guys - please stop spreading any kind of misinformation on the correct strategy here - there is only one correct answer - calling and checking it down.

THIS IS FUNDEMENTAL TOURNEMENT POKER - When a short stack is all in, anyone else in the hand MUST CHECK IT DOWN, unless you have the stone cold nuts. Please do a search on IMPLIED COLLUSION (also in HOH, and TPFAP and THFAP) and study it.

If Hachem or Dannennman bets here, they run the risk of pushing the other off of the winning hand and allowing Tex to win the pot and then they are all even again. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HORRIBLE!!! Whether Hachem or Dannen wins the hand is irrelevant, it ONLY matters that Tex DOES NOT WIN.

I play a lot of MTTs and SNGs, and I see this mistake all the time by newbie donkeys. They bet, push the winner off his hand and then they lose to the all in player allowing him to stay in the game. HUGE MISTAKE.

Check it down, keep everone in the pot, and eliminate the short stack. Learn it, live it, love it.

[/ 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.

The "MUST CHECK IT DOWN RULE" comes into play when discussing bluffing. You should never bet with a hand that has no chance of winning the pot because obviously that would keep the short guy in. But the payout structure is so steep here that it's much more crucial that Hachem gives himself the best chance to win the pot.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
IMPLIED COLLUSION

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

I would bet this everytime, as far as I can tell checking is a very bad mistake, I might even go in preflop (in fact probably if the opportunity arose).

Mack

[Sluss]

I was kind of shocked he didn't re-raise all-in pre-flop. However, once he just calls preflop he has to check it down there unless he improves.

[MrMoo]

Funny how I was recently reading THFAP and Sklansky explicitely says that checking it down is usually wrong.

[PFrese]

Guys -

I respectfully disagree. It does not matter to Hachem or dannenman if they win that pot or not, it ONLY matters that Tex gets eliminated. The pot was only 15M, if Hachem loses he has 25M to daannen's 37M. If Tex wins, he and Dannen are tied. So, if you are Dannen, you definitely want Hachem in. If you are Hachem, you want Dannen in, just in case Tex has AK, and say the board comes up 4A5T6. You need that extra hand, just in case Tex's overcards hit.

here is the deinition and explination of implicit collusion (I thought it was implied, sorry).


[ 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 ]

This can be applied to snapping off bluffs in a cash game, but that is a different deal (trying to bluff one player is easier than bluffing many). And also, in a cash game, this is the wrong play, since the all in player can rebuy. THIS IS A TOURNEMENT STRATEGY ONLY.

This paramount issue here is you want many players to go up against the small stack so that you have the best COLLECTIVE chance of knocking him out. ESPECIALLY, since by him getting knocked out, Hachem and Dannen each got an extra 2Million bucks!

[bugstud]

[ QUOTE ]
And I don't really understand this whole business of checking it down. If there was no player all in, I am sure he would have gotten more chips in the pot at some point. Is it really worth it to check it down to move up the ladder? What if Dannenmann hits a free card you gave him and wins this huge pot? It seems this has become the standard play, and it happened several times in this year's WSOP. But to me it seems like a huge mistake, similar to folding a premium hand on the bubble.

Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

you also don't get 5.6 million in preflop either. Once he flat calls preflop, his best course is clearly to call.

1. Payout jumps indicate that getting the third guy out ia huge boost

2. Barch to me seemed to me, at least, to be much more dangerous. Keeping dannemann in increases the chance barch is gone and you're HU with a presumably worse player.

if there were 5-6 people left, hachem shoves preflop on his second decision point. With these circumstances though, calling is clearly best.

for those peopl saying "blah blah blah, dannemann hits a 7"...what if barch actually has a better overpair? or flopped a set? you need those outs. He gets to draw if he's behind regardless.

[TheBlueMonster]

[ QUOTE ]
Guys - please stop spreading any kind of misinformation on the correct strategy here - there is only one correct answer - calling and checking it down.

THIS IS FUNDEMENTAL TOURNEMENT POKER - When a short stack is all in, anyone else in the hand MUST CHECK IT DOWN, unless you have the stone cold nuts. Please do a search on IMPLIED COLLUSION (also in HOH, and TPFAP and THFAP) and study it.

If Hachem or Dannennman bets here, they run the risk of pushing the other off of the winning hand and allowing Tex to win the pot and then they are all even again. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HORRIBLE!!! Whether Hachem or Dannen wins the hand is irrelevant, it ONLY matters that Tex DOES NOT WIN.

I play a lot of MTTs and SNGs, and I see this mistake all the time by newbie donkeys. They bet, push the winner off his hand and then they lose to the all in player allowing him to stay in the game. HUGE MISTAKE.

Check it down, keep everone in the pot, and eliminate the short stack. Learn it, live it, love it.

[/ QUOTE ]
agree completely. There's 2 million dollars at stake here. Don't get caught up on "what if Dannenman becomes chip leader." The 15 million in that pot wouldn't make either player such an overwhelming chip leader especially with the blind size etc.

[locutus2002]

Hachem should push the flop and its not even close.

If this were a $50 SNG paying 52%/30%/18% this hand wouldn't get a reply.

Dannenmann should fold all hands behind JJ which still have substantial equity in the pot because it will reduce the variance of his outcome.

If Dannenmann has the JJ beaten (bigger pair: unlikely 18 hands out of 100 or more) then its unlikely that Barch will win the pot so Hachem will most likely come 2nd.

Can you cooperate to eliminate a player? It depends on the situation, but don't kid yourself and say your playing to win the tournament. The 18M chips in the middle are worth alot.