Brutal Negreanu VS Hansen hand |
|
Posted Tue Aug 15, 2006 1:54 am GMT by LeafsFan1122
Anyone see this? It's on High Stakes Poker.
Negreanu has 66.
Hansen has 55.
Flop is 569!
Turn is 5!!!!
River blank.
600k$ pot! 
Did you know that participating in a poker forum can help you improve your own game? Be it by sharing experiences or simply asking for help, participation in a forum helps you focus and keep 'on topic' which will help you improve your game. You can learn from other players feedback and from their experiences. Why the THP poker forums? We offer one of the best managed texas holdem poker forums available, and the community within is far more friendly than those typicaly found on other sites. We've made a 'lurkers edition' of the poker forum available here on Holdem Poker Online, but we encourage all visitors to register and join in on the conversations on TexasHoldem-Poker.com
Posted Tue Aug 15, 2006 6:25 am GMT by UrAteUp
yeah I watched it last night. Perfectly played by Hansen.... 
Posted Tue Aug 15, 2006 7:34 am GMT by shorn7
That was brutal. I forget though...did Hansen lead the turn with his quads or did he check call?
Posted Tue Aug 15, 2006 7:46 am GMT by ki_cz
Just wait a second ... so what you're telling me is that bad beats don't only happen online??? They happen in real life too?
LIFE IS RIGGED!!!!!!
Posted Tue Aug 15, 2006 10:23 am GMT by JackKingOff
Where did u see this?? :S
Posted Tue Aug 15, 2006 10:31 am GMT by UrAteUp
| JackKingOff wrote: | | Where did u see this?? :S |
High Stakes Poker
Posted Tue Aug 15, 2006 10:54 am GMT by aaronw
That hand was soooo sick. And I believe Hansen did lead the turn with his quads. (I may be mistaken though). Did anybody else think that call that Negreanu made on the end was horrendous? I don't think there was one hand that Hansen could have that Negreanu beats. Just think about it, Hansen isn't check raising all in on that board with a straight. He isn't doing this with a naked 5 either. Negreanu even narrowed down his holdings to 55, 99, or 88. (all of which beat him.) I think that Negreanu should have been able to trust his read and make the lay down. What do you guys think?
Note: I am not saying that I could have folded that hand. I probably would have insta-called. 
Posted Tue Aug 15, 2006 11:00 am GMT by shorn7
You have to remember that he was playing against Gus who is entirely capable of making that move with a 7 or A5. Gus got a call there specifically because of his reputation as LAG. Daniel folds his hand to anyone else at that table (with the possible exception of Doyle, but he still probably folds).
Posted Tue Aug 15, 2006 12:13 pm GMT by JackKingOff
| UrAteUp wrote: | | JackKingOff wrote: | | Where did u see this?? :S |
High Stakes Poker |
......... i can read ty very much -_-'' obviously i meant on what channel because we live in same region
Posted Tue Aug 15, 2006 12:28 pm GMT by LeafsFan1122
GSN, CGTV.
Posted Tue Aug 15, 2006 12:42 pm GMT by aaronw
You also have to remember that Gus is very laggish, but not an idiot. He would have known what Negreanu has (approximately) and would not be making this move with a worse hand. Just because Hansen is a LAG, does not mean that he is an idiot.
Posted Tue Aug 15, 2006 1:12 pm GMT by UrAteUp
| JackKingOff wrote: | | UrAteUp wrote: | | JackKingOff wrote: | | Where did u see this?? :S |
High Stakes Poker |
......... i can read ty very much -_-'' obviously i meant on what channel because we live in same region |
Canadians can read English?...  . Sorry I jumped the gun their JKO. Thought you ment what show it happened on...
Posted Tue Aug 15, 2006 2:28 pm GMT by wEbMaStEr
Gus raised to 2100 preflop, DN raised to 6000 Gus called
Flop Gus checked DN bet 8K, Gus raised to 26K DN smooth called (whoops )
Gus bets 24K with his quads, DN smooth calls his fh
Gus checks river, DN bets $65k and Gus moves in for $167k
DN says "huh?" and stands up, names the hands that beat him "99, 55 or 88, wow, that would be sick" and calls.
Now, take away the fact that it's for thousands of dollars and tell me you could get away from DN's hand?
Not so fast supa! 
"wowww, pretty sick" - Gus Hansen
Posted Tue Aug 15, 2006 2:43 pm GMT by Dat_Dude
I want to get people's opinions of the check by Gus on the river? Do you like it or do you think he should have fired out 80-90k?
Posted Tue Aug 15, 2006 3:31 pm GMT by snoogins47
I didn't even see the hand, but I would bet a good chunk of money that there are a lot of hands Gus would check-raise all-in on the river with that DN beats.
Posted Tue Aug 15, 2006 3:41 pm GMT by shorn7
I love the check on the river since now a lone 7 makes the str8. It looks like a scare card and even if Daniel has very little, he may bluff at it. But, by the size of Daniels bet and the previous action, Gus put Danile on more than a 7 and CR pushed. I am not so sure he would have done that had Daniel bet less there. He would raise certainly, but not an amount that Daniel couldn't conceivably call with a naked 7.
Posted Tue Aug 15, 2006 4:04 pm GMT by aaronw
I am not saying that I would or even could have folded that hand there. I am just saying that I don't think there are many hands that Gus are insta-pushing with that Negreanu can beat. Negreanu even had a gut feeling that Gus had 55, 88, or 99. I am just saying that he is a pro player and should be able to trust his instincts by now and when he thinks he is beat, he should be able to fold any hand.
Also, I must say that I really like how Gus played the hand. I really must say that I like his check on the river. This is a really good play by him and disguises his hand for the meantime so he can get more money out of Negreanu.
Just one more thing, what hand(s) could you put Gus on that do not beat Negreanu? Keep in mind that just because he is loose and aggressive, he is not an idiot. Also, he has great hand reading skills, therefore, has probably narrowed down Negreanu's hand to 99 or 66 by this point.
Posted Tue Aug 15, 2006 4:08 pm GMT by UrAteUp
| Dat_Dude wrote: | | wEbMaStEr wrote: | | Gus raised to 2100 preflop |
It was actually Esfandiari that raised preflop. Gus called and DN reraised.
I want to get people's opinions of the check by Gus on the river? Do you like it or do you think he should have fired out 80-90k? |
I liked it personally. I thought it was a good play for GH to pull off.
Posted Tue Aug 15, 2006 4:47 pm GMT by Aves
gus's river checkraise was pretty awful imho. For one, Daniel could check behind with an overpair. Two, Gus is LAGgy, but he's not stupid. Therefore he wouldn't be checkraising the river with a straight. Gus's line shows extreme strength and is the only way that daniel might be able to find a fold for his hand. A better (and more natural) way of playing it would be just to lead out and hope for a raise. Or if you don't think daniel will raise your river bet, just go all in on the river. That looks more like a bluff than a checkraise allin does, and therefore has a higher chance of being called.
The only way the checkraise is OK is if gus had a really really good read on daniel and knew he has a real monster hand also. but if that was the case, he shouldve just gone all in.
Posted Tue Aug 15, 2006 5:36 pm GMT by xDiamond_CutteRx
| aaronw wrote: | I am not saying that I would or even could have folded that hand there. I am just saying that I don't think there are many hands that Gus are insta-pushing with that Negreanu can beat. Negreanu even had a gut feeling that Gus had 55, 88, or 99. I am just saying that he is a pro player and should be able to trust his instincts by now and when he thinks he is beat, he should be able to fold any hand.
Also, I must say that I really like how Gus played the hand. I really must say that I like his check on the river. This is a really good play by him and disguises his hand for the meantime so he can get more money out of Negreanu.
Just one more thing, what hand(s) could you put Gus on that do not beat Negreanu? Keep in mind that just because he is loose and aggressive, he is not an idiot. Also, he has great hand reading skills, therefore, has probably narrowed down Negreanu's hand to 99 or 66 by this point. |
Checking the nuts on the river is such an unusual play, though, that Daniel doesn't necessarily have to put him on a higher house or quads. How genius of a bluff would it be to make that move with just a 5 or 7 (like 7-10 or A-5) and make Daniel lay down a full house?
And I'm not so sure Gus couldn't c/r with a straight on the river. Sure the NATURAL thing to do is to bet the river with the stone nuts, but great players like Gus occasionally have to make unpredictable moves like this one to get paid off (of course, with Daniel's hand, I think he's going to get stacked either way... but Gus gets points for creativity).
And as bad as you guys might think c/ring with the nuts is, I would have to say that Daniel folding a full house on the river on that board would be incredibly weak. "Making great laydowns" is a very overrated skill.
Posted Tue Aug 15, 2006 7:03 pm GMT by snoogins47
I dunno for sure about the checkraise, again (haven't seen the hand) but from reading it and thinking about it, a lot of the good points of a checkraise on the river can be summed up thusly:
If DN is betting the river, he's often either a)doing it with a big hand that'll probably call the raise, or b)doing it with absolute air, that he wouldn't have called any river bet with initially. DN having an overpair is where things get tricky. The board is scary as hell, but checking the river in this hand is a huge sign of weakness, that DN might bet a hand like KK/AA here. I dunno. It's interesting, just because of how unlikely it is Gus would check a big hand on this river given the action thus far.
We also have to assume that Daniel Negreanu has a better grasp on how effective his 'instincts' are, and likely a better grasp on how strong his hand is given the situation, than a televised audience does. Why would we assume that DN used his poker skills to decide that folding was correct, but called anyway? It's infinitely more logical to assume that his poker skills, intuition, blah blah made him decide that he should call, and then acted accordingly.
It's pretty amazing how good everybody is at poker when we know exactly what everybody has. It's even more amazing how a handful of episodes of High Stakes Poker, some heavily edited tournaments, and a bunch of hearsay make us able to know not only how Daniel should play Gus, but how Daniel should (and, better yet, WOULD) play against every other player at the table at the time. Especially when the aforementioned play is folding the fourth nuts on the river, getting what appears to be about 3:1, possibly better, depending on how accurate these descriptions of the hands are. Last time I checked, folding getting 3:1 requires a pretty high measure of certainty.
I must be the only one who has close to no clue about poker games that I've never played before, played for orders of magnitude higher stakes than I've ever played, against players I've never met, that are generally considered some of the best in the world. I mean, I've read the highly elite insider info from Barry Greenstein's player bios, but where else can I get this information?
Posted Tue Aug 15, 2006 7:31 pm GMT by aaronw
I think one of the main points of the discussion is when Negreanu says he is pretty sure that Gus has one of three hands (all of which beat him) and he still calls.
Posted Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:08 pm GMT by ScanX
| aaronw wrote: | | I think one of the main points of the discussion is when Negreanu says he is pretty sure that Gus has one of three hands (all of which beat him) and he still calls. |
Negreanu didnt say he was pretty sure hansen had one of those hands.
He just named the 3 hands that were beating him I believe and then decided to call.
Later during table talk he said he was worried a little bit.
Posted Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:59 pm GMT by tame_deuces
DN aside:
Calling when you are certain you are beat is probably the skill alot of poker players never bother to learn, even though they should.
I'm not even joking.
Posted Tue Aug 15, 2006 10:06 pm GMT by suitedaces84
| tame_deuces wrote: | DN aside:
Calling when you are certain you are beat is probably the skill alot of poker players never bother to learn, even though they should.
I'm not even joking. |
Can you explain this one? 
Posted Tue Aug 15, 2006 10:15 pm GMT by tame_deuces
| suitedaces84 wrote: | | tame_deuces wrote: | DN aside:
Calling when you are certain you are beat is probably the skill alot of poker players never bother to learn, even though they should.
I'm not even joking. |
Can you explain this one? |
Didn't mean anything besides alot of people lay down stuff when they are certain they are behind, failing to see the chance that they are ahead + the chance of sucking out + pot odds might make it a decent call.
Posted Tue Aug 15, 2006 10:38 pm GMT by suitedaces84
Okay, I thought you meant calling on the river when you were certain you were beat.
Posted Tue Aug 15, 2006 11:01 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| suitedaces84 wrote: | | Okay, I thought you meant calling on the river when you were certain you were beat. |
Only I'm good enough to do that.
Posted Wed Aug 16, 2006 12:44 am GMT by Aves
| aaronw wrote: | | I think one of the main points of the discussion is when Negreanu says he is pretty sure that Gus has one of three hands (all of which beat him) and he still calls. |
I think this is almost a nonissue. This is something I hear often from basically anyone that has ever played poker. It is what you say so that you are in a "win-win" situation so if you call and lose, you can say, "see i knew i was beat", but if you call and win, you are happy you made the call because you get the money.
You can really see this because near the end he says something like "if a 5 falls I'm never gonna be able to get away from this hand" so basically once the 5 fell, he was gonna get stacked no matter what. However, I still think Gus's checkraise is the one move that allows the greatest (albeit still very small) chance that Daniel gets away from his hand.
Posted Wed Aug 16, 2006 7:52 am GMT by shorn7
Couple more thoughts here:
Collectively, we have no idea how many cash game hands that Daniel and Gus have played together. Since they both play in the big game at Bellagio, my guess is the number is substantial. With that in mind, there may have been numerous hands that Daniel recalls Gus making a play similar to the one we saw or an outright bluff on a huge hand. IMO, pro's like Daniel make a lot of their big decisions based on feel and hand recall.
So, even though this discussion is fun, there is no way we can analyze what went in to Danie's decision to call the all-in on this specific hand. I would consider him one of the top 5 players in the game today, so for us to be critical of how he played this hand (with a monster no less that, again IMO, was only seriously beaten by 2 other hands...99 or 55 since 88 was least likely), is quite presumptuous.
BTW, I would have an extremely hard time laying down 3rd nuts to a player like Gus in that spot. As someone else mentioned, looking to make big laydowns is not how you make $$ in NL (especially getting 3-1).
Posted Wed Aug 16, 2006 8:12 am GMT by UrAteUp
| Sean_in_NJ wrote: | | suitedaces84 wrote: | | Okay, I thought you meant calling on the river when you were certain you were beat. |
Only I'm good enough to do that. |
No your not the only one Sean... 
Posted Wed Aug 16, 2006 6:17 pm GMT by Aves
| snoogins47 wrote: |
It's pretty amazing how good everybody is at poker when we know exactly what everybody has. It's even more amazing how a handful of episodes of High Stakes Poker, some heavily edited tournaments, and a bunch of hearsay make us able to know not only how Daniel should play Gus, but how Daniel should (and, better yet, WOULD) play against every other player at the table at the time. Especially when the aforementioned play is folding the fourth nuts on the river, getting what appears to be about 3:1, possibly better, depending on how accurate these descriptions of the hands are. Last time I checked, folding getting 3:1 requires a pretty high measure of certainty.
I must be the only one who has close to no clue about poker games that I've never played before, played for orders of magnitude higher stakes than I've ever played, against players I've never met, that are generally considered some of the best in the world. I mean, I've read the highly elite insider info from Barry Greenstein's player bios, but where else can I get this information? |
| shorn7 wrote: |
So, even though this discussion is fun, there is no way we can analyze what went in to Danie's decision to call the all-in on this specific hand. I would consider him one of the top 5 players in the game today, so for us to be critical of how he played this hand (with a monster no less that, again IMO, was only seriously beaten by 2 other hands...99 or 55 since 88 was least likely), is quite presumptuous. |
I don't know if I agree with these lines of thought. If you guys really believe this, then are you saying that people who play nickel/dime blinds poker should not be able to provide input or analyze $5/$10 blinds poker? Or can anyone really analyze anyone else's hand since only the original poster knows the opponents who were actually there, what events had transpired before the hand, timing of actions, etc. At some point you have to draw a line. Is it OK for someone to provide input on the hand if they preface it with: "Well, I don't play as high as $300/600 blinds NL poker, but...". I for one, don't believe that the players on High Stakes Poker are poker savants whose understanding of poker I could not begin to comprehend. If I wanna analyze the hand from DN's POV, then I will replace Gus with smart/good LAGs that I have personally played against. Bottom line, as long as you can provide intelligent/sound reasoning for your opinions, I don't think there's anything wrong with analyzing this or any other hand. The analysis might be way off, but that is what the forum and its members are here for - to help guide you in the right direction.
Posted Thu Aug 17, 2006 8:12 am GMT by shorn7
No. I never meant to intend that people who haven't played a certain "buyin" limit or whatever can't express their feelings. What I meant to convey was that collectively, we don't have enough information to analyze the hand thoroughly and come to a correct conclusion as to why Daniel decided to call in the end. All we saw was a snapshot of 1 hand between players. It would be like trying to analyze how good a tournament player is by watching 1 hand of a final table 3 handed. The problem is we don't know all that led up to that point and what other qualitative factors wne into any particular decision.
My main comment was to the folks who were saying things like "DN should have layed that down no problem", or "What was DN thinking...he called out the hands Gus could have that beat him and then he stillcalled. Stupid." Stuff like that. I would argue that there was too liuttle information for us to decide what was the right play there.
Posted Thu Aug 17, 2006 9:50 am GMT by UrAteUp
I would love to have a that hand taped with both players perspective street by street. I think it would be great to know what was going through each players mind.
Posted Thu Aug 17, 2006 10:45 am GMT by tame_deuces
I actually don't think principles from lower stakes translate well to principles at higher stakes at all. Actually so far as to say that a player as myself with experience mostly from lower stakes really has no true advice to offer to a high stakes player for instance regarding hand histories.
I also think this gap between the stakes means that some discussion on this forum in the analysis threads are to be taken with a grain of salt.
Sure you got some basics which will always hold true, but that is basically it, the playstyle is radically different, especially for bigstack NL play and NL river play.
Posted Thu Aug 17, 2006 1:37 pm GMT by JewishPete
Here is a link to the hand in question for those of you who are yet to see it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojeRwWIdQBM
Note: If its inappropriate to post links like this, please edit it out.
Posted Thu Aug 17, 2006 2:53 pm GMT by mortaleclipse
poor poor DN. Are people actually trying to say they would lay down DN's hand? yea right
Posted Thu Aug 17, 2006 3:36 pm GMT by UrAteUp
I don't think anyone here is debating they wouldn't make this call in DN's shoes. I know it would be a crying call thinking about the only hands that could beat you at this point. Those being 99 for a higher boat or 55 has Gus did have.
ANYONE who thinks they could lay down DN's hand is either too damn good or too much of a liar....
Posted Thu Aug 17, 2006 3:53 pm GMT by Dave B
Regarding low limit vs high limit stuff.
My point has always been that if your entire world of experience has been at one level, you cant honestly give a quality analysis on another level. Why, because you have ZERO experience.
How many times do you see someone who plays a bigger game be amazed at what is standard play at lower games (IE pros amazed at horrible calls for all chips on draws early in tourneys) ? Every day occurances at one limit are non-existant at another limit.
If you have watched a lot of the High Stakes, you would know that they make a lot of loose calls. Either based on reads, odd betting patterns or just the sense they more times than not, they are ahead. It might be 250k to us, but it might just be a buy in to them. Lots over of overpairs calling all ins vs sets or sets over sets losing when one player has trip 2s.
Just a few nights ago I had a live 6/12 hand that floored me. Why? It was extremely weird. Q10 suited, I limp, aggressive player raises (he often 3 bet w/ A2 A4 etc), both blinds and one other calls. Flop K 10 5 rainbow. I bet out, 4 call. Turn 8, I bet, 3 call. River 3, checked to me, I check-all check. Small blind shows 83 off.
He called a raise from the small blind w/ 83, then a bet on the flop w/ no pair, no draw and 8 high. He called a turn w/ 3rd pair. He checked the river when he made 2 pair. I see this happen all the time at 3/6 and lower live, but not 6/12 and up. Loose calls preflop are one thing, chasing w/ no hand and little chance is something that I just dont see. Online, yes, live no.
My question to all of you who think that Daniel should have folded. Do you think he has made money or lost money calling w/ a boat and that board? I think 9 out of 10 times he beats a straight or trips, that is pretty good odds.
Posted Thu Aug 17, 2006 3:58 pm GMT by Loonbat
6/12 FL game - I raise preflop on the button with pp 7s (only had one limper UTG. Sb and limper call. Flop comes A75 and Sb bets out. UTG calls, I raise, call, call. turn comes 5, betting occurs, river comes blank.
On the river, Sb bets out again, I raise, he reraises ... I call out the possible hands beating me as I call (As, 5s). He turns As over. In FL I had the chance to end my bleeding ... in NL my stack would be in.
Posted Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:35 am GMT by kingetje
That hand was awesome to see...
oh, and all the people who are talking about "why did daniel negreanu make that call?"... are you out of your minds? if i got sixes full in that spot im usually praying my opponent says those magic words!
Posted Fri Aug 18, 2006 9:35 am GMT by MrDarling
Thank for the link Pete , seeing that is really put things on perspective.
bad bad luck to DN , what I don't understand is - afterwards Gus said he didn't like the flop much. How can you not like a flop with a set. How can you really put a guy on a higher set when you are the first to act? Or was it the str8 board he didn't like?
The one thing I might have done different then DN , is simply check the river. a check from Gus should always raise big alarm bells in everyone heads. There was probably no point for a bet, either Gus is beaten and wont call a bet or he is ahead.
A check would have saved him so much money.
As for Gus play, that guy is a God. What a good read, Ho did he know that DN will raise , how did he know that he will call an allin?
Posted Fri Aug 18, 2006 9:36 am GMT by kingetje
youre gonna check sixes full of fives behind on the river?? that is absolutely ridiculous!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
for serious
if all the money DIDNT go in the pot, they wouldve played it badly
Posted Fri Aug 18, 2006 9:46 am GMT by Jauron
He's getting nearly 2.5 : 1 on the call. Given that I think it's a pretty standard call unless he's sure he's got 99 or 55.
I know 88 beats him but he's almost got to ignore that hand because of the check raise on the turn.
He can still beat 56, 58, 5,9 and a strangely played 7,9.
The check raise all in might have saved him, but this is too big a hand to let go most of the time against a player like Gus.
Posted Fri Aug 18, 2006 7:26 pm GMT by Hungry4Knowledge
Heard many players acctually call Gus a bad lucky player. Now they see how he gets payed when he's got the nuts. He gets so much action and gets max out of most hands. And luck doesn't give you 3 WPT titles in one season. The check on the river was brilliant! Man I loved that hand. Even tho' he got the cash from Daniel, who is one of my biggest idols
|
|
