Which was a better bluff

[PrtyPSux 0]

What bluff do you think was better? the negreanu bluff v.s. Deeb heads in Poker at the Plaza.... Or... Moneymakers v.s. Farha?I think Daniel's took much more skill.. he got into Deebs head and thought like Freddy would think. but, Moneymaker had the stones to pull that off, risking 2.5 mil.

[Eclypse 0]

Daniel’s “Naked Ace Bluff” against Deeb at the Plaza was the best. Freddy was mentally ruined after that. It would've been interesting to see what effect it would have had on Farha if Moneymaker had shown him his hand though.

[TheIceman05 0]

It's not even close. What did Deeb have in that hand? A-K? Moneymaker put all his chips in the pot in the biggest poker tournament in the world, knowing that if Farha- who had top pair by the way- called, he would have lost. I think Daniel's play was mega sweet, and way over my head, but Moneymaker's bluff was in a much more pressure-filled situation and his opponent had a much stronger hand.Then again, I think I've established I'm a moron, so...Ice

[Eclypse 0]

It's not even close.  What did Deeb have in that hand?  A-K?  Moneymaker put all his chips in the pot in the biggest poker tournament in the world, knowing that if Farha- who had top pair by the way- called, he would have lost.  I think Daniel's play was mega sweet, and way over my head, but Moneymaker's bluff was in a much more pressure-filled situation and his opponent had a much stronger hand.Then again, I think I've established I'm a moron, so...Ice

I believe Deeb had top pair as well. Kings with top kicker. But, you are right that Moneymakers bluff was more pressure-filled. That's for sure.I enjoyed watching both bluffs and both seemed to be the turning point in their respective tournaments.

[Patman 0]

The bluff by moneymaker was a nice play, but it wouldnt have happened if Farha had'nt severely misplayed the hand. His check on the river was pretty much giving up. As for Danny's bluff against Deeb... amazing...

[wrto4556 0]

Farha called out Moneymaker's situation. "Must have missed your flush." Farha said. "I might make a crazy call on you." Farha said. He should have trusted his gut. I've seen plenty of people pull off a bluff like Moneymaker's, although not under the same amount of pressure. Farha didn't think he was experiance enough to have the stones to pull off a move like that under that much pressure. Farha should have trusted his guy, just double guessed himself.Negreanu plain outplayed Deeb. It was a smart play, as most of Negreanu's are.I would say Negreanu's bluff was better.

[bdluss 0]

Negreanu's bluff was much much better for this simple reason, look at the holdings of each player and look at the board. With Deeb he had ak, negreanu a7 the board read k 7 6 6 4. Now to push a man off top pair (with top kicker) given the way the hand was played (with Deeb raising big preflop) is a much better move. As for the Moneymaker hand, yes it was a great bluff, but it is a bluff done many times over by many good players. The bluff was really made on the turn when he made an open ended str8 and a king high flush draw. Then the all in on the river was a mere formality as it was set up by his previous bet on the turn. Many good players would make this play, I dont know of many who could make Negreanu's play especially after he put Deeb on AK by the river.

[Dan74 0]

Negreanu's bluff was just some clever bluff on the river of some tournament on tv. Moneymaker's was at the WSO-P. He put all his chips in on a stone cold bluff at the biggest poker tournament of the year. It doesn't get any bigger than that.

[PrtyPSux 0]

I dont know,,, but they where both great huh?? all I know is that I bluffed w/ 7 3 offsuit shooting the three bullets at a multi table online tourney and my heart almost popped out of my chest.... At poker at the Plaza they had a heart monitor on Ted Forrest, it would be interesting to see what Daniel's and moneymaker's heart rates where at that time .

[Kalf 0]

there is no question that our boy danny's bluff was way better. moneymaker's was nothing more than buying his way out of a busted draw, and a severe misplay by Farha. (farha was interviewed at this years WSOP, and stated that he knew it was a bluff, and a bad one, but he decided to outplay him later, not wanting to put his whole tournament on a pair of 9s.) It's not that hard to move someone off of such a weak hand. Negreaunu moved Deeb off of a far better hand getting into Freddy's head, having decided to steal the pot much earlier in the hand, and using incredibel poker to do it. Moneymaker was just bullying with his stack. But i give Money credit for having the guts to try it.

[srharris22 0]

both hands were top pair on the flop, in the end a pair is a pair no matter how big it is at the end of the hand. what matters is how it was played by the two players. I think in the end, both were excellent plays, Daniels was probably more intellectual, as he did not over bet the hand rather made a bet that made freddy think daniel wanted a call. While moneymaker put farha to a about 1 million dollar decision (difference between 1 and 2 in that tourney). And in the end, i believe that moneymakers bet actually put farha's ego to the test, did he want to lose to a 'rank' amateur? I agree with the thought that farha did not believe that an amateur could pull off such a bluff.just my thoughts, in the end both were great plays.and by the way, as much as i like farha's play/presence at the table, saying that you knew the guy was bluffing but did not want to put your tournament on the line with a pair of nine's just does not go together. it is one or the other. All farha did was put him on a possible steal, big difference between knowing he was on a steal and thinking it. On the other hand, knowing what a player has was what luske demonstrated when layed down to kings and called them out or played his kj against q's after the king hit the board and managed to get about all of his chips in the pot to double up. that hand might have been my favorite all tournament, even though the aj fold verses kings was not far off from the call with kj vs q's (althought it was much more expensive for him to call the hand with kings). now those two hands are examples of 'knowing what your opponent has and playing it as such.

[Vegas King 0]

Are you all sucking up or what????Moneymaker was the premium bluff at the best event in the land. There is no comparison.Stop drinking the Daniel Kooooooolaid

[darksung 0]

Vegas King is right,The guy makes 30K a year, and risks 2,5M $ with nothing, if he looses, it's over.If Daniel had lost his bluff, he would have had plenty of time to recover.

[JMHeel 0]

Oh please come on it has to be Moneymaker's bluff under the circumstances. No question about it. Money counts. Millions of dollars count even more. JMHeel

[banker2005 0]

Daniels bluff was more thought out and an intelligent play, and Moneymakers was just so gutsy, risking that many chips with the hand he had, i'd say Daniels was good, but Moneymakers was a little better.

[bigedjr17 0]

Daniel's bluff was basically a misread hand until the river, when he realized from Freddy's bet what he had (how he did this still amazes me). His raise of only $100,000 was the perfect amount to get Freddy to think he wanted a call. He is very familiar with Freddy's play and from playing him in the past and he may have sensed Freddy would lay down this type of hand. It was an intellectual bluff, not really a ballsey bluff, as Daniel stated himself that he would still be in OK shape in the tourney if Freddy called. He did not commit most of his chips or put Freddy to the test for most of his chips.Now...Moneymaker's bluff on the river was PURE balls, NOT intellect. He knows Sammy plays all types of hands and that Sammy could have held possibly anything. He was semi-bluffing the flop and turn and he missed his draw. His only chance at winning the pot was to move in. It was classic representation. $$ may not have been as much a deciding factor as you all might think, after all $1.3 mil for 2nd does not sound too bad to an accountant making $50K a year. He was bluffing the entire tourney and he figured why stop now. It was not as well thought out as Daniel's, but then again wayyyy different situations. As ppl mentioned b4 Daniel's was at a "smallish" tourney (only 60 something players enrolled). Moneymaker's was THE CHAMPIONSHIP of the WSOP. It's really comparing apples to oranges.. You can't determine whos was better but it can sure make for a great debate.

[PrtyPSux 0]

It has made for a great debate,, I wonder what Daniel thinks about it??

[RtherBNvegas 0]

Negreanu for sure. As everyone has said Moneymakers bluff was very good and very risky but there was really no thought put into it. Daniels bluff was very though out and pretty much perfect.He remember the hand earlier in the tournament and used it to his advantage perfectly. I see everyones point about the stakes being higher in one game than the other, so think about it this way. If Chris had made the same play if he was in Daniels spot heads-up for the $310,000 first prize would anyone really say WOW hell of a bluff? Doubt it.

[JFarrell20 1]

Negreanu's was more calculated and less obvious. However Chris's bluff took balls the size of coconuts. Bigger stage, bigger reward, bigger everything. Luckily he didn't get called...So in summary:Negreanu's: Great bluff, medium sized balls.Moneymakers: Decent bluff, huge testicular fortitude.

[PrtyPSux 0]

hahaha well put farell