Sickest Laydown Ever? Has To Be!

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

i think hes right, or at least close to it. while on paper it looks like an easy fold, very few people would be able to let go of that. when somebody flops quads they get excited and feel emotionally attached to the hand, they see the flop and say to themselves something like "wow i am going to win a big pot here." then, when their hand gets beat, they are unable to detach themselves from it. stubbornness, feelings of "its not fair", or the worst "well, its a cooler so if he has it he has it" prevail over logic. i would speculate though that when that 7 falls on the river most people would know they are beat but being unable to fold would check and call. i once heard about a hand with doyle brunson. it was lhe and he had aces and raised with two callers. the flop came something like a28. the betting got capped. the turn was a 2. he folded on the turn, i dont remember how the action went but it might have been something as little as just a bet and a raise. the river came an 8 and the guy with 22 lost a lot of money. who knows if its true or not.

You're exactly right here. I love how so many people in this thread are like " hey, it's standard. Standard fold. Easy fold" And it's such bs. Folding the second nuts is never standard or easy. You may do it, it may happen ( and in this hand, you may be more inclined to do it than usual). But folding the second nuts is always a hard fold ( and not always a good fold, either, though I think it was in this case). everyone saying " I don't know what's so good about this fold, seems standard" is just full of sht.RE the brunson hand. There was probably more to that hand than what was told in the story. That hand seems extremely fishy, and is much more likely to be the result of a literal cooler ( IE cheating) than it is of just happening. (IE if just two of those hands happened at the casino's I played at in Washington, you'd win a jack pot, meaning it's extremely rare. To have 3 jackpot qualifyi8ng hands at the same time? the odds of that are insanly high) Brunson probably thought something was up, and folded.

[Jam-Fly 8]

You're exactly right here. I love how so many people in this thread are like " hey, it's standard. Standard fold. Easy fold" And it's such bs. Folding the second nuts is never standard or easy. You may do it, it may happen ( and in this hand, you may be more inclined to do it than usual). But folding the second nuts is always a hard fold ( and not always a good fold, either, though I think it was in this case). everyone saying " I don't know what's so good about this fold, seems standard" is just full of sht.RE the brunson hand. There was probably more to that hand than what was told in the story. That hand seems extremely fishy, and is much more likely to be the result of a literal cooler ( IE cheating) than it is of just happening. (IE if just two of those hands happened at the casino's I played at in Washington, you'd win a jack pot, meaning it's extremely rare. To have 3 jackpot qualifyi8ng hands at the same time? the odds of that are insanly high) Brunson probably thought something was up, and folded.

That Brunson hand was in the book, "My 50 most memorable hands" I think it was. Really good read, I reccommend it.The hand was A42, capped betting on flop. Turn was a 2, betting was capped. River came a 4, one guy bet out, the other raised, and Doyle mucked.

[Dratj 0]

I think this is a pretty standard fold tbh. AA is the third nuts here like, so what can villains have? AA and KK? No way they play AA and KK like that on river. Quads is quads, but this is not a wow fold.EDIT: actually, this is an incredibly easy fold. Come on, it's simple. I'm not one to instantly diss great plays, but seriously, this is a very, very, standard fold.

are you kidding me?

[FARGOpokerND 22]

I still stick to: If I have 44 on a 44777 board in a HUGE event vs 2 good players, and one goes all in and other calls...this is an clear case for a fold.

[TheL0st1ne 0]

I still stick to: If I have 44 on a 44777 board in a HUGE event vs 2 good players, and one goes all in and other calls...this is an clear case for a fold.

I think this is a very good point. Its not like Bax is up against 2 donks who would put their money in with an overpair

[timwakefield 68]

The sickest laydown I've ever seen was the AA laydown Johnny Chan did against Huck seed in the first season of PAD. I don't even understand how that hand happened.

This is the correct answer. I don't see how anybody could really ever make a better read/fold than Chan does on that hand. It's disgusting how he is done with the hand the second he sees Huck liking it. HE CHECKS DOWN AND QUICKLY FOLDS THE RIVER TO A MODERATE BET!1111!!! So silly/amazing. And I mean it's not like Chan didn't want the pot. It was a multi-way raised pot.

[NoSup4U 0]

The reason nobody in this thread or on FCP has probably ever folded quads is because its almost impossible to find yourself in this situation AND be up against 2 players who aren't morons I think given the situation, its a 'Wow thats a brutal fold but you've got to be behind here' That being said, its still hard to imagine folding quads. But reading the hand, it looks really likely that he's got the 7 right?I think not betting the quad 4s on the river is kind of lol.When I saw the Chan hand on TV I thought it was ridiculously sick to not even pay off the small river bet there. I mean, its so cheap. I'd never thought much of Chan before that hand and one hand I saw him just watch when he was at my table once. I think he has really good live reads.Toilet fold is pretty crazy.Mark

[HighwayStar 8]

I'd like to think I've made some decent lay downs but nothing compared to that toilet one. Rigged HH imo.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

I think that toliet fold was a bad fold, and it's just results oriented to call it a good fold.

[Vtlaxer09 4]

I think that toliet fold was a bad fold, and it's just results oriented to call it a good fold.

definitely disagree here... in a regular 24+2 or even one of the normal 109's or 75's on ftp... im never laying this down. The 100 cubed is one of the toughest tourneys on the net.. and there is just no way someone doesnt have 88 in this hand. That being said... Its still an extemely difficult fold... but you're up against 88 much more often that you're up against some random hand like TT or A 3.

[looshle 6]

I don't think the chan hand was as amazing as everyones making it out to be. Huck didn't bet small on the river, he bet the pot almost instantly. AA only really beats a bluff and johnny usually has ak/aq there so hucks not going to risk more than he has to. Hachems prob firing any pair on turn as well IMO.Great fold , for sure, but I wouldn't categorize it as amazing.

[SuperJon 175]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ejq3dfD4fiY

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

I don't think the chan hand was as amazing as everyones making it out to be. Huck didn't bet small on the river, he bet the pot almost instantly. AA only really beats a bluff and johnny usually has ak/aq there so hucks not going to risk more than he has to. Hachems prob firing any pair on turn as well IMO.Great fold , for sure, but I wouldn't categorize it as amazing.

you're full of sht, pure and simple. There's just zero chance anyone in this forum loses as little as chan did in that hand.

[HollywoodAFD 0]

definitely disagree here... in a regular 24+2 or even one of the normal 109's or 75's on ftp... im never laying this down. The 100 cubed is one of the toughest tourneys on the net.. and there is just no way someone doesnt have 88 in this hand. That being said... Its still an extemely difficult fold... but you're up against 88 much more often that you're up against some random hand like TT or A 3.

Me either

[wakiki 0]

I don't think the chan hand was as amazing as everyones making it out to be. Huck didn't bet small on the river, he bet the pot almost instantly. AA only really beats a bluff and johnny usually has ak/aq there so hucks not going to risk more than he has to. Hachems prob firing any pair on turn as well IMO.Great fold , for sure, but I wouldn't categorize it as amazing.

I was going to bring up that it was a pot sized bet, not a small bet. I disagree though; still categorize it as amazing.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

I was going to bring up that it was a pot sized bet, not a small bet. I disagree though; still categorize it as amazing.

okay, but the pot was small, and if you're going to steal at that small of pot, then you probably want to bet that exact amount. Also, I do not agree at all that the only hand that could be better there is a bluff or a hand that has chan beat. There are many pocket pairs or small pairs that would be value betting. And he insta mucked. He didn't think about it for a single instant, he already knew on the flop that he'd fold to any bet. What's amazing about the hand, is that he never bet. Never. never put one cent into the pot, 'cause he got that read on the flop. If that's not amazing, nothing is, and posts like Looshies just seem so D-baggy, because I refuse to believe anyone in the forum, including Daniel, could have lost so little on the hand. It's not even the river play, it's that no money went in on the flop or turn.

[SuperJon 175]

okay, but the pot was small, and if you're going to steal at that small of pot, then you probably want to bet that exact amount. Also, I do not agree at all that the only hand that could be better there is a bluff or a hand that has chan beat. There are many pocket pairs or small pairs that would be value betting. And he insta mucked. He didn't think about it for a single instant, he already knew on the flop that he'd fold to any bet. What's amazing about the hand, is that he never bet. Never. never put one cent into the pot, 'cause he got that read on the flop. If that's not amazing, nothing is, and posts like Looshies just seem so D-baggy, because I refuse to believe anyone in the forum, including Daniel, could have lost so little on the hand. It's not even the river play, it's that no money went in on the flop or turn.

I agree that Chan not putting a single cent in post flop is amazing in itself, but the actual laydown is just great (not amazing).I highly doubt he put Huck on 66 there. Most likely he put either him or Hachem on a J since hands like J10, JQ, JK, and JA are all likely hands for either one of them when you consider the preflop action. Add in the fact that it's a rainbow board, and it's quite likely that someone could be slowplaying a J there. I think Chan makes that laydown on any board containing either JJ,QQ,or KK. Now if the board were something like J 6 7 2 10, and Chan made the fold, it would better than this fold.

[BeaverStyle 1]

The reason nobody in this thread or on FCP has probably ever folded quads is because its almost impossible to find yourself in this situation AND be up against 2 players who aren't morons I think given the situation, its a 'Wow thats a brutal fold but you've got to be behind here' That being said, its still hard to imagine folding quads. But reading the hand, it looks really likely that he's got the 7 right?I think not betting the quad 4s on the river is kind of lol.When I saw the Chan hand on TV I thought it was ridiculously sick to not even pay off the small river bet there. I mean, its so cheap. I'd never thought much of Chan before that hand and one hand I saw him just watch when he was at my table once. I think he has really good live reads.Toilet fold is pretty crazy.Mark

The four 4's hand... honestly, I can't see how it's a call. Unless you're playing against morons (as nosup4u said) there's no way that one of those players doesn't have quads. I just can't imagine that one player would shove over another person's shove w/ out at least AA or the case 7 given the board and the action.Johnny Chan hand... soul read imo. I think most pro's would pay that off, as would most if not all amateurs.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

I agree that Chan not putting a single cent in post flop is amazing in itself, but the actual laydown is just great (not amazing).

All I'm saying is a I want to start seeing some hand histories of people check check river folding with AA in tournaments before I start believing that this is just a "good" or "great" but not amazing fold.

[SuperJon 175]

All I'm saying is a I want to start seeing some hand histories of people check check river folding with AA in tournaments before I start believing that this is just a "good" or "great" but not amazing fold.

Well don't look for me to do that, because I pay that off everytime. But I think you also have to consider that Chan didn't have anything invested postflop. By all means it's not an "easy" laydown, but I think that has a lot to do with the fold.Did you watch the hand I posted above, between Ivey and Cunningham? Imo, Cunningham's fold is tougher to make because he has money invested. Not to mention he's up against Ivey who is totally capable of making those bets with any hand.Edit: Although one is a cash game and one is a SNG, so not sure if you can compare the two.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Well don't look for me to do that, because I pay that off everytime. But I think you also have to consider that Chan didn't have anything invested postflop. By all means it's not an "easy" laydown, but I think that has a lot to do with the fold.Did you watch the hand I posted above, between Ivey and Cunningham? Imo, Cunningham's fold is tougher to make because he has money invested. Not to mention he's up against Ivey who is totally capable of making those bets with any hand.Edit: Although one is a cash game and one is a SNG, so not sure if you can compare the two.

yeah, but the flop was a really dry board, and the river brought the only draw that was out there. It's an excellent fold, but it's done with so much more info than chan had.

[SuperJon 175]

yeah, but the flop was a really dry board, and the river brought the only draw that was out there. It's an excellent fold, but it's done with so much more info than chan had.

Like I said earlier, a J could easily fit either one of Huck or Joe's hands. Anyways, we're both adults so we're allowed to disagree, even though it's not by much.At least we can both agree that Favre is a hack.

[profxavier9 0]

I hear Phil Hellmuth mucked QQ to a single raise preflop. The guy reads souls for a living.

havent we all done that one time or another?

[dscoot 0]

From what ive seen on tv, Chan likes to limp alot with big pocket pairs. People who regularly do this, the really good ones, have plenty of practice with folding these big hands to scary boards or tells, so since Chan has made folds like these plenty of times, it really is not suprising how instantly he does it and without any whining or making a big deal about it.Plus, I believe this was early in the match, and the blinds were low, so the pot wasnt really all that big to add to Chans stack, meaning that even if Chan did have the best hand, perhaps he didnt want to call and let them see how he played AA there. Maybe that was a small incentive to fold there too. Why show off your super-sneaky play for a tiny pot, u want to show off your super-sneaky trap play for a monster pot. Cuz u might not be able to fool em twice.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

From what ive seen on tv, Chan likes to limp alot with big pocket pairs. People who regularly do this, the really good ones, have plenty of practice with folding these big hands to scary boards or tells, so since Chan has made folds like these plenty of times, it really is not suprising how instantly he does it and without any whining or making a big deal about it.Plus, I believe this was early in the match, and the blinds were low, so the pot wasnt really all that big to add to Chans stack, meaning that even if Chan did have the best hand, perhaps he didnt want to call and let them see how he played AA there. Maybe that was a small incentive to fold there too. Why show off your super-sneaky play for a tiny pot, u want to show off your super-sneaky trap play for a monster pot. Cuz u might not be able to fool em twice.

post a hand history where you've done this before you start talking out of your ass about how standard the fold is.Also, I don't think you actually clicked on the link, because chan didn't limp preflop. He didn't play it "sneaky" or what ever the helll you're talking about.