Hsp Season 5

[defy 0]

i cant say i have ever seen daniel play the way he did in the latest episode and it was quite evident that he really wasnt feeling it.

[The Czar 0]

I don't see the sense in shoving in your entire stack on the quad hand. I really hate the risk/reward ratio, but that being said, he only cost himself money. Him calling out the Eastgate wrong chip toss was COMPLETELY amateur and a little bizarre. I can't buy the "he's a loose guy and talkative" excuse. That was really bad. I think he knew right away he was wrong and probably did feel bad, but man was he off the entire episode. Durr even made a comment about it being way out of line, despite the fact he didn't know DN was in the hand. He played bad, but acted even stranger. It was just a really odd/off night and I'm guessing this was around the time he was semi-discussing having some things in his personal life he was cleaning up. It happens to all of us, but hopefully he got it together sooner than later because whether it's reality or not, the other players at the table view him as someone weaker now. Regardless, best poker show on television easily.

[Vtlaxer09 4]

I don't see the sense in shoving in your entire stack on the quad hand. I really hate the risk/reward ratio, but that being said, he only cost himself money. Him calling out the Eastgate wrong chip toss was COMPLETELY amateur and a little bizarre. I can't buy the "he's a loose guy and talkative" excuse. That was really bad. I think he knew right away he was wrong and probably did feel bad, but man was he off the entire episode. Durr even made a comment about it being way out of line, despite the fact he didn't know DN was in the hand. He played bad, but acted even stranger. It was just a really odd/off night and I'm guessing this was around the time he was semi-discussing having some things in his personal life he was cleaning up. It happens to all of us, but hopefully he got it together sooner than later because whether it's reality or not, the other players at the table view him as someone weaker now. Regardless, best poker show on television easily.

do you play online mtt's?

[A_Bullets_A 0]

They talk about the Dwan/Eastgate/Greenstein hand for about an hour here. http://www.deucescracked.com/podcasts/deuceplaysIt's long, but kind of interesting...

[The Czar 0]

do you play online mtt's?

yes

[Balloon guy 158]

I don't see the sense in shoving in your entire stack on the quad hand. I really hate the risk/reward ratio, but that being said, he only cost himself money. Him calling out the Eastgate wrong chip toss was COMPLETELY amateur and a little bizarre. I can't buy the "he's a loose guy and talkative" excuse. That was really bad. I think he knew right away he was wrong and probably did feel bad, but man was he off the entire episode. Durr even made a comment about it being way out of line, despite the fact he didn't know DN was in the hand. He played bad, but acted even stranger. It was just a really odd/off night and I'm guessing this was around the time he was semi-discussing having some things in his personal life he was cleaning up. It happens to all of us, but hopefully he got it together sooner than later because whether it's reality or not, the other players at the table view him as someone weaker now. Regardless, best poker show on television easily.

QFTEsp now that Celebrity poker is gone

[Gallo 1]

QFTEsp now that Celebrity poker is gone

lol

[Jam-Fly 8]

Just my two cents on this epic hand.First of all I am not sure if Durr is a donkey or a genius..Its a fine line.First of all calling Barry's under the gun raise with Q10 with 6 guys behind is obviously not a good call..Then the raise on the flop. Is this a donkey play knowing that most probably his q10 isnt good, or is it a very high level play where Durr knows that Barry has to have minimum JJ. Then the bet on the turn after knowing Eastgate has a 2 and Barry has an overpair..Most of the players on the table arent folding Eastgate's 2 and Barry's aces..I guarantee give either one of the hands to Eli,Daniel and most of the others the chips are all in on the turn. Durr had the precise two guys that can lay those hands down..is he a genius or a donkey??I am leaning towards genius..

It's a complete genius hand, I don't see how you can say Durrr was a Donkey in this hand

Really disagree with the bold. With how tight Barry had been playing why wouldn't you want to play anything decent > 200 bbs deep in position vs. the original raiser when you have a fairly strong idea of what their range is? As far as the flop, it's 100% a bluff. At first I didn't get it either but he knows exactly what Barry's range is and is effectively forcing him to play for stacks (since he's always gonna barrel the turn, not letting him get to showdown) with 1 pair in an 8 way pot pre where he's (durrrr) repping a deuce. Durrr has a 10 also so he has a blocker to both of the possible boat combos on the flop. It's really really really hard for anybody to continue postflop when he raises that bet with 6 people behidn without like k2/a2

exactly. when I first saw the hand, I was like WTF? this is such a fundamentally bad play by Durrr. Then when I watched it a second time, I aprreciated the ingenuity of it all

[Jam-Fly 8]

Okay, a few points on the Durrr/BG/PE hand:-BG bets the flop. Durrr raises as a bluff. Durrr knows that for Barry to bet the flop he MUST have either 22, TT, AK/bluff or most likely JJ-AA. PE calls a raise on the flop. Durrr knows PE must have AT LEAST a 2. BG calls. Not BG must have either 22, TT or JJ-AA. -On first look, Durrr's hand is irrelevant the whole hand, he is just bluffing. This is not true. Durrr's hand is relelvant because he holds a ten. This means it highly unlikely BG or PE has the case 10-10. So now, the range of hands are even narrower. PE must have a 2. BG must have JJ-AA.-If BG does indeed have TT, then he would have likely checked the flop. The % of times where BG raises utg with TT, bets into a 8-way flop with the nuts, and flat calls on the flop when it is apparent someone (PE) has a 2, is very slim. It can almost ruled out that BG has TT.-Could PE have TT? Yes he can. If PE does have TT, pre-flop and the flop play out the same. As for the turn, I personally think PE bets out with TT. If PE checks with TT, he knows that Durrr and BG can only bet with very strong hands (because it is obvious from the flop action PE has a monster). So I see little value in PE checking the turn. The only value PE can extract, if he holds TT, is by trying to force Durrr or BG to make a crying call with 2x or maybe JJ-AA. Therefore, I think if PE does have TT, he bets the turn. -So it seems very unlikely PE or BG have TT. Also remember, they are the case tens.-The analysis of either BG or PE having 22 is the same.-Okay, so now both ranges are pretty narrow from Durrr's perspective. BG probably has JJ-AA. PE probably has 2x. Now that Durrr knows the ranges, his decision is easier. He makes the best play available knowing their ranges. PE checks, BG checks. Durrr puts in a big bet. -PE knows that it obvious he has a 2. BG knows it is obvious he has JJ+. Everybody knows what everyone has, except no one knows what Durrr has.-But since it obvious what PE and BG have, can Durrr take advantage of this? Does Durrr have the cojones to bluff someone off open trips and bluff someone off an overpair? -PE's answer on turn: Durrr knows I have a two, Barry know I have a two, both players are in the pot and both players know what I have. I have a lot of money on the table and this is a marginal spot. I don't want to be involved, I fold.-BG's answer on turn: PE just folded. What could he have folded? He must have folded a bare two, or some overpair. Either way, it really looks like Durrr has TT. He knows what I have. He knows PE had a two. Could he actually bluff into an 8-way pot on the flop, and then bluff into trips and an overpair? No. It is more likely he has TT. He may be bluffing but it is not a risk I can afford to take. I fold.That is my analysis of the hand.One final point, and it's on a fundamental poker theory imo. The whole '+EV in the long run'. If you make a bluff, and it works, is it +EV because it worked that one time? If you make a hero call late in a tournament, and you're right, is it +EV because it worked that one time? As poker players, we obviously know just because you raise utg with A9s and win 'that one time', it doesn't mean the play is +EV in the long run.But when it comes to big bluffs and big calls, I think the situation changes. In this hand, Durrrs call is +EV imo. Is it +EV in the long run? Well, '+EV' and '+EV in the long run' are the same thing, so yes. There were so many factors, so many little things that were relevant, so much information in that one hand, that a situation similar to it will NEVER come up again. The hand has to be looked at in isolation, not in %s or in the long run. A hand will never come up like that again. Therefore, for you to say "What % of the time does PE fold there", the answer is, 100%, because he folded. In that hand, he folded. You cannot "But if PE was Eli" or "If BG was first to act and PE didn't have BG behind him". In that hand, in that situation, Durrr made the right play. Therefore it is +EV, and that is +EV in the long run.In hands like that, so many factors occur in that one hand, that it's impossible to look at it in the long run, because there i no long run for hands like these. It has been one of the poker fundamentals I've really thought about alot. Timex who thinks about poker (esp tournaments) on a completely different level to anyone I've ever met before, has said (well something similar to it, this is the jist of it) "I don't care if I'm wrong 99 times of 100, I don't care about the long run, all I care about is this one hand, this one time, and whether or not I'm right when I make this call this one time.".In this hand Durrr was right, so you have to assume that his play is +EV until proved otherwise.The only possible differential factor in this hand I can see is, if PE has A2. This is the only situation I can see where everything plays out the exact same, but Durrr, MAYBE loses the hand. I still think PE would probably fold A2 but I don't know. Everything else in this hand worked out perfectly and was analyzed perfect by Durrr imo, and the only thing could change is PE having A2. There is not really any other situation where Durrr's play is "-EV long term"

[Jam-Fly 8]

lol @ the Zigmund comaparison. You should def bump the "poker player - actors thread" with that.Yeha DN played really poorly and acted weirdly. That calling out PE thing was REALLY bad imo. I thought after the hand he should have given a hard felt "Oops, really about that, it just slipped out of my mouth". It genuinely was a bad thing to do. Could you imagine if you swap PE for Eli and DN for Amnon Fillippi or someone, Eli would have crememted Amnon had he done what DN had done. It's kinda gay aswell because PE can't really complin about it, because he's the new guy and DN is DN. Anyway, just something that kinda annoyed me :)And that speech when the jack hit? I wasn't quite sure what was going on (I assumed DN hadn't just completely given up on the hand and was effectively open-farreling). When I saw that that was what he was doing, I was shocked. That's just unbelievable. Definitely something else on Negreanu's mind in that episode, very poor performance from him

[Suited_Up 2]

The call with A8 was probably the worst thing.

[Jam-Fly 8]

The call with A8 was probably the worst thing.

yeah that call was pretty atrocious too. Not really beating anything there

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

The call with A8 was probably the worst thing.

He open farrelled.

[Jam-Fly 8]

He open farrelled.

He got A8 back to back. One he called with A8 on the river on a 89QAK board.The other he open-farrelled on the turn on a AKQJ board.

[Suited_Up 2]

He got A8 back to back. One he called with A8 on the river on a 89QAK board.The other he open-farrelled on the turn on a AKQJ board.

I meant the calldown.The open farrell was bad, but if he didn't say anything and did the same thing, it's not even an issue.

[The Czar 0]

The other he open-farrelled on the turn on a AKQJ board.

Because "it is so sick that jack hit".

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

He got A8 back to back. One he called with A8 on the river on a 89QAK board.The other he open-farrelled on the turn on a AKQJ board.

yeah, I know.. he was saying the 2 pair call down was the worst play, and I countered with " he open farrelled' that's actually going to be my response to anything when talking about DN from now on I think.

[Jam-Fly 8]

yeah, I know.. he was saying the 2 pair call down was the worst play, and I countered with " he open farrelled' that's actually going to be my response to anything when talking about DN from now on I think.

oh i get ya..yeah I agree, the open-farrell was the worst play of the night. It was just disgusting to watch. He's done similar things several times this season. Every time he's been on a draw, and missed, he has insta-check-folded, never has he considered a bluff, and a few spots warranted at least the thought of bluffing at the pot.

[loogie 115]

You guys need to take it easy on Daniel. I mean, you try concentrating on poker with a giant fork sticking out of your back.

[Vtlaxer09 4]

yes

screennames?

[GWCGWC 83]

You guys need to take it easy on Daniel. I mean, you try concentrating on poker with a giant fork sticking out of your back.

Oucher, Lanky

[JubilantLankyLad 1,957]

Oucher, Lanky

Haha

[sagedecarte 0]

Okay, a few points on the Durrr/BG/PE hand:-BG bets the flop. Durrr raises as a bluff. Durrr knows that for Barry to bet the flop he MUST have either 22, TT, AK/bluff or most likely JJ-AA. PE calls a raise on the flop. Durrr knows PE must have AT LEAST a 2. BG calls. Not BG must have either 22, TT or JJ-AA. -On first look, Durrr's hand is irrelevant the whole hand, he is just bluffing. This is not true. Durrr's hand is relelvant because he holds a ten. This means it highly unlikely BG or PE has the case 10-10. So now, the range of hands are even narrower. PE must have a 2. BG must have JJ-AA.-If BG does indeed have TT, then he would have likely checked the flop. The % of times where BG raises utg with TT, bets into a 8-way flop with the nuts, and flat calls on the flop when it is apparent someone (PE) has a 2, is very slim. It can almost ruled out that BG has TT.-Could PE have TT? Yes he can. If PE does have TT, pre-flop and the flop play out the same. As for the turn, I personally think PE bets out with TT. If PE checks with TT, he knows that Durrr and BG can only bet with very strong hands (because it is obvious from the flop action PE has a monster). So I see little value in PE checking the turn. The only value PE can extract, if he holds TT, is by trying to force Durrr or BG to make a crying call with 2x or maybe JJ-AA. Therefore, I think if PE does have TT, he bets the turn. -So it seems very unlikely PE or BG have TT. Also remember, they are the case tens.-The analysis of either BG or PE having 22 is the same.-Okay, so now both ranges are pretty narrow from Durrr's perspective. BG probably has JJ-AA. PE probably has 2x. Not that Durrr knows the ranges, his decision is easier. He makes the best play available knowing their ranges. PE checks, BG checks. Durrr puts in a big bet. -PE knows that it obvious he has a 2. BG knows it is obvious he has JJ+. Everybody knows what everyone has, except no one knows what Durrr has.-But since it obvious what PE and BG have, can Durrr take advantage of this? Does Durrr have the cojones to bluff someone off open trips and bluff someone off an overpair? -PE's answer on turn: Durrr knows I have a two, Barry know I have a two, both players are in the pot and both players know what I have. I have a lot of money on the table and this is a marginal spot. I don't want to be involved, I fold.-BG's answer on turn: PE just folded. What could he have folded? He must have folded a bare two, or some overpair. Either way, it really looks like Durrr has TT. He knows what I have. He knows PE had a two. Could he actually bluff into an 8-way pot on the flop, and then bluff into trips and an overpair? No. It is more likely he has TT. He may be bluffing but it is not a risk I can afford to take. I fold.That is my analysis of the hand.One final point, and it's on a fundamental poker theory imo. The whole '+EV in the long run'. If you make a bluff, and it works, is it +EV because it worked that one time? If you make a hero call late in a tournament, and you're right, is it +EV because it worked that one time? As poker players, we obviously know just because you raise utg with A9s and win 'that one time', it doesn't mean the play is +EV in the long run.But when it comes to big bluffs and big calls, I think the situation changes. In this hand, Durrrs call is +EV imo. Is it +EV in the long run? Well, '+EV' and '+EV in the long run' are the same thing, so yes. There were so many factors, so many little things that were relevant, so much information in that one hand, that a situation similar to it will NEVER come up again. The hand has to be looked at in isolation, not in %s or in the long run. A hand will never come up like that again. Therefore, for you to say "What % of the time does PE fold there", the answer is, 100%, because he folded. In that hand, he folded. You cannot "But if PE was Eli" or "If BG was first to act and PE didn't have BG behind him". In that hand, in that situation, Durrr made the right play. Therefore it is +EV, and that is +EV in the long run.In hands like that, so many factors occur in that one hand, that it's impossible to look at it in the long run, because there i no long run for hands like these. It has been one of the poker fundamentals I've really thought about alot. Timex who thinks about poker (esp tournaments) on a completely different level to anyone I've ever met before, has said (well something similar to it, this is the jist of it) "I don't care if I'm wrong 99 times of 100, I don't care about the long run, all I care about is this one hand, this one time, and whether or not I'm right when I make this call this one time.".In this hand Durrr was right, so you have to assume that his play is +EV until proved otherwise.The only possible differential factor in this hand I can see is, if PE has A2. This is the only situation I can see where everything plays out the exact same, but Durrr, MAYBE loses the hand. I still think PE would probably fold A2 but I don't know. Everything else in this hand worked out perfectly and was analyzed perfect by Durrr imo, and the only thing could change is PE having A2. There is not really any other situation where Durrr's play is "-EV long term"

longer and more thorough than any paper ive written this year

[Jam-Fly 8]

longer and more thorough than any paper ive written this year

QFT(oh wait, shit, I better go study)

[nutzbuster 7]

QFTEsp now that Celebrity poker is gone

\sigh. I miss Dennis Rodman....