"high Stakes Poker: Season 2" Blog

[Balloon guy 158]

Hurricaine Kyle nailed it. They were going to get it all in when they flopped sets. Regardless of the quality of player, when you hit your set, you expect to win. That's why you stay in to see the flop, to hit your set. Silly to pretend either one could put the other on one of such few possible hands, when they both show they play a wide range of hands. Switch places and Gus loses his money, says nothing whatsoever on his quality as a player.set vs overset is just unlucky, getting drawn out on with a one outer is worse luck.I am a fan of DNs for alot of reasons, but if you think I am blinded by being a fan, you are stupid. Reading most of these 'DN was stupid for calling with his full house' posts lets me see you think you are cool by being anti Daniel on his thread. Going against the flow isn't a sign of intelligence, more like arrogance.If you don't like Daniel then find somewhere else to lurk where you can all mutually agree to be haters. I'm sure you will only be happy when we all realize how cool you guys are. Won't be happening soon though.

[LadyGrey 6]

I think Phil Helmuth and you would have many good conversations about how bad others play

I love the way people rag on Phil Hellmuth here. I have nothing against the guy, but it's so entertaining.

[Masquerade 0]

First off let me start by saying that those of you saying that Gus or Danny played the hand like a donk are idiots at hold'em and I'd welcome you to any table I play at. You'd get run over if you would honestly consider folding 66 in this position or think that 55 is in trouble on the flop.My question is for DN, when you said you stalled on the turn trying to give Gus the impression of an overpair: Is it possible that you gave off a sign of strength here so that Gus could be confident that you were actually very strong so that he could check raise the river? That kind of tactic would work against low limit donks, but I would imagine that a high limit player would read right through this almost all the time because if you were representing Queens then this would almost certainly be a raise or fold spot. Flat calling against a player like Gus with all the potential scare cards that could come really says strength. I go broke here 100% of the time on the river, and the hand really played itself in the end.

I'm a massive DN fan!! And he is good enough not to go broke here [or not double up Gus] when playing his A-game. That's how good I think he is - and why I think he made an error here on river.

[HurricaneKyle 0]

I'm a massive DN fan!! And he is good enough not to go broke here [or not double up Gus] when playing his A-game. That's how good I think he is - and why I think he made an error here on river.

No, you're wrong. Just because you don't go broke on a hand doesn't make you good or a superior player. This is what many of you DON'T get. Sometimes you have to lose the maximum on hands, if you don't every now and then, then you aren't playing hard enough. If you aren't willing to get it all in there then you are also going to be missing tons of value on other hands where you have '4th nut'. Its not Omaha.There is no way this hand could have played out where DN didn't lose the max. Why you say? Because DN is a world class player and not a nit who has to have first or second nut to play a big pot.

[Masquerade 0]

No, you're wrong. Just because you don't go broke on a hand doesn't make you good or a superior player. This is what many of you DON'T get. Sometimes you have to lose the maximum on hands, if you don't every now and then, then you aren't playing hard enough. If you aren't willing to get it all in there then you are also going to be missing tons of value on other hands where you have '4th nut'. Its not Omaha.There is no way this hand could have played out where DN didn't lose the max. Why you say? Because DN is a world class player and not a nit who has to have first or second nut to play a big pot.

By your logic DN can never avoid going broke when he flops set under set and yet he frequently has. He's also put supernatural reads on opponents and laid down the 2nd nuts even when the nuts was a highly unlikely holding. Asserting that there is "no way" DN doesn't go broke here, and anyone disagreeing is wrong is just making yourself look like an idiot. Who made you God? And yes, there are of course meta-game considerations between Gus and DN of which we both know nothing which means that sometimes he must call such reraise allins with little.You, like everyone else, have completely failed to address my point which was this: DN's stated reasoning for not putting Gus on 99 (or 55) was that he wouldnt check river if he put DN on overpair, which was what he'd tried to sell on flop (and turn). I believe Gus was far more successful at putting DN on a hand and that his river check was in fact a deep and deliberate trap.

[HurricaneKyle 0]

I agree with your last sentence. Clearly Daniel's plan to sell Gus on the overpair failed to convince Gus and in fact probably convinced Gus that Daniel probably had a full house. There is no chance Gus checks if he isn't 100% certain DN will bet.Again I want to see how you make money at poker if you are willing to release sixes full on the river.

[Balloon guy 158]

I love the way people rag on Phil Hellmuth here. I have nothing against the guy, but it's so entertaining.

That's not ragging on Phil...that's loving on PhilI dig PH, good for the game

[dino 0]

What an idiot....1. 25k buy in tournies are nothing at all to Daniles bankroll... and what 25k tournies are you talking about? I didnt know they had these on a regular basis. 2. Im sure the players in the 4000-8000 game that Daniel plays on a regular basis are "bad players" 3. the majority of the hands youve seen on high stakes poker have been sick luck and just terrible beats

Um, yeah, this is a pretty stupid post (the quoted one I mean). In the first place, Daniel has probably gone broke more than a few times in the past, and it doesn't scare him much. I doubt he'd have any trouble getting staked. Secondly, I looked at his tournament winnings in Card Player the other day and he's only at $980,000 for the year, so these two losses in HSP must really sting his bankroll (heavy sarcasm). That post reminds me of Citizen Kane, where one of the old-time newspaper owners yells at him, "Why you'll lose a million dollars a year at that rate!!" and Kane replies, "well then I guess that means we'll be out of business in...57 years."

[7s7c 0]

You need to open up your mind a little bit and try to think outside the box. NLH is a game that's all about implied odds. Calling $2000 when players have over $100,000 in front of them isn't exactly committing yourself the hand. The goal with playing these type of hands is to try and hit a tricky flop and get all of your money in as a huge favorite.

Of course, I'll play lots of hands from different angles in NLHE...raise UTG with 7/8o etc...however if I hit top 2 and I'm up against bottom set or something like an overpair that improves to the winner when the low card on board pairs on the turn I'm really not going to complain about taking a bad beat either.