Conditional Probability

[BabyMaybe12 0]

daniel's blog entryi feel like the analyses made here by both daniel and howard lederer are incomplete.neither one of them seems to talk about either a) about the depth of the chip stacks of daniel or ted, and b ) what role daniel's comment may have had in inducing a check from ted.if daniel and ted have, let's say 40,000 in chips apiece, and daniel, after analysis of the situation, puts both dags and ted on big aces, then a call with a hand like 76 or 65 is marginal, but possible (depending on the pay structure). if they have more chips, then a call might not be a bad play at all (if dags' elimination would help daniel significantly re: the pay structure).more important, however, is daniel's comment regarding the hand ted played with antonio esfandiari. after a check on the river, while ted is reaching for chips, daniel says, “You’re not seriously thinking about going all in here, are you? I saw you bluff Antonio off the same hand on TV.” ted could have read that as, "daniel doesn't want me to bet him off of an ace in this situation, when he thinks we would chop the pot (like i would have with antonio)," or, "daniel's trying to induce a bet with the nuts because he's got exactly what antonio had," in this situation, the case six. in which case, maybe i should check.let's say daniel had a six. daniel would most likely check his trips on the flop, and the 3,000 bet on the turn also makes complete sense with a six (as well as, of course, AQ or AK). after the 3,000 bet on the turn, ted may have been suspicious, but thrilled, given that he had daniel crushed at the time. if this is true, then after daniel's comment about the hand in the heads up match on the river, i don't think checking is a terrible option at all.that said, i'd like to know more about the chip stacks and the pay structure.

[DanielNegreanu 141]

Very interesting. However, the key fact still remains. I would not call such an oversized all in bet pre-flop with a 6 in my hand.

[DCJ001 0]

Very interesting. However, the key fact still remains. I would not call such an oversized all in bet pre-flop with a 6 in my hand.

The article was a good read. Daniel wouldn't call such an oversized all in bet pre-flop with a 6 in his hand. But Gus might! You have to know a little bit about the players.

[seriousjoker 0]

The article was a good read. Daniel wouldn't call such an oversized all in bet pre-flop with a 6 in his hand. But Gus might! You have to know a little bit about the players.

Not the new Gus, he folded Ace 9 in an unraised pot on pokerafterdark.He was underthegun 6 handed, but still that's something Gus of 2005 would not do!

[ftpdoug 0]

For what it's worth, Howard later admitted that he made a mistake when he said it was equally likely that Daniel held a 6 or an Ace.That's one of the risks you take commentating on a live broadcast...

[Jam-Fly 8]

Not the new Gus, he folded Ace 9 in an unraised pot on pokerafterdark.He was underthegun 6 handed, but still that's something Gus of 2005 would not do!

I think this is where people seriously mis understand Gus. Playing junk or 'mediocre' hands can be profitable when playing a 10k deep stacked tournament for example, or at a a final table when he is chip leader, or in a deep stacked cash game. But in SNGs, it is wrong to play small ball early imo. Gus was just implementing the strategy for the structure, like he does in the tournies, cash games etc.