Analysis On Dn's Final Table

[ajs510 122]

DN, if you'd be willing to make some comments on Hachem's game, that would be interesting to a lot of us I think. As JC said, perceptions of him from tv are that he's something of a rock. What is the consensus among the top pros on his game? Respek?

Isn't Hachem one of the only guys to own both a WSOP ME title and a WPT title?The only one I can think of who has also accomplished the feat is Doyle, at least in an open event. That deserves a fair amount of respek in and of itself.

[Shimmering Wang 1]

The action Joe took in this hand makes no sense to me.Here's the action, according to CardPlayer:"Joe Hachem limps in from the small blind and Daniel Negreanu checks. The flop comes K-7-2 rainbow and Hachem bets $100,000. Negreanu raises $100,000 and Hachem call. After a turn of 8x, Hachem checks and Negreanu bets $500,000. Hachem calls and the :2club: comes on the river. Hachem bets $1,000,000 and Negreanu folds.I just can't put Joe on a hand that beats you, unless he was slowplaying a monster hand (Pocket K's, 7's, possibly pocket 8's). Losing to any ace, and K-Q, K-10, Q-J or possibly pocket 10's.

This could easily be a deuce, or a hand like K7, K8, or- like you said- a slowplayed very big hand. It looks to me like Hachem is scared Negreanu will check behind, and thinks the deuce might get him a call from a hand he's surely beating. Hachem might even play a bare king just like this. He's taken these passive lines all night. This seems like it's very very rarely a bluff. Negreanu showed some pretty exceptional strength, making a small raise on the flop, then making a very sizeable turn bet. Also, as for the second portion, Daniel is ahead of KT, here. Just nitpicking. And I agree this looks like a pretty strong hand, given the action, from Hanna.Wang

[NoSup4U 0]

Also, as for the second portion, Daniel is ahead of KT, here. Just nitpicking. And I agree this looks like a pretty strong hand, given the action, from Hanna.Wang

Are you talking about when Daniel has 78 on a K7282 board? Mark

[freak2304 0]

Isn't Hachem one of the only guys to own both a WSOP ME title and a WPT title?The only one I can think of who has also accomplished the feat is Doyle, at least in an open event. That deserves a fair amount of respek in and of itself.

I know Scotty has done it too.

[ajs510 122]

I know Scotty has done it too.

Ah yes, you are correct sir. Still, it's an impressive accomplishment.

[Jdr999 0]

This could easily be a deuce, or a hand like K7, K8, or- like you said- a slowplayed very big hand. It looks to me like Hachem is scared Negreanu will check behind, and thinks the deuce might get him a call from a hand he's surely beating. Hachem might even play a bare king just like this. He's taken these passive lines all night. This seems like it's very very rarely a bluff. Negreanu showed some pretty exceptional strength, making a small raise on the flop, then making a very sizeable turn bet. Also, as for the second portion, Daniel is ahead of KT, here. Just nitpicking. And I agree this looks like a pretty strong hand, given the action, from Hanna.Wang

Forgot the pair of A's on the flop.Also, I still think Joe could bluff that hand. Why lead out on river after Daniel bet flop and turn if you had a big hand?

[mk 11]

Isn't Hachem one of the only guys to own both a WSOP ME title and a WPT title?The only one I can think of who has also accomplished the feat is Doyle, at least in an open event. That deserves a fair amount of respek in and of itself.

hachem, doyle, scotty, and carlos have done it.

[Shimmering Wang 1]

hachem, doyle, scotty, and carlos have done it.

So what you're saying is, he's ALMOST one of the only ones.

[Bizzle 0]

A little birdy told me DN had hit the thread, but I didn't get free until just now. Awayyyyyyy we go.

The reason none of the analysis that has been written can be very accurate is because it doesn't take into account what happened in the 15 hours prior to the final table. I made few, if any bluffs leading up to the final table. I got unlucky when the King of hearts hit the turn and that cost me a big pot. Then, against Joe, I had 7-8 on a board of K-7-2-8... the river was a 2. On another hand I had K-J vs Q-J on a board of A-A-K. Turn was a 10. The only sloppy play I think I made was calling a 900k raise on a board of 8-2-3 with A-4. I felt as though if I hit an Ace or a 4 I may bust him, and I also felt like there was a very good chance that I'd get a free card on the turn. Getting 2-1 that was close, but folding would have been a better option. As for Joe calling my raise, that was a no-brainer. At that point I was short on chips, down to 1.5 million and Joe made it 450k. The idea that me re-raising meant that "I didn't have much" is silly. Why would I push in with garbage? I considered calling the raise, but it was too high a percentage of my stack, plus, Joe would have laid down a hand like A-7 IMO.

Didn't address the 87 hand, but when I read it I assumed a 7 that you figured was beat. Shrug.I also didn't touch the AAK board because I assume you had a weak ace and were going to get value out of Hanna by checking the flop and then calling bets on the turn and river, and just ate an unlucky turn card. As someone else said, with KJ here, you really can't beat anything on the river other than a pure bluff. Due to the pot not getting bloated on the flop, he has to be bluffing the river fairly often in order for you to pick up this pot. I'm going to think about this hand a little more and see if I can come up with a line that I like other than "lead the flop and hope for folds".

You could compare "any other pros" track record on the WPT if you like. There does come a point in WPT final tables where pre-flop play takes over, but it's not as quickly as many pros may believe. My approach is the best approach and I'm certain of that. It will allow me to consistently build chips without major risk. Normally when I get to the final table my win rate is excellent. On this day, Hanna just kept hitting and before I could do anything to stop it, I was down to 1.5 mill.

I am not knocking your game at all. I have a ton of respect for how you play (mainly because I have tried playing like that and it doesn't work well for me, I don't sit very well in 4th or 5th gear). All I am saying is that on this day, some things seemed to happen, some adjustments didn't seem to get made, and I wanted to point this out so myself (and the rest of the forum) could try to benefit from the discussion that would follow.My next post will have a few questions in it, because I'll hit that long post you made in response to my first reply, but my initial question is sort of overall. When the blinds went up to 80-160, the average stack was 30 BBs, which isn't a lot 3 handed. Thus, any pot with 6 BBs in preflop becomes 1/15th of the chips on the table, and any time you snap a preflop raise and get a fold, you are taking 1/10th of the average stack away from someone. If this isn't the point where it becomes a game that involves a lot more preflop play, then what is? How low do the stacks have to be before you start considering more preflop pops and repops?

[Whiskey16 1]

So what you're saying is, he's ALMOST one of the only ones.

But certainly the only one who will ever be the fourth one to do it.

[Shimmering Wang 1]

But certainly the only one who will ever be the fourth one to do it.

In a vaccuum, yes. Hypothetically. As it were*Wang*^{given the current conditions}

[DanielNegreanu 141]

DN, if you'd be willing to make some comments on Hachem's game, that would be interesting to a lot of us I think. As JC said, perceptions of him from tv are that he's something of a rock. What is the consensus among the top pros on his game? Respek?

Joe is a good player. The best WSOP champ since Carlos Mortensen, and I don't think it's close. Moneymaker is a PlayBoy now, Raymer is too wild and is prone the Matusow blow up, and Jamie bluffs too much and would get hurt against good players. Joe, on the other hand, is from the same school I'm from, the school of small ball. Other players using a similar approach include:Phil IveyGus HansenErick LindgrenMichael MizrachiNam LeTuan LePhil Hellmuth Those players that get it all in with 66 pre-flop too often:Greg RaymerChris FergusonHoward LedererAndy BlochPhil GordonPhil LaakErik Seidel The school that I went to will allow you to win more consistently in WPT events. The other approach is very good for less skillful events like the $1500 buy in events at the WSOP. Jamie Gold actually went to our school too, but does a few things differently. It is simply not a coincidence that the players who do well on the WPT take the small ball approach. The other approach is far too kamikaze to win consistently as they get their money in bad far too often for very large amounts. You can suckout sometimes, but if you routinely play large pots in coin flip situations you can't get there too often. In five seasons on the WPT, if you compare this small list to each other you'd see a significant difference in success.

[DanielNegreanu 141]

Forgot the pair of A's on the flop.Also, I still think Joe could bluff that hand. Why lead out on river after Daniel bet flop and turn if you had a big hand?

The tough part of the equation is what he could call with on the turn that I can beat? Only a 7.

[Shimmering Wang 1]

Question for anyone that can answer it:Is Tuan Le any good?

[ajs510 122]

Joe, on the other hand, is from the same school I'm from, the school of small ball. Other players using a similar approach include:Phil IveyGus HansenErick LindgrenMichael MizrachiNam LeTuan LePhil Hellmuth Those players that get it all in with 66 pre-flop too often:Greg RaymerChris FergusonHoward LedererAndy BlochPhil GordonPhil LaakErik Seidel

Probably not even a remote coincidence that the players who rely more on their reading skills than the mathmatics of the game are in the top column, and the "math = skill" players are all in the bottom, eh? Phil Laak is the exception, but he's just a madman.

[DanielNegreanu 141]

My next post will have a few questions in it, because I'll hit that long post you made in response to my first reply, but my initial question is sort of overall. When the blinds went up to 80-160, the average stack was 30 BBs, which isn't a lot 3 handed. Thus, any pot with 6 BBs in preflop becomes 1/15th of the chips on the table, and any time you snap a preflop raise and get a fold, you are taking 1/10th of the average stack away from someone. If this isn't the point where it becomes a game that involves a lot more preflop play, then what is? How low do the stacks have to be before you start considering more preflop pops and repops?

This was a very interesting final three in that none of the players remaining showed ANY interest in pre-flop re-raising. The big blind didn't raise the little blind, or vice versa. My opponents were happy make small raises, or even limp in to see the flop. That played right into my hands. Unfortunately, they started hitting and I didn't. I made an adjustment in order to allow myself more opportunities to see flops. Down to three handed, and short on chips, I started limping on the button with hands like A-9. My opponents would call small raises anyway with a wide variety of hands, so by limping, I gave myself an opportunity to see more flops. Of course I run the risk of getting outdrawn, but I'm fine with that.

[SBriand 4]

Phil IveyGus HansenErick LindgrenMichael MizrachiNam LeTuan LePhil Hellmuth Those players that get it all in with 66 pre-flop too often:Greg RaymerChris FergusonHoward LedererAndy BlochPhil GordonPhil LaakErik Seidel

Where does Annie Duke fit in?

[DanielNegreanu 141]

Probably not even a remote coincidence that the players who rely more on their reading skills than the mathmatics of the game are in the top column, and the "math = skill" players are all in the bottom, eh? Phil Laak is the exception, but he's just a madman.

Not true, Phil Laak isn't the exception at all. He belongs in that group for sure as he makes similar plays to the other players. They make "reads" pre-flop hoping to come over the top with weak hands to attack the dead money. The problem with that strategy is that you generally lay too big a price, and when you are wrong, you are often a substancial underdog when called.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

This was a very interesting final three in that none of the players remaining showed ANY interest in pre-flop re-raising. The big blind didn't raise the little blind, or vice versa. My opponents were happy make small raises, or even limp in to see the flop. That played right into my hands. Unfortunately, they started hitting and I didn't. I made an adjustment in order to allow myself more opportunities to see flops. Down to three handed, and short on chips, I started limping on the button with hands like A-9. My opponents would call small raises anyway with a wide variety of hands, so by limping, I gave myself an opportunity to see more flops. Of course I run the risk of getting outdrawn, but I'm fine with that.

This is great stuff.Glad you did so well and hope your focus and confidence remain sky high.GG and thanks for sharing the insights with the Forum (even when so many of us can be abrasive)

[DanielNegreanu 141]

Where does Annie Duke fit in?

She doesn't really fit with either group, but she definitely leans towards the small ball group. I just think her post-flop play is too weak for her to be successful with that strategy.

[Bizzle 0]

Nope, that parts not true at all. Had nothing to do with losing respect for my bets at all, it had to do with the fact that they flopped the best hand.

I'm still fairly confident that if we ran the numbers for hands where you bet and got folds 6 handed and where you bet and got folds 3 handed, it happened at a much higher rate 6 handed. Granted, at that point ranges are tighter, but even still, as someone following along with every hand, early on, you were getting a lot of folds, and later you were getting few, if any, folds. I find it hard to believe that this was entirely them outflopping you every single hand, but if so, sucks. *shrug*

This doesn't make sense. K-J, a weak hand? He flopped a huge hand and allowed me to win HIS pot and you thought I should be worried about that? That hand only added to my confidence that I'd be able to manipulate him after the flop. It would have the opposite effect. Not checking MORE, but checking LESS.

Giggle. You lags and your huge "two overs and a gutterball hand". Funny guys. :)But if we play it from that view, wouldn't that still induce more checking behind to avoid getting trapped? Granted, I know you don't think the pots were that big, but every time you continuation bet and he takes it away by raising his "monster" (still giggling ) you lose 10-15% of the average stack at the time. Doesn't this worry you?

Those were very small pots, where once again I was outflopped, bet the minimum on the flop, and then gave up from there.

I don't disagree with the line entirely, but I do disagree with the small pot idea. When we talk about a raised pot preflop and a continuation bet postflop, just those two bets were anywhere from 600-800k. This doesn't appear to be "small" by this point.

That wasn't the first altercation, and it wasn't even the first time for a play like this. Hanna was pretty straight forward. He raised with big cards and then made a continuation bet on the flop. He'd noticed that I did little to no bluffing all day prior so I KNEW that I'd be able to take pots from him after the flop if he missed. The first time we tangled he raised and I called from the BB with Q-10. Flop was like, 7-6-2. I check called. Turn was a 7, and I bet, he called. River was a 10 and I check mucked. If he was bluffing I got totally outplayed, but I doubt that very highly.

I still don't like the flop call. I guess it is more consistent with your image, but when the other player bets 20% of his stack, is check-calling if you feel he is weak really the best option here? If you planned on leading at the turn, I can understand it, so I'm assuming the king totally demolished your plan and made you want to get it all in the middle.

I think that was a mistake as well. I was getting 2-1 to hit an A or a 5 and I felt like I'd be able to bust him if I hit either. Plus, I felt like he may check the turn, or may have been bluffing, thus my Ace high was good. I think the REAL reason I made the mistake was because I couldn't count my chips! It was hard to figure out how much you had with all of the various denominations.

I'd be less inclined to believe this is a bluff due to the fact that Joe is still in the hand. While this doesn't entirely rule out the possibility of the bluff, it does definitely cut down on the times it is a bluff. Everyone else has addressed this hand already, I'm not a fan due to the idea that you are investing ~20% of your stack chasing down a 7 outer when you may or may not see the river. If you were really playing this hand for implied odds, would it have been better (in hindsight) to check the flop, instead of growing the pot from 900k to 1.2mil with the flop bet?That's just totally not true and it's because you are misunderstanding what a "weak hand" is three handed. I wouldn't expect anyone to fold middle pair for a min bet. When you watch the show I don't think you'll find even ONE instance where my opponents called with a weak hand. A pair three handed is NOT a weak hand when facing a very small bet.I don't disagree. The KJ hand I still think is weak from Joe, but on a whole, the other players (especially Joe) weren't exactly gearing up on the hands I mentioned, but letting you bet, check-calling, and being good at showdown.When playing small ball, you are banking on A) hitting a few flops, and B) hoping your opponents don't flop too many pairs. Down to three handed I had two pair counterfitted, had my opponent hit the ONLY card that could cost me 1.5 million Kh, got outdrawn by a gutshot, and ultimately lost with K-10 vs. 44... oh well.The two pair hand sucks, obv, and the king on the river clearly hurt. I don't think you can consider yourself getting outdrawn when the flop went check-check, but when I'm complaining to other people I'd prolly say the same. I'm not saying you didn't run poorly (if I was I'd mention the river King you spiked that allowed you to get a ton of value out of AK versus Hanna, when you were clearly beat on the turn based on his river call, unless he spiked the same card), I'm just saying that it appeared to me like there were a few lines that you took that accelerated the demise.

[ajs510 122]

Not true, Phil Laak isn't the exception at all. He belongs in that group for sure as he makes similar plays to the other players. They make "reads" pre-flop hoping to come over the top with weak hands to attack the dead money. The problem with that strategy is that you generally lay too big a price, and when you are wrong, you are often a substancial underdog when called.

I meant he's an exception to the math > read example, he's really the only player in that grouping that doesn't follow a very strict mathematical approach to the game, at least in my view.

[mk 11]

Where does Annie Duke fit in?

i played with her for 12 hours on day 2 this year and she played very abc. not saying she doesn't have other gears, but she was tag for literally 12 hours.

[Shimmering Wang 1]

i played with her for 12 hours on day 2 this year and she played very abc. not saying she doesn't have other gears, but she was tag for literally 12 hours.

"Hi, my name is Mike, and I played in the Main Event this year... oh, you already knew that? Well, did you know I got to DAY TWO of the Main Event? Do you know that me and JJ (that's John Juanda) are totally buds now? Yeah, I'm a pretty big deal..."Haha, loser...Wang

[zimmer4141 0]

i played with her for 12 hours on day 2 this year and she played very abc. not saying she doesn't have other gears, but she was tag for literally 12 hours.

Smuggy McSmuggerson, reporting for duty.