Jump to content


hasan habib interview


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 sketchy1

sketchy1

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 45 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Las Vegas, NV
  • Favorite Poker Game:no limit hold 'em

Posted 20 July 2005 - 03:34 PM

I recently had the chance to interview Hasan Habib. Many of you are probably familiar with him from his controversial situation with Tuan Le at the WPT Championship (he had 50% of Le). For the first time he speaks his mind about the situation and more. Check it out:http://www.pokertrai.../hasanhabib.phpThanks.Jon Eaton

#2 jayistheman

jayistheman

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 2,815 posts
  • Location:philly
  • Interests:billiards, poker, sleep, software development, videogames, fly fishing, hiking, camping

Posted 20 July 2005 - 04:07 PM

I would recommend checking out paul phillips' analysis of the whole Le issue. he pretty much sums it up

#3 pokepoke1967

pokepoke1967

    Poker Forum Nut

  • Members
  • 322 posts

Posted 20 July 2005 - 04:49 PM

"I call....I'm allin." The call is binding. Le folds quickly after the turn even though most would feel pot commited there. Absolutely obvious.

#4

  • Guests

Posted 20 July 2005 - 06:25 PM

pokepoke1967 said:

"I call....I'm allin." The call is binding. Le folds quickly after the turn even though most would feel pot commited there. Absolutely obvious.
yea cause players can't possible slip up at all.think.. if he was INTENTIONALLY softplaying tuan, why would he fold face up and let everyone know???

#5 PocketBoat

PocketBoat

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 69 posts

Posted 20 July 2005 - 07:23 PM

Wouldn't it be more financially profitable for Habib to take 100% of first and 50% of 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc... than for Habib to take 100% of 3rd and get 50% of Le's first? In other words, there seems to be no sense in soft playing.Am I missing something here?

#6 PoppinFresh

PoppinFresh

    Baking up Tasty Delights

  • Members
  • 1,587 posts

Posted 20 July 2005 - 07:31 PM

PocketBoat said:

Wouldn't it be more financially profitable for Habib to take 100% of first and 50% of 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc... than for Habib to take 100% of 3rd and get 50% of Le's first? In other words, there seems to be no sense in soft playing.Am I missing something here?
It would be most profitable for him to take 1st and for Le to take 2nd. So he would softplay him to avoid having him bust out early.

#7 PocketBoat

PocketBoat

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 69 posts

Posted 20 July 2005 - 07:35 PM

but softplay him enough where Le could also win? I don't think so---

#8 adammc

adammc

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 112 posts
  • Location:ONTARIO

Posted 20 July 2005 - 07:46 PM

If you would pay at least some attention you will notice that it is in fact more profitable for him to softplay Tuan no matter the situation. Habib had the chip lead, and they owned 50% of each other say. Then no matter who comes first/second they have the same amount of money. Considering the chip lead Habib had, it was 100% profitable for him to lay down almost every hand against Tuan until they were heads up. Use your head, tit.

#9 PocketBoat

PocketBoat

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 69 posts

Posted 20 July 2005 - 07:56 PM

Nice tact in your message...grow up. And you are working off an assumption that is not documented anywhere--that Le had a stake in Habib.If Habib is in 1st place with chip lead, his absolute priority #1 is to finish 1st. There is no other scenario that is more profitable....Le finishing 2nd-5th is small $ and negligible compared to making sure he gets first. Use YOUR brain--

#10 AC BillP

AC BillP

    Poker Forum Nut

  • Members
  • 278 posts
  • Location:DC
  • Interests:Holdem, Omaha

Posted 21 July 2005 - 02:43 AM

Hassan is basically a "feel" player who weighs the opponents hands based on tells and patterns, not math. Paul Phillips is a math based player and technically he is correct. The flaw in the Philips statistical value analysis is not the it's wrong, it's that the arguement doesn't take into account any number of plays Hassan made against the player he staked. Many wre negative EV plays math-wise that were to the advantage of the third guy. Phillips doen't include those hands in coming to his conclusion.
AC BillP

#11 Pokerghost2

Pokerghost2

    Poker Forum Groupie

  • Members
  • 922 posts
  • Location:poker heaven
  • Interests:Poker

Posted 28 July 2005 - 04:32 PM

its one of those deals that looked really bad, but the truth is none of us will ever know his thought process on some of those plays. my view is this, i dont think it ever ever escaped his mind that he was at a final table with his horse and it must have affected his play, even if it was on a subconscious level.
"ive got nothing, but i hate u so i call" random internet donk




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users