i think we coulddo a lot with this topic. i would like to here from some of the more experienced players and get there input on this topic. we could also go into the WORST bluff. I only have one catch: it has to be from the wsop or thw wpt. either one of these can be posted thanks!

One that stands out to me is the one from the 2003 World Series of Poker involving Scotty Nguyen. I don't remember who he was against, but he made a huge reraise and then said 'You can not call this bet. This too much for you.' The guy folds, and Scotty turns over 8 3 off suit. He holds them up and says 'I raise $100,000 with these two cards baby. Oh $#^@, I thought we play blackjack! %&#%!' I love that hand

Scotty's the man. "Oh s***, I thought we play blackjack..." roflmao

I must have missed that one, but it's classic.

During heads up play in the Championship Poker at the Plaza tournament, Freedy Deeb had A K and Daniel held A 7. The flop came K 2 6 with two hearts. Freedy fired out $16,000 and Daniel called. The turn brought a 4, which was a scare card for Freedy because if Daniel hand 5 3, he would be drawing dead. The river brought the 4 of HEARTS. This is another scare card for Freedy because now if Daniel had any type of a draw it now beats him. If he had 3 4 or 4 5 he would now have trips. If he had 3 5 he has a straight. If he had a flush draw, it got there. Nevertheless, he bet $65,000. After thinking Daniel re-raises another $100,000. Here's why this is a great bet!

1. It looks like Daniel wants a call, so Freedy should be scared about that.

2. The raise is so small that even if Freedy calls, Daniel would not have been crippled.

Freedy finally folds and Daniel says "If I show a bluff, is that good for the game?". "Sure!" Freedy replies. "Alright, that must be good for the game!" Daniel says. After that hand Daniel was in control and won the tournament the same way he busted Ted Forrest...A K v. 5 5.

side note: i know its not from WPT or WSOP but it was still the greatest bluff ever!!

There was one last night on ESPN Classic that I hadn't seen in a while that was really good.

It was the WSOP '98 final table with Scotty Nguyen and Mcbride. It was after McBride had took down the 1.4m pot with trip 4s, and it had cut a good bit into Scotty's lead. On a hand where both players checked the flop and turn, McBride then bet out for 120K on the river. Scotty thought for a bit and put out a raise to total 300K. McBride, who hadn't made a hand but had two face cards in the hole, folded. Scotty turned up something to the effect of like 5-6 offsuit, which also left him with no hand - and he showed it as he scooped the chips.

Now, I don't know how many hands were edited out between that hand and the final one, where Scotty got him with the 9s full, but it seemed like McBride was never the same after that. Maybe it can't be called "best bluff," because it didn't get McBride off a made hand, but it did completely turn around that heads up match and cleared the way to ultimate victory for Scotty.

That '98 final table is an interesting watch. Seems like there was more poker in that final table than some of the events we've seen recently.

Phill Ivey vs Peter Giordano.

No raise pre-flop. Flops A-6-rag and Phill takes a stab at the pot. Peter G makes a standard defensive raise with A-Q.

Phill reads his target perfect and puts him on a big Ace. Phill proceeds to dart his eyes around like he's luvin' his hand and puts Peter all-in. No reasonable player can call Phill with AK, AQ right? Perfect execution because if Phill got called with his Q-6, he was dead to the 2 sixes.

the one randy jensen comitted half his stack in was great too in the WPO last year

-I think that might have been against Humberto Brenes
- yea that was classic.

Yep, 2 great ones that I have seen have already been posted...Scotty Nguyen in WSOP 2003, and Daniel vs. Freddy. Great bluffs.

Hate to say it....but wait till you see the one Humberto put on daniel at the five diamond classic this year. Daniel played excellent and won, but man that was one huge bluff. looked like daniel was on tilt for a bit after that.

2003 WSOP Moneymaker against Farha.

I second that

I'll third that

I personally am a big fan of 2004 wsop final table.....Raise and a re-raise I believe, Dan Harrington on the button REraises to 1.2mil with 6-2 i believe, and gets all three of them to fold and takes down the pot....beautiful

Daniel's bluff. Greatest bluff in television poker. Greatest bluff of all time? No way. Televised? yes.

I know there is some contorversy that the hand ever happened, but I think one of the greatest bluff I've ever seen is Hellmuth forcing Tony D to fold three jacks on a Kh-4c-Js-Jh board.

he only bluffed arieh and raymer.....also...wow he won a raise and a call....daniel won a huge pot...(for that tournament)



I wouldnt call that a nice bluff by phil....more of a bad play by Tony D

Heh, didn't you nominate the Daniel vs. Freddy Deeb hand? Freddy butchered that hand on every street.

Give Phil his due.. a great play , as was Daniel's

that bluff was great, but I don't think it was the greatest tlevised bluff. The one Stuey put on Ron Stanley was just massive. He yook down a real big pot, damaged the second chip stack, and he put Stanley so badly on tilt that Ron crashed out in fourth as opposed to heading for a showdown with Stuey for the title. Ron was the second chip stack coming into the final table and him and stuey were in control af a good amount of the chips when play started. If stuey had lost that pot Ron Stanley would've been the massive chip leader and some of stuey's invicible cloak would've come off, he basically put his entire tournament at risk on that bluff

so if you have A2 of spades, and your opponent has 67 of spades and the board is 9 10 J of spades....and you get him to fold....thats not a good play on your art...that stupidity on your opponent. DN sensed weakness and felt he could take it away....I wouldnt feel weak with trip jacks

The hand with Phil where tony landed trip jacks never happend. It is a fact. Look on Paul Phillips website there are even pictures to show that the hand was spliced. There were others that were spliced as well. A good bluff requires the other person in the hand to lay down a big hand in my opinion. Farhas lay down with money maker flat out made sense. Sammy was a better player and felt he could win the tourney later. In interviews he had stated that the play by Moneymaker was stupid. He just did not feel like commiting his chips at that point. Freddy laid down AK with a big piece of the flop. In my opinion that was the best bluff I have ever seen since there is no camera at my house game!!!

In actuallity another great bluff happend in last years WSOP with Murphy and Raymer. Raymer bet Murphy raised Raymer re-raised and Murphy went all in. Great read on Raymers lucky a$$ in my opinion Moneymaker played WAY better than Raymer, Raymers game is trash. Murphy also in my opinion made the stupidest play of the tourney when he got Josh to fold his flush all he had to do was make a small bet or check.
JMO.

i disagree....the difference is DN and stu's and the other blluffs make his opponent fold a good hanbd....Raymer was bluffing to

Freddie Deeb made a weak lead into a pot when a scare card hit. He bet a small amount DN's bluff there made all the sense in the world Murphy was raised and then re-raised....how is that not impressive? Raymer shot 3 bullets at the pot!

Worst bluff. Devilfish Ulliot at a WPT final table (can't remember the event), puts up a huge raise with something like 85o against an amateur and the guy goes over the top with a mediocre hand, but it was better than Ulliot's. Devilfish goes in the tank, obviously with no intention of calling (probably trying to figure out what he did to let that guy get a read on him) and mucks.

and on what basis do you make this observation. Raymer's game is a ton better than Moneymaker's . Raymer has been a highlimit semi pro for years and has made final tables in the past at big tournaments, namely in the Northeast. Give me some real evidence that moneymaker is that much better than Raymer and I'll agree, if not, then get your facts straight before you flame a real good player and good guy

ill second that

It all comes down to what you want to define as the best bluff. To me, this would be reading your opponents made hand correctly and with great confidence, and also realizing you can move him off it with your trash. Also, it should be an innovative play not many people could make, and you should have played everything correctly up to that point.

DN's bluff fulfills the first part but not the second. It was a very good bluff and a perfect move on the river, but I would not call it the "best" bluff. First, it was obvious to bluff when that card hit beacuse it was obvious it didnt help Deeb and could help him (the size of the raise was very good though). Second, he made some questionable moves before that (not bad... just not probably optimal). Third, he got very lucky those cards hit. DN was basically on a bluff draw and got hit. If a blank would have hit DN would have folded and looked stupid or Deeb would have called the bluff and DN still would have looked stupid.

Also, as to comments made earlier in this thread, the point of a bluff is to make your opponent play stupidly. There is certainly a large aspect of chance involved regarding your opponent, but they are usually making this "stupid" play based on false tells and well planned raises. It is often hard to seperate the independant stupidity from the bluffing player's genius.

YOu wouldn't feel weak? So what? You are not on these players' level.

Just look at your example.. if the guy with 76 spades folds, he is folding the losing hand. And you're saying it's a bad move?! And I don't understand what that has to do with either Daniel or Phil's hands.

Guys, PLEASE take off the fanboy goggles. Both Farha and Deeb laid down top pair on a scary board. Deeb's hand was not any 'bigger' than Farha's.

Moneymaker's bluff was not stupid. That was a BIG pot he took down and it gave him a sizable lead and went on to win 2.5 million.

It is just funny how you guys won't give any credit to other players.

Daniels bluff at Championship Poker at the Plaza ( heads up against Freddy Deeb) was definetly the best televised bluff I have ever seen.

Ok let me respond to all of this since I was out for the weekend. Why do I think moneymaker is a better player here is why...Raymer won every race in the WSOP. EVERY coin toss. EVERY questionable call and so on. Look how he played in the televised event preceding the WSOP calling all ins with 89 off suit going in with A8 he is just not capable of playing on that level with the top players. However Moneymaker has made a final table at the WPT and I have seen him make some great plays. Raymer is not respected amongst the top players you can just tell. Moneymaker made plays to win the tourney...the call on dutch boyd the bluff on farha the bad beat on ivey he landed trips so of course he is going to call the only time i really saw him suck out was on Brenas. I saw raymer win at least 6 hands coming from behind.

This is because Raymer came to the Table with a massive chip stack. On tthe "come from behind" against Matusow he was the favorite on the flop. Moneymaker also was dumb enough to call an allin with 33, THREE THREE. Its different to push with that hand but to call off your chips.Don't base to much on the TOC, that was a two day event and actually what Raymer did with those hands actually works, its called negative progession. He'd only lose those 60/40 situations the way he did only 18% of the time. Raymer won the coin tosses that were shown. One of the year's that Chan won he won like 20 coin tosses, so is moneymaker better than chan now too. Like I said before, come with a real argument before you takeout the fanboy goggles and actually back things up in facts. Raymer has made major final tables before and was the chip leader for a while at the PPT before his set was suked out on. Also go to 2+2 and try making these statements and ask the fossilman himself

First of al l your tone is not appropriate. It is an opinion. That really happens a lot people calling all in's with 89 offsuit? When? I don't ever see it. What other final table did he make? Whats he done since? Seems like perhaps you need some facts cowboy. My opinion is that raymer is not a good player period. Your acting like he was a full time pro he was a patent attorney who played in the world series for fun. He is not the same caliber as the rest of the poker world. Ask daniel he would agree. Frankly i dont care if you don't want to make a lot out of the TOC it just shows you that he cannot adapt a different style of play. He has to be the table bully and he is not good enough at it to win on a consistant basis. Chan has made a living playing poker. Aside for the coin tosses. Hell even Stu Unger sucked out to win one of his bracelets the good players will still get lucky to win however over time they will show again and again that they will prevail. Raymer was quoted as saying the ENTIRE tournament he has only got 2 fairly bad beats and it was recorded that in the history of the WSOP no champion had ever been all-in as many times as he was. He won the WSOP i will give you that...you show me one thing he has done since then or in the future ill give him some respect...until then i think you need to learn to accept someones opinion if it differs from yours.

Dude I didn't out and out say that some guy's game was "trash" as you so eloquently put it. Raymer got busted out at 28th in the hardest Tournament field ever on someone hitting Runner Runner on him. He has won a major Foxwoods Toruny(seven card stud) and placed third in 2001 in the Foxwoods main event and he has played high stakes poker for years. I can accept opinions if they are rooted in facts, yours is based on some edited TV shows, see what I'm saying. I hate seeing people try to rag on Raymer basing their opinions on tv. In the TOC Raymer outlasted Chip, Daniel, Ivey, Doyle, & TJ. The first allin call with 109o was because he wasn't gonna get hurt too badly by annie if she won, the other call hey everyone goes on tilt, but like I said there was a method to the madness in the form of negative progression. Is Gus Hansen a bad player in your mind because he takes the worst of it all the time? Probably not. All I'm sdaying is, get your facts straight and base your opinions on more then some edited TV. Raymer can play at high levels but he chooses to play at "only" 150-300 because he can crush that game, Moneymaker doesn't play at those altitudes and doesn't win at them either. Raymer has been a major semi-pro only because he had a great job. Your statements reek of ignorance. "He is not the same caliber as the rest of the poker world. Ask Daniel he would Agree." did you ask Daniel pesonally, because I doubt that Daniel would make a statement like that at all. Seriously I ask you to go to 2+2 and make the same statements and talk to Raymer himself, if not then hey don't go saying that some guy is a bad player because you don't know who he is. Like I said I can give you more facts about these two guys than you can give me, if you can give me some real facts that aren't like "He's a bad player 'casue I said so, ask Daniel" then I will certainly accept your opinion. Raymer had been playing in the WSOP for three or four years and if you watch the 2002 series you'll see him in there too. All I'm asking is for you to not judge based on a couple episodes of TV, poker existd before it and will exist after it

Gus Hansen makes lay downs. He also has the ability to change the way he plays. He is very methodical. He has won several WPT tourneys. Major events at foxwoods? Do you think pros talk about major events at the bellagio? I mean come on. Your statements reek of ignorance. I said and I quote "he is not the same caliber as the rest of the top pros" You honestly think Daniel would say he is? Do i know TV is edited yes I do but you even said it everyone goes on tilt...TOP PLAYERS DON'T. They control their emotions all your last post is doing is proving me correct. He plays 150-300(shows that he is not comfortable playing higher limits don't give me the he can crush the game B.S. if that was the case every pro would play that game.) He finished 28th in a difficult tourney...ok wow I bet amateurs finished higher....He outlasted Phil and bla bla bla maybe so however I didn't see Phil going in with 89 off. You said he made final tables at major events...where? when? Foxwood tourneys are not major events my friend. Why are you the authority on him? What levels do you play? Who do you know? A better question...who cares!?!? It is my opinion. My opinion is he is not a top caliber player and if you asked the poker world I am sure they would agree. Did you read the article where it quoted ted forrest talking about how it is a joke that the WSOP champion doesn't even like playing NL holdem and could never make it as a full time pro? Guess I'll take Ted Forrest's opinion over yours. Until he does something significant as i stated before I will stick with my opinion. We will agree to disagree. The only thing related to ignorance in these posts is your basing his worth in the poker world on 150-300 and foxwood tourneys...wow what a pro.

Don't tell John Juanda that a seven crd stud bracelet form Foxwoods is nothing. Don' t tell Howard Lederer or Scotty Ngyun that a win at the final table of the Foxwoods main event is nothing either. A foxwoods main event IS A BIG THING. Raymer finished 28th in the PPT, there aare no AMATEURS in that tourny. Your saying that I'm being ignorant because he plays 150-300, WHAT. Last time I checked thats in the High Limit Rooms, duh. I don't play at those altitudes, but waht do you play at since your such a great poker player. YOur calling me ignorant and your the one underrating what Foxwoods is. Last time I checked its one of the main stops on the WPT, o therefore it means something. It means as much as a win at the Bike does and a Bellagio win does, and yes the pros do care about them. Yes he does crush the game, do you play at those limits, NO YOU DON"T. He doesn't want to play higher becasue its about money to him. He has played at higher limits and held his own, why else would he being playing with Ted Forrest. So what if he didn't want to play holdem, here on the east coast the main game is Stud. He likes playing Omaha. You keep on calling me ignorant but yet you don't come with the ffacts buddy. You say so what about winning at Foxwoods, then so what for all of the great palyers who have won there as all you've done is say that their wins don't mean jack, great job. I play at the middle limits live, since you want to know and I'm in my mid 20s. I play in AC, so where do you play and how old are you. I know these things because I've played at Foxwoods too. I'm pretty sure if Daniel would say that moneymaker is good then he'd probably say the same thing about Raymer

I agree with Kdawg....Stueys bluff on Ron Stanley was classic. He just gave up, it seemed, after Stu flipped up his cards. Ive got a good one for worst bluff that actually ended up working......this years WSOP....that donkey against Sammy Farha.....did u guys see that one??.....guy backdoored an 8 on the river to beat Sammys poket 6's.....awful

yeah that guy was shaking like a tourettes patient on Sami, was hilarious. I mean seriously if your gonna try bluffing a top pro 1. make it believeable and 2. calm yourself. He just gave it away that he was bluffing, he looked sooo nervous and afraid. Sometimes people shake when they have a big hand, but this guy looked like he was having pungi stick put under his toe nails on that attempt

I hear ya there KDawg. I've got the entire 2004 WSOP on DVD. Was watching that very episode yesterday with Farha and the "seizure man" who caught the river 8.

What was even better than this guy shaking, was Sammy's smooth play on the entire hand, followed by... "Stay on the internet if you're going to come and play those hands like that here."

Moneymaker's '03 move on Farha.... I can agree that maybe it wasn't the best, or smartest move ever....
but it certainly was one of the most devastating bluffs that i've ever seen. (based on the fact that it implied that Moneymaker should have lost the tournament right there; basically a $1.5 million swing in prize money on one hand.)


I have to admit that Scotty Nguyen's 8-3 offsuit move on Humberto is easily the funniest thing I've seen on televised poker, with Men the Master's beer fountain in '04 coming in a close second.

The bluff on deeb was just classic. I mean he played it so perfect and deeb played it so bad. I respect him for laying it down but it just wrecks your mind when something like that happens head up. To your earlier barage kdawg or whatever your name is i am 25 myself and avid online player you must be on the east coast with all of your foxwoods talk. As i said before i dont like raymers NL game from what I've seen i think im intitled to that. And you can disagree all you want.

The bluff on deeb isn't anything but routine.

It was importnat because it decided a tournament, but the play itself is nothing special.

Most players will routinely make that play in a pot that big. A card comes that hits any draw they could they could have been playing so they bet.

The fact that Daniel had the A of the flush suit makes it that much easier.

I do love the way that Daniel layed that bluff out. Deeb used daniel's rep for playing small cards and Freddy really bought hook, line, and sinker. Daniel aslo by showing it I think put freddy a bit on tilt which really changed the face of that matchup, Freddy just couldn't seem to get it back together after that. Yearn, my issue wasn't with the fact that you don't like Raymer's NL play it was with the way you went about saying it and comparing him to moneymaker. Saying that him crushing 150-300 and not going higher is BS, isn't true. I'd like to use the David Sklansky example. He completely crushes the 300-600 game he plays in, does he have the skills to play higher, yes, but he stays where he is because that's where he can make the most money, if you could make more money or the same(if you were to go higher) against lessercompetition then you would saty where you are at. I just say don't reserve judgement on a guy until you've seen more. I will defend Josh Arieh too because he really is a nice guy and everyone wants to rag on him because he acted out a few times in the main event, I met him at the Borgata and is very willing to talk to people and you'll see on the WPT broadcast a different Josh

Interestingly enough, Kevin blew two chances to take the pot by not raising allin on either the flop or the turn, when he had a flush draw and a straight draw, (maybe a gutter). His wuss play style caught up to him.

The thing that made this possible is the fact that Ron rose was VERY short stacked and didn't even have enough to get through the blinds that would hit him in 2 hands. PI correctly ascertained that PG would not want to risk getting KO'd before RR went out, and made the strong play. I use this kind of play at least 50x a week now.

No controversy. It's a fact. The hand never happened; at least not like that.

Check out this site; http://www.improving.org/paulp/poker/tonyd...muth/index.html

I guarantee it will change your opinion of the "hand"

I don't see how Tony D would lay that down, he's extremely aggressive and it would be near impossible to put anyone on KJ, QJ, or AJ. The chips in his hand is very strange too

Al true, but Farha sounds like an ass here. he said he saw tons of mistakes Moneymaker made, yet he made 2 HUGE ones in a row. Moneymaker in his new book made a GREAT read of Farha on the bluff. Not just that specific hand by itself, but of Farha's overall strategy. at the break, he offered SF a straight 50% chop $$$ chop, with CM getting the bracelet, and SF declined even though he was outchipped about 2-1. CM inferred from this that SF thought he could easily outplay him, and he knew from that that SF would likely avoid big pots with a hand like a single pair. He put SF directly on the 9 on the turn, and was confident that he could push him off it, also utilizing the tell he had picked up on SF's chip shuffling. The final peice of all this was CM had noticed any other time SF asked someone a question and they talked, he called, but when they didn't say anything, he folded. All this just shows there is more than meets the eye, and CM is more than some guy who got lucky. He's no great, don't get me wrong, but he made some incredible plays. This is the most significant bluff of all time, easily. Greatest? Eh, there are plenty better, and I'm sure Jack Straus had at least 1000 better ones.

Yes, but again, yet another case of Farha screwing himself. He should have raised him on the turn, but this is why you don't give free cards to vulnerable hands, and this is why Farha's No limit hold'em game is sorely lacking.