note:

this is a TOURNAMENT situation, but for the freaking love of god, don't move this post into the tournament forum, jayson. i definitely am tired of strong tournament situations getting moved to the tournament forum that no one reads.

if you're not qualified to answer a tournament situation, then don't. it's no different than not answering an omaha/8 situation when you don't know the game. but honestly, this is a really interesting situation and i think everyone can learn a lot from it.

--

i am watching the fox sports full tilt poker champsionship at the wynn for the first time right now. this monstrous hand came up, and i really want to analyze it.

the table is six-handed right now.

relevant stacks:
negreanu - chipleader at about 120k
forrest - second with about 110k
d'agostino - shortstack with 12k

blinds: 800/1600
ante: 200

relevant payouts:
1st - $250,000
2nd - $125,000 ish
5th - $30,000 ish
6th - $0 (bubble)

forrest has been playing VERY loose/aggressive, stealing a LOT of pots.

he just won a monster pot from d'agostino whe he flopped a set of 7's and agostino made an agonizing crying call on the river when he knew he was beat (forrest had just been playing so MANY pots and bluffing so much).

negreanu has played about two hands in over an hour, VERY conservative.

so, here's the hand:

--

forrest is the button. player X is SB, negreanu is BB.

(t3,600.)
two folds, d'agostino pushes all-in for 12.2k with K-8 suited, ted forrest flat-calls with A-A, SB folds, negreanu thinks of raising but just flat-calls with A-Q.

(t38,600) 6 6 2
negreanu checks, forrest checks.

(t38,600) A
negreanu bets a moderate amount (sorry, i forgot the number, probably about 1/3 pot), forrest calls.

(t38,600) 6
negreanu checks and laughs figuring (rightly so) that it's a split, but forrest suddenly gets a serious look on his face. he just sits there for a long time, not checking. negreanu laughs and says "you're not seriously thinking of bluffing, are you?" ...

--

what is your move here as ted forrest? why?

aseem

you check because the only way DN will call your bet is if he has the case ace

Are you joking?


I think his best move is just to make a little value bet. I really doubt that he would think negreanu could call an all in.

I would think that negreanu would have to call a little bit on the river, so I would assume that forrest would make some sort of value bet. A big push just wouldn't result any more action, imo.

Unless I am missing something it is not a chop pot. Ted has Aces full of sixes vs. Daniels zixes full of aces.

I make a bet that looks like I am stealing. Maybe 50K. Or maybe push, thinking that Daniel would think that it is a huge overbet steal bluff and he is trying to push daniel off the pot.

I certainly would bet SOMETHING!

Daniel - what happened on this hand?

I agree with Blink.

You MUST bet if you are Forrest. I'd bet about 25K. It's significant, but also less than the pot.

He is hoping that DN has the Ace and will feel he needs to call.

If DN folds Ted is in exactly the same situation he would be if he had checked it down. If he calls, more chips in Ted's stack.

This seems like an incredibly easy decision. Tell me why it's not.

Results should not be revealed, but DN posted this hand a while back in his blog or something and Ted checked behind on the river. I am not sure why he did this to be quite honest.

Last I checked, Aces full of 6's beats 6's full of Aces.

I think you are smoking too much of that wacky tobaccy Mr. Aseem.

This calls for a bet of at least 1/3 of the pot.

With any luck, especially after his comment
DN might have figured his ace was best and
come back over the top here, but you certainly
have to bet SOMETHING....

Any bet is a positive move. All-in - DN won't call, as he can be beaten, same with a larger than half the pot bet. A small bet DN will almost certainly call IMO. Anything less than 1/3 the pot I think, the smaller the better. 8)

I think he meant...

Figured rightly so it was a split because of the action. Like, it completely makes sense for negreanu to think it would be a split....

Obviously it wasn't ;-) , but from negreanu's perspective it seems that its right of him to figure rightly so it was a split.

Ah, screw it, I'm never good at semantics

eddie, honestly, that was a pretty dumb statement.

that's the same thing the dumb commentator said on the show, so i assume you're just repeating it to sound smart.

ted forrest has a monster right now. A-x thinks it's splitting the pot, but ted beats it with a better aces full. however, the nuts are quad sixes.

his primary concern right here is to get value from that "case ace", right?

however, there are a few important points:

1. he could be beaten by 6-x. honestly, though, it was pretty unlikely based on daniel's behavior in the hand.

2. there is a side pot.

3. the shortstack is all-in.

4. we're on the bubble.

based on this, tournament strategy suggests that implicit collusion is very applicable here (having both players check down).

however, it actually doesn't apply here with ted's hand, because if the shortstack does have a hand that beats ted, it certainly beats negreanu, too, and if negreanu beats ted, he certainly beats the shortstack, too.

so, the question in ted's mind is:

WOULD a worse hand call a bet here on the river? is daniel smart enough to lay down A-x to even a small value bet, knowing that ted wouldn't do it without an unbeatable hand since tournament strategy absolutely dictates that this is THE situation to check down and work together to eliminate the shortstack?

if the answer is no (and it very likely could be against a smart player like daniel), then betting seems counterproductive since only 6-x would raise you here.

but, daniel just doesn't have 6-x. it's so obvious, right?

then DO you try to get at least SOME value with your second-nuts here?

aseem

I think that the explaination went that DN would only call a bet with the case A or the case 6. If you think that DN has about an equal chance of having either one (it is DN, after all), then betting here is 0 EV.

blink got it.

aseem

I agree with all of you on this one....he has to bet here......I think Ted was thinking that Daniels only going to give action if he has the case ace(which is what i wouldve put him on, no doubt)and hes going to get raised if he has the case 6....I just dont know how you could not bet here, however...if he has quads, hes getting paid off (at least by me)....then again, who are we to second guess Ted??.....i do think he played this hand wayyyyy too carefully though....for what its worth

there's really almost no possibility that negreanu has the case six.

OOP, checking the river here, he's got to think that forrest will check almost every single hand, as aseem pointed out by the tourny implicit collusion factor...


So its more likely than 50/50 due to action that negreanu would have the case ace....

Will he call with case ace, even small bet, perhaps not, but its not risking anything extra really to make the small value bet to attempt to get some value.

guys,

to all of you who are saying "he'll only call with the case ace",

that makes it sound like it's going to be a split pot.

IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A SPLIT POT.

THE "CASE ACE" IS BEATEN BY FORREST HERE.

aseem

Aseem:

Yes it would be an appropriate and maybe not even incredibly difficult laydown on the part of DN when Ted bets the river. That said, DN may still call a value bet with a case Ace, which can only be good for Ted.

I see absolutely no negative side to Ted betting. The odds of Daniel having a 6 are incredibly slim based upon betting, behavior, etc. That said, the odds of Ted having pocket Aces would have seemed pretty slim to DN as well but let's leave that aside.

More importantly though, if DN had a six and didn't lead the river he'd have been crazy, even if only because Ted knows enough about the implicit collusion necessity as well to not bluff in this situation. So by DN not betting the river with the 6, he gets nothing out of any of the Aces that might be out there and would call.

IMHO, this is a must bet situation for Ted. He really has nothing to lose and only value to gain.

Precisely, you type it out better than me

For some odd reason I actually thought this was going to be a worthwhile post... I'm just too naive.

I hope Jweb moves this post.

That's mean :evil:

I liked it.

I woulda also like to better understand why ted just checked. I seriously think that was a mistake, obviously not a big mistake because its doubtful negreanu would call, but I think he missed out on a little value.

perhaps Daniel's little comment to him had him worried about the 6 (it's a stretch, but what else could it be?) :?

i came to the same conclusion as you did.

ted HAS to bet here, no?

it looks like a great steal attempt, and if we can almost always rule out daniel having 6-x, even a 1% chance that daniel calls with a worse hand makes this attractive, no?

does anyone have a link to where daniel talked about that hand specifically?

i re-read his blog about the wynn event but he didn't mention the hand. he just mentioned having A-Q and losing to A-A on a board of 6-6-6-A-x, but didn't mention the action at all.

aseem

My thoughts when I watched it were that Ted outthought himself. Rather than keep it simple and bet with 2nd nuts, he ran all the possibilities in his mind and went into vapor lock. Rather than just wildly throw chips around, he checked safely (if not optimally, as we knew). I think he just talked himself out of a good bet.

I think I nice pot size raise would be good there. :-)

Obviously concerned about quads and made a safe check. Period.

We all have blown it a time or two but in this case I like Ted's play.

Best...

You guys know DN is not dumb enough to bluff into a dry side pot

so when he bet with a 266A board he had to of either had a 6 or an A or possibly a PP-but I doubt it

I dont remember if there was a flush draw but I dont Ted would call it without a 6 or an A also

when the river came another 6 and DN checked lets look at this

DN probably figured Ted's call meant an A or a 6 so why would he bet?? He's either getting raised or will chop it

Now from Ted perspective Its pretty clear DN either has a case 6 or the case A

so if you bet you have a 50% chance of getting called
and you have a 50% chance of getting raised

so technically, checking and betting do no difference

dude, i'm sorry, really, but this is just... dumb.

you know that if DN has "the case Ace", DN thinks he's splitting but in reality ted forrest has the hand won?

and no, if ted bets, there is also a very good chance that DN folds. there is also a chance that a worse hand (the case ace) calls him. if he can eliminate the case 6 from daniel's holdings, ted has an unbeatable hand.

aseem

Well, first understand that the two players in question have a pretty decent amount of time playing together. So Ted may have gotten some information on that hand that indicated to him that there was a reasonable chance that DN had the case 6. We really will never know. I personally don't think that it would be that odd of a thing to find DN with a 6 calling a raise out of the big blind. He likes to see flops, as we all know.
There is also a player all in, so a hand is getting showed. You could make a case that DN would have bet the flop with a 6, but I think he would have checked a 6 here also. Also, if he bets I'm thinking that Ted would figure him to have a 6 or at least a pocket pair, since there is a player all in and if Ted folds he has to contend with a side pot. So Ted doesn't figure DN to bluff here, and possibly slowplay a 6. Ted checks behind him, just in case.
Now, an ace hits. Ted hits his ace and so does DN. Daniel makes a weak lead, but Ted just calls. I think this is where things start getting confusing. Ted probably figures Daniel either to have an Ace or a 6 possibly nothing at all, but that's unlikely with a player all in. I think that Dn put the weak lead out there either to get him out of the pot or to get raised. Least that's what i figure a small bet to be in this spot. DN probably did it to try and figure out what ted had. Since he just called I think it was meant to confuse DN, hoping that DN would make a big river bet. It lets DN think that he has the best hand, cause he figures to get raied in that spot by a strong ace, 6, or aces. I think he wanted to represent a weak ace or a pair of sorts.
The River: With the third 6 DN figures it to be split because of Ted's call on the turn. I think he represented a weak ace on the turn and now DN thinks he got rivered so betting has no value. Ted, however obviously knows that, there is only one hand that can beat him, and one hand that will call. Given the action I don't think that it is clear which one DN has, if any. I don't think that DN would have played a 6 differently than what he had in this spot. I think he put a weak lead out on the turn to represent the ace, but I think ted read it as a 6. I think it was a catious check behind DN. I think DN accidentally represented a 6 to Ted, he was seriously afriad of the 6. I think that Ted thought DN played the hand too weak to have just an ace. There is no bluffing in a pot with a player in like that. On the turn it would seem more likely that DN was making a weak lead with a 6 to get raised ( DN wanted this to happen with his AQ though) or betting a King high for value, least that is my thinking. In both of those cases I think Ted would have called hoping for a big bet on the river. Ted thought that if DN had an ace he would have bet more. So if that is what Ted thought DN had, why would he bet in that spot if he read DN either on a king high, which DN will not call with, or quad sixes? With either one of those reads there is no value in betting. I honestly think Ted put him either on a King high or a 6.
I know this is long as Fuck but i tried to get it all in. I still don't think I explained it well though

The whole question is whether Daniel would play 67s or something similar like this.

Pre-flop; he makes an overcall to see the flop with his suited connector - it would be a loose call but fits with DN's persona(fits 67s)

Post-flop; he hits trips; DN would definitely slow play trips by checking (fits 67s)

Turn; Daniel bets a value bet with his trips designed to get a call (fits 67s)

River; Daniel hits the mother lode - It's very hard to imagine DN checking here vs betting some type of value bet since Ted has already cold called the earlier bet - DN would have to put Ted on an A. But his comments and laughing may have thrown Ted off; especially the bluffing comment which indicated to Ted that Daniel had the stone cold nuts.

However, Ted should have bet. Daniel can only check with the case 6 if he puts Ted on Aces. Based on Ted's betting pattern, Daniel would not be able to put him on Aces and hence would have bet the case 6 on the river.

what would DN fold?

he wasnt bluffing a dry side pot, and probably would bet a PP considering only a 6 or A would call him. The only hand that relatively maks since is 33 but I dont know if he would call PF with that hand

eddie,

why would ted NOT want daniel to call with an ace???

aseem

Ive explained this, because DN probably bet the turn with either an A or a 6, if he knew DN had an A he for sure woulda made some type of value bet, but what if he held the case six, the only hands DN bets the turn with are a 6 or an A, 33 might make sense but again I dont think if he woulda called PF

now dont avoid my question

you said DN might fold the river

but what would he fold?

eddie.

you're really confusing.

are you SERIOUSLY implying that ted WANTS daniel to NOT call an ace?

and i'm not avoiding your question, i already answered it above if you could read. it's very possible daniel folds A-x, and ted wouldn't want that.

aseem

Not betting is a HUGE mistake. Danny isnt going to check quad 6s here, its very unlikely he could have a 6 with preflop action. You HAVEto bet here. You're going to get action from the case ace, and a good amount of it. And if Danny folds, what does Ted lose? NOTHING.

Checking here is horrible. HO-RI-BBLE. So bad that if you are ever in this situation and check, you should quit playing tournament poker.

I would quit trying to argue your point, Eddie because it's only going to make people wonder about your future strategy advice. It's not 50/50 at all, its 100/0.

Find where I said that Ted doesnt want an A to call

You may have trouble doing so because I didnt say it you fucktard

I honestly think Ted put him either on a King high

what the fuck are you smoking

what is DN calling an allin and a call with....KQ??? no

and DN also isnt not stupid enough to bluff a dry side pot, K high makes no sense

After negreanu said 'youre not thinking of bluffing', i think that forrest has to bet a moderate amount. He has to realize here that negreanu thinks it will be a split in most cases. An overbet will look like he wants negreanu to think he's bluffing, and negreanu may realize this and fold (Forrests play does make sense if he has a 6). If he bets too little, negreanu will obviously call. He has to find out what bet has the greatest expectation. I would go with a bet that looks like you are happy if negreanu folds, but also a bet that doesn't look too much like it wants to be a bluff, that negreanu can call (If that makes any sense).

A pot sized bet seems about right to me. That won't cripple Daniel, so he'll probably call with an ace. Forrest can't worry about Daniel having a 6 here.

Now from Ted perspective Its pretty clear DN either has a case 6 or the case A

so if you bet you have a 50% chance of getting called
and you have a 50% chance of getting raised

so technically, checking and betting do no difference

From Danny's perspective it's obvious that Ted has an Ace or a 6. So if Danny had the case 6, he knew Ted had to have an ace, and would have to value bet the river. Danny's check says "I don't have the 6, so I must have the ace." This is such an easy value bet that I don't understand how anyone can argue that Ted should have checked.

if that doesn't mean "you don't want daniel to call with A-x", i don't think you have a solid grasp of the english language.

aseem

Eddie means that the chance Danny has the case ace is low because it IS the last ace in the deck, but it's not like ted loses anything by betting. It's such bad logic.

It's like rejecting a free powerball ticket because the chances of making money is small.

Checking here is -EV.

lmao, i like the analogy.

aseem

last time I checked "The only way DN calls is with Ax" and "Ted doesnt want a call from an A" are 2 different sentences

I dont think you have a solid grasp on English

what that sentence meant was its clear DN either has an A or a 6,

an A will call a good value bet

a 6 will re-raise

what that sentence meant was its clear DN either has an A or a 6,

an A will call a good value bet

a 6 will BET THE RIVER

wow, eddie you are dense.

if A-x will call a value bet, why and how does that imply you check?

i know that you think it's too risky since daniel could have the 6, but as i said, you clearly don't have a solid grasp on the english language since the two different parts of your sentence contradict each other.

aseem

because if DN has a 6 he will raise you!!!!

obvously youre the one who cant speak english because Ive said "A 6 will raise you" about 9 times and yet you havent understood

dont be certain

a 6 could easily check the river

Danny is not checking quads here when he knows his opponent has at least an ace. You know it and I know it. He's not gonna check the nuts and risk the chance of Ted checking it behind him.

If he had a 6 he would be value betting, exactly what Ted should do on the river. You're wrong, but it's ok, I'm sure it's not your first time.

I don't understand how Ted could not value bet here. Maybe I don't have a strong enough grasp of what's happening, but if I were Ted I'd have no choice but to put Daniel 95% on the ace, 3% on the 6, and 2% on anything else. It would be almost inconceivable to check in his situation to me.

assumption: Ted has DN's hand narrowed down to Ax or 6x

Mathematically it's 50/50, so is risking a value bet of 10k - 15k worth it against the only person that can knock you out of the tournament?