With the board showing 9s-6d-5d-Qh-Jh on the river, Joe Cassidy bets $120,000 into a $500,000 pot, and Patrik Antonius raises to $320,000. Cassidy makes an incredible call with Ad-7c (ace high). Sure enough, Antonius shows Ah-3d, and Cassidy's kicker plays to win the entire pot.


ok, obviously patrik a. is a loose agg player who is willing to bluff, but
dont you want to save your calls of a bluffer for when youve hit the board?
i dont care how loose PA is, i just dont see how calling a reraise on the river
with ace, lousy kicker to this board is ever justified.

would anyone else call here, even against a loose agg player(keep in mind the
board is fairly dangerous)?

but who knows, maybe pros have supernatural abilities to read people that
defy all poker and mathematical reasoning.

How did that pot get up to 500k with 2 A high's duking it out? I have a whole new respect for Joe Cassidy's game. Unbelievable. Wow.

they both are internet pros and they both know this.

watch online big tourneys, you see online pros making these moves constantly.

for examples:

Date / Time: 2005-12-14 23:32:00
Title: Glynn Beebe Eliminated in 32nd Place
Log: Glynn Beebe raises to $36,000 from the cutoff position, Joe Cassidy reraises to $136,000, and Beebe moves all in for $391,000. Joe Cassidy calls, and Beebe shows Ks-Jd. But Cassidy shows -- the Hammer! 7h-2h! Beebe is a favorite to double up here. The flop comes Qc-5c-5s, and Beebe is still in the lead with king high. But the 7d falls on the turn, giving Cassidy the lead with a pair of sevens. Beebe needs a jack or a king to stay alive, but the river card is the 2d.

Glynn Beebe is in shock as he is eliminated in 32nd place -- by seven-deuce. Joe Cassidy now has a huge lead with $1.85 million in chips.

I see nothing wrong with Joe pushing with his big stack even if it is only 72. A lot of players would toss it away immediately if they got reraised, but Cassidy just has to be pretty damn sure that he's not up against an overpair to make the call correct.

I dont mind that its 72h but he is calling because he was raised on internet poker and this is definitely not a conventional move. thats my only point is you wont see what you expect from a regular pro from an online pro.

2 things-

-there is a huge difference between bullying with 72, and
calling a reraise of a reraise with it.

-god loves donkeys.

Was he not getting the correct odds against a non-overpair? I'm quite certain he was. If he's getting 2-1, he has to be 90% certain that he's not up against an overpair. Again, this is definitely a VERY reads-based call.

Also, what a great table image play. He just told everyone, dont screw with me, bc I'm not backing down. Joe Cassidy has been involved in two "crazy" hands in the span in about an hour. This is something that could stick with him for his whole career. This hour could be the most profitable hour in his career, long run.

Think about it, it was awesome.

Exactly.

Those calling Cassidy a fish for making this call have no idea what they're talking about. This guy knows what he's doing. He's not going to call of all those chips without a good reason.

Those calling Cassidy a donkey need to understand that he's a top player for a reason and he thinks on a higher level then most players....that's what makes him a top player.

And don't forget about tells, I know they were both inet pros and this is unlikely, however, tells are pretty important in live play. DN likes to down play tells but I've seen many-a journal entry where he goes "well I know he didn't have XX cause I would have picked up a tell".

Matusow owned Neverwin in the WSOP because of a tell and watch him this Christmas eve in the TOC and he completely owns Hoyt Corkins which he said he picked up on a huge tell.

This baffels me. Not the play, but your "analysis" of the play. Do you really think you can reason out Joe's thinking based on a short blurb on cardplayer, when he'd been playing with PA for hours, and there had been hundreds of hands before this one? Two words: Betting Patterns.

what's more is that i think cassidy was check raised on the river.

which makes the hand even more interesting.

cassidy should probably only bet at that pot when checked to if he puts p.a. on a pair and wants him to lay it down.

but wow! what a call that is. calling a check-raise with A-7.

he must have had a huge read.

what baffles me is that you guys seem to think that because the person is playing a big buy in, they cant make a mistake. also, based on hendon mob, Joe cassidy is hardly a top pro.

just for fun, ill add that the hand was actually 9s-6d-5d-Qh-Jd- the 3 flush hit on the river(they changed this from what i first saw)

based upon him playing a3, here is a list of plausible hands PA would have been ahead on.
-AA, KK, QQ, JJ, TT, 99, 88, 77, 66, 55, 44, 33, 22
ak, aq, aj, at, a9, a8, a6, a5, a4s, a3s, a2s
kq, kj, kt, k9, k8s, k7s
qj, qt, q9, q8
jt, j9, j8, j7s
t9, t8, t7s
98, 97s,
87, 76, 65, 54 or maybe some other random suited.

ie, just about any plausible preflop hand beats him, and PA was willing to
put significant money into the pot, probably on multiple streets.


i dont care how loose his betting pattern is, based upon the hands that beat you, it would be essentially impossible to be ahead in this situation(unless he only reserves his river checkraises for very dangerous looking boards in which he has completely nothing).

that is why i asked the question, to see if other posters thought that a horrific mathematical play was just a bad play, or if he could have some sort of significant tell on him.

how many of those hands would check-raise a dangerous river on that board? an extremely small percent of them.

i am not a good NL player, so i am ignoring too many factors. but perhaps, based on stack sizes, bets, betting patterns, etc, cassidy knew that antonius would've moved all-in earlier if he had a flush draw (a logical assumption). so given that, he knew antonius did not have the flush. given that he check-raised the river without a flush, there is a reasoanble chance he is on a bluff. antonius is clearly an excellent player, and therefore would not pull a bluff with something like top or reasonable middle pair, knowing this is the worst way to get value from it.
doesn't really matter whether he check-raised or just flat-raised.

i'd imagine that cassidey bet only 20% of the pot with the intention of calling any small raise. so while bluffing, then calling an opponent's raise is usually a fishy play, high-level pros are thinking on extremely high levels and often what seems fishy is not.

daniel

EDIT: this is stronger if he holds the Ad

Well, you can certainly disagree with this play here if you want. It was a pretty sick call. But to base your judgement of Cassidy off the Hendon Mob website is ridiculous.

Cassidy has made numerous final tables in NLHE tourneys, but he is primarily a high-limit cash game player. Daniel himself said he was as good a limit hold 'em player as there is, in his opinion. Cassidy routinely plays in some of the biggest games at Commerce and plays very high online for cash as well.

Again, you may be right about his call in the Card Player example. But implying that Cassidy is a fish is hilarious and shows real ignorance for the poker world.

so out of curiosity, is there a better database for tournaments out there than the hendon mob?
if he has made numerous final tables, it certainly doesnt show up there.
if you could list any other big tournament final tables hes made besides
his one nl 2nd place, and the small limit wsop tournament 4th, id be interested to hear them(and where you got the info from)


i didnt say he was a fish. i said he made a bad play and is not a top pro.
the fact that he is 24 and has no traceable record of nl success would seem to indicate at least by my definition that he is not a top pro at least at nl; but who knows? its not like i follow around every internet player generating exact stats. and dont use the "only a cash game player excuse"-
he apparently enters lots of tournaments.


btw, i dont really care if you refute my statements here. i am more interested in where you would get the publicly available sources or databases to do so.

i dont think cassidy really tours the tournament circuit hence not having a lot of succesful records on hendonmob or whatever database one looks at....

Joe Cassidy is my poker idol, next to DN and Ted Forrest.

I dont know how the hand was played out, but all of those hands you mentioned that beat him don't matter. Danny makes a great point about how many of those hands can be raised or check/raised on the river. It's been said before, but every hand tells a story about what each player has. If Joe can eliminate the c/r'ing hands as possibilities, then he can further consider that Antonius is bluffing. Also, Cassidy is getting about 4.5:1 to call on the river. He only has to be right 22% of the time for this to be a profitable play. Also mentioned, is the fact that it's hard for us to 2nd guess him, considering that he's thinking on a much higher level than most of us ever will.

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-tournament...r=&name_id=2886

this is probably a good place to start. the fact that he had 200,000 with which to play dn heads up shows he's done alright for himself. the fact that be beat dn shows he's a strong limit player. by his own admission he is mainly a limit player.

i doubt few are calling him a "top" pro, but i sure risk my bankroll to play him heads up LHE. if he makes it to the final table (which it looks like he may do) he's gonna earn a lotta respect.

Date / Time: 2005-12-15 12:41:00
Title: Jeff King Doubles Through Joe Cassidy
Log: Joe Cassidy raises to $45,000 from middle position, Jeff King moves all in for about $120,000, and Cassidy calls. King shows 9d-9h, which dominates Cassidy's 7h-6h. The flop of 9s-8h-2s actually improves Cassidy's chances, even though King hit his set. Cassidy has an open-ended straight draw and a runner-runner flush draw to eliminate King. But the last two cards fall As-3d, and Jeff King doubles up to about $180,000 in chips.


In no way is he a fish. but he made some mistakes, this is apperant.

i don't know what to believe:
that when King doubles up he has 180,000 or that he moves all in for 120,000.

if he we take that he doubled up to 180,000 that means that it was less that 45,000 for cassidy to call (if 180,000 includes blinds and antes).

easy call in a tournament where you have the most chips at the table IMO.

It's a good call, plain and simple. Joe Cassidy isn't the only pro who has made calls like that before. There's the infamous Stu Ungar hand where he called an all-in for 32,000 (in a 100,000 freeze-out game) on the river with 10-9, and there were only three hand combinations he could have beat at the time (4-6,5-6,4-5). I don't think it's a bad play with sufficient information on your opponent, and generous pot odds to boot - I think it's just a high level professional play.

well you guys have convinced me. it was a great call after all.

now i just need to spread the word to all the fish so they
can learn to play like the pros.

Probably just a mistyped 1 instead of 2. So he got 280 000 after he doubled up.

unless they meant he raised the pot to 120000 total.

thanks you silent rogue.

That would be appreciated. They wouldnt know why they're calling with A high. MUAHAHAHAHAHA

plausible:
i don't think i have ever had to use this word in a sentence!!

That's a nice list of hands. You really need information on the betting and actions on every street, as well as every hand PA played, and the betting and action on every one of those streets. My guess is that Joe figured that with the pot odds on this call (200k and the pot was over a mil) combined with the play of the hand (he must have thought that there was little chance that PA would play a winning hand this way) Joe thought that calling was the best move here. And just because he doesn't have great tourney success doesn't mean he's not a great player. There are awful players with all kinds of hendon mob stats.