Here we go, as my summary of each episode continues!

Hand #1:

Esfandiari gets QQ and flat calls, Farha has Ac8c and raises, Esfandiari re-raises to which Farha goes all-in immediately. Esfandiari calls and Farha flops three aces, winning 44K.

Hand #2:

Mizrachi has Jc10c and calls, Chamanara has KcQc and calls, Farha has AhJh and raises, called by both of the other players.

Flop comes 10 6 A, Farha bets 9k and is called by both players. Turn brings a 9 and Farha goes all-in for 29k, and wins the pot there for 47k.

Hand #3:

Farha has Jh4h and calls, Negreanu has 5c3c and raises to 2k, Chamanara calls with 9 9 as does Farha. Flop comes 4 2 7, Negreanu bets out 5k and is called by both players. J comes on the turn giving Farha two pair and all check the turn. River brings K to which Sammy bets 20k. Daniel folds and after a lot of debate, Chamanara folds his nines.

Hand #4:

Matusow raises with AQo, Laak flat calls with pocket tens. Flop comes 4 3 Q, Matusow bets 5k and Laak instantly folds. Great fold by Laak.

Hand #5:

Laak has K9d and calls, Esfandiari raises to 3500 with 9c3c and Laak folds.

Hand #6:

Laak has pocket sixes and calls, Negreanu checks his A7o and Farha's in with 52o. Flop comes 9 A 6. Daniel bets out 2k which is met by a raise from Laak to 5k, to which Daniel re-raises again 10k more and Laak flat calls. Daniel bets 12k in the dark with the turn coming 8d. Laak calls the bet. River brings the 3c. Daniel checks to which Laak bets 44,400. Negreanu debates for a while and eventually calls. Laak win 137k.

Hand #7:

Farha raises to 2k with Kh10h, Negreanu raises to 5k with 5 5, Laak re-raises to 25k with KK. Farha folds and Daniel calls. Flop is 9 9 A. Both check. Turn is a 7 which goes check check again. River brings a 4, Laak bets and Daniel folds.

Hand #8:

Jennifer Harman has now taken Mizrachi's seat. Negreanu raises to 2k with 10 8o. Laak calls with 7h5h. Flop comes Q 5 4, Negreanu bets 4k and Laak folds.

Hand #9:

Esfandiari has 3 3, Farha has 10s7s, Negreanu has 85o, Chamanara has 32o, and Matusow has 54o, all of them limping in. Flop comes K 8 J, all check. Turn brings a second spade, 4s. Farha bets 4k, Daniel calls, everyone else folds. River brings 2c, Farha bets 12k, Daniel is convinced Farha has nothing and calls.

Hand #10:

Harman has 3 3 and limps, Matusow has 8h6h and limps, Farha raises with Js9s which are called by both players. Flop comes Ks 2 8s. Farha bets 25k, Matusow quickly declares all-in which is met by an even quicker call from Farha. They negotiate a pot size between the two of them and run the hand twice. First hand comes Qc 7h which Matusow wins. Second hand comes 7d 4s which Farha wins and they chop the pot.

Hand #11:

Negreanu raises to 2k with Jd10d (my favourite hand ) Chamanara calls with A5o and Matusow calls with J9o. Flop comes 3d A 9d. Chamanara bets 6k and Mike and Daniel call. Turn brings 3c and all check. River brings 2s, Chamanara bets 10k and Matusow calls. Chamanara wins 45k. Remarks are made of Matusow being a PFW or Pay-Off Wizard, which is someone who knows they're beat on the river but pay off their opponent anyway. Funnnnny stuff!

Next time: Matusow and Negreanu keep the verbal up apparently. Todd Brunson will be taking Phil Laak's seat.

Best line of the episode, "You can't play for napkins!"

Also, anyone see Gavin Smith in the room at the end? I wish another Canadian would represent the table, that'd be awesome!

This may have been talked about, but I hate the search function....

Are DN and Mike that unfriendly. the only other time I can remember them at a table together was in '05 and they seemed to be pretty friendly. At first I thought their jabbing in high stakes poker was just friendly, but now it seems like it's getting pretty nasty. Maybe I'm wrong here tho.

I'm glad to see some different players joining the action. I think Daniel is just getting annoyed by Matusow's constant yapping--especially in the middle of a hand. Daniel didn't seem like he was in that great a mood to begin with.

I was disappointed that Daniel never even mentioned the possibilty of a set vs. Laak when he held A7. After all of that deliberation it never occurred to him that he could possibly have the set of 6's?!?!?! At a flop of A96, I was surprised. I suppose he couldn't reasonbly give him 99, although it was possible, but 66 seemed to fit Phil's possible range considering his PF limp-call. Considering his range, I think DN said something like a "a weird two-pair or a bigger ace", I think if he simply added the posibility of a set of 6's he gets away from the hand. I was stunned that he payed off 44K.

Is there any other thoughts on this hand?

for me,, it isn't so much the hands but the dynamics that goes on between the hands and seeing stars for the first time. case in point was watching phil hellmuth in the cash game last year, as well as how these personalities work out.

I loved how jennifer went to hug mike and got a kiss on the cheek and gabe mentioned grounds for sexual harrassment.
does that happen all the time between the two or was it a first i wondered. did jennifer get surpised i was wondering.
i also like how she played the explainer to mike when daniel was giving mike heck and reminding him how antionio had give him heck for that earlier.

it seems to me that sammy is enjoying himself and i was surpised at the big smile he gave when daniel taunted him, what was it " sammy got nothing "?
and every got a kick out of it.
I do wish that he and mike would stop running it twice,, it cuts down on the variance but it also increased both their chances of splitting the pots in my book.
if it was me i would run it three times,, two of three and if we were tied on the third time then i would be happy to split the pot.

it been mentioned in an differnt thread about how they called mike a pay off wizard in some book, did anyone know what the book was called. at first i thought I thought it was hoh volume 1.

I think daniel paid off phil laak at the end because of future bluffing possibilities.. it could stop bluffs from some for he paid off a hand,, and so they know he might call a bluff.
and it could increase bluffs from others,, who see him playing weaker hands,, after all, ace with weak kicker is weak against an ace with better kicker, two pair.

I didn't see gavin smith in the room, i am wiating to see gus hansen myself,, but if gavin is there, why dont' they let him in,, unless they do afterwards and no mention of it is given.

I want to see the reaction that gus hansen, and phil hellmuth gets when they join the table if any.
any idea about why if any, tj didnt' play last year and this year ?

It was a very well played hand by Laak, I think he knew exactly where DN was at in the hand, even before the whole DN and Matusow incident. He definitely got maximum value on the hand, based on DN's curiosity/inability to put him on a hand.

I know if the tighest player at the table is leading into me like that on the river and I have an ace that can essentially beat nothing... then I might be more prone to give it up, based on the reasoning DN was using, didn't he say he felt like Laak may be willing to pull of a bluff due to his chip stack.



Aside from a few comments that you made, you say this with authority why?

I think the real thing that surprised Daniel is that Laak didn't raise the turn with his set. I believe that's the real reason Daniel eliminated the possibility of a set.

just my opnion which would be back up by the facts that in most run it twice pots,, it has almost been split up on tv.

the part about variance i got from tv where daniel says "it cuts down on variance or something to the effect ""
to me it looks like it increases the chance that they will split the pot, and if someone get beat, they knew they were beat.

If i wanted to run it twice,, i would do it three times just to make sure i won,
two of three sounds more sporting,, but then why run it twice or three times at all eh ?
unless of course i wanted to split the pot for i didnt' like my chances for I was caught bluffing.

there is no authority here though , heck I just started to read hold them for advanced players.

what authority is there that it isnt' possible though ?

It's from Esfandiari's book "In The Money". They have a whole glossary of acronyms like that in the back.

I'm kinda starting to like Antonio. He's a good player and I enjoy listening to him at the table. I'm also starting to feel that way about Phil Laak. He's always been too out there for me, but it can't be denied that he can play. If it wasn't for Jennifer Tilly being such nice eye candy behind him, I'd say get her out of there. She looks like a deranged stalker sweating him like that during the game.

From everything I've heard, they are friends. You need to be able to take it if you're dishing it out as much as Mike is. Mike is saying the same crap over and over and Daniel is just talking back. He just thinks of better things to say than Mike does.

It did seem a little more unfriendly in this episode though.

I can't believe Daniel's call with the A7 either. Didn't make sense to me.