In this hand, Joe Hachem tries to bluff an amateur off of quads on the river. While there are some legitimate reasons Hachem played this hand the way he did, all-in-all I think it was way too likely that the amateur had a huge hand. One of the factors in this hand was the amateur’s willingness to talk about the hand and express concern about Joe’s hand, which are pretty reliable indicators that a player is comfortable and has a strong hand.
The Big Game amateur, Hrankowski, who’s a recreational player, gets pocket Jacks and raises it up. It gets four-way, and the amateur flops quads. Hachem has 77, and the board comes JJ3, which is a pretty good flop for Hachem, all things considered. It gets checked around on the flop, and a 4 comes on the turn. Hachem understandably bets out, and the amateur calls.
The amateur’s call, after a check on the flop, should set off alarm bells in Hachem’s mind. The amateur has played very timidly up until this point, and has avoided being involved in any pots.
As if the call wasn’t enough information, the amateur starts to give a little speech, which is another valuable piece of information, because the more a usually reticent player seems relaxed and talkative, the more likely big hands have gotten. The amateur says something like, “That’s what you did before”, referencing a hand where Hachem bet the same amount in a previous pot and beat him. It seems to be an attempt at trying to make Hachem think that the amateur is reading Hachem for high hand strength and is therefore weak. Combined with the call of Hachem’s bet, this should be a clue that Hachem needs to give up on the river. (And it seems from Negreanu’s expression that he has this figured out when Hrankowski calls the turn bet.)
The river comes a deuce, and Hachem moves all-in for what is actually a large overbet of the pot. The amateur obviously immediately calls, and Hachem gets the bad news.
When someone makes an excuse for their bet, or expresses worry about calling a bet and then continues in the hand, you should be very wary. If the amateur actually had a hand he was worried about, like AA or KK or QQ, why would he go out of his way to express concern about the situation?
I somewhat disagree. I don’t think this amateur has the gusto to three bet with any hand that has a Jack other than JJ. On a paired middle card board, with three callers, it seems reasonable to check behind on the flop and call the turn with his three bet range, JJ+ & AQo+, for pot control. It is unlikely he checks behind on the flop with a Jack in his hand as there is a flush draw on board. I think his turn call narrows it down to AQc, AKc, or JJ+. I think JJ is the only hand the loose cannon calls the big bet on the river with, so I don’t mind the bluff at all.
This is kind of funny. I’d originally written a much harsher post about this play (which the commenter read) and then I edited it a few hours later, thinking that Joe’s play wasn’t actually as bad as I first thought. And that was before I saw that there had been a comment. And that’s kind of funny because I hardly receive any comments on here, and the one time I do is when I write a post I was kind of sorry I’d written.
Anyway – I don’t think Joe’s play is horrible, considering I believe he is folding out 88-AA (obviously not JJ). But I think, when you consider the amateur’s behavior, as well as the (unlikely in my opinion) idea that he would have had to check behind with those pocket pairs on the flop, I think Joe’s play isn’t defensible. If you also factor in some really weird amateur play here, like raising pre-flop with QJs, TJs, 33, or 44, it becomes even more dangerous a play. And of course those hands are unlikely, but the guy’s an amateur, and amateurs do weird, illogical things. Even though he was a weak-tight nit, even they have been known to find their balls suddenly and make a weird, stupid raise pre-flop.
But really, I think if you factor in the amateur’s little turn speech, that’s a big piece of information. Commenter – you should read my revised post, because I withdrew some of my more critical remarks and think I described things better. I do think Hachem’s play, in a vacuum and against a slightly more predictable opponent (remember, while we’d seen his cards, Joe’d only played a few hands with the guy at this point), would have been a great play.
Hellmuth’s Big Game call against Fishman was about one million times worse.
Uh, yeah, you’re right. I just watched it. I’ll have to make a post about that. God, that was pathetic. Hellmuth needs to hang it up. here’s a link:
To the first reply: if you think that the only hands in the amateur’s range on the river are Ace highs and quads, then why would you agree with bluffing 77? Check call or check fold river seems like the obv play if you put your opponent on either a hand you can beat or the nuts. What is the purpose of bluffing when you fold out all worse hands and get called by all better hands in the range you put him on?
nvmd; just noticed you kept QQ, KK and AA in his range. There are 16 combos of these hands, and only 3 combos of other hands that you put in his range; if this is your read I guess the bluff isn’t so bad. Still though, bet sizing seemed terrible to me; 150% of pot means the bluff has to work 60% of the time. Why not just bet half of what he did, where you still fold out the AA KK QQ and can snap fold to a shove?
Yeah, apparently I didn’t even mention the bet-sizing, although that occurred to me, too. Why is the bet so big? I think if the amateur has AA or KK he would be folding to a pot-sized bet. But maybe Hachem thought he would call a pot-sized bet with AA or KK and fold to a larger bet. I don’t know. There’s a thread on twoplustwo where people debate Hachem’s play. Search for it if you’re interested; it’s pretty good hearing people’s opinions on the play. A lot of people thought it was a decent play.