lmao

There aren't any words for how clueless you have to be to look at the action of this hand and conclude Daniel shoved for pot in position with bottom straight as a bluff here. What goddamn planet are you on?

Perfect spot to rep the backdoor flush and get him to fold a 7 for a pot-sized bet in a 3bet pot!! Jesus christ, dude

Why do you think these hands are 100% perfectly comparable? Why do you think Negreanu is not capable of adjusting mid-match*? Why in the world would a straight be a bluff candidate in that hand? Not trying to kill action here but there is almost a 0% chance he was bluffing that hand lol.

*This especially sticks out to me. Given Negreanu's personality/style it seems so incredibly him to be results oriented and adjust based on it.

Lol I am not saying that it would be a good play I am just saying that I can legit imagine that Daniel actually thought this, that is all. Also it was supposed to be kind of an exaggeration of how bad I think Daniel is.

But your logic for it is nonsensical. Daniel playing badly would just check back and hope his straight was good. That's what would be most consistent with your criticism of him, which is the part I agree with. I could definitely see Daniel checking back a 2 there. But he certainly wouldn't turn bottom straight into a bluff trying to rep a backdoor flush to make top straight fold, and I doubt anyone could produce a single hand suggesting that he'd ever do that

Well of course it would be ridiculous.
As I said it was supposed to be an exaggeration and an exaggeration is meant to sound ridiculous.
It basically means, I think he is so bad that I could even imagine him doing random stupid stuff like that in the heat of the moment.

Excellent strategy discussion ITT, but it is hard to evaluate their play without hole cards. Dnegs definitely does not play standard sizings etc., but he probably has great general poker skills.

I saw a hand where Dnegs bet 2K on the river with 2-pair on a fairly connected board when a flush hit on the river. DP checkraised to 12K with a pair turned into a bluff and Dnegs tank called. I was almost sure DP was bluffing, as he was representing an extremely thin value range, but it was likely Dnegs did not have a flush.

Unless every word you said should be interpreted as its opposite meaning, I have to admit, to me it appears you were simply saying he was bluffing and later acting like "yeah I was just exaggerating you know"

Also - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJ_WefmgN78

Normally I'd disclaim to ignore the video title, but apparently a very relevant question. Daniel is the underdog, but he does have some poker experience I heard.

Lol at anyone saying the 97 turn call is good when ran through a solver. No chance.

I'm not solver savvy but I did read Michael Acevedo's Modern Poker Theory a few times and a couple of excruciatingly long solver treatises out of curiosity. I would think for a solver developer exploitative adjustments are trivial. Excel spread sheet easy. I could see a module coded to a gto strategy where you simply enter hands as played after a session and when a statistically significant threshold is reached the strategy recalibrates for the next session. I couldn't guess the value of on the fly adjustments during short sessions but unless clusters of comparative situations occur it could still remain in the hands of the solver overlords.

I was exaggerating but I still mean it to some extent. Also why is everybody acting that he "would have to be repping the bd flush"?. If I remember correctly the board was also paired, right? So there were boats, flushes and straights possible. And just can´t imagine a guy like Daniel thinking his low end of the straight on such a dangerous board is a value jam. If he actually thought that I´d have to give him credit, but I just can´t believe it.

Btw if my memory is wrong and the board wasn´t paired then I obv believe it was a easy value jam even for him.

I suppose I should take your word for it then.

This would indeed be the ultimate diss of Dnegs poker skills. However still impossible in my mind.

well maybe my computer is broken and is giving me bad sims *shrug*

My opinion is: I think the turn call is not bad against a very good opponent who has enough give ups on the river. I don´t think Doug is perfectly balanced in this spot (might be wrong though) and is jamming the river extremely often with his entire range, which makes the call bad.

Also it´s senseless giving Daniel credit for the call, because obviously he didn´t call thinking "oh pio says call here". I mean just listen to his explanation in the post-session interview. "Oh well I was blocking quads..I had a plan blablabla" it´s just a bunch of nonsense.

Both Daniel and Doug have stated they ran the sim and it is a very, very low-frequency call but the solver does call sometimes.

Not to be obtuse and I didn't listen to daniel, suspicious that he would be anywhere close to GTO in too many situations, but blocking quads/gutter out/range advantage would be how I'd explain why the solver floats it in laymans terms if someone was "surprised" by it. Prob way more so in plo, but the blockers/reverse blockers/tiniest bit of extra equity is the common takeaway in a bunch of solver spots. I read some of your other posts, you seem to know this, just seemed weird to take fault in his logic, you mean he obv didnt study this exact spot and didn't know "for sure" it was solver approved?

I was surprised that he showed up with that hand tbh, did show a bit more of an understanding than I thought he'd get to altho not the toughest spot, but people were flaming him on twitter for floating flop... lol

My best friend growing up has dedicated his professional life to this very issue. He started an organization called the Center For Open Science, dedicated to having researchers – in layman's terms – "show their work."

Not unlike what we were told by our middle and high school science teachers: less concerned about the answers, more concerned on how someone got there. If two similar studies produce significantly different results, transparency allows everyone to look under the hood to see why.

It's funny, we have recently seen heads-up challenges go to completion in the form of the various Galfond challenges. If anything, those should have shown just how long the long run can be. On top of that, the graphs of those battles quite literally illustrate how sizable the swings get.

Does he have a range advantage though? Doug has all the overpairs, Daniel almost none. Also it´s not like Doug doesn´t have quads at all in that spot

By the time he calls pre/flop/turn the top end advantage starts to skew towards dnegs, meaning he can credibly rep quads/a passive line with nuttish hands makes sense for the whole hand. Obv doug has a healthy overpair range that will play as if they are/get value as the effective nuts that he can match his bluffs with, but its not like he can fire 100p range.

I assume dnegs has more quads/fh by river, I assume he needs some bluffs, equity only matters so much on a lockdown board, so blocks becomes even more valuable/prevalent. 97 doesn't seem that crazy/surprising to me to run the float float bluff, obv quads/fh is rare but he has to match bluffs accordingly that are even more rare, theres gonna be some very weak hands in there.

But tbh I haven't looked at HUNL in a long time, I'm not very confident in how the spot actually works and what hands are better to end up on river with that then turn into a bluff, some "non intuitive" high card hand one's I guess with back door flush unblock variable or somethin.

only a fish would fold flop imo, turn was a bit surprising to me because doug used a pot sized bet, figured it would always float at like 2/3 pot or 3/4 but pot size was a bit too large but I was off

are you sure people were flaming dnegs for floating flop? I haven't read every comments obv

Btw, if the 97 turn call is GTO at a very, very low-frequency and Daniel just happens to make it the very first time he runs across it (presumably) then by Bayesian inference it's likely that his frequency for the play is too high. He's said he doesn't use an rng. Which means it's likely that its bad, right?

There have been many worse plays made than the Dnegs 97 hand and he's never folding the 9 river. He just thought DP is bluffing and is giving up river and he's got minor suckout equity just in case DP check gives up if DN rivers a 7, 9 or straight, simples.

One of the key things no one has mentioned which is important is that on the very same table just a couple of minutes before DP pot bet the turn in the exact same spot on a very similair board run out and DN folded. This is an extremely rare situation you don't see happen twice in quick succession often in holdem. This played a big part in DN's noob decision to call the turn 2nd time round which DP was extremely aware of and is never bluffing that spot with the same sizing in such a short space of time against DN. It was the most obv value town ever the 2nd turn pot I would of bet my house on it while watching live. I don't have a house.

yes it's likely that it's a little bit of a punt if he were to call it 100% of the time but we don't know that

it's just nowhere near as bad as people initially thought it was

i dont think dn is going to do any manual data collection and analysis, i guess his team will do it for him, but i agree that this is lame from bp - there is a recording of the matches, anyone could watch them and get that information. Is it not allowed to watch the video? you can watch the video but cant take notes?

i hope perkins next book is about how he made his $ instead of how he's spending it cuz god only knows