INSANE $310,000 Pot vs Phil Ivey and Patrick - HIGH STAKES POKER TAKES with Daniel Negreanu 10

[@DougPolkPoker]

One of the most legendary hands ever on HSP!

[@santydagr8]

I got on tilt, I didn’t even play this hand neither I know Daniel personally. Lol

[@gorlami5000]

Do you not think though that if Daniel puts Phil on a 10 and doesn’t put Patrick on QQ or 9 10 off, then he has to call. He’s basically only saying Patrick has Q 10

[@NotfromDateline]

pahahaha

[@gesus.christ99]

I mean that's an almost good fold

[@TG-rx8kd]

There’s only one combo of suited Q10, zero combos of 910 suited, QQs would’ve folded. 3 combos of 55s. And if he puts Phil on a ten that takes out the last remaining suited Q10. He could have JK clubs here.

[@ashmaterial]

Tom Dwan immediately said, I think he folded 99's. What a beast!!

[@williamwcalder842]

hes such a sick reader of the game is insane

[@trishennaidoo1309]

Not as that impressive Daniel asked you got quads , 5s or queen 10 if you listen he basically said the hand he as by elimination . But Dawn is always paying attention to what is said every time .

[@robishalom1467]

becuse dainel asked if he got queds..

[@8thaccount535]

Yeah Dwan didn't even need to see the replay to know what Daniel had.

[@Psideways02]

not a read he saw the hands in the trailer

[@karolisj.5090]

If Ivey and Patrick would join for the commentary, that would be completely out of this world! Thanks for the vid.

[@miketomlin6040]

Both are still laughing ........

[@paul-u2y9y]

I'd love to hear whether patrick thought he had him beat or did he know he had to shove for any chance at all ?

[@pierrearr]

​@@paul-u2y9yThere's no way Patrick is turning 55 into a bluff there.

[@paul-u2y9y]

@@pierrearr so he thought he had it ? listen to dan say " Phil has a ten OBVIOUSLY , what hand was daniel afraid of ?

[@pierrearr]

@@paul-u2y9y Yeah Patrick made a mistake by overplaying his hand. He said he's used to playing against fish and admitted it was not a good play.

[@Ervin-e7i]

Patrick asked Tom right after Daniel folded..."what did he fold?" and Tom said 9's.....wow! Tom knew exactly what Daniel had!

[@lordfarquard9902]

It was blatantly obvious and I’m no poker wizard (break even at mid stakes). Daniel said quads then q 10 then 9 10, essentially stating every hand that beats his hand leaving his hand at exactly 99. I’m no pro and I would have 100% put him on 99 based on that

[@tipsy09]

Exactly. I knew Daniel had 99 even before the flop came out.

[@docskate4312]

These moments of contemplation before Phil laid it down. He almost smirked. Made me LOL hard. This is why he is the coolest.

[@jackybogues2495]

Ivey overrated ACTUALLY

[@randomando4470]

@@jackybogues2495 Tell that to the pros to have been doing it for decades that recognize him as one of the best to ever do it

[@genie-beanie-bites]

I think I know poker until I listen to Daniel, damn!!! That’s why he’s been around the top of the game for so long. Thank you for teaching us a thing or two about Poker. Please keep it coming…

[@shikeridoo]

this is basic range thinking. spend like 50 or probably less hours studying poker and you'll understand all of this intuitively.

[@OneDerscoreOneder]

@@shikeridoo how profitable are you?

[@ackas007]

After every one of these breakdowns, I feel my 'poker brain' opens up more every time. Such good analysis

[@garyblackwoodpoker]

I gotta say I agree, other old school pros have let the game pass them by, but Daniel has kept himself up to date and can still compete with the best.

[@tvrax3076]

Totally agree love how he thinks

[@sigurdwerdammen1494]

Yes i feel like i wanna start play again. I havent played for years.

[@socraticmathtutor1869]

Yep. Today I learned that if the flop contains T9o, there's only two suited hole pairs that create a 2-pair with the T and the 9. Whereas if it contains T9s, there's three.

[@RenagadeNif]

I'm an absolute amateur, never even hit the tables yet, but you have a way of explaining things so simply that I have yet to find elsewhere on youtube. Thank you for these breakdowns my man. You are doing more for the game than you can know.

[@fishingbud1]

Fish lol jk

[@RoCkShaDoWWaLkEr]

If you haven't hit the tables you're not even a recreational player yet.

[@garrydye2394]

​@@RoCkShaDoWWaLkEr So what?

[@RoCkShaDoWWaLkEr]

@@garrydye2394 Renegade called themselves an amateur ;but hasn't ever played before. That's what. Seems pretty obvious....

[@lifeofbru8929]

@RoCk ShaDoW-WaLkEr lol, who cares?

[@golsonmoldon9455]

This group at the table is a gem.

[@The_SmokeHut]

Daniel, you are, without a doubt, my favorite poker player of all time not only because of your poker skill & play but because of the way you treat people and your willingness to teach other players. It's kinda of a pay it forward deal which I love..now if you could just trade in that Bluejays t-shirt for a NY Yankee one, you would be perfect🤣😂

[@garythegman9680]

lol the Yankees are one of the worst teams in baseball..🪓

[@ehsanmokhtari613]

Totally agree with you Daniel as when Tom told Patrick that you had 9s full he said “wow”. He obviously overplayed his hand.

[@robishalom1467]

He overplayed but i really think daniel needed to call this and just cant admit it XD

[@GregoryZ75]

@@robishalom1467 pretty insane to put Patrick on a bluff here. pretty insane of Patrick to BE bluffing here. he accidentally bluffed, and you can't account for that. so no, he didn't "need" to call. if you make a habit of calling those spots you'll be wrong more often than right, so it's a -EV habit.

[@mpup54]

Antonius may have overplayed his hand thinking Daniel had another holding, but the right play is to raise Daniel all in and put him in a tough spot, even though we now know there was really only one hand Daniel should fear, Q10. If Patrick calls he loses, so we cant fault Patrick on his play.

[@mpup54]

@@robishalom1467 I think so too. But these players at the top dont like to have things like this on air. So its OK that he tries to defend his thinking. Once you unravel what he says about hands eliminated, its a call, but somehow he didnt reach that conclusion in the moment and gave Patrick credit for a crazier hand. Also, there could be a lot of math going on in that he may be pieced out and doesnt want to make a bad river call early on.

[@mpup54]

@@GregoryZ75 Are you knew to Patrick? He is as capable of bluffing as Dwan, and probably more so.

[@JimmyRingz]

Daniel I just want to say this is so nostalgic and effing awesome to see so many of you HSP old school legends playing high stakes again. I know you've heard that a lot already but damn. This is nice!!! Greetings from Finland.

[@shivasirons6159]

"Nen"

[@JimmyRingz]

@@shivasirons6159 uhm what

[@redrodlrowon]

Phil Ivey is such a good player. He took one look at Daniel and Patrick and just knew. And he was out.

[@maliant16]

And he didn’t spend a single second analyzing it afterwards. Phil Ivey legitimately is the GOAT. Just raw talent, super smart and a zen like focus.

[@TheLemmonade]

@@maliant16 Fr he just got up from the table and said "damn lemme get some snacks" XD

[@mpup54]

Yes, this is almost overlooked how Phil lost the bare minimum while holding top set. He may be too good for the game. Then yes, he said, something smells good, let me check out the catering. LOL

[@Create_A_Sign]

@@mpup54 he turned trip 10's, not top set. If he had pocket 10's and then the turn came a 10.. then he would've turned top set. He folded trips there.

[@evolun]

He knew Patrick was going to take awhile so he was like "good time for snacks"

[@balbomb]

Thanks for posting this. I know just about every group of poker players have discussed this hand in depth. From a group of mostly online players, we have come up with these important points on the hand: 1) The turn bet size is almost certainly a mistake. If you bet 66-75% on the turn, this allows you more room to get river value. At the same time, it allows you to have more realistic bluffing range. You said that you now eliminated Patrick with the large sizing to only having Tx+. Well if that is the case, it handcuffs you to making the river a check. Another option is using whatever overbetting size you prefer, probably somewhere between 1.2-1.4. This still allows you to target QT-AT and jam low cards, but mostly realizing that you will not be able to value bet this boat against two world class players. 2) Think you absolutely nailed it in your analysis of Patrick's impression on the hand. More so, that he saw you bet 50% on the river, I think in his mind this put you squarely on AT/KT looking for value. Your point about him mostly playing in weaker games further highlights this. 3) Your sizing of POT on turn, and then 50% on the river I also think allows Phil to make a tremendous play, mainly that it opens up his bluffing opportunities as well as his ability to make a good fold. I personally am with you, that it seems like Patrick just doesn't have enough behind to ever bluff, so folding makes complete sense. At the same time I think a better turn sizing would allow you to play optimally. 4) I think in game, almost everyone makes a mistake somewhere in this hand. Now often mistakes would lead far worse players to probably winning the pot because they are unable to fold hands, but it doesn't take away from your grasp on where you were in this hand which I still think was quite good even if the results didn't work out.

[@whoswho6641]

If somehow magically Daniel and Ivey switched places and Phil raises, Daniels folds what do you think Patrick would have done. I believe he would call, bcs he knew Phil would have called him. Basically what i believe is Patrick knew showing was his only winning move against Daniel.

[@ricky5369]

I love how Daniel made the decision based on what Patrick should have done, we deal with that a lot in the small stakes. "T5o shouldn't be in your range, I put you on AK or AQ !"

[@alwaysradical1613]

Yeah, like the time I got felted in a tournament by 6-9 hitting a straight. Why were they in with 69off you might ask? It was low stakes mostly amateurs, and 6-9 was this girls favorite hand. I should have gotten her phone number… 🙄

[@ArcaneTricksterRS]

@@alwaysradical1613 Yeah, don't ask for logic or reason in low stakes. Go by the numbers and just know that eventually you will make money against such players.

[@MikusMusik]

And that's the problem, Daniel overthought this one

[@jimweb3230]

Which you shouldn't do when it's just $300, lol.

[@Good_Ebening_]

@@alwaysradical1613 that's rough

[@Arrest_Tim_Kennedy]

Rounders breakdown of the Daniel/Patrick hand: Gibbs folds his 64 because he knows it’s no good, Daniel forgot Phil folded a ten on 4th street and Patrick is futilely hoping his 5’s hold up

[@kinglebronify]

Lmao love it!!!

[@jakeporter8476]

I love seeing the thought process of someone that's on an elite level. It could be about anything, if you're elite in an area, it's interesting and you need to pay attention to that person. Thank you Daniel for this

[@ardaozcan9303]

You said it once “ make a mistake by folding the best hand instead of calling with worse “ . Truly appreciate these hand breakdowns. You are a legend and hope to meet you some day !

[@justinselph7156]

Your breakdown is on point. One thing you’re forgetting, is the human element. Patrick saw you as a position player, that was the aggressor on every bet. He had made up his mind a long time before the river, that he had you beat. Yes, he was wrong, but he was playing the hand as if he knew he had you beat, and was trying to figure out how to extract the most chips from you. And when Phil took his time and theatrics of folding, it tipped Patrick off even further and made Patrick even more confident that he had you, so he shoves in hopes that you take the 3:1 bait with whatever marginal to mediocre hand you may have had. Simply put, he never one second felt he was behind you in the hand. And you over thought it in real time to come to the wrong conclusion lol

[@justinselph7156]

I just think there are times where when we play, we stop analyzing in-hand, because we already come to the conclusion we have the opponent beat, and shift our focus over to trying to extract the most chips possible. I really think your position and full pot bets every step of the way, made you look weaker than you may think. Which is a great thing, if you’re trying to extract chips yourself. You just didn’t go through with it fully. You had it figured that you had the best hand, which is why you were able to allow yourself to bet $56k(pot) on the end, you just allowed your overthinking to change your mind for some reason.

[@reynolds5454]

Exactly

[@lesnandor4310]

One thing Daniel may not have considered, is that if Patrick had essentially the nuts, why did he not lead out on the river for value rather than risking a check down by Daniel especially when leading out could have also been a more plausible bluff scenario (versus the check raise) and therefore more inticing for Daniel to call.

[@abhishekab1]

very pertinent point

[@arturroman6884]

A little bit late. Thats a good point, of he have the essential nuts (Q10). He would not be always betting. Checking: allow Daniel to bet on the river with, 99, 55(not always) 10,9 and bluffs (very rare frequency) Betting: It depends on the size, but the only hand that would be calling was 10,9 and 99 (not all the time calling, because it is a really strong play, can call for blocking 10.9 and to bluff catch). It obviously depends on the size, but the nuts would not be block betting. Have being said that, I think checking is in a really higher frequency of the nuts. But it actually all depends on Patrick ranging Daniel between the calls and checks, I think that besides he now saying that, it is a good fold all played

[@chennaionlychennai7872]

Patrik does check with the nuts. I have seen him do it alot.

[@Jupiter-bt5hn]

I dont think a straight for Daniel is a option, simply because none of these hands would have been in the ranges he played before the river.

[@kylejeboss1469]

@@arturroman6884I agree, I think it’s about even whether checking or betting is the right move if Patrick had the nuts, so the check by Patrick isn’t solid enough info to assume he doesn’t have the nuts

[@Sarajiponte]

I feel there’s an argument to be made as fabule actually mentioned that daniel can have straights here much more often than Phil and patrik. I think patrik knows this and it’s why he chooses to shove 55 for value. When he thinks Phil folds a ten it leaves daniel heavily weighted towards straights that were bluffing the turn and got there. Curious everyone’s thoughts

[@nqv9390]

Straight would probably check back. He even considered checking back the 9s full.

[@nikolaygannev4294]

How often do you think someone would make a pot sized bet on the turn with a draw into two players ?

[@theodorskarstein4438]

As he said himself; if Daniel had a straight he would fold every time to the all in on the river, making the shove completely pointless and opens Patrick up to get busted by a better hand. Thats at least how I understood it.

[@panda4ever99]

Nah I disagree here.Basically when you re shoving there with 55 you re saying that you have full house or quads.Daniel having anything less will fold,so you cant take value from a str8.Taking in consideration that Patrick's full house was the worst full house on the board and there was also a potential quads,when you re getting called you know 100% you re beat.

[@akmd114379]

@@panda4ever99 no potential quads, both knew ivey folded a 10.

[@yhl5092]

Fantastic analysis Daniel. Feel like your game is at a whole different level ever since your heads up match with Doug. Keep up the good work!

[@goughmax9666]

😂

[@byrlannehatcher8007]

Daniel, would you unbury your upper lip. Don't look like yourself! Lynn Hatcher

[@romatar123]

It's an absolute pleasure to watch your hand breakdowns Daniel. It is just as deep and helpful as it is entertaining.

[@darrensenn5922]

Awesome insightful breakdown! Thank you, Daniel.

[@degeneratepoker]

Thank you for the breakdown. My key takeaway from this that I thought was extremely helpful was how you consider raising trips when you also have flush draw possibilities. It was an interesting take that I never considered in that way. Thank you for that

[@harryroberts2074]

It’s a set not trips when two of your hole cards are the same

[@degeneratepoker]

@@harryroberts2074 thanks for the correction. I’ve been calling them sets and trips interchangeably forever. You learn something new each day

[@counterfeit4450]

@@degeneratepoker Yeah this was a tough one for me to understand but now I finally get it. Trips are markedly worse than a set because if you have trips, that means the board has paired, which could easily have improved your opponent while it improved you. If they had a set before the board pairs, they’ve now filled up and you’ve got trips. It’s vulnerable sometimes and that’s why Phil threw it away here. If it was heads up, he probably would’ve called this bet

[@alainlebon1916]

Gabe on river : it's call call Ivey : fold "waaaw" Antonius : allin... "woooaaaw" Nice read Gabe 👍🏻😂

[@HitokiriShaggyTTV]

He used to be quite good at his predictions. Seems like hes lost his touch this season

[@MarkF_Tucson]

As Gabe said during the broadcast, if this hand was being played by Amateurs, it would have been a three-way all-in on the turn. Seeing how this was played, I can see why you folded, was shocked when I first saw it, but that's where these videos are great, and It makes sense.

[@sabinoharriague4754]

Whatever, some spots You just call and hope

[@ziwuri]

@@sabinoharriague4754 ...if you're an amateur player.

[@zone-kx5zg]

@@sabinoharriague4754 bruh

[@bhardwajr01]

@@sabinoharriague4754 you can't ever be a millionaire playing like that

[@zambot264]

@@bhardwajr01 that's why he's here watching and not playing

[@shepherdofsheeple]

Fascinating in so many ways…first I love Gabe being wrong at every call, second Phill getting away from trips almost effortlessly, third Daniel going in logic circles as he does which inevitably led to the correct but incorrect fold (shoulda had Gabe in your ear 😂), and fourth, can a hand more perfectly illustrate the opposite side of sub optimal play not discussed as much in terms of the context in which sub optimal play is actually beneficial in specific case scenarios AND/OR when awareness of sub optimal play and not optimal play leads Daniel to snap call ie Daniel being aware of who Patrick typically plays with (subs) and even noticing Patrick being overly confident in curious spots earlier in the game and putting Patrick on 5s full or worse. Too good for you’re own good

[@jordanicenhour1147]

He knows he shouldn't have folded it. He thought he was beat cause Ivey folded and he may have read ivey with 10's. It's a fine lay down, he can afford it. Probably annoying as crap to him. Thats a CALL all day. He knows it. Good lay down for Ivey, not for Dan. It happens. If you can afford to lay down you can afford to be in the game.

[@jordanicenhour1147]

Can we all get a thumbs up for that beard tho.

[@jordanicenhour1147]

Sorry man it's just an example of over thinking. That happens poker is a fine line. Thats an example of knowing the other person has a a good hand or is bluffing. Its a call.

[@jordanicenhour1147]

@@TripodianTT so piss off

[@lifeofbru8929]

@Jordan I'm curious what hand you would put Patrick on in that situation? if you think it's a call, then you must be putting him on a specific hand, right? Personally, I would have made that call, but that's only because I'm nowhere near the player daniel is, I wouldn't have been able to process that amount of information on the spot like him. But after hearing him explain his reasoning behind the play , I think it makes perfect sense. I don't really see any holes in his logic behind the fold

[@mattym8]

You never see Phil have such a huge reaction as he does on the River. Made him think.

[@XJWill1]

It would be hilarious if Patrick figured out how you would read his raise and consequently figured his bluffing chances were much better.

[@nihlify]

That only makes sense if he knew he had the hand he had. Patrick isn't that good, no one is.

[@newtonheath92]

You simply don't bluff with boats

[@XJWill1]

@@newtonheath92 That's certainly true for lesser players. Myself, I am capable of bluffing with anything.

[@qwertyuiop3656]

That would be sick af

[@custard131]

@@nihlify i dont think you need to put Daniel on exactly 9s to make the play, you need to know he doesnt have pocket queens or tens imo, and tbh apart from when DN said Patrick told him he thought the 5s were good that was how i read the situation i think to make the call the call there you either need to have Queens full and know that Phil folded a 10, or have Quads

[@marieleelee]

So happy you explained this as simply as possible. Even someone with basic poker knowledge I think could have followed this. Great video

[@22noobtube]

your facial expression later on in the episode when you heard that Patrick had 55 said it all

[@gregmajewski3406]

Anyone got a time stamp of when this happens in the full episode?

[@22noobtube]

@@gregmajewski3406 it starts at 25 minute mark after Dwan tells everybody off camera that Patrick had 55 and Daniel looks kind of bewildered, and they continue discussing it Daniel says I didn’t think you’d raise with 5’s and Antonius says it was the only way he could win the hand.

[@drewtheboy8341]

@@22noobtube seems to me he bluffed with pocket fives

[@damonthomas2975]

Everyone please like this comment so hopefully Daniel will see it and eventually address it on one of his videos... first of all Daniel does such a good job of analysis. I want to point out the part where talks about Patrick and Tom playing lower level people a lot of the times so they end up making sub optimal plays. The reason I want to go back to that is because I'm finding this to be the hardest thing about poker is figuring out what level players are at. Look I play online cash games on Bovada and I take in pretty good money there because the play often times is pretty sub optimal as he describes. Then when I play some home games with people that are amateurs where the play is even worse and sometimes even just downright bad I have an oddly harder time succeeding at first because I'm used to playing a different level of play. Eventually my play adjusts and I can start reading people but I would love him to talk about how in the hell you manage that in something like the WSOP main event where you will have amateurs, sub optimal players, pros, and every other kind of player. How do you figure out the level of each opponent you are playing? Do you just have to converse, study, and read their game throughout? Or do you just go in with the intention of always playing the best smartest poker you can? I assume either has perks and downfalls but I would love him to say how he approaches it and why and kinda give us all his take on that.

[@smurphas6119]

one thing i’ve always noticed about daniel that i thinks his specialty is his ability to adjust to players levels and play styles, i thjnk he thinks about this a lot and has mentioned it many times

[@pierrearr]

Bad players will keep making such huge mistakes that you'll automatically be a big winner in the long run if your play is solid. It doesn't matter if you feel like someone is tough to put on a range in some spots. Math will make sure that they will lose anyway.

[@durden1621]

I agree with your play 100 percent Daniel !!!I thought to myself when I first saw this hand play out “I would have folded too and this is why I typically lose”… and then I watched your video and you explained how more recreational players play differently or “worse players” … so now I’m left spinning … how can I play in these more recreational games and win??? I never know what they’re actually thinking if at all 😩 I’ve read all your books Daniel. Respect the hell out of you.

[@_PINN_]

Daniel I was in pain when I watched you fold but when I thought about it I reached the same conclusion. It makes no sense for him to have 5s there. He's only raising with a better hand or a 10 turned into a bluff. The only question is does he have enough 10s into a bluff for a 3 to one to be profitable. Love your game Daniel keep playing the way you do!

[@gesus.christ99]

i don't understand why Antonius is shoving 55 here against a non fish

[@justinenglish9738]

This is the best 30-minute poker content I’ve ever seen and probably will have in years. So much to learn on so many levels. So nuanced, methodical, and robotic. Why hasn’t poker been introduced to the school curriculum? Kids will learn so much.

[@voe8]

Because life is not anime

[@oliverklaushoff9636]

I have one sort of question with this analysis, you correctly pegged Ivey on the ten but then fold to Patrick when quads was one of the only hands that beat yours so shouldn't Ivey staying in the pot eliminate quads from Patrick's range?

[@matts2844]

He assumed Patrick had Q 10

[@effortlessawareness8778]

And proceeded to emphasise thatAntonius made a mistake, because antonius should know what Daniel has in this spot because Daniel announced his frequencies and what he could have and how he plays and therefore Patrick should adhere to play NLHE like he’s playing OMAHA where he should only raise QT or have quads to raise otherwise it’s a huge error. But if your a good player like negreanu you should know. Don’t get me wrong love dnegs if he trusted his common sense here he would’ve called, when you become too dependent on GTO to make optimal decisions then it can affect your general read and feel of the game, dnegs was super intuitive before

[@justinnickelson9216]

@@effortlessawareness8778 your a donkey buddy. If you think it’s a clear call. You are losing long term big time

[@meltedsnowman9637]

@@effortlessawareness8778 Not really because against good players, Daniel is losing most of the time there. Poker is determined by what decisions make you money in the long run, not what just happened to make you money at a particular point in the short term. I think there’s more of an argument for checking the river than calling here.

[@martianfacts]

This was a really interesting hand, I think you did the right move first of all, I first thought Patrik turned his 5s into bluff, But after the hand I realised this bizarre situation led him to win since he thought he has the winning hand here and Phil folded a 10 already! And you didn’t have 10, If you had 9-10 suited the outcome would be different 😅

[@ratemyshins]

Never factored in the fact that Patrick always overplays or is stubborn with anything above trips and doesn’t like folding. Surely from playing with him for like 20 years you would’ve factored that in? Also with Phil folding a 10 it leaves the hands you lose to incredibly unlikely to be in his holding. For me it’s the worst Negreanu fold I’ve seen but he’s still one of the greatest ever and it’s a great hand breakdown.

[@YTSparty]

Antonio made a great move. Like you said, Q-10 suited is a possible hand. It's funny I was thinking "what if Antonio went all in, Daniel, what would you do?". And he went all in. Whenever I see a pair on the board that I don't set, my heart sinks.

[@barbrothers2]

Found the results oriented fish. It's not a great move, Daniel literally spent the entire video explaining why it was a horrible play, and I still have to see dumb af comments like this from idiots who don't understand poker.

[@thorsfist5929]

@@barbrothers2 the issue isn’t long term is it bad or not cause most time it is cause Patrick doesn’t beat much with how Daniel played it. But we are talking about this one hand in particular and the only way Patrick wins that hand is with how he played it by getting Daniel to overthink the situation and fold. No one is gonna have Q10 there and Daniel said it himself that one of them has a 10 and the other has 55. Daniel talked himself into trying to make a hero fold and it ended up being a bad fold, end of story. He has too strong of a hand and not enough hands have him beat to make that fold at 3-1

[@zekor2k23]

@@barbrothers2 Folding 99 against Antonius getting 2:1... it`s even worse than his raise. Soooo if Antonius would do that on purpose Negreanu would be easy to exploit in 3-way pots because he would only call the nuts. Understanding poker...

[@barbrothers2]

@@zekor2k23 antonius isn't exploiting anyone honestly he sucks at this point, he hasn't kept up with studying. daniel over estimated his ability due to antonius's old rep. Ant didn't do this on purpose, he foolishly thought he had the best hand even though he WILL NEVER get called by worse if daniel is folding 9s full to the raise, then obviously 5s full is never getting called by worse. So Antonio's play is bad, anyone who says its good is a results oriented fish that has no understanding of the game. He wasn't bluffing with a full house lmao he just doesn't understand the game and thought he could somehow get called by worse. Studied players like daniel will sometimes make mistakes against unstudied players; no good player is ever xj 5s full otr.

[@barbrothers2]

@@zekor2k23 antonius isn't exploiting anyone honestly he's bad by today's standards. he hasn't kept up with studying. daniel over estimated his ability due to antonius's old rep. Ant didn't do this on purpose, he foolishly thought he had the best hand even though he WILL NEVER get called by worse if daniel is folding 9s full to the raise, then obviously 5s full is never getting called by worse. So Antonio's play is bad, anyone who says otherwise is a results oriented fish with no understanding of the game. He wasn't bluffing with a full house lmao, he didn't make some sick play to exploit daniel hahahaha he just simply doesn't understand the game and thought he could somehow get called by worse. Studied players like daniel will sometimes make mistakes against unstudied players; no good player is ever xj 5s full otr.

[@barkeshet8803]

Thank you so much for sharing your thought process! Saw the hand a few days ago and have been eagerly waiting for your breakdown Looking forward to seeing more great videos 😊

[@alsor92]

Considering you’re playing against some of the best players there are it is definitely just a call for Patrick in that spot. I guess the thing to take away is to adjust the strategy when we find out they’re not playing on the highest level anymore.

[@bentonja668]

Patrik won the pot without a showdown

[@John-od7ps]

Patrick played it right, based on the info he had. Here are my reasons why: 1. No reraise preflop by Daniel, so hard for Patrick to put Daniel on 99. To gather info Daniel would normally reraise with 99 preflop to see where he is at. 2. On the flop, both Ivey and Patrick check and Daniel bet half pot, and both Ivey and he called. By both Ivey and him checking, Patrick has limited info once again. However, he is thinking both Ivey and Daniel have a 10. Maybe one of them has 910. So, that's what he is worried about. 3. On the turn, again both Ivey and Patrick check. Daniel bets big with full pot. If Daniel has 910 would he bet full put and drive a JQ out? Daniel thinks they both have a 10, but Patrick is thinking Daniel and Ivey have a 10. I think at this point he is more worried about Ivey having the 910, because Ivey just calls the big bet on the turn. Also, with Daniel betting big on the turn, when he should know that at least one of them has a 10, he has to put Daniel on A10, and not Q10, cause Daniel would be worried about betting so big with Q10, when he had two callers on the flop. So, he puts Daniel on A10, and Ivey on a 10, but possible 910. 4. Again, limited info on the river for Patrick. Both he and Ivey check and Daniel bets half pot. He knows Daniel knows that if one of them has a full house they would have bet so that the ten would call (but of course Patrick did not). When Ivey folds, Patrick is sure Daniel has A10, and with so much money in the pot he would call for $125k more. He isn't worried about the Q, for the reason I mentioned in 3. He cannot put Daniel on 99 for reason I mentioned in 1, and doesn't put Daniel on 910 for the reason I mentioned in 2. Patrick made the right move with the limited info he had. Daniel assumed Patrick had more info, but with the betting pattern Patrick had every reason to put Daniel on A10.

[@ChristopherFlynn-bz3ys]

Crazy hand. You and Phil played it as gods of the game. Patrick really overplayed the 55. Thank you for making me see this truth.

[@arrowheadzzz]

At 15:00 he says he was getting about two to one with Patrik's all-in. I do not get it. The pot with Patrik's all-in was 311,500 and Daniel needed to put in another 99,000 to call. Am I crazy or is this not more than 3:1? 3.15:1 to be exact... So Daniel needs to win less than one in four times. I guess needing to win this at least once in three times might make it a fold, but getting better than 3:1 odds... This does not seem like a good fold. Did Daniel just miscalculate the odds? And even after doing more hours of analysis as he would like to admit, by his own words, he still is not getting the odds right? Ok, so he does correct himself at about 20:10, saying he was getting 3:1, but still, there is something wonky about his thought process there. It is almost as if Daniel realised for the first time at that point on camera that, "holy sh*t, I was getting more than 3:1 rather than 2:1". Then he talks in length why Patrik's all-in raise was not a good play, how he made a mistake, and how Patrik never has a bluff there with 55. I am not buying it at face value. Yes, it seems a strange bluff play, but I cannot rule it out. Maybe I am giving Patrik more credit than he is due, but I am more willing to think he just pulled off a masterful bluff, rather than he was just punting off all his stack stupidly. Although, Daniel claims later in the video that Patrik had told that he thought he had the best hand with 55. Which is odd in itself. Lowest possible full house on that board against 2 players and you think your hand is best? I would like to see a more thorough analysis about Patrik's play with a real insight of why he might have done this as a bluff. Maybe he discarded a bunch of Tx hands Daniel could have been holding, based on the sense that Phil probably folded a T (so Daniel could not have too many Tx hands for a full house). Maybe he also deduced that Daniel would not have played QT in such fashion (at least not too frequently), etc. So he actually believed that Daniel's most likely hand WAS 99 and as Daniel left enough equity for Patrik to shove, he expected Daniel to do this kind of hero-fold exactly because Daniel thinks that Patrik "cannot have" bluffs at that spot. If Daniel had bet more like 2/3 of the pot, rather than 1/2, it would have been much more difficult for Patrik to pull off this bluff, because Daniel would have received too good odds to fold 99. But with 3.15:1, the all-in was strong enough (especially if Daniel mistakenly thought he was getting 2:1). Call me crazy, but this seems like a more believable scenario, rather than Patrik just doing a stupid all-in with a marginal hand (although he did reportedly tell Daniel something like he is used to playing against bad players, suggesting that he understands he should not have played it that way against Daniel). So, Patrik's play might not have been the best from GTO perspective, but it is possible that he was actually doing an exploit exactly against Daniel (maybe even somewhat subconsciously). I am not saying this is the case, but maybe (MAYBE!) Daniel's game has become, or at least was in that hand, a bit too predictable. So Patrik took advantage of that, knowing that Daniel is able to talk himself out of calling with middling full house. I don't know. I truly respect how Daniel has turned his game around after the duel with Doug, incorporating a lot of GTO stuff to his play and everything. And I very much enjoy and am looking forward to watching his analysis videos. But this particular hand and analysis seems lacking. It would be great to get a second and third opinion from other players/analysts who do not sugarcoat their opinion. I am sure there will be lots of those analysis coming in soon :-)

[@JeffAtkins]

I would love to hear Patrick’s analysis of this hand and his play

[@simmupilli5513]

His Finnish analysis: "I had a full house, I went allin"

[@bjoernfischer]

it was a really donky play from patrick to be honest. i have no idea what he was thinking

[@janneleppanen9387]

@@bjoernfischer yea donky all time biggest winner online by patrik

[@accelerate08]

He 'could' think Daniel has KJ of clubs

[@donthedonkeykong9008]

Patrick shoved as a bluff. He’s just that good.

[@CashCody]

Thanks for the video Daniel good to see ya still killin the game!

[@Anonymous-ej2qn]

Patrick outplayed Daniel on this hand. Patrick made the only play that he could to win the pot, and he did and won. He convinced Daniel that he had better cards, that's all that matters. Daniel's thinking process proves how ingenious this play by Patrick was. But what an amazing video and breakdown, thank you Daniel. You are up there with Ivey as one of the GOATs.

[@brapbrapbrapo]

Also, by having Patrick make a bad raise there just adds an incredible complexity to that game you have to factor in!

[@owenkellogg3130]

Yes. What's the math for calculating your opponent's error proneness?

[@bryanlude3971]

Love hearing the breakdown of what was going on in your mind in the moment. Whether you win the hand or not....its fascinating to hear the analysis! Thx so much Daniel!

[@Myrt94]

Hey Negs.. What if Patrick went through all the same thought process as you, came to the conclusion you had pocket 99's and decided to turn his 55's into a bluff knowing you'd fold the 99? Would be a masterful bluff..

[@whitecastle3032]

This is what I was thinking..but after watching this I'm not so sure..maybe just a bad play by Patrick but doesn't matter cause he scooped the pot.. I think sometimes these guys just over analyze hands. Big hands are hard to make and you just have to go with it sometimes

[@infamous7593]

Daniels said that Patrick thought he had the best hand

[@zone-kx5zg]

would be huge brain but that would be some sick shit

[@alexbentley486]

@@whitecastle3032 Daniel made the bad play

[@tomprice4016]

A phenomenal breakdown. Much obliged, DNegs.

[@masenmitchell2880]

I think everyone played this hand equally as bad. Him jamming bottom boat and you folding instead of calling when you can only put him on 10, Q which is insanely unlikely in that spot. But in hindsight everything is 20/20 so cheers mate.

[@dnegspoker]

No. QT is the MOST likely. Not unlikely, but by a country mile the most likely hand he will have when he check raises the river all in.

[@IceMoonie]

I always have thought that Patrick ran that as a bluff and knew Daniel was wise enough to lay it down. I think any lesser player than Daniel and Patrick just calls there. But that's just my opinion! These guys are good.

[@Mitjitsu]

But Daniel has shown tremendous strength throughout the hand. Good players rarely attack strength without having a hand that beats most of your value range.

[@slf5895]

The funny thing is Patrick played it completely wrong , but it turned out to be good for him. As for Daniel it was a very good lay down . 100%

[@myrddinwyllt3383]

Can't wait for WSOP. I hope you live stream a lot! I just had surgery and I'll be stuck inside for awhile.

[@TheBgulya]

He'll be doing it daily!

[@qwertyuiop3656]

Before I knew the outcome of the hand, when you said if he jams I will fold 99s here. I was thinking I don't think you should. Out loud I said I'm personally not good enough to fold 99s here. 55s for sure, but I was trying to think if I could or if I should fold 99s. I came to the conclusion in this exact spot you can't bet fold HP size for only that much left behind in your stack. Maybe I'm wrong long term, but HP makes it look like your value betting a 10 or straight (if you happen to have one rarely). Also, he should be bluffing with J10, K10 or A10 a small percentage of time (at least) if he's a really good player, so 99s I think has to be a call given all the info

[@chadwellington2524]

see that would make sense if negreanu hadnt bet pot size on turn, hes not doing that with king jack gut shot draw.

[@sevendst19]

One thing I remember Doug Polk say is that "sometimes you just get stacked", it's poker, it happens. Obviously cash games are a different animal than a tournament and there is 0 room for error because once your money is gone, it's gone, the opponent can just get up and walk away.

[@RickAnderson1]

Polk is right and he would snap call the shove.

[@sevendst19]

@@RickAnderson1 yeah he would. I get Negreanus thought process and I agree it was a dumb play from Antonius, he definitely should have been in call mode. But I think you beat too much to fold. The only thing I can figure is that Antonius put Daniel on a str8 but Daniel would never bet a str8 there, it's possible for Daniel to bluff but he's never calling a raise with a bluff anyway

[@topshelf1055]

@@sevendst19 That wasn't a dumb play from Antonius. In that situation it was either fold or all in. There is no call in that situation. The game is easy to play in hindsight, but when you are live on the felt, 100% different. I think Antonius made a reasonable play, and it worked out for him better than he even thought.

[@sevendst19]

@@topshelf1055 it shouldn't have worked out though. Negreanu should have stacked him and 99% of other players would have, it was a clear call spot

[@johnsheridan8241]

Sound logic here from Daniel. It highlights the real difference between high and low stakes. No way 99's get folded here at low stakes getting 3-1 on the river. That said, I am left wondering about Dan's timing in the tank and particularly his comment "I don't want to waste you guys time". He had already invested 80k + in the pot, so entitled to take as long as he wants.

[@bryanchaler8128]

Shocking that you miss the fact Patrick knows Ivey had a 10 so he may overplay some hands thinking you are likely not full.

[@RangeWilson]

DN forgot that Patrick's image of HIM is that he's a calling station. So raising bottom boat for value in Patrick's shoes looks like a good move. Which means DN should call.

[@fbruvik]

Even if it is true that Antonius should raise with 5-5, he would also raise with 5-10, 9-10, 10-10, 10-Q and QQ, So Daniel should still fold.

[@givepaddytheemmy4535]

Patrick is only raising the river with AT LEAST a full house. There’s way more combos of full houses that Daniel loses to than he wins against. Folding was the correct move in the long run

[@flyingpaschi9836]

DN betted them twice though, Patrick was the one calling, not Daniel. With the argument you brought up, Patrick should be even more concerned that Daniel beats him and thus not shove on the river, becuase he should rather expect Daniel to have something good.

[@dnegspoker]

I didn't forget that at all. It's how I can eliminate bluffs like JT or T8 from his range so I'm up against QT, T9o, or 3 combos of 55

[@honeriley]

@@dnegspoker First I want to acknowledge you've proven yourself one of the best ever over many formats. My opinion is that Patrick expects better fullhouses to be betting near pot on the river and the half-pot river bet incorrectly gave him confidence that you didn't have a fullhouse in this spot. Patrick's play is not just about this one hand. Patrick plays a lot of heads up cash and he decided long ago that if he wants players to think he's overbluffing rivers and to start calling him down overly light, then whenever he's near certain he has the best hand with these stack sizes, rather than just calling, it makes sense to c/r shove near nutted hands (i.e. not just the nuts)... so after it's happened the second or third time they'll eventually think he's bluffing some of the time and call him down light.

[@yatinkheti2427]

I know Daniel you keep saying that "he wouldn't do that with A10 or 55 cause I wouldn't fold"...but you clearly folded so that definitely entered Patrick's mind

[@chadwellington2524]

no it didnt, antonius said that but he was lying. Antonius didnt raise to bluff negreanu off 99 lol he was value raising .. to get called by what? ace ten only? bad play by antonius unlucky for daniel

[@BiomedicalDesigns]

that was an amazing lay down by Phil.

[@Beefer42]

Not really. Like Daniel said, he’s out of position and doesn’t beat the weakest straight or A10.

[@ArcaneTricksterRS]

Not really. With the amount of strength that both of the other two players are showing, he is most likely beat by at least one of them. With that board, the only other hands you might be beating is some sort of busted open-ended draw or an unlikely Q10 or J10, which again is unlikely because you are blocking those hands. Now, if it were only 2 people in the pot (Patrik not being in it for example), you could make an argument that Daniel could potentially try to steal with a worse hand, but in a 3-way, you cannot really do that.

[@piratesfan1995able]

He only beats JT

[@alexanderscottrell8627]

Like others have said , pretty easy lay down. He is beaten by quite a lot .

[@justinguiboche7062]

Not an amazing lay down by Negreanu tho. 😮

[@ΔημητρηςΑλεξιου-ι1ξ]

Here is what im thinking (sorry for bad english) Patricks bluffs or semi bluffs - 10 j, 10 8(not opening from early position), 10 k, Q J of clubs (probably continuing to the turn pot bet). Patricks calling hands - K J of clubs, A 10, 55s(which he would probably raise the turn). Patricks value hands (which he would raise) - 10s, QQs, Q 10. I think that your fold is tight but its really close. That was a really nice hand for an amateur like me, Thank you!

[@DeluviumOfficial]

I think the reason for the jam was he DIDNT think Ivey had a 10. I think he forgot Ivey is goated and was capable of that

[@emwfirst]

I feel like I missed something, why couldn’t Patrick have been turning 5s into a bluff? Is it because Daniel’s value range usually has a ten which would block Patrick having a value hand? Okay I think a I’ve talked myself through this now.

[@pushypushpoker183]

Daniels argument for why 55 is a bad bluff is because his turn pot bet polarizes very strongly and he only continues on the river with the better part of his value range and 55 can't shove and expect 99 to fold. Basically, the thinks it's in the area between. This kind of makes sense, except it's only true if Daniel actually does call with 99. I don't understand how we can say 99 always calls so 55 is a bad bluff so he has to have QT so let's fold 99.

[@disappointedoptimist255]

@@pushypushpoker183 Cause he's assuming Patrick wasn't on that level of meta-play, and he wasn't. If he'd made the calculation that he was up against 9s and all-in would look stupid with 5s and imply Q10 then yeah, he would have outplayed him. He didn't, he just miscalculated and thought he had the best hand.

[@leonli4527]

I’ve always loved Negreanu. For a period of time I regarded him as the Kobe Bryant in 2013, hoping him could re-emerge as one of the best players and refusing to acknowledge the fact he’s washed up. But now, looking at this, I’m absolutely in owe and touched, the humble GOAT.

[@brandonhammond3413]

Don’t get the Kobe analogy, but respect.

[@marvincotton1919]

14:44 VERY IMPRESSIVE read by Dwan. He knew Daniel folded nines full! 💯

[@gwat34]

Daniel talked about this at the end. He knew because he walked backstage and saw the hand in real time.

[@DavidL1986]

@@gwat34 suprised with everything like Mike postle that’s allowed

[@jtotheg2887]

the read was because daniel said "quad tens"? after getting shoved on

[@jeffreyclaburn2898]

I agree with your analysis Daniel. Except for one thing to consider: Do you have to call with some hand some of the time in order to beat pure bluffs (32), misplays by your opponent (no matter how good they are), prop bets (to run a giant bluff on the show with Tom Dwan, say), card misreads (Patric thinking he has the T9 when he actually has the T6), cheating against you (that is knowing your exact hand in any way and realizing you can be bluffed), tilt that is not evident (say learning by text that someone died so the tilt is unrelated to the game play). I would have called, perhaps incorrectly, figuring I was beat, based on the analysis that I call for value with TT, QT, QQ and thin value with T9. 99 is the next next hand. Since there weren’t full pot bets on the flop or river or any raises, I would call with 99 to cover all the situations in the world other than what Patrick should have, because you do block T9 and 99.

[@brennaballen9783]

I can't quite put it into play at this level (yet!!) but I learn so much theory from watching these videos, even when they are two years old. Thank you for putting out these videos Daniel. Greatly appreciated!!

[@flyers1711]

I don’t think i can fold getting 3-1 when I lose to exactly 2 combos Q10ss and 1010 especially when we’re weighting Phil heavily towards his hand containing a 10 in it amazing hand I think I would just pay it off with the 99 in this exact spot

[@andrewfavorov4579]

Yeah, Daniel wasn't talking about 3-1 much....u go to hate it but call it

[@californiaplant-basedeater2761]

It's 10 10, 10 Q x 3, and 10 9. So 5 combos. Tough to fold though either way. A10 is somewhat realistic and 55 as well.

[@ozrenbalic6051]

Ignoring what Phil had there is only one possible combo of QTs.

[@californiaplant-basedeater2761]

@truely I got a little mixed up in my reply and just deleted it. I think I've changed my mind in that no, Patrik indeed cannot value raise A10 like you say. Daniel has too many bluffs which wouldn't even beat an overpair in the first place. Then it's like a 50/50 split between a worse ten and a bigger full house. All in all, maybe 33% bluff, 33% worse ten, 33% bigger full house that theoretically shouldn't fold to a raise even though Daniel did. Maybe Daniel calls half the time with a worse 10, so the overall EV of a raise looks fairly 50/50 and worthless. Maybe one in ten times a raise is in order if Pateik has a perfect read.

[@paulc4914]

Daniel, your logic behind the fold does make sense. Not denying that. At the same time, getting 3 to 1 where the only way you lose requires someone to have 4 of a kind or exactly Q10 was worth the gamble.

[@jimmydane34]

Yea. I just dont get the fold. If u get coolerd..you get coolerd. But 9's full. No way.

[@2-3-B]

yep. "oh danny boy!" he overvalued patrick antonius' hand strength that it would defy the odds & ranges.

[@generyan4043]

15:00 it was $100k to win over $300k so he was actually getting 3 to 1

[@aroonsarin8303]

Daniel is wrong. Here's why: Patrick knew Ivey had 10. Patrick can't fold, either raise or call. So Daniel either have A-10 or 99 most likely, not 10-Q, and never 10-10. A raise will be value against A-10, and a solid bluff against 9-9. Meaning, the play was spot on. And Patrick is good enough to actually think about it since there is small range of hands both of them could have there. He would lose against 10-Q but daniel is unlikely to have this hand (after polarizing turn bet). Therefore, unlike what Daniel said if thought this way, Patrick didn't have a bad play, just very advanced... just like Patrick.

[@EricAboussouan]

Thanks for your great analysis. I think I'm missing something. Even considering Ivey had a ten, the hands that beat you are QTx3, QQx3, 9Tx1 and the ones that don't are 55x3, ATx4 (maybe even KTx4). so you get at least 9/16 probability of winning at show down with 2:1 pot odds. I understand that you expect him to have a polarized range and he knows you don't have 55 or Tx but is my thinking correct otherwise?

[@sunkhirous]

Daniel proved to himself that was impossible for Patrick to bluff !!! Patrick was thinking the same thing Daniel was telling himself .

[@brdthnyou]

Exactly that’s called leveling

[@Urumbak]

Except Daniel said here that Patrik admitted afterwards he thought he had the best hand there.

[@sirnitsalot]

The analysis all makes sense except I think it leaves out room for uncertainty around a players range. I'm not sure how much this moves the needle on whether its a call or fold in this hand. But we can't ever have exact knowledge of a player's range and should leave at least some room for them taking an action with a hand we don't expect. For example, we can say Patrick may XR 55 as much as 10% of the time he has it. In the same vein, he may still sometimes call turn with overpairs even if he shouldn't. So maybe there is a 5% chance he overcalls turn with JJ-AA. I'm just throwing out numbers, but even quite good players make these types of mistakes some of the time.

[@authenticambience4765]

daniel is just afraid of quads in high stakes poker ever since the gus hansen hand.

[@dkbk]

I hear what you’re saying but doing the whole “Patrick should have known better” seems like you might not know Patrick the person or the player as well as you think you do. If your adjustment is “Patrick shouldn’t have overplayed his hand” then I’m not sure there was anything learned here. If you were completely oblivious that Patrick is capable of shoving there 5’s for value, then how sure are you that Patrick wouldn’t jam there as a bluff with A10 or K10? You are losing to exactly one hand of 10/10(which you rightfully discounted because of Ivey’s play) and one hand of Q/10 of spades, (0 possible 10/9 suited combos). Which means, if you broke down the hand in real time, you are losing to exactly 1 hand - Q10 of spades because it becomes virtually impossible for Antonius to show up with any other hand that beats you(based on the action pre and post and the players at hand). If you think it’s impossible that Antonius is turning A10 or K10 into a bluff there or jamming 3 combos of 55s for value, then it appears to me, that you’re hard capped in your comfort zone, which will allow smart, high level players to exploit you by doing exactly this - pushing you off almost very top of your range using blockers and your own rigid comfort zone of (Hes a great player and he knows with the action being what it was, I wouldn’t bet here without an insanely strong range). I’m all for making Correct Decision regardless of other factors, but to me, with the info that you had available at the time, this was a bad and very exploitable Fold in the future.

[@tonynussbaum]

If you don't have any bluffs in your river bet range does that mean you made a mistake earlier in the hand? Did Dneg get leveled or did he level himself?

[@su0tin731]

From playing some videogames, I can say that sometimes, playing in the highest level, using a bad strategy that is only used effectively against noobs/worse players, is actually valid, because some of those strategies are not considered when laying out the game plan. I've seen it happen (and done it) all the time. Thing is, if these strategies become somewhat popular, they get terrible quick again.

[@DollarDude]

I never thought I'd see a hand where someone making an incorrect laydown shows that they are an amazing player, but here we are

[@bryankarst3881]

Thank you!! According to Daniel he has never made a bad decision on the felt! Damn, show humility every once in a while. Meanwhile these amateurs eat it up with a spoon! Oh wise one tell me how losing 100K is brilliant..!

[@tadthegoat3043]

@@bryankarst3881 Not sure where u heard Daniel say he’s never made a bad decision - I bet he regrets some of his choices - but I’m not here to suck his dick. Like Daniel says value raising pocket 5s is kinda crazy. Unless you think Daniel is value betting a 10 into 2 players after betting pot turn and getting 2 callers is kinda crazy. Do you think Daniel would bet A10 or K10 on this river?

[@sam_marley]

Bryan Karst I’m sure if you asked Daniel to highlight a bad decision he’s made at the table he could give you hundreds. Does everything he said in this video not make sense to you?

[@ThePodgeiscool]

Welcome to poker Dollar Dude

[@bryankarst3881]

@@sam_marley It does make sense....now. But its easy to Monday morning Quarterback. It seems to me like he is justifying a bad move. I am pretty sure he did not have this whole complete analysis at the table...he folded in like 20-30 seconds, yet gave a 22 minute analysis of why....and Patrick was not bluffing there, he bet for value because he thought he had to have the best hand. I would love to see Patrick's face when he heard/watched what Daniel folded

[@jeromepowell1392]

If Daniel think ivey folds a 10 at high frequency there (reasonable), that eliminated quads and the only hand Patrik beats him with is Q10ss. Ruling out a turn c/c with qq from Antonius is important for Negreanu's decision

[@daveburrow25]

And the last 910

[@kevinnoel4647]

yes, so he should have called...

[@Drawfornoone]

you guys keep this bs guessing stuff up it's ridiculous

[@Drawfornoone]

@@kevinnoel4647 yep was a bad fold

[@canadiandave249]

I love when even the top players in the world try to justify their bad play

[@billybobthortenn4157]

Daniel is the only player alive who could outthink themselves into folding that

[@rvoykin]

Ivey Laying down Top Set is INSANE - that’s so far on another level

[@amritzelnick]

The only option you don't cover is, what if Patrick put you 99 and figured that that his only chance was to rep q10, that you would come to the assumption which you did, and fold half the time, thus making it a mathematically good play. Either way I feel for you and thank you for the great breakdown!

[@WalterLiddy]

Having spoken with Patrick, he knows he was not bluffing. Also, he did explain this. As mentioned, Patrick should have considered that Daniel was unlikely to fold regardless. What you're saying is basically that Patrick may have done the wrong thing on purpose to throw Daniel off his game (rather a long shot), and we know this is not the case.

[@Antonocon]

Look at Phil's actions at 11:10. He's touching the chips and seeing Daniel's reaction. Genius level assessment of Daniel's body language and facial expressions. He's reading him like a book. That action was completely, completely planned. Can tell Daniel is totally unflustered by his potential to bet. Not even a hint of anxiety. Even though Daniel is extremely good at hiding his emotions, Phil can read people like a book. I don't even play Poker too much, I'm just very interested in Psychology and this hand feels like a Psychological Monet painting. I'm back to looking at it after 6 months. I understand a lot more Poker in this time but love to look at how they read people. I did high level Sales for years also before leaving that career. I only play poker at Christmas with family and friends. Love these clips.

[@roadrunner4800]

Here is what I think Patrick was thinking 1. Phil tanked on the river, really looks like Ivey has Tx, so that lowers the chance of Daniel having T9 or TQ 2. Daniel could bet/call a straight here (J8/JK), not sure how familiar Patrick is with Daniel's game these days, but Daniel used to call too much in earlier seasons of HSP, in earlier seasons, I am fairly certain J8s and JKs are in his range following this line 3. Daniel didn't raise the flop, so 9s should be discounted in his range 4. Patrick probably thought Daniel would bet AT here most of the time and call a raise sometimes

[@effortlessawareness8778]

Exactly. Thing about Danny is he is telling us what he can have here assuming everyone thinks like him. If a poker player tells me he can only have Xx, xx, xx here in this spot, whatever or that he raises xx% of this time in this spot with xx or whatever, how could you call me here that it was a bad call-- can’t everyone right or wrong justify their play off these assumptions they make, I’m not going to believe what he says and then play a certain way against him. Why would I play into his game and believe him, why would he make the announcement to tell me.. I want to do everything to confuse him, not play how he thinks I should play against him and his range. Playing at a high level doesn’t mean you don’t go for thin value, or you make insane lay downs like this- higher levels doesn’t mean you’re more profitable player in poker, it’s all about adjusting to the players you play against getting a feel of table and the rhythm of the game. Dnegs is playing holdem like you should be playing Omaha, too overly cautious which is higher level play, its being too afraid of monsters in the closet and making ridiculous lay downs in spots that will never come up in the same way again , making an assumption that they will in the long run. Thisspot was so juicy for dnegs, is he going to get the same spot anytime soon? Yeah you never know he could butdamn what a juicy spot to pass up for value and be on the good side.

[@seanmurphy2278]

Question: On the flop you say you might raise with 67c but why specifically clubs?. Why would you not do it with the other two back door flush draws etc 67h. What makes clubs so special here?

[@kelseyanderson121]

Genuine question for you Daniel, you mentioned wanting to see a small card on the river. Obviously the Q wad a scare card so why not just check it down?

[@dangall48]

I totally get the logic but isn't part of the game doing things that are not what your opponent deems 'the ordinary' or 'what you should do'? So maybe Patrick's move was genius!

[@chadwellington2524]

you think he attempted to bluff daniel of 99? no way

[@Bonzosbadgeholder]

The question that needs to be answered is if you thought Patrick can't have 55 and you thought Phil was folding if he had a naked T or AT then why did you bet the river? What hands did you think were calling you that weren't beating you?

[@sickasgus]

Patrick can't have 55 only when he raises all in. He should call when he has 55.

[@Yo_AB_Breaks]

Hands like these are why I'm sometimes happy being way dumber than Daniel. When Patrick pushes, my only response would be, "Well f@ck. If you got it, you got it. Call."

[@davidg9036]

Honestly I thought the same as Daniel. Why would you raise w/ 55's Full on the river esp. how the hand played out. Patrick's bad play ended up benefitting him.

[@MikePhoenix007]

If Daniel hadn't pointed it out I would've never figured out that Patrick never has T9 here. But once he pointed it out it makes so much sense. Daniel has the 9 of spades, and the 9/10 of the other suits are on the board. And of course Patrick's not gonna raise UTG with T9 off! So cool to learn how to analyse! No wonder Daniel's been dominating the game for decades.

[@sodapoprc]

I didn't agree with the fold until you broke it down and explained it. High level of thinking, thanks for the explanation, made a lot of sense to me.

[@moeduh]

it's really pretty trivial, i think most winning high stakes players would have folded... Patrick played his hand poorly, check shoved the river with the absolute WORST full house possible. he thought he was getting Max value from AT type hand, without realizing what he was doing. Daniel has second worst boat and if Patrick isn't totally going insane, which given his line is nearly impossible, he can't beat anything. i do think Patrick would call the turn with QQ sometimes as he's quite sticky. this is a very very very rare scenario in which someone overplays their hand and the opponent folds a winning boat.

[@jamesflaherty59]

@@moeduh Correct, Patrick is very lucky he didn't get stacked here and lose more then he should

[@thorsfist5929]

@@jamesflaherty59 he’s definitely lucky DN over thought his hand and thought more highly of him as a poker player 😆

[@CrouchingGrandpa]

I feel like this is the perfect example of GTO era vs pre GTO. Patrick's play works against people who don't understand GTO. Also if you put Phil on a 10 100% of the time it changes things a lot.

[@Mileena420]

Patrick doesn't understand GTO. That's why he value jams 55 there.

[@AlluckyTV]

I think you got that backwards

[@danmartin9086]

Patrick's play worked on DN, because DN over thought the hand, Patrick did not. Simple really

[@Mileena420]

@@danmartin9086 ur exactly right, they both have get it in hands. Trust and believe there wasn’t a thought in Patrick’s minds about GTO or solvers or any of thay nonsense that led Daniel to fold.

[@Mileena420]

Patrick Antoninus has never used a Solver in his entire life he doesn’t know the “right” play

[@golfaddict75]

Daniel underestimated Patrick’s ability to jam to win a big pot. GTO doesn’t teach that. I’ve seen him do it many times. Daniel was just overthinking him and caused him to fold the best hand.

[@philglover2585]

I love this video. So much to learn from one of the absolute greats. I'm stunned by the insights that were shared where players were checking out previous hands played on the video. Daniel, as a true gentleman in the game, highlighted it but appointed no blame. A great insight into a fascinating hand. Thanks for sharing.

[@johnchathas1957]

Daniel, Daniel, Daniel... you wouldn't had made this video if you thought you did right there. Love you regardless.