INSANE $310,000 Pot vs Phil Ivey and Patrick - HIGH STAKES POKER TAKES with Daniel Negreanu 10
We're back with another hand breakdown from the newest season of High Stakes Poker airing exclusively on PokerGO. This season we battle against Phil Ivey, Tom Dwan, Patrick Antonius, and Doyle Brunson. Here's my take on the hand everyone is talking about this week against Phil Ivey and Patrick Antonius.
0:00 Introduction
1:42 Preflop
2:53 Flop
5:14 Turn
10:16 River
13:20 Patrick Fold, Call, or Raise?
14:55 Reacting to Patrick
20:05 Fold or Call?
25:54 Just $100k More
28:45 Did I make the right decision?
Catch all the High Stakes Poker episodes at PokerGO and use promo code DANIEL2022 to get $20 an annual subscription: bit.ly/DANIEL2022
Check out my MasterClass: www.masterclass.com/classes/d...
Use PROMO CODE PN_DNEGS20 for 20% off your first purchase of Sakara Life’s Signature Nutrition Program and Wellness Essentials www.sakara.com
Use PROMO CODE KIDPOKER20 to get 20% off at www.contendersclothing.com
Check out my DAT Poker Podcast at podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast... and subscribe on iTunes.
Follow Me, Daniel Negreanu, Online Here:
linktr.ee/dnegspoker
/ realkidpoker
/
/
One of the most legendary hands ever on HSP!
I got on tilt, I didn’t even play this hand neither I know Daniel personally. Lol
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
pahahaha
I mean that's an almost good fold
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.
Tom Dwan immediately said, I think he folded 99's. What a beast!!
hes such a sick reader of the game is insane
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 .
becuse dainel asked if he got queds..
Yeah Dwan didn't even need to see the replay to know what Daniel had.
not a read he saw the hands in the trailer
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…
These moments of contemplation before Phil laid it down. He almost smirked. Made me LOL hard. This is why he is the coolest.
Ivey overrated ACTUALLY
@@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
If Ivey and Patrick would join for the commentary, that would be completely out of this world! Thanks for the vid.
Both are still laughing ........
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 ?
@@user-gx2yy1df6fThere's no way Patrick is turning 55 into a bluff there.
@@pierrearr so he thought he had it ? listen to dan say " Phil has a ten OBVIOUSLY , what hand was daniel afraid of ?
@@user-gx2yy1df6f 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.
After every one of these breakdowns, I feel my 'poker brain' opens up more every time. Such good analysis
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.
Totally agree love how he thinks
Yes i feel like i wanna start play again. I havent played for years.
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.
Patrick asked Tom right after Daniel folded..."what did he fold?" and Tom said 9's.....wow! Tom knew exactly what Daniel had!
This group at the table is a gem.
It's an absolute pleasure to watch your hand breakdowns Daniel. It is just as deep and helpful as it is entertaining.
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.
"Nen"
@@shivasirons6159 uhm what
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🤣😂
lol the Yankees are one of the worst teams in baseball..🪓
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!
Phil Ivey is such a good player. He took one look at Daniel and Patrick and just knew. And he was out.
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.
@@maliant16 Fr he just got up from the table and said "damn lemme get some snacks" XD
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
@@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.
He knew Patrick was going to take awhile so he was like "good time for snacks"
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 😊
You never see Phil have such a huge reaction as he does on the River. Made him think.
Thank you so much for this video. This has opened my mind to how great players like yourself think. I’ve learned that there is so much more I need to learn about poker. When I think I know a lot, I’m very quickly humbled. I love it. It keeps me learning about the game.
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.
Fish lol jk
If you haven't hit the tables you're not even a recreational player yet.
@@RoCkShaDoWWaLkEr So what?
@@garrydye2394 Renegade called themselves an amateur ;but hasn't ever played before. That's what. Seems pretty obvious....
@RoCk ShaDoW-WaLkEr lol, who cares?
So happy you explained this as simply as possible. Even someone with basic poker knowledge I think could have followed this. Great video
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.
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.
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 !"
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… 🙄
@@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.
And that's the problem, Daniel overthought this one
Which you shouldn't do when it's just $300, lol.
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
Lmao love it!!!
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
Nice thought process. Thank you so much for explaining how you think these hands.
Totally agree with you Daniel as when Tom told Patrick that you had 9s full he said “wow”. He obviously overplayed his hand.
He overplayed but i really think daniel needed to call this and just cant admit it XD
@@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.
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.
@@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.
@@GregoryZ75 Are you knew to Patrick? He is as capable of bluffing as Dwan, and probably more so.
Thanks for the video Daniel good to see ya still killin the game!
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.
very pertinent point
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
Patrik does check with the nuts. I have seen him do it alot.
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.
@@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
Thank you. This was incredibly informative n entertaining!!!
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 !
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
It’s a set not trips when two of your hole cards are the same
@@harryroberts2074 thanks for the correction. I’ve been calling them sets and trips interchangeably forever. You learn something new each day
@@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
One can see the level of mastery in a sports man. Not so with games like poker. Daniel's breakdown is absolutley mind blowing. I'm so glad I quit playing poker a few years ago.😜
Thank you for a great analysis from one of the greatest poker player. would be interesting if what you thaught in real time and after why Patrick checked the turn and how it can affect the hand... ?
A phenomenal breakdown. Much obliged, DNegs.
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!
😂
Daniel, would you unbury your upper lip. Don't look like yourself! Lynn Hatcher
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.
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
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.
your facial expression later on in the episode when you heard that Patrick had 55 said it all
Anyone got a time stamp of when this happens in the full episode?
@@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.
@@22noobtube seems to me he bluffed with pocket fives
Gabe on river : it's call call Ivey : fold "waaaw" Antonius : allin... "woooaaaw" Nice read Gabe 👍🏻😂
He used to be quite good at his predictions. Seems like hes lost his touch this season
Bunkers hand, Amazing play and definitely an absolutely beautiful thought process and statistics play! I love the explanation and the mathematical way you play the odds which should benefit you always in the long run, however your process is based on optimal play and sometimes players will take sub-optimal decisions and your own process will fail you. You seem to be aware of this "flaw" (the fact that the other is playing sub-optimal) to call it as such and be at peace with your decisions. Thanks for sharing your thought process on this hand!
Awesome insightful breakdown! Thank you, Daniel.
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
Straight would probably check back. He even considered checking back the 9s full.
How often do you think someone would make a pot sized bet on the turn with a draw into two players ?
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.
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.
@@panda4ever99 no potential quads, both knew ivey folded a 10.
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!
i don't understand why Antonius is shoving 55 here against a non fish
Incredibly enlightening, thank you Daniel
Love these videos. I could watch you play for days
It would be hilarious if Patrick figured out how you would read his raise and consequently figured his bluffing chances were much better.
That only makes sense if he knew he had the hand he had. Patrick isn't that good, no one is.
You simply don't bluff with boats
@@newtonheath92 That's certainly true for lesser players. Myself, I am capable of bluffing with anything.
That would be sick af
@@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
As long as you agree with me your on the right track!!! 😭😂 love it!
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.
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.
I enjoyed your breakdown, the variable could also be an instantaneous gut feeling to go all in, the poker muse that pops up every once in awhile and shocks the player into realizing that was the right play but not the way the player thought it would develope...ie, when you called the hand specifically against your opponent to hit a straight flush against his A high flush...
Can't wait for WSOP. I hope you live stream a lot! I just had surgery and I'll be stuck inside for awhile.
He'll be doing it daily!
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.
Whatever, some spots You just call and hope
@@sabinoharriague4754 ...if you're an amateur player.
@@sabinoharriague4754 bruh
@@sabinoharriague4754 you can't ever be a millionaire playing like that
@@bhardwajr01 that's why he's here watching and not playing
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
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.
Can we all get a thumbs up for that beard tho.
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.
@@CMCMTTTV so piss off
@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
thx for your in depth analysis Daniel I learnt something cheers
love these videos man, easy to say I would've done THIS or THAT when you've never played games outside your own city LOL awesome way of analyzing everything and well, Patrick can admit he got away with one there lulz
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 :-)
Great walkthrough of what all goes through a Great poker brain during a hand!!!
Hi Daniel, if you called, it would have been a sensational call... but that was an incredible fold. I think most people would have called through being unaware of the hand (potential quads, Queen 10s full House etc etc) and the threats a world class table can bring, but ironically this is the beautiful part of poker! Great analysis and cheers for taking the time to share. 👍🏾
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.
Because life is not anime
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.
Patrik won the pot without a showdown
Im not a pro but have played for 25 years and I watched it play out before watching this video and love your thoughts. I would have checked the river trying to trap but didn’t expect the jam. I too would have probably folded afterwards, but would have called the check/bet scenario. Always been a fan of your play brother! Head up!!
Your fold here with your explanation proves that u r truly the greatest poker player ever. RESPECT for that mind set.
Great video Daniel! I was wondering if you could make a top ten of some sort where you rank the best poker players in your opinion. I would love to watch that.
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.
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.
Daniel and Phil are my 2 favorite of all time!!! I hate it when y’all play but I love it 😏
Appreciate your explanation sir! I've discussed this hand for hours with friends I play cash with lol
If you took Patrick off of QQ and 10-9o (which you did)... and you know for 100% certainty that Phil had a 10 (which you should have)... then it is a must call.
But he did NOT take Patrick off a Q-10.
why is it a must call? Daniel only beat 3 combos that are value raising, and all 3 of those 55 combos, like Daniel said, shouldn't be raising bc worse will fold and better will call
@@mahr1972 So, because he knew that Phil had one 10... there are only three combos of Q10 remaining. There are more combos of hands that he does beat than that (according to his own breakdown)... and he is getting over 3 to 1. So... the math says call.
obvious call
@@tccandler 2 to 1
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.
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
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.
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.
Love your analysis as always
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..
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
Daniels said that Patrick thought he had the best hand
would be huge brain but that would be some sick shit
@@whitecastle3032 Daniel made the bad play
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?
He assumed Patrick had Q 10
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
@@effortlessawareness8778 your a donkey buddy. If you think it’s a clear call. You are losing long term big time
@@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.
I used to play with you long before you were famous. I'm just a high-limit stud player, but I am impressed with your cogent analysis. You're smarter than I realized when we used to play 8-1600 stud together at the Bellagio.
Shocking that you miss the fact Patrick knows Ivey had a 10 so he may overplay some hands thinking you are likely not full.
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.
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.
@@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
@@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...
@@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.
@@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.
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
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.
Genius that what took you so long to explain on the Tube took you under a minute to put together with a load of money in front of you. Gotta love it.
Daniel my poker hero simply the best in my eyes his all round game is flawless 👍
that was an amazing lay down by Phil.
Not really. Like Daniel said, he’s out of position and doesn’t beat the weakest straight or A10.
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.
He only beats JT
Like others have said , pretty easy lay down. He is beaten by quite a lot .
Not an amazing lay down by Negreanu tho. 😮
I was super shocked to see Patrick raising but not all that shocked with Daniel folding. In my cash games, I call off lots of bad players whom I know might bluff shove there (or overplay a 10) thinking that I am bluffing so I never fold 99 against them. But against good ones and with those I have a long history of their solid ranges, I will think they are not going to shove anything but a FH and I might consider folding as 55 will be the last hand I would think of as their holdings.
Also, by having Patrick make a bad raise there just adds an incredible complexity to that game you have to factor in!
Yes. What's the math for calculating your opponent's error proneness?
"Poker After Dark" is the GOAT of late LATE night TV poker cash games.
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
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
99%, people would snap call with 9s full, but to lay the down thats just courage, excellent breakdown Daniel 👌👌👌
I wouldn't say 99%, but the large majority yes
People wont think like daniel, their eyes would light up and all they can think of is calling without taking the matter that the opponent could have a better full house or even quads
So your saying there's a chance....... .
And it was a losing play. What do ya know
@@allenjesse228 there is always a chance in poker
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.
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.
Daniel is basically saying Patrick doubled down a 16 vs 10 in blackjack, pulled a 5 and the dealer busts. Even though he may have won that hand if it played out over 1000 hands making the same play you’re going to lose way more than you win that play.
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
see that would make sense if negreanu hadnt bet pot size on turn, hes not doing that with king jack gut shot draw.
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.
The look on iveys face just before he folded was priceless I watched it in slo mo, I think he was just trying to convey that feeling to Antonio, the feeling that we're both screwed when he looked over at him cause Ivey pretty much knows when Daniel is bluffing, and that's always fun to watch, lol.. but I think maybe your only mistake Daniel might of been giving someone credit for all the calculations that go on in your head, you might want to remember that in your calculations some day not everyone is the poker genius that you are, you and Phil are by far my favorites, great hand Daniel thanks for sharing all your knowledge God bless you. Subscribed!
I agree with every thing Daniel said here, and it absolutely will not affect my game at all. The players I play against (Austin Texas 1-2 and 2-5 players) would still have KK in their value range with Daniel's action, and I'm going to jam on them with 55, and usually win a lot of money.
I would love to hear Patrick’s analysis of this hand and his play
His Finnish analysis: "I had a full house, I went allin"
it was a really donky play from patrick to be honest. i have no idea what he was thinking
@@bjoernfischer yea donky all time biggest winner online by patrik
He 'could' think Daniel has KJ of clubs
Patrick shoved as a bluff. He’s just that good.
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.
Don’t get the Kobe analogy, but respect.
Once you explained it....makes perfect sense. Just watching that hand and then the explanation makes me realize how many levels there are to this game. I'm on level -1.
100% correct, who can ever argue with Daniel when it comes to poker. He hit the nail on the head, when you play with bad players it does effect your game
14:44 VERY IMPRESSIVE read by Dwan. He knew Daniel folded nines full! 💯
Daniel talked about this at the end. He knew because he walked backstage and saw the hand in real time.
@@gwat34 suprised with everything like Mike postle that’s allowed
the read was because daniel said "quad tens"? after getting shoved on
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.
Yea. I just dont get the fold. If u get coolerd..you get coolerd. But 9's full. No way.
yep. "oh danny boy!" he overvalued patrick antonius' hand strength that it would defy the odds & ranges.
It's so tough to make this call, especially when you had a full house and lost multiple hundreds of thousands to Gus Hanson when he had quads against you in a very similar hand.
Addendum/Correction: the "Schroedinger's Cat" effect. There is a paradox in quantum physics known as Schroedinger's Cat. The paradox says, if a cat and a vial of poison are placed together in a box and the box is sealed, until the box is opened, the cat is both dead and alive in the box at the same time. (Huh?) So similarly, if this hand is looked at from the perspective of what is already known for certain after the fact - that Patrick had pocket 5's and therefore the smaller full - then DN made a mistake in folding. However, given what Daniel knew for certain at the time the hand was played, he made the correct decision and therefore made no mistake. This is because by the reasonable percentages of expectation given the player and the board, a lay down of the 3rd best hand to a shove by a pro against the previous actions of the pro he is shoving into, is expected to be correct a majority of the time. Basically: a certain percentage of failure is to be expected in correct play unless you are truly psychic. Because as non-psychic humans, we cannot know for certain what our opponent has or exactly what he/she is doing with any particular action: we can only estimate. So at best, our estimations if done correctly, will limit the amount of error to a bare minimum, and we will win more often than we lose. But we will all lose sometimes. Unless you're truly psychic - in which case don't waste time in poker, go buy lottery tickets. And yup: I got a lotta time on my hands...
15:00 it was $100k to win over $300k so he was actually getting 3 to 1
Ivey heading to the snack table is the best lol 😭😆
Love this hand and analysis. I would’ve stacked Patrick because I’m not good enough to fold a boat. Much love to you DN- your reads are truly legendary.
Truly enjoyed this video. We all got insight into the mind of a poker GENIUS. I'll take Daniel's game over ANY of the people that criticized his fold.