Analysing a Doyle Brunson hand

darthdimsky

darthdimsky

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 21, 2016
Total posts
1,085
Chips
0
I love this hand.

But what I'm really interesting to know is how the players at the end speculated on Doyle holding KJ. Is it because:

  • They knew Benefield had a one of 2 remaining 6s?
  • Doyle's OMG reaction after being told he got trip 6s to fold?
 
terryk

terryk

TheCanuckwithalltheluck
Bronze Level
Joined
Dec 14, 2016
Total posts
7,053
Awards
10
Chips
1
i remember this one:),i knew when Doyle stood up and breathed down the kids neck that he wasn`t gonna call,lol.Too intimidated:eek: Great move by the Master:congrats:
 
G

Gnikace

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 25, 2017
Total posts
130
Chips
0
Benefield said that he would have called if he had 68... but that doesn't make sense if he folded his trips. What was he afraid of? KK, JJ, 88, K6, J6 all would still beat him if he had 68. The way the hand evolved, he should have called. I would have. But I'm no pro... what do I know? :)
 
darthdimsky

darthdimsky

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 21, 2016
Total posts
1,085
Chips
0
i remember this one:),i knew when Doyle stood up and breathed down the kids neck that he wasn`t gonna call,lol.Too intimidated:eek: Great move by the Master:congrats:

I never noticed this until I watched this vid again, just before posting. I've never seen Doyle do anything like that in any of the other vids of him. This was a huge "wow" moment for me. One other thing that struck about it is how he never asked for the chip count either. Is it because he doesn't reply when asked either? Wow.

Benefield said that he would have called if he had 68... but that doesn't make sense if he folded his trips. What was he afraid of? KK, JJ, 88, K6, J6 all would still beat him if he had 68. The way the hand evolved, he should have called. I would have. But I'm no pro... what do I know? :)

Might have to do with Doyle's rep. From the vids I've seen of him he doesn't make any significant powerplays unless he has a really strong hand. I remember seeing a wsop vid of him insta mucking KK on the flop with a dry A high board. The villain was a French female player had position on Doyle and bluffed with junk. I can't seem to find this vid atm.
 
A

AviCKter

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 14, 2013
Total posts
781
Chips
0
terryk

terryk

TheCanuckwithalltheluck
Bronze Level
Joined
Dec 14, 2016
Total posts
7,053
Awards
10
Chips
1
Never watch pro`s play? `because they play weird?` I`ve never heard that one before.:p Sorry,i don`t get that watching the best players in the world could be harmful in some way,that`s just stupid.:withstupi
 
darthdimsky

darthdimsky

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 21, 2016
Total posts
1,085
Chips
0
Never try to analyze professionals. They play weird, especially when televised.

Agree.. It's not a game, it's a show!

Respectfully disagree. Doyle has admitted he plays very boring poker at poker after dark but that had also made him the most winningest player among the lot. He's among the best players in the world who's probably seen everything the poker world has to throw at him. TV cameras don't faze the man or make him change his objective, which is to win as most as he can every time he plays.

Besides, here's an extensive analysis on the same poker hand by channel "The Poker Guys". It doesn't show the players debating the hand at the end however.
 
charlie2013

charlie2013

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 13, 2013
Total posts
548
Chips
0
Ohh Ive seen this on teli.
It was like maybe 4 or 6 years ago...
I start on poker watching him plays..
 
paulinhlt

paulinhlt

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Sep 26, 2015
Total posts
290
Chips
0
This raise represents the top of the range KK JJ hahaha
 
A

AviCKter

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 14, 2013
Total posts
781
Chips
0
Never watch pro`s play? `because they play weird?` I`ve never heard that one before.:p Sorry,i don`t get that watching the best players in the world could be harmful in some way,that`s just stupid.:withstupi

I never said to stop watching them, they make for some of the most spectacular games. Heck, most of us wouldn't have been playing poker hadn't it for the shows (or the pros).

But that said, don't try to analyze a professional player. They're thinking in absolute terms (Either the opponent has a 6 or he doesn't; Doyle made two pair with KJ and looking to get paid from worse K. You see, certainty). That's not poker. Back in the day that might have been the case, but today with all the knowledge and tools available, its what some might consider primitive.

Hey, don't stop watching them. TV = Entertainment. And we all need some entertainment in life, don't we?
 
darthdimsky

darthdimsky

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 21, 2016
Total posts
1,085
Chips
0
I never said to stop watching them, they make for some of the most spectacular games. Heck, most of us wouldn't have been playing poker hadn't it for the shows (or the pros).

But that said, don't try to analyze a professional player. They're thinking in absolute terms (Either the opponent has a 6 or he doesn't; Doyle made two pair with KJ and looking to get paid from worse K. You see, certainty). That's not poker. Back in the day that might have been the case, but today with all the knowledge and tools available, its what some might consider primitive.

Hey, don't stop watching them. TV = Entertainment. And we all need some entertainment in life, don't we?

???

What in the latest line of thought is 3b an EP limp with 65o recommended? Doyle couldn't peg him on 65o. Who would and why?

Doyle assumed he had a K from an EP raise and subsequent double barrelling. He clearly had him dominated with a higher 2 pair. Sure everyone can speculate Doyle on KJ after the fact. Not necessarily while the hand is in play.
 
A

AviCKter

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 14, 2013
Total posts
781
Chips
0
Exactly!

???

What in the latest line of thought is 3b an EP limp with 65o recommended? Doyle couldn't peg him on 65o. Who would and why?

Doyle assumed he had a K from an EP raise and subsequent double barrelling. He clearly had him dominated with a higher 2 pair. Sure everyone can speculate Doyle on KJ after the fact. Not necessarily while the hand is in play.

Exactly my point. Pros play weird (esp. Televised). If you really want to follow some pros, follow someone like Phil Galfond, he has a better understanding of the game of modern poker. Heck follow the many great streamers, they've a better understanding.

The only reason, I can think of, why people like Tom Dwan, or Viktor Bloom were that successful back in the day, was this native thinking that we could easily put an opponent into a particular hand, and that's where the veterans got it wrong. See how they've exploited that exact tendencies, of putting the opponent into a particular hand. And how highly successful, they were, in doing that. Along with having some pair of steel balls. :D That makes it two reasons, I guess.

So again, don't try to analyze televised pros (when I'm talking of televised, I'm talking of shows, not streams). They make for good TV, but not great for learning. Enjoy it. But that's about it.
 
darthdimsky

darthdimsky

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 21, 2016
Total posts
1,085
Chips
0
Exactly my point. Pros play weird (esp. Televised). If you really want to follow some pros, follow someone like Phil Galfond, he has a better understanding of the game of modern poker. Heck follow the many great streamers, they've a better understanding.

The only reason, I can think of, why people like Tom Dwan, or Viktor Bloom were that successful back in the day, was this native thinking that we could easily put an opponent into a particular hand, and that's where the veterans got it wrong. See how they've exploited that exact tendencies, of putting the opponent into a particular hand. And how highly successful, they were, in doing that. Along with having some pair of steel balls. :D That makes it two reasons, I guess.

So again, don't try to analyze televised pros (when I'm talking of televised, I'm talking of shows, not streams). They make for good TV, but not great for learning. Enjoy it. But that's about it.

All I understand from your posts is a lot of generalising about TV poker. But nothing specific to the hand. First you say Doyle's line of thought is primitive. Then when questioned about it you pivot away from it.

Let me ask you properly: "What is primitive about Doyle's thought process with respect to this hand?"
 
A

AviCKter

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 14, 2013
Total posts
781
Chips
0
You had to make me watch?

All I understand from your posts is a lot of generalising about TV poker. But nothing specific to the hand. First you say Doyle's line of thought is primitive. Then when questioned about it you pivot away from it.

Let me ask you properly: "What is primitive about Doyle's thought process with respect to this hand?"

Let me ask you this, why do you think Doyle raised the river? Pure value. It's the same fallacy, either I'm beat or am ahead (Primitive). What hand do you think he put Benefield on? AK? Right? Not even AA or any 6 or 88 or KK. But the question Doyle should have asked himself is why is he betting the turn? What hand bets the turn? Heck, what hand bets three streets for value/bluff OOP?

Benefield played it bad at the end, by folding, because with such a monster, you have to pay it off, getting 3:1 on a call, even if you're beat (esp. in cash game).

About learning from this hand, or hands like this, what exactly did you learn?
 
Ronaldo7

Ronaldo7

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 18, 2016
Total posts
785
Awards
1
Chips
1
Benefield said that he would have called if he had 68... but that doesn't make sense if he folded his trips. What was he afraid of? KK, JJ, 88, K6, J6 all would still beat him if he had 68. The way the hand evolved, he should have called. I would have. But I'm no pro... what do I know? :)
Yeah, weird... I mean 8 realy doesn't mean anything ecxept one out less for 88... So he folded, but that would made a difference?? And if i had any little intention to fold this hand i would play check/call on river to make sure, and let opponent to bluf or value bet his Kx.. If i raise no way i am folding...
 
okeedokalee

okeedokalee

Glory To Ukraine
Loyaler
Joined
Feb 3, 2008
Total posts
5,542
Awards
22
NZ
Chips
163
Doyle is an old school dry balls, he probably thought he had the best hand against a young internet wizard, and Doyle's tight dry old guy image, forced the kid to give it up.
 
G

Gnikace

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 25, 2017
Total posts
130
Chips
0
Doyle is an old school dry balls, he probably thought he had the best hand against a young internet wizard, and Doyle's tight dry old guy image, forced the kid to give it up.
I agree... he probably shoved thinking he had the best hand... wasn't a bluff... i think he put Benefield with AK, thus the raising since preflop
 
darthdimsky

darthdimsky

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 21, 2016
Total posts
1,085
Chips
0
You mean, you didn't even watch the video before posting?

Let me ask you this, why do you think Doyle raised the river? Pure value. It's the same fallacy, either I'm beat or am ahead (Primitive).

What's the non primitive way to think? Ever consider that all those years of experience playing live winning poker might have reinforced traits and nuances that are backed by the more mathematical thought processes we now rely on?

What hand do you think he put Benefield on? AK? Right? Not even AA or any 6 or 88 or KK. But the question Doyle should have asked himself is why is he betting the turn? What hand bets the turn? Heck, what hand bets three streets for value/bluff OOP?

Benefield played it bad at the end, by folding, because with such a monster, you have to pay it off, getting 3:1 on a call, even if you're beat (esp. in cash game).

  • If you were in Doyle's chair why would you assume your opponent would have a 6x hand given the action that preceded?
  • Would you C-bet 2/3rd pot followed by another 2/3rd T-bet with an under pair? Here's a breakdown of the hands that beat Doyle's on the turn
    • Pocket 6s definitely. Unlikely. 1 Combination
    • Pocket As definitely. Likely. 6 combinations
    • Pocket Ks definitely. Unlikely. 1 combination
    • Pocket 8s definitely. Unlikely. 3 combinations
    • AK, KQ definitely. 16 combinations (8 + 8)
  • 22 likely combinations vs 5 unlikely combinations.
  • With 2/3rd R-bet of the 22 likely combinations you bet 16 of them. Why wouldn't a re-raise be warranted here?
About learning from this hand, or hands like this, what exactly did you learn?


I learnt that I can use my tight table image and well time aggression to force looser players off winning yet speculative hands.


Since I'm an MTT player I find this to be a very valuable lesson in the middle stages in a tourney in a table where I've got a well established table image.
 
A

AviCKter

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 14, 2013
Total posts
781
Chips
0
Last attempt

YWhat's the non primitive way to think? Ever consider that all those years of experience playing live winning poker might have reinforced traits and nuances that are backed by the more mathematical thought processes we now rely on?

Well lets break it down. They're playing 6-handed, and the pot has been straddled (Initial pot is 2000).

Lets look down on what a good opening range would be here: {22+, AXs, A9o+, K9s+, KTo+, QTs+, QJo, J9s+, T8s+, 97s+, 87s, 76s, 65s}
But knowing that these are professionals, I cannot make that assumption that they're playing that standard an opening range.
They might for the shake of MIXING-IT-UP or whatever, that too in a straddled pot, make the range look horrible. I'm not ruling out most hand in our ranges, barring a few rags {J6o-, T5o-, 94o-, 73o-, 62o-, 52o-}, they're perfectly capable of playing all these hands, and not because its right. But because they like to outplay the opponent it saying they're mixing it up.
Note: You shouldn't play to outplay the opponent, yes that's what ultimately end up happening, but your goal in poker should be to maximize your EV.

Now Doyle calls behind with KJo in Position, which is not bad. Everyone else folds around.

Flop: K66 (Dry board as hell, no draws in there)

Post Flop:
Now Benefield decides to c-bet, yes most player should c-bet whether they have a piece of the action or not. And Doyle decides to call.
Now to range Benefield, I'm not going to take out most hands, since he could be "bluffing with his Muffins" as they like to call it. So, it would be a mix of value hands {22+, AXs+, A9o+, K9s+, KTo+, QTs+, QJo, J9s+, T9s, T7o, all 6-X hands, and maybe a few more bluffs in there}
Now to Doyle, he has Kings up, and a call is the best strategy here.
Now for Benefield, he should start ranging Doyle, if at all he's a poker player. And as you said, he's a TIGHT player. His range should look something like {77+, K9s+, KTo+}. Let's for argument shake rule out all the possible bluffs he might have in there and play it as he's a NIT.

Turn: 8d (Gives out a flush draw)
Benefield decides to bet here. 10600 in a pot of 26200. Yikes!
Now I would like to ask you this, what range do you think does that? Do you think a mediocre pair like TT or 99 or JJ, bets twice? Or does he realize his equity by pot controlling? That too against a NIT?
I'll leave that analysis to you and for you to figure out, how the range drastically changes with a turn bet on such a board.

Rather, I'll talk more about the river VALUE BET by Doyle (I'm not taking away what he's achieved, or what he means for poker. Super System was the first poker book I ever read, and I was blown away with the numerous possibilities of the game)

  • If you were in Doyle's chair why would you assume your opponent would have a 6x hand given the action that preceded?
  • Would you C-bet 2/3rd pot followed by another 2/3rd T-bet with an under pair? Here's a breakdown of the hands that beat Doyle's on the turn
    • Pocket 6s definitely. Unlikely. 1 Combination
    • Pocket As definitely. Likely. 6 combinations
    • Pocket Ks definitely. Unlikely. 1 combination
    • Pocket 8s definitely. Unlikely. 3 combinations
    • AK, KQ definitely. 16 combinations (8 + 8)
  • 22 likely combinations vs 5 unlikely combinations.
  • With 2/3rd R-bet of the 22 likely combinations you bet 16 of them. Why wouldn't a re-raise be warranted here?

[*]If you were in Doyle's chair why would you assume your opponent would have a 6x hand given the action that preceded?
That's why the game has changed. You're just trying too hard to narrow his range down to single or few combos, based on what? Based on the fact that it was an UTG raise pre-flop.


That said, let's talk a bit about the river re-raise (shove), what does that accomplice?
Does AA fold there? Does a 6 fold there? You're laying 3:1 on a call. Do you think bluffs are calling there? On that note, what hand combination, bluffed 3-streets? What value hands bet 3-streets? Only value hand that he was beating is {AK, KQ}, even KQ doesn't bet the turn (some percentage of the time).

I learnt that I can use my tight table image and well time aggression to force looser players off winning yet speculative hands.


Since I'm an MTT player I find this to be a very valuable lesson in the middle stages in a tourney in a table where I've got a well established table image.

Yeah, try that. Build an image of a ROCK and play out the same hand against any decent player. See for yourself if he lays down 3-of-a-kind getting 3:1 on a river bet. #PayOffWizards

Like I said, Benefield lays it down. WEIRD! They call themselves Pros, TV doesn't haze them, yet they make CARDINAL SINS.

So again, did you think you learn something?

P.S. I've said enough dude, there're more pressing issues, situation to analyze. Like KK on a A96 board BU vs BB, I would like to address them.
 
darthdimsky

darthdimsky

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 21, 2016
Total posts
1,085
Chips
0
Thanks for your detailed explanation.

Note: You shouldn't play to outplay the opponent, yes that's what ultimately end up happening, but your goal in poker should be to maximize your EV.

Can't disagree there. That's a cardinal sin most of us beginners make. I'm guilty as hell for playing like this.

Turn: 8d (Gives out a flush draw)
Benefield decides to bet here. 10600 in a pot of 26200. Yikes!
Now I would like to ask you this, what range do you think does that? Do you think a mediocre pair like TT or 99 or JJ, bets twice? Or does he realize his equity by pot controlling? That too against a NIT?
I'll leave that analysis to you and for you to figure out, how the range drastically changes with a turn bet on such a board.

I'm thinking Benefield's range is narrowed to AA, KTs+, KQo+

That said, let's talk a bit about the river re-raise (shove), what does that accomplice?
Does AA fold there? Does a 6 fold there? You're laying 3:1 on a call. Do you think bluffs are calling there? On that note, what hand combination, bluffed 3-streets? What value hand bet 3-streets? Only value hand that he was beating is {AK, KQ}, even KQ doesn't bet the turn (some percentage of the time).

True. When you add in the MIX-UP range it includes the 6x, AA, AK, KQ. In all fairness, we don't know the play history between the two to include a 6x range in Benefield's EP 3-bet. Gus Hanson and Tom Dwan for sure but I personally don't know Benefield's range. So it's not stretch if Doyle polarised him to a AK, KQ there. But yea, it looks like Doyle completely discounted pocket As and decided to try to outplay Benefield.

Yeah, try that. Build an image of a ROCK and play out the same hand against any decent player. See for yourself if he lays down 3-of-a-kind getting 3:1 on a river bet. #PayOffWizards

Like I said, Benefield lays it down. WEIRD! They call themselves Pros, TV doesn't haze them, yet they make CARDINAL SINS.

So again, did you think you learn something?

At the micros I play I'll never get folks to lay down trips even with a flush or boat. Usually get a 3b-4b shove despite. So I didn't specificially mean on the onset of a player hitting trips per say.

I meant general play against loose players in the middle stages of a tourney calling limping and calling with suited, non suited low one/two gappers. You're able to force them off with a connected middle / bottom pair with just the right table image and aggression at the right spots. Though you've advocated against it that's more about outplaying your opponent in this instance.

I disagreed with Benefield's fold too. But in my posts to you I was more interested in discussing Doyle's thought process.

Thanks for taking the time to explain your thought process. I learnt from it. And the questioning wasn't coming from a holier than thou place but a very serious attempt at understanding where you were coming from. Cheers! :)
 
A

AviCKter

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 14, 2013
Total posts
781
Chips
0
Thanks for your detailed explanation.

....
.....

No issues, man. I just pointed it out because I've wasted a lot of hours watching these "so-called-great-play", trying to learn from them, even incorporating some huge mistake plays in my game.

It was only when I was down and out that I decided I want to learn poker, not from these TV shows but from better sources, become better, make each decision so that I could explain myself why I did what I did.
 
Starting Hands - Poker Hand Nicknames Rankings - Poker Hands
Top