PokerStars homepage
  • If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.


No announcement yet.

Daniel Negreanu vs Vanessa Rousso - Great Hand

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Daniel Negreanu vs Vanessa Rousso - Great Hand

    Watch the video of this great hand between Daniel Negreanu and Vanessa Rousso.

    Watch Video Here.

    Would you have acted the same way? What would you have done differently? Share your thoughts and feedback via this forum discussion about this hand.

    Last edited by PSO Admin; Thu Sep 08, 2011, 09:12 PM.
    Team PokerSchoolOnline - Administration

  • #2
    he should have called on the first re-raise
    he raised weak because he knew that those 9's could be beat and when he was re-raised over top the first time he should have either called it or folded but not re-raise again which left him open to call her all in

    if he had called he would have got to see the flop and could have made trips but now he'll never know


    • #3
      Calling the raise from Vanessa was the best way to see the flop ( my opinion ) with pocket 9's.


      • #4
        Interesting. I was actually going to post about something quite similar.

        I have been in the same position as Negreanu quite a few times, but with Js, Qs and Kings and every time the three bet came I had the feeling of Aces.

        You either have to fold or reraise and Negreanu went for the four bet, just as I would. He is put all in, and he knows he is beat, but the correct play is to call (I am not sure why that is the case LOL). In my hands when I was raised all in I made the calls because it was the "right" play but I knew I was beat.

        I am not sure of the logic behind this, but maybe Dave or some of the others could explain why folding after you have 4 bet is not the correct play even if you know you are most likely crushed.




        I just saw the other two guys suggesting he call the three bet after his raise, rather than reraise. That could put him in an even more awkward spot I feel after the flop and Rouso would know he is weak. I think his problems stemmed from the min raise to be honest.

        Last edited by fadmin; Thu May 26, 2011, 09:59 PM.


        • #5
          What I didn't like was the min raise in the beginning.

          I'd either raise more to open if you want to get in the hand.... or.... if you want to play small-ball, then just call, instead of min-raising. Instead of a min raise, if he 3-bet originally, she may not have 4-bet him back, which can get him to see the flop. Or, if he just called, then it's less to call her first raise to see the flop to try and spike a set.

          If she did anything but call if he 3-bet initially, then he knows that he's behind in the hand or in a race and still would have enough chips to fold, if he thinks she has the over pair. She could also easily just call it and see the flop. If he hits the flop, then he's golden... and if misses with overs, then he can still fold and have over 10BB.

          If he just calls to open (not normally what I'd do or recommend, but might throw that option in every so often, less than 1 of 10 times you're in that situation, to change things up)... then if she 4-bets, he can get out cheap, call to see the flop and try to hit it, or push back.

          6 Time Bracelet Winner


          • #6
            What about the folding your four bet being a bad play from the commentator JWK?



            • #7
              Originally posted by topthecat View Post
              What about the folding your four bet being a bad play from the commentator JWK?

              I don't like folding 4-bets at all. If you're willing to 4-bet, then you should be willing to shove. If you 4-bet/fold, then you're really going to get very little table respect afterwards on any steal attempts and everyone's going to want to take advantage of it...... however..... if you're someone like Daniel, that already has the table respect, then as the (every once in awhile to throw someone off)... if you've got chips left, then you can do it. BUT only do it once, do not ever make it a pattern.

              6 Time Bracelet Winner


              • #8
                I'm not used to 3-dimensional poker ...

                So it's 5-handed and Blinds are 500/1000, with 100 ante, so the pot started out with 2,000? Then ...

                Daniel (UTG): bets 2,200 (pot 4,200)
                Vanessa (MP): 3bets to 6,500 (pot 10,700)
                Woodward (Button): folds
                Shaw (SB): folds
                Kenney (BB): folds

                Daniel: 4,300 to call ... 4bets to 11,500 (pot 20,000)
                Vanessa: 5,000 to call (announcer: Vanessa's getting 4:1 to call) ... goes all-in to 40,500 (pot 54,000)

                Daniel: 29,000 to call (Daniel: says he's getting almost 2:1 to call) ... folds

                Card odds:


                • #9
                  I have watched some of Russo's play, and a bit more of Negreanu's, but that isn't really much use in deciphering a hand like this. Obviously both are perfectly capable of adjusting their games for conditions, and a TV edited viewing session hardly tells the whole story.

                  I know Daniel "likes" small raises with a wide range, but he does tend to do that with position.
                  The table is not full ring.
                  Blinds are 500/1000, and Daniel starts with a bit over 40BB.

                  OOP, he (Daniel) makes a pretty small raise, and with him this can be a WIDE range (although I suspect not as wide as if he had position). Im pretty sure he is aware that Vanessa would know this too.

                  Vanessa (with about 40BB as well) re-raises to 6500, leaving Daniel a decision to call 4300 into a 10K pot (a bit over).

                  A raise like Vanessa's can mean "I got a monster, please call with what you think are good odds", or "I've got nothing, but I think you raised out of line, so please fold" because of Daniels small ball tendencies, and his position. I say this because Her raise puts a non-committing amount of her stack in with what seems like strength; in reality she can still fold. Overall, I REALLY like her raise amount.

                  Daniel is put into the spot where he has a difficult decision.

                  Sure, he could have easily folded here, but my guess is Daniel really does not WANT to fold away even a small 2200 investment if there is a good chance he holds the best hand. This thought may be somewhat "foreign" to many PSO players, simply because PSO concentrates so heavily upon discipline and "picking your spots". I cannot dis-agree with a desire to NOT fold though, especially if you have enough confidence in your ability to out-play opponents (Which Daniel is certainly entitled to have!). Oftentimes MTT events are won by looking for reasons to stay in the pot, not by looking for reasons to fold. Since Daniel does not fold his tiny raise, I don't think it is un-reasonable to assume he is looking for reasons to stay.

                  My guess is there is something about Vanessa's play which Daniel has seen telling him she is reasonably polarized here. Perhaps it is since she has laid a bit over 2 to 1 to a caller and did not pot commit herself, or perhaps it is because he has seen her raise to lay LESS than 2 to 1 when on a solid hand that might be "racing" (like AQ/AK/KQ). Without more info on the entire event this is hard to say. Of course he COULD have simply had a "brain fart" too, but a player of his caliber tends to GET to that caliber by not having those sorts of episodes...

                  So the actions Daniel COULD take to stay in are:

                  FLAT CALL.
                  The problem with this is he is putting about 15% of his chips in with only about a 1 in 8.5 chance of winning the hand. I say this because from what I've seen, Vanessa definately appears to have the "heart" to barrel Daniel on the flop. He is going to have an over pair to the board well under 45% of the flops, and out of position this puts him in a tricky spot versus a stack which can cripple him held by an aggressive player. A Flat to set mine is often the "default setting" for a middle level player who is un-sure of what to do. The problem with this is that is goes against the mantra that "aggressive poker is winning poker" since you tend to only win when you make the best hand. Daniel definately does NOT strike me as a "passive" player, who relies on fortune for his ability to win at poker.

                  RAISE ALL-IN (or some other committing amount).
                  One problem with this is if he "believes" Vanessa is either on a semi-weak hand or a very strong one, this leaves him with no post-flop options:
                  He is either well behind to a bigger pair, and MUST flop a set to win, OR...
                  Vanessa folds and he wins "just" the 6500 she put in.
                  winning the 6500 aint a BAD result, but without a ecent amount of surety that you will take it down, this is a bit TOO much risk.

                  RAISE AS HE DID (small ball).
                  One of the strong points of the small ball game style is that the frequent raises with a wide range tends to induce additional action for your truly big hands.
                  Daniel appears to "see" this fact, and elects to try representing his 99 as AA/KK.
                  His 4Bet to 11.5k (just under 30% of his stack), if made by a "normal" player, especially one with "stack discipline", would almost certainly appear as a committing amount. Since it is about as SMALL a committing amount as possible, and since it does lay such large odds for a call, it is either real WEAKNESS or is BEGGING for a call/shove.

                  Daniel's raise amount has pretty much turned his 99 into a bluff catcher pre-flop, and he invests the 11.5k (total) to leverage that. I'll be honest, if we assume that he did NOT have a brain fart, then I am pretty sure he knew exactly what he was going to do if Vanessa jammed him, regardless of his coffee-housing in the video. I think daniel knew that Vanessa is good enough to not stack off to him if he flopped a set, and if she is on "just" AK and he hits, he would not get anything more than her 6500 raise anyway. With all that in mind, I think his goal was to win the pot without needing to flop a set, or FORCE Vanessa to jam so he could continue on with 29k. As such, his raise might seem "weak", but in reality it is a very aggressive play made by a supremely confident player who KNOWS he can still win after losing 25%+ of his stack at the final table. Daniel gives himself maximum chance to win, and is willing to put in the chips that are necessary to do that. BRAVO to him...

                  ...or it could still be just a brain fart!

                  Double Bracelet Winner


                  • #10
                    I think limp-call or limp-raise might have worked a bit better than raise/4-bet. Calling raises out of position, especially against good players sucks. If he calls the flop will contain overcards most of time and unless he hits his set he won't know where he stands. Plus, even if he hits his set he may not even be able to get much out of Vanessa if there are overcards to her pair or if she misses. So on a QT6 flop she can get him off 9s with AK, and on a QT9 flop he probably doesn't get anything out of her. She can be raising a wide range in position, so rather than calling her raise out of position he 4-bets to end the hand pre. He's turned his nines into a bluff. But he could easily be bluffing with the better hand!

                    The reason he can't fold is that Vanessa can have either a monster or a bluff here. However, Daniel is somewhat of a calling station so it's far more likely she has a very strong hand. In fact I'd want to narrow her down to almost an entirely value range here. I think JJ is about the bottom of her value range. If her value range is JJ+, AK, 99 is way behind. Actually, he's only about a 2 to 1 dog against this range. If we take AK out of her range though, he's basically screwed (4 to 1 dog). Since she can also have bluffs (especially Ax) it would be mathematically correct for Daniel to call. The question is whether she can have bluffs often here. If yes I think it's a call. If not, because you know that she knows that you like to call, she should have a monster here too frequently for you to call with 99. With AK you're at least kind of flipping against JJ-QQ and you have an overcard to KK if it turns out she's not bluffing.

                    Say 50% of the time she's bluffing (let's just say you're a 3 to 1 favorite on average to keep my math easy), and 50% of the time you're a 3 to 1 dog on average. The pot is now 54000 and it's 29000 to call. Then 50% of the time you win 54k 75% of the time and lose 29k 25% of the time and 50% of the time you lose 29k 75% of the time and win 54k 25% of the time. So:

                    .5(.75*54k-.25*29k)+.5(.25*54k-.75*29k) = 12.5k. Clearly if this is the case this is a very +EV call. The question is how often is she bluffing here? Honestly against someone who wants to call as much as Daniel..I might not put her bluffs at over 10% here.

                    .1(.75*54k-.25*29k)+.9(.25*54k-.75*29k)=-4.1k So it would be -EV to call since she's not bluffing enough.

                    Of course I kind of just made up these ranges and range matchups, but I think that her bluff frequency in this spot is not high enough to make calling with 99 a good idea. Also, Daniel should know when he 4-bets that he's turned his hand into a bluff and be ready to fold to a shove.

                    Also just because you're getting 2 to 1 doesn't make it the right call all the time. If you're worse than a 2 to 1 underdog to the other person's range and/or a loss would hurt you much more than a win would help, and you have enough to fold and not be crippled, you can definitely fold with 2 to 1 odds. To hell with the weak image. No reason to stack off in a spot where you're almost certainly behind.

                    The way Daniel has sized his bet he absolutely can fold to a shove. If he had aces this would be an excellent bet as she may sense fold equity / she has the best hand and shove into him.


                    • #11
                      JDean's analysis is bang on according to me.


                      • #12
                        Why has everyone concentrated on Daniels play? Good, Bad or indifferent ?

                        No one has analysed Vanessa's play, Did she play well ? was her bet sizing right ? etc. etc.

                        I'm just sayin'

                        3 Time Bracelet Winner


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by JDean View Post
                          if we assume that he did NOT have a brain fart, then I am pretty sure he knew exactly what he was going to do if Vanessa jammed him, regardless of his coffee-housing in the video ... As such, his raise might seem "weak", but in reality it is a very aggressive play made by a supremely confident player who KNOWS he can still win after losing 25%+ of his stack at the final table.
                          Interesting comments!! Especially about the bet sizing, and how it might have been sized to give the other person particular pot odds to call or not call. I guess that's another aspect of the game that comes more into play the deeper the stacks - the three-betting and the sizing? Are there any deep stack tourneys on PokerStars with a low buy in (like $1 or less )?

                          I've seen videos of Daniel when he had the worst hand, but had almost like a chess approach where with his great reads he almost seemed to know what the other person was going to do before they did. Like here's a video where he had QTo against AA:

                          Daniel in WSOP making the person with AA really nervous

                          It almost felt like he was letting Vanessa know with his 4bet that was small that he had a pocket pair but that it was middling, knowing that if she had a better one like JJ she'd shove and if she had AK or whatever she'd probably just call? Like with his bet, was he basically being straight-forward saying that he had a hand like 99, what do you have Vanessa? And if she shoved he was going to fold, because yeah like oriholic said, is 2:1 odds getting the right odds for a call? I guess maybe the 'coffee-housing' ( ), might that have been some sort of image control measure, because I guess a lot of people like topthecat/JWK noted might think it really bad to fold after 4betting?

                          And then, even if she knew that's what he was asking, I guess going all-in was the right move - anybody who would have chosen to 6-bet instead?

                          I like that idea too of JWK/Joker/Joery's (the three J's )to just call the 3bet to see the flop as an alternative, with the intent of check-folding unless there was a 9 on the flop. But maybe that's not really Daniel's style of play or something?

                          PS I don't know anything about the other three at the table, but thought maybe if the initial bets out of Daniel and Vanessa seemed on the small side that it could possibly have something to do with the other players at the table? But maybe not who knows
                          Last edited by TrustySam; Fri May 27, 2011, 11:07 PM.


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by TrustySam View Post
                            Are there any deep stack tourneys on PokerStars with a low buy in (like $1 or less )?
                            There's a few low buy in tournies ($1-3) with guaranteed money that have 3000 starting chips and 10-15 minute blinds.

                            The $2.75 buy in $10k guarantee has 3000 chips and 15 minute blind levels; I always enjoyed that one.

                            Those aren't really "deep" stack tournaments, but that's about as close as it gets at the low buy in levels.


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by ssuglia View Post
                              There's a few low buy in tournies ($1-3) with guaranteed money that have 3000 starting chips and 10-15 minute blinds.

                              The $2.75 buy in $10k guarantee has 3000 chips and 15 minute blind levels; I always enjoyed that one.

                              Those aren't really "deep" stack tournaments, but that's about as close as it gets at the low buy in levels.
                              Oh, thx ssuglia!!!

                              That's perfect - that's twice as many chips as I'm used to. I'll have to give it a try ... suspect there's going to be something of a learning curve, so I was hoping to not blow through too much money too fast




                              X Cookies Information

                              We have placed cookies on your computer to improve your experience on our website. You can change your cookie settings at any time. Otherwise, we'll assume you're OK to continue.