BEST FOLD EVER? Polk and Hellmuth Battle - Old School VS New School Poker Analysis Episode 7 

People don't care if you make a fold like this and are wrong. Phil Ivey has made a couple folds similar to this and been wrong (KK against a donkey shove by Brad Booth, a set against a random guy recently who was just going crazy with nothing etc) and nobody says anything.

@@EGarrett01 yeah I think that’s right, at least among those who are in the know.

@@EGarrett01 the problem is that Phil Helmut is not bluffing 😂 so Doug wasn't worried about that

@@EGarrett01 ivey got killed for that fold online.

@@Stockhandle123 Which one? No one cares about the fold to Brad Booth and I didn't hear much about the fold to the crazy donk on the turn with the set. But I don't read as much poker discussion these days.

ive seen this reference a lot. wheres it from?

@@chaitanyangulhane wsop main

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-gYK6U_T1A70.html

lolol good one mate

hahahhaah

The fish in question is Brandon Stevens

​@@darrenang7742 The second he said that I knew he had to be a businessman

I agree with you to some extent. When Daniel first started playing Doug online it was very evident that he was simply trying to do something which other people had told him to do. He wasn't able to deviate or adjust. For example his cbet sizing didn't work at all. He was betting way too little to bluff doug off a better hand or a draw, while at the same time he wasn't building the pot enough so that when he had a good hand he could have gotten paid. So what actually was the point of making those small cbets? This was something he should have been able to fix after like 10 mins of play, but since Daniel simply wasn't able to adapt he just continued with it. I agree with Daniel coming off as a better player from the match, but you can clearly see that he is not there yet. He is trying his best to incorporate this new knowledge, but I just often see it as a kind of overadjustment. For example AQ has now become a very tricky hand for him to play. He is putting way too much emphasis on the fact that it blocks AA/AK/QQ and it leads him to assume he is getting bluffed everytime someone 3bets him and he is holding AQ. A good example of this is played in 25k high roller tournament. Daniel opens with AQ oop and gets 3bet from the button if I remember correctly. Flop comes T high and is checked. Turn brick and again check-check. River is K. Daniel check-calls it reasoning that he blocks AK and KQ. While this is true he just completely ignores the fact that if the guy has nothing on the river, he had nothing pf, nothing on the flop and nothing on the turn. If he had nothing pf and chooses to go for a bluff, why didn't he try to bluff the flop or at least the turn when it was already checked twice by Daniel? Also another example from the same tournament. Daniel has AQ on the button and something like 30bb effective stacks. Utg opens, Daniel chooses to 3bet, immediately gets into trouble and folds to a shove. Why exactly was he 3betting there? It clearly wasn't for value since he folded. If he assumed the other guy was opening lightly, why not just call and play AQ from position against a perceived bluffy range? With the line he chose to play there a fold pf would have been the best he could have achieved. So why not just pick another hand for that from the beginning. So in conclusion, Daniel is making an effort to improve and has improved a lot already. At the moment he is just struggling a bit in figuring it out and his though processes are excessively affected by solvers, combos, blockers etc. It will be interesting to see how he can play in a year or so.

​@@henrikkantokoski4212how do you evaluate him now, 2 years later?

I think the table talk served to make Doug more comfortable with the laydown, it didn't dictate it. I'd bet that even if Phil had kept his mouth shut, Doug would have laid it down.

@@iamamish It would've been way more of an impressive fold if that was the case. Hellmuth was giving off tells so strong that just about any decent live poker player would be able to spot them.

Taylor, I'm 100% Daniel watched Doug's hand review before he made this video. FWIW.

It is clear most of these hand review videos have been scripted by Daniels mentors. I've been watching Daniel play for years, he doesn't do any of this "new" stuff

Can you share link to that video?

@@GutyG damn I am not gonna lie I can’t find it...? I know that he did a review of the hand and went fairly in depth... perhaps it’s embedded in one of the live stream videos of Daniel v Doug? I’m gonna have to keep searching

@@taylortryon7248 I can’t find it either lol. I remember watching that analysis you were talking about but now it’s nowhere to be found

I’m looking to use it in the future too. I agree it’s tough to learn man! Keep at it and you’ll get there. Good luck🤙🏼

Yeah, any other player at the table would have paid him off as was evident by what they said afterwards.

@@jorgeherrera1074 I think It brinn would also have folded.

Yeah because sadly, high stakes players think they are good because they play high stakes. They think theres a direct relation between money you put in and actual skill.

@@Devilfish6666 Unless they’re independently wealthy high stakes players are better players.

@@Stockhandle123 na I would’ve snap called

If you put him on a set you call!

@@shemkigen639 I’m not saying Polk put him on a set and folded anyway. I’m saying that he might not have limited Phil’s range to just QT because even if there are a decent percentage (I don’t recall exactly how much since it has been a while since I did the math but it was something like well over 50%) of set and the combo draw he still does not have enough equity since the bet is so large compared to the pit he needs close to 50% equity and he is not favored enough against the semi bluffs to counter being basically dead against the only value hand Phil could be representing here. For what it is worth in Polk’s interview with Garrett he seems to imply that he thought Phil had 0 bluffs because the line made so little sense. I just find it interesting that he doesn’t even need to go nearly that far. Plus I did not have that information 10 months ago so I was honestly curious.

It's also why I got used to playing with decent ppl and am absolutely clueless when a complete newbie comes my way.

With that flop, holding 0 spades. What are you improving to on the turn and river? You're only getting more annihilated the more cards you see even if you call a minclick reraise. He's not even holding a heart card, so has no backdoor outs, has no bluffs. But you just gotta take your coolers most times. But against Hellmuth who can't keep his mouth shut when he's in a hand, it's pretty easy fold even without all that.

I completely agree. 5-10 is tricky as I've personally lost big pots with flopped straights against sets. It's still a very tricky spot it all goes back to bankroll management if you can afford a downstreak. Some people are just lucky and luck is definitely a factor in just one hand.

Maybe Phil was attempting to balance his appearance at the table that day. But since we rarely see Phil jam on a wet flop like this, its easy to narrow his range down.

I've seen it done both ways. The casino I used to play tournaments at, finally settled on folding the hand because their hand is dead when the last card hits, before the action starts.

Cards must be tabled and the hand remains in play otherwise it would be unfair to other players not in the hand etc.

This is actually a point that could speak to Daniel with his terrible luck on HSP. Daniel flopped the nuts so many times only to lose on turn/river because of trapping or playing more customary vs. taking profit at the peak time. In the long run yes, playing that way isn't winning, but I don't think you can fault playing that way if there's a flush draw and potential boat could beat you as well. With the wide range Doug has and him checking and then raising, he's probably not bluffing which means with pretty much any great hand other than what he had, Phil wouldn't be in tremendous shape, just good shape. Where Phil went wrong was when he opened his mouth.

Yeah, you can tell Daniel's praises for Doug here are legit, and after their match I heard genuine praises from Doug as well as to how much Daniel improved at heads up.

@@fedea82 yep, it's good positive energy amongst the poker community. That's what we need

My thoughts as well. Even mid way through their challenge you could see a pretty drastic shift in their respect for each other. I found it interesting that they spoke as much as they did privately while the challenge was happening with what seemed like Doug almost helping Daniel at some points. Also interesting how Daniels luck box criticism of Doug stopped real quick after he ran way + ev for a bit too lol. But certainly good for poker to see those two getting along well.

@@barthk3640 Daniel has the exact opposite relation to Doug than he has to Phil... With Doug: all respect, no friendship. With Phil: all friendship, no respect. 🤣

I guess he just wanted to end it there in case someone was on a flush draw.

Every time I flop the nut straight, I always lose on the river. So I don’t mind that play.

It's like Daniel pointed out - if you're in a tournament, you want to take down the pot and not give flushes or even higher straights (or boats, etc.) a chance to get there, even if it's not as high EV long-term. Phil's mistake here was approaching a cash game (perhaps the fact that it's televised is a factor) the way he would approach a tournament. Yeah he sacrificed value, and yeah it's not the optimal play, but Hellmuth doesn't think that way. He's trying to win the hand in front of him. And, despite how you may think about it, that's been quite a successful approach over the years.

I hate you

he also mentions twice Doug's ability against these two players. Always throwing small jabs at Phil, it's unbelievable.

Yeah it’s sad to see really! Gone from GOAT to… GTO obsessed average guy who gets sponsored. He had his success with his natural talent. Not this “ranges” bollocks which doesn’t win you tournaments

Nah don't know

haha u dummy stuck in 2k07? XDXD youre watchin too many compilations by pokerstars here on yt sir

So he has the mind to explain and break this entire thing down, but you think in the exact same situation Daniel calls... even though he believes other pros would have done the exact same thing.... just doesn't seem likely bud

One thing we should consider is that maybe Phil panicked and wanted to try and just end the action, considering how deep they are, and playing deep is not his forte. But still, he's a pro right? I believe that a guy with his credentials cannot make as many elementary mistakes as he often does. Also, he's a prick.

@@antoniomoraes3163 you calling him a prick - makes you a prick. Also there was a flush draw out there. Phil took down the pot and won it. Easy.

Explain?

Still a bad play. You don't want flushes to fold, you want max value by making them pay to see the last cards.

@@DKFX1 wrong! Flush > straight therefore it’s better to win the pot there and then, than let your opponent cheaply see cards, hit a flush then you’ve lost.

@@user-iu4uk2ty5e they have less than 25% to hit their flush and you can make them pay half pot or more to see it.

I think the argument is that GTO principles suggest folding