Phil Hellmuth vs Mike Matusow High Stakes (Gotta Watch This Guys)

Pocket Kings vs. 2 7


YouTube - High Stakes Poker - Phil Hellmuth vs Mike Matusow

Knew it already, but still worth a watch.

Well I would basically go with Esfandiari: "How can he fold Kings?!"

I guess Mike was too afraid in this hand playing his Kings too passive and then getting unsure at the end what to do. Maybe he also gave Phil Jacks, Queens or Aces...who knows.

He didn't call be cause either:
a) He was on drugs
b) He's playing with scared money
c) Both of the above

I'm going with c

Phil represent a big hand.
Yes, Mike had the kings, but if Mike really belived that Phil had a big hand, all kind of hand would beat him, AA, QQ, JJ... everything.. so... it's a great hand.

DenisXS said:

Pocket Kings vs. 2 7


YouTube - High Stakes Poker - Phil Hellmuth vs Mike Matusow

Click to expand...

FWIW, I think don't think it was that bad a play.

First of all, for those not familiar with the show, they were playing with the 7-2 rule that they seem to like, especially when Esfandiari is in the game where anybody who can win a pot with 7-2 gets $500.00 from every other player. Screws things up in trying to put somebody on a hand, because it's 50/50 whether they've got a monster or going for the extra bucks. This is the whole reason Hellmuth was betting out.

Anyway, flop comes Q-J-6. Matusow bets, Helmuth triples it. Hmmm, what might he have?

AA
QQ - trips
JJ - trips
66 - trips
QJ - Two pair
Q6 - Two pair
J6 - Two pair
10-9 - Open ended straight draw

7 possible hands that beat Matusow's hand, plus the drawing hand.

Matusow calls. Turn = 8 which adds:

Queen high straight to the # of hands for a total of 8

Hellmuth checks, Matusow checks. River = 6

Hellmuth bets 17,000, nearly the pot. Hmmm, what might he have now?

AA
QQ - Full house, Queens over 6's
JJ - Full house, Jacks over 6's
66 - Quads
QJ - Two pair
Q6 - Full house, 6's over Queens
J6 - Full house, 6's over Jacks
10-9 - Queen high straight.

For a total of eight hands that will beat Matusow's lone Kings. (FWIW, Kaplan's commentary was dead wrong when he stated that the only cards Hellmuth could have that would beat Matusow were AA, QQ or JJ. I think two pair, full house and quads STILL beat a pair.)


Myself, I would have folded after Hellmuth's big raise after the flop. But that's just me.

BTW, nice signature, but I had it first.

hipshot55 said:

Anyway, flop comes Q-J-6. Matusow bets, Helmuth triples it. Hmmm, what might he have?

AA
QQ - trips
JJ - trips
66 - trips
QJ - Two pair
Q6 - Two pair
J6 - Two pair
10-9 - Open ended straight draw

7 possible hands that beat Matusow's hand, plus the drawing hand.

....

For a total of eight hands that will beat Matusow's lone Kings. (FWIW, Kaplan's commentary was dead wrong when he stated that the only cards Hellmuth could have that would beat Matusow were AA, QQ or JJ. I think two pair, full house and quads STILL beat a pair.)

Click to expand...

Uhm, don't want to argue with you or something but what you totally forgot in your analysis is the preflop action.

Hellmuth re-raises Mike's 1800 raise to 7k preflop !! Should Mike then really give him hands like 109, J6, Q6, QJ, 66? I would say no....so there are only 3 hands left basically which Mike has to be afraid of and that is JJ, QQ and AA.

Kaplan was totally right with his statement.

Mike had said since that Phil knew he had only one buyin, so yes he was playing with scared money.

Looked to me like Mike was playing with scared money.

Fireball said:

Uhm, don't want to argue with you or something but what you totally forgot in your analysis is the preflop action.

Hellmuth re-raises Mike's 1800 raise to 7k preflop !! Should Mike then really give him hands like 109, J6, Q6, QJ, 66? I would say no....so there are only 3 hands left basically which Mike has to be afraid of and that is JJ, QQ and AA.

Kaplan was totally right with his statement.

Click to expand...

Disagree completely, since he made the statement after the river.

I find it really stupid how they play the 7 2 so hardcore risking thousands just to win 500 from each player for a total of 4k. They risk more than they can win from each player by playing 7 2. Big fricking deal if you can bluff your opponent out and show 7 2. Stupid.

JoeShowdown said:

I find it really stupid how they play the 7 2 so hardcore risking thousands just to win 500 from each player for a total of 4k. They risk more than they can win from each player by playing 7 2. Big fricking deal if you can bluff your opponent out and show 7 2. Stupid.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. But, they are playing with their own money (Minimum $100K buy-in, if I remember correctly) and they seem to like the added uncertainty. They do a lot of stuff like straddles and "props" bets that we mere mortals wouldn't think of, let alone consider or would ever encounter on a card room table.

Guess we have to remember these are professional gamblers, with the emphasis on "gamble". Doyle's $100K bet on weight loss. Howard Lederer eating a cheeseburger after becoming a vegetarian to win a $10K bet with, I believe, Eric Siedel. Amarillo Slim actually winning a fairly large bet for winning a round of golf using a coke bottle instead of clubs. I mean, these guys will apparently bet on just about anything.

FWIW, I like Poker After Dark much better than High Stakes Poker precisely because of the absence of the wierd side actions and modifications.

lol, i like this video very much how hellmuth wins with 2 7 lol matusow thinks he's got a great hand but is really thinking he might have the 2 7 but he folds and gets a bit mad for the 2 7 lol. I really like how hellmuth played the hand but matusow was really scared he had kings he should've gone with the hand and played it as it should be played.

That is horrible on Mike's part. I couldnt believe he laid those cowboys down... he should not have let Phil take the lead in that hand..

he tought phill had aces only way to fold

hipshot55 said:

BTW, nice signature, but I had it first.

Click to expand...

Sorry, didn't notice. Shall i keep it or I have to find another one?

yea i seen that episode its ridic that mike lays the down thinking he is such a good player he is a donk right there how could u fold to phill of all people

DenisXS said:

Sorry, didn't notice. Shall i keep it or I have to find another one?

Click to expand...

No, there are hundreds of posters on this site. Bound to be some duplication somewhere along the line. Heck, I don't own it, Steven Wright does, thus the attribution, which I see you followed as well.

Just happened to notice the sig when I was posting my response. And thank you for responding back.

I think that Mike is a moron..i definately woulda pushed all in KK...

dang, phil can sure bluff well. that would have been a tough call for me also. 40 thousand dollars with an over pair.

Thanks for this, a classic I hadnt seen. There is a lot 'personal' going on in the hand -- keep that in mind next time u have a 'grudge' feeling with someone... also the showboating with 72 for the cameras... aint no cameras around when u try it!
Ballsy play by Phil for his homeys... Mike outplayed himself by overthinking and not betting Phil out, poorly played Ks, but in the end Phil put him to the test and won. Mike played that one like a rabbit.

Phill had 72 and called it
i think this is a crazy call
phill played without him cards
i think mike must had some move but he was so passive just called it
sometimes need aggresive play

Funny seeing Phil have the balls to go all the way with that hand. Thanks for the post!!

lol

poor mike.i saw this one on t.v..lol phil got mike reel good.lol

Lol after that misstep Mike played good poker and at least broke even, although he did suck out once.

Yea im a little surprised that Mike folded here, but he did say before he folded that he makes those big river bets with hands, so he must of been worried there. Also obv you are all going to say you would call: you saw what happened and you never play for this kind of money so you can't just say you would call