Not My Hand, But Looking For Input (1 Viewer)


Jan 2, 2014
Reaction score
Phoenix, AZ
So I'm watching the old PokerStars Big Game episodes and there's a hand that got me wondering about a lot of things. On the show they implemented a segment called "Couch Cannon" which is where you only get to see the Loose Cannon's hand so as to give you perspective on playing the table. Here's the situation:

$1,200 in the pot (SB+BB+$600 button ante). The LC limps UTG with :kd::td: and Jonathan Duhamel raises UTG+1 to $1,600. Jason Mercier calls from CO, and so does Guy Laliberte from the button. LC calls the additional $1,200 and they see a flop four-ways with a pot of $7,600.

The flop comes :jh::4d::2d:. The LC checks, Duhamel bets $4,600, and Mercier and Laliberte fold. LC calls and the pot is now $16,800.

The turn is the :ts:, giving the LC a pair and the second nut flush draw. She checks and Duhamel fires again, this time for $11,600. LC calls and they go to the river. Pot is now $40,000.

The river brings the :qs:. LC checks again and Duhamel bombs it for $27,500. Here's where my questions come into play. At the least I was ranging Duhamel with something like KJ or QJ on the turn. The :qs: is an obvious bad card for the LC and Duhamel's bet looks like a first-class ticket to value-town to me. This gives the LC odds of about 2.5:1 meaning that she would have to be correct with her read a little better than 40% of the time to make her call profitable right? Also, this is only maybe the 13th hand of the night, so not a whole lot of history has been established. However, the LC calls with her :kd::td: and Duhamel turns over :8s::7d: for a total bluff.

Here's what I understand: Duhamel was clearly trying to isolate the amateur. He also picked up outs to a gutshot on the turn.

Here's what I don't understand: To make this call, the LC has to put in 35% of her remaining stack. Given the odds and the fact that she only has what is essentially a bluff-catcher, this is a bad call right?

My thought process is that the LC has plenty of time to wait for a better spot and is not getting the right odds to make this call. I'd like to hear what others have to say about this hand as well.
I don't know Duhamel's game, but from the results it looks like you're ranging him too tight. Adding a bunch of air to his range can make the river call profitable.

But I doubt LC was thinking about any of this, her line throughout the hand was just bad. IMO Duhamel made mistakes too, 78o isn't the best hand to iso a fish with (especially from UTG+1), and he should have just checked back the turn (T wasn't a great bluff card and he had a gutshot for equity) then maybe firing on the river Q. I guess being on TV makes people do silly things. :p
Loose Cannon, to me, implies they are wild, loose and aggressive. The Loose Cannon in this hand is a classical calling station. Duhamel failed to realize this and got stuck in fancy-play syndrome trying to bluff an unbluffable opponent.
I agree with both notions. LC is a calling station and made dubious decisions throughout the hand. The Pro made a fancy play, likely planning a four street bluff from the start. Problem is, the pro did this without establishing a villain read on the loose cannon and ended up trying to bluff a station. Opps!

Don't do this at home, it isn't safe nor wise -=- DrStrange
I may have been ranging Duhamel a little tight, and while I did know that he was capable of having air here, everything got there on the river. I think it was a really bad call, especially considering that the LC is the only one who couldn't reload at the table, so she would've been down to nearly 65k of her starting stack.
There's a pretty huge dynamic here that I think y'all are missing: the LC's on this show played notoriously tight/passive for the most part, especially towards the beginning of the session and the limited info Duhamel had at the time on this particular LC would reinforce that. Duhamel is kind of a maniac to begin with and believes (reasonably) that the cannon is going to wither under pressure and knowing this (as the cannon,) we can give Duhamel a pretty large amount of air in his range. At the same time, having already had a big bet called on the turn I would assume that Duhamel would check back most of his value hands on the river that the Q was also not a good card for such as KJ, AT, likely even KK-AA and JT. Basically he has to have a set or some hand that was helped by the Q (QJ, QT, AK) to fire the 3rd barrel for value here, and that's a pretty limited range. I think the call is reasonable. I would never have limp-called preflop, but I probably take the same line as the LC here postflop, though I don't know if I could have found the balls to call the river myself.
but I probably take the same line as the LC here postflop, though I don't know if I could have found the balls to call the river myself.

You don't get aggressive on the flop or turn here?
You don't get aggressive on the flop or turn here?

No. I would only donk into an aggressive pro on the flop here if I were willing to 3-bet a raise, which wouldn't be horrible but I would much rather c/c with a strong draw and decent implied odds. The T on the turn provides excellent showdown value along with the draw against a guy who is going to barrel a lot of air. Betting or raising the turn would be v. bad IMO.
You don't get aggressive on the flop or turn here?

This was also part of my thought process. When the LC spikes the T, she could have the best hand, and, if not, she has outs, so pretty significant equity. I think I would've maybe gotten aggressive on the turn.

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Top Bottom