My latest poker strategy article, Joseph Cheong WSOP Final Table “Blow Up“, has just been published in the December 2010 issue of 2+2 Magazine. It’s an in-depth analysis of the complex factors at play in the infamous A7 vs. QQ hand, many of which have been overlooked by commentary thus far:
Though some have questioned it, Duhamel’s decision to risk his tournament life with QQ seems intuitive enough when we see that Cheong is indeed capable of making a move like this. It was Cheong’s play with Ace-rag that really raised eyebrows. The conventional wisdom has been that this was a “blow up”, a spiraling out of control of the disciplined aggression that had kept Cheong in control of the final table for most of the day.
I am not so quick to agree. I can’t say for certain whether his play was correct, but I can imagine circumstances that would justify it. Whether those circumstances existed I don’t know, because I was not at the table that night, but neither were those rushing to condemn his play. The critiques that I’ve read have generally failed to address the possible justifications for this aggressive move. In short, I’ve concluded that while Cheong’s play certainly looks reckless, we don’t have the information we’d need to judge him definitively.
In this article, I will discuss this hand in-depth and look at some of the factors that each player should have been considering at each decision point. Of course, I cannot tell you what they were actually thinking. My intent is only to elevate the level of discussion surrounding a hand that is now a prominent part of poker history.
Have a look and please let me know what you think!
Nice writeup on the Cheong hand.
Nice. I liked the insight on the four-bet sizing. I was thinking the same thing about how the media was portraying it and didn’t think it was fair to Cheong.
I hate to say it, but I suspect some of the Cheong-bashing is just plain old racism. Too many white poker players think that all Asian players are impulsive gamboolers who are prone to making crazy plays. People who think like that are not predisposed to give an obviously Asian player the benefit of the doubt when they see a play like this.
I cannot rule this out, but I’ve heard many folks discuss how Cheong was the best player at the table for most of the play. The same folks then simply call this hand a spazz or spew by Cheong. Personally, I put more weight on the lack of understanding of his style of play than I do on racism.
It can be both. I guess some might quibble with the term “racism” in this context, but I don’t think you have to dislike Asians or Asian poker players generally to be predisposed to assume that an Asian poker player would make a spewy-aggressive play.
A great article.
FWIW…there were virtually identical reactions to the Ferguson-Cloutier final hand, when Chris called TJ’s all-in with A9o (Chris would have been very short-stacked if he lost the hand). The conclusion of the poker media and the chattering online classes was almost universally that Jesus had made a bad call and gotten lucky. A few brave voices tried to argue otherwise, but were largely regarded as crazy for not seeing the “obvious”.
I read somewhere (maybe DrGIGGY’s blog) that Cheong might have had the possibility of a 10million bonus (full-tilt I think) for first. Obviously I am not sure if it is true but it makes his play make more sense in my eyes anyways.It’s a rumor so take it with a grain of salt.
This is a very good point that should have occurred to me. The 10M bonus is part of FTP’s standard package, so I wouldn’t be at all surprised if that were true, and you’re right that it would cause the play to make that much more sense.
Though I realize J.D. might have played hands like AQ, AJs, 99,10’s, JJ, KQs differently, I was wondering if you think he calls Cheong’s shove with any of these hands? I guess I am most curious about JJ (and even AKo).
I can’t imagine he would 5-bet small with them unless he planned on calling a shove. Most likely he would either flat or 5-bet-shove with those hands, though perhaps JJ would be good enough to 4-bet small.
This is an important part I wanted to make, though: Cheong’s 6th bet should not designed to make Duhamel fold any particularly good hands, as Duhamel presumably has a polarized 5-betting range. Thus, Cheong should shove A7 only if he thinks Duhamel is heavily weighted towards bluffs, NOT with the intention of trying to fold out medium-strength hands like the ones you mention.
Can Cheong ever flat the 5-bet? It seems terrible but the raise is so very small. If not with A7o are there other hands he could have that could profitably flat?
He probably could, but there are two problems:
1. That doesn’t seem like his style, ie JD may well be able to assume that Cheong won’t ever flat even if it would theoretically be profitable with some hands.
2. Most of the hands that could flat profitable probably shouldn’t be 4-betting because JD is more likely to shove than to 5-bet small. So hands like J9s or something that benefit from seeing the flop and aren’t great hands for getting all-in should just call the 3-bet rather than risk losing the opportunity to see the flop.
A great article and very informative, but if your purpose was to inform the uninformed then it probably doesn’t do the best job. I.e., the majority of people that will eat up all the technical analysis here are most likely online, advanced players that already understand the aggressive nature of the table. A little excessive on the “he needs to remember Duhamel is shortstacked” and too many statistics (72% vs 78%, is it really that huge of a difference?). Also relatively long at least from what I’ve read of your articles. Though it definitely gets the job done if one reads and tries to understand all of it.
Just my take on it.
Fair points. I wrote it in one sitting, which isn’t my usual process and probably resulted in a less polished final product.
I do think though that there are a lot of casual/small stakes 2p2 readers who can appreciate a more technical analysis even if they can’t perform one themselves. These are the people who read a lot of commentary and are probably willing to take the word of “experts” like Hellmuth until they encounter a dissenting argument. I have no delusions of reaching the larger WSOP-viewing public.
Oh and yes 72% vs. 78% is a pretty important difference. Thanks for the feedback!
Well thought out and well written as always Andrew. Thanks for the continued knowledge.
I wasn’t AT the final table, but I watched live coverage of the entire thing and while I think Duhammel has some 5bet-folding range, I think the vast majority of his 5betting range there is 5b-calling, given my observations of the final table, how often he got out of line and especially how often HE didn’t get out of line (most likely). Of course my external observations aren’t of the same quality as someone in the game, of course, but to justify the shove some pretty extraordinary circumstances had to have been present, and I see no evidence that they were.
An aspect that I am surprised that has not been mentioned here yet is that it is quite likely that this sort of super aggressive play is what eventually propelled Cheong to the final three in the first place. In fear of stating the obvious, putting a player in this spot when the stakes are highest and everyone is watching is a powerful play.
Here is an example: I know all the capitals of the United States, but if I had to put $1.2m on the outcome of a recitation of them, I can’t say that I wouldn’t doubt my memory. Foucalt’s analysis makes sense with or without the bonus from FTP. No matter what the actual case was, this article made me want to become a better player.