Sliwinski vs. Phillips Hand from Final 2 Tables...

[mash_tun]

From PokerNews:

Dennis Phillips opened the pot for 460,000 and Nicholas Sliwinski called from the big blind. The flop was {9-Hearts} {7-Hearts} {3-Hearts}. Sliwinski led out for 500,000 and Phillips made the call. The turn was the {6-Spades}. Sliwinski bet 1.2 million and Phillips called. The river was the {9-Spades}. Sliwinski moved all in and Phillips insta-called.

Phillips rolled over {K-Hearts} {Q-Hearts} for the king-high flush. Sliwinski tabled {5-Diamonds} {6-Hearts} for only a pair of sixes and headed over to his entourage, who enveloped him and spoke some hushed words of comfort. Phillips had Sliwinski covered and he was eliminated in 13th place, taking home $463,201.

After the hand, Phillips was up to over 14 million.

----

Now I know I'm analyzing this hand without information about table dynamics, tells, etc., but this just doesn't make much sense as a place where you'd want to try and pull a hero bluff.

As best as I can piece it together from PokerNews, Sliwinski probably had about 6-7 million chips at the time, and Phillips about the same. Blinds were 80K/160K/20K, so both had an M of about 18-20. Everything I've read on PokerNews leads me to believe that Phillips seems to play an overall TAG game; most of the time he's indicated that he's willing to go to showdown, he's had a hand.

Preflop: Phillips makes a standard raise, Sliwinski calls OOP w. connectors. Justifiable, getting almost 3:1, especially if he's seen Phillips overvalue TPTK or overpair hands.

Flop (Pot = 1.12 mil): Sliwinski flops a double-gutter and a weak flush draw, so he has many outs, but many of them may be douts if Phillips is holding a high heart. I think the 1/2-PS lead is OK here; Phillips calling here has to be a bit troubling.

Turn (Pot = 2.12 mil): The 6s is a bad/good card for Sliwinski. If he leads here and gets called, he has to figure that Phillips is not terrified of a straight or flush, which leaves either a made flush or a strong hand like a set (with outs to a FH) as likely holdings. When his 1.2 mil bet gets called, Sliwinski should be done with the hand here, though if the board pairs on the river, it would allow him one last bluff opportunity to represent a rivered FH. But, Phillips may really have a FH, or may have the nut flush and make the crying call anyways.

River: (Pot = 4.5 mil): Sliwinski gets a card that would allow him to bluff and represent a FH. It's foolish to push here, but Sliwinski does it for about 5 million, and is toast.

Yuck.

[chrisjp]

When he's called on the turn he is toast. And Phillips has shown down many hands. You're not getting him to fold if he has something.

There is a very interesting hand in WPT by pearljammer, Hand 47, where there is a monotone flop. It's not relevant to this discussion, but it is a great example of the kind of situation where a bluff can work.

Chris

[clabbers]

Phillips should avoid the tough river decision by reraising on flop or turn. He guessed right here, but why guess? You have to be willing to go broke with the second nuts here.

[chrisjp]

Yeah but if Sliwinski is one of these loose wild bluffers, then playing rope-a-dope busts him. I'm not saying Phillips is playing on this level, but I'm sure Hellmuth would call the turn. And beat Sliwinski into the pot when he pushes the river.

Sliwinski is reckless enough to push the river obviously, and I think his play prior to this proves it if I remember the reports on pokernews correctly. Maybe that will be confirmed on ESPN in September/October--and maybe not.

Chris

[mchilger]

Why bluff when you might have the best hand? Phillips could be on the nut flush draw with the Ah. If he checks, there is a chance Phillips checks with A high and he could take down the pot.

Another problem with this bluff is that the lead out on the flop is often indicative of a drawing or weak hand. It is harder to represent a monster when you do that as opposed to check-raising at some point in the hand.

However, I know the feeling where you build a big pot and want to do something about it, but you have to learn when to put on the brakes also.

I like how Phillips played it.

Matthew

[clabbers]

Is it possible that the internet has built so many LAGs and so many people experienced at playing against LAGs that the balance of power is beginning to shift back to TAGs in tournament poker?
Maybe I just want to believe that.
Maybe not.