As of November 2021, the APT Forum is closed to new posts. Like with many online forums, usage has decreased in recent years. All previous posts are still available.
2017 WSOP Main Event Final Table -- Hand #146
Three players remaining. Scott Blumstein and Dan Ott both have big stacks, while Ben Pollak is down to 20 big blinds. In a 3-bet pot against Dan Ott, Scott flops the nut flush draw. Will he put Dan to the test?
NOTE: In all these Scott Blumstein Hand Reviews, the best learning experience is achieved by pausing the video at each decision point, and thinking through the situation BEFORE listening to Scott's comments.
If you want to practice playing your flush draws, try it in our new Combat Trainer:
Click here to practice your flush draws with Queen-Jack suited
NOTE: The link above will not work right unless you are a paid member of Advanced Poker Training.
Sign In to comment.
Comments
Hey @SteveBlay - thanks for posting this one. I remember watching it and thinking "he just won the tournament" when it was over.
Would it be possible to get a little of your commentary on the hand as well, especially if you could critique Ott's play? If we take out the immense pressure of the situation and just look at it clinically? In my humble opinion I thought Ott made a huge mistake here, namely that he just didn't have a plan for this hand. As a result, he allowed himself to lose a sizable portion of his stack at a critical time.
For example, could he have put in a small 4-bet preflop to keep Scott honest, with the intention of folding to a shove? Even if he is called, he has position and the betting lead and puts Scott on his back foot instead of the other way around? Maybe a bit too aggressive but do you think this could be a decent play? There are a ton of hands Scott could make a move with against a standard button open that can't call a 4-bet OOP. So, he would have to fold most of his range to the 4-bet. With Pollack being so short, the range Scott should be willing to stack off with is puny. Therefore, if he shoves, Ott could comfortably fold.
As the hand went, I thought flatting the flop bet was a decision point. Maybe too weak to call-fold in general but if he calls he has to have a plan for the next street. I'm not sure what that was. He's in a bad spot the rest of the way when he flats. Yes he holds a somewhat relevant 8c but that skews the probability away from Scott having the flush draw and more towards Ax/value, doesn't it? Even if Scott is on the flush, the only ones Ott could draw ahead of are 5/6, 5/7 and 6/7. Every other possible 3-bet hand with a flush draw has his 8 beat I think. If Scott was 3-betting his small pairs, Ott is now only ahead of 22, 66 and 77.
So, once he calls the flop, he faces another bet on the turn. Now there are 2 overcards to his pair, a possible made flush and the straight draw in case Scott was on 5/6 or 6/7. He's still plenty healthy in terms of chips with more than 50BB if he folds here. If he calls, he's down to ~40BB and still facing another street. To me, if he made up his mind that he was ahead here, he needed to call most rivers. Instead he called the turn and folded to a pretty irrelevant 2s. If he wasn't going to call that river, exactly what rivers would he have called?
I think this is a really meaty hand to look at from Ott's perspective and would love to hear your thoughts on it if you can.
Thanks again for brining great content to this site.
Would be interested in hearing anyone's breakdown of this hand, from either perspective.
Hi Warlock, I'm hoping some other members might chime in. Here's a conversation starter: perhaps before calling the turn he should decide if he's willing to go the distance or not? It could be argued that the chip leader is going to shove the river a lot of the time. So you call the flop, but then you either fold the turn, or go all the way. But not call turn fold river. Just a conversation starter though...
Thanks @SteveBlay . This was my thought as well. I could understand a call-call-fold to certain rivers but there had to be a commitment to calling at least a majority of them if he was going to call the turn. He just looked defensive and unsure the entire way to me.
Also, I went through the video again and focused on the part where you questioned Scott about whether he would bet AK on the turn or check it back for pot control. Scott didn't go deep into it but I would have liked to hear how he would have treated the 3 combos of AxKc vs the rest of the combos not holding the key card. I would think that he'd bet AxKc and I'm just not sure what the proper strategy would be for the others.