In BT's most recent Cardplayer column, he gave an example of how Doyle Brunson used his knowledge of his opponent's betting pattern to make a great decision. It made me think of a hand that Barry Greenstein played at the 2004 Tunica WPT Tourney. I remember watching the hand when it aired and thinking that Barry made the wrong play. Then, I read about the same hand in his book, and realized that given his opponents past betting habits, he was right.

Here was the situation: 4-handed, blinds are 10K/20K. Chip Reese open shoves for 250K. Everyone else has about 1.1M. Pro on the button folds. Good amateur in the SB thinks and calls. Barry sees AdKd in the BB and pushes all in. When I first saw the hand, I thought Barry should have called, so he could get away if he missed the flop. 

However, Barry decided to push (he explained in his book) because two days earlier, he saw the same player think and reraise with KK, and in  another hand insta-raise with AA. He hadn't seen this player 3-bet with less than KK the entire tournament. Since the player thought (indicating a tough decision) and only called in this case, Barry figured he likely had a medium pair or a good ace. He had noticed that this player had trouble getting away from good aces (the previous day, he had lost a good chunk of his stack with AT vs. AK). So, Barry thought he might just get him all in with AJ or AQ. Or, he might fold a weak pair, which would also be good.

The amateur called with QQ--the hand at the very top of his range. Chip had a weak suited K. The flop came AKx and Barry eliminated them both and entered heads up play with a big lead.

Anyhow, I just thought it was terrific that Barry was able to put the amateur on a range of hands based solely on past patterns (3-betting with AA and KK) and timing tells.

(Also, Barry said that the amateur should have pushed PF to avoid a tough post-flop decision while out of position. Had he pushed, Barry said he would have mucked his AKs PF)