At the risk of appearing dumb I want to make some comments about the first hand.This hand makes no sense to me.Are these players levels ahead of me or is there some sick metagame going on?Fishenzon's play looks totally bad to me.Is his 3bet for value or a bluff? Not a hand I would ever 3bet.and, when he shoves the turn I think he is repping a very narrow range.but what the hell do I know, I only play $30-$60 husng's222  

Ryan; from what date is the hand from KidPoker? Dunno if you are aware of it, but this is Daniel Negreanus Account and his account has been hacked a couple of days ago.

Yeah, well... I'm interested in the first hand too. Fishenzon's postflop play doesn't seem too nonstandard to me. But what about his 3bet? Apparently, there must be some specific conditions under which this is more profitable than flatting 87o. I mean, suppose we have a flop with a lot of middle cards (which is a great flop for 87), and the villain recognizes that this flop hits his perceived range and raises a lot. So, if we have a villain with this tendency, can we 3bet 87o pforitably?Negreanu's play seems totally crazy to me though...

first hand looks good to me and I can see the logic behind it.If DN will fold some hands on this dry board and call with a range as weak as bottom pair then the Turn shove means we will get some decent fold equity vs his range. (ace high, king high, bottom pair probably)What it also achieves that floating DN's raise doesn't is we take the initiative away for the Turn from him and set up the turn shove while turning his range face up. Anyway that's my thoughts on it, could obv be totally wrong but I like this creative play.

"and, when he shoves the turn I think he is repping a very narrow range."That's true, but this is a 3bet pot. As ranges get tighter, the more we get polarised ranges becoming more value oriented imo.. depending on previous history, this is not an awful line for him to have taken with hands like overpairs, queens with good kicker, set of queens to set up turn shove. I don't think this is a line that I would find congruent with a stone cold bluff if I was in game. I'd probably fold everything but a queen + OTT versus a good player without further reads.

In that case I am afraid it is a hacked hand.

Notice from Daniel:Account HackingI flew out of Melbourne on the 31st and when I landed something crazy happened. I tried to log into my hotmail account and it kept saying my password was wrong. I tried a few times and was puzzled and slightly worried. I had dealt with a hacker situation with a friend in the past so I knew that it was likely my email got hacked. My main concern was just having my private e-mails exposed. I have absolutely nothing to hide, really, but there is personal stuff in there about other people and I would feel bad if that got out.I got a whatsapp message from Lex that said, "What was that all about?" I had no idea what he meant, then it dawned on me that if my email was hacked, maybe someone hacked my PokerStars account. I checked on twitter to see if there was anything on there about it, and saw one @ reply mentioning a hand I played against takechip the night before. At that moment I feared the worst. I texted my assistant Patty to see if she could log into my email account, called my agent Brian to find out if there was any activity on my Stars account. I got the news back pretty quickly that the hacker did get into my account for a joyride. Something I'll never understand. He didn't dump money to any one specific player, he kind of just sprayed my money around several tables, ultimately losing $61,000 of my money. Not entirely sure why he didn't empty my account, but I'm thankful that he didn't. In cases like this, it's clearly spelled out in the PokerStars user agreement, that if your email is hacked you won't be reimbursed by the company... no matter who you are. Since it's clear that my account was hacked, and it wasn't the fault of PokerStars in any way, I just have to eat the loss. Since I'd essentially lost a million a few days earlier, the $61,000 didn't really sting all that much. I was just happy to recover my email account from the hacker.There is an ongoing investigation, obviously, and I'm hoping they catch the guy. I wish old school Las Vegas rules applied in cases like this, where you could take the guy out to the desert for an afternoon and get some justice, but alas, we don't live in that world any more. I feel an appropriate punishment would be a few swift baseball bat swings to the groin area, and possibly a castration, but that's just me :-)Many have asked me if I was using an RSA token. The answer is no, but I will be acquiring one for future play on PokerStars. Truth is, I just didn't really understand the technology all too well and felt like it was a bit of a hassle to use, so I chose not to. I recommend that you get one, it's actually simpler than you'd think. It's like a little keychain "thingy" and the only way to access your account is to enter a number that appears on that key. Once you are in, the number will change for the next time. This way, a hacker would have to also acquire your RSA token to gain access to your account. I think they are about $15 and you can use FPP's to buy them from the PokerStars VIP store. Truth is, with an RSA token PokerStars security is rock solid. If someone is able to hack your email account, while that sucks for you, if you have an RSA token in your possession they cannot access your PokerStars account. So the money is gone. I am not getting any special treatment whatsoever. Had the money been dumped to one account and that player tried to cash it out, I imagine something could have been done, but that's not what happened here. You simply can't ask the players who won money off the hacker to simply give it back. It's just not even an option. I accept the decision and think it's totally fair. In fact, there is precedence as it's happened to other people, so under no circumstances would I even accept special treatment in this case. It wasn't offered at any point, but even if it had, I would have said it is totally unfair.