You’ve read their books and watched their DVDs, and probably looked on in awe as some of your favorite poker players ply their trade in televised tournaments and inevitably seem to outplay and outlast their opponents on their way to the winner’s circle.

But occasionally, even the players we admire most do something that makes us scratch our heads and wonder … what were they thinking? If nothing else, it shows that even the world’s best players are human and they make mistakes, too.

However, it’s one thing to make an ill-advised bluff or an emotion-driven decision and, with the catastrophic meltdowns of Kenny Tran and Scotty Nguyen in the 2007 Main Event freshly unveiled by ESPN for us to ponder, I could devote a whole column to that topic alone. And next time, I might do just that.

To some extent, judgment errors are easy to understand. Nguyen wouldn’t have moved all-in on Phillip Hilm if he knew his opponent had the near-nuts. He just made a bad read. Conversely, errors in fundamentals are more baffling when it comes to top pros. Mistakes in calculating pot odds, breach of etiquette or unspoken rules, the failure to recognize when one is clearly behind and similar mistakes are really the ones that are cause for pause. In a lot of cases, these errors are in clear violation of lessons we learned from the culprit himself.

To mark these occasions, I’ve put together a top 5 list of the biggest televised fundamental blunders among top pros over the past couple of years. Keep in mind, these don’t include bad bluffs or tilt plays, just glaring errors in basic play.

5. Hachem is just one jack off – This might have been one of the most misplayed hands in WSOP Main Event final table history. I was initially surprised there wasn’t more commentary on this hand on poker blogs and in magazines, until Card Player magazine ran a column regarding this hand.

Three-handed with the coveted bracelet and $7.5 million on the line, happy-go-lucky long shot Steve Dannenmann opened for a raise from the button with 7-7. Likeable eventual champion Joseph Hachem looked down at J-J in the small blind and simply … called?! We’ll get back to that in a minute.

It might have worked in the Australian’s favor when super-solid Tex Barch probably perceived the call as weakness, and opted to push in his last couple million chips from the big blind with A-6 off-suit.

If Hachem’s original call was a mistake – and it was, how can you just call there, out of position against an inexperienced and unpredictable opponent? – then what he did next was worse. Dannenmann called the remainder of Barch’s all-in raise, leaving the action on Hachem, who, given another chance to raise … just called again! Hachem and Dannenmann elected to check down the ragged board, and Hachem’s jacks held up to give him the pot, eliminate Barch and the rest is history.

So what’s the problem, you ask? There were plenty. For one, jacks are too vulnerable a hand, and too big of a hand three-handed, to simply flat call and opening raise. If Hachem was purposely trying to bait Barch into moving all-in, then he should have gone over the top of Dannenmann when given a second chance to do so.

There are several reasons why he should have done this: for one, he clearly had the best hand and had a chance to pick up some major dead money from Dannenmann by moving in and isolating heads-up against Barch. Moreover, there’s a reasonable chance Dannenmann would have called Hachem’s all-in, given the amateur’s taste for playing big pre-flop pots against his more skilled opponents. If Danneman decided Hachem had A-K or something in the ballpark, all the money might have gone in right there and Hachem could have all but ended it.

As it was, the Australian backed into a heads-up match with the worst player at the final table and easily disposed of him. He probably had a good feeling when, during a break before heads-up play, Dannenmann conceded, win or lose, he just wanted it over quickly. Hachem obliged, but it’s worth noting that his final-table play left a lot to be desired.

A short stack for most of the night, he clearly played to back into the highest possible payday and, for a workingman with a family to feed who had never been on the cusp of such a huge cash, it’s hard to blame him. Even so, you like to see your champions have more of a play-to-win mentality and, in that regard, Hachem was a bit of a let down.

4. Sebok checks the absolute nuts – Granted, Joe Sebok is still largely inexperienced as top players go, but you would think, with his bloodlines and the tutoring at his disposal, that you would not see a mistake like this from the son of Barry Greenstein.

At the 2005 WSOP limit hold’em final table, Sebok, holding two aces with the ace of diamonds, re-raised an opponent who had opened with 10-10. Annie Duke re-raised behind Sebok with J-J, and Sebok capped the action when it got back to him. The low, all-diamond flop must have looked good to both Sebok and his opponent Luke Neely, who held the 10 of diamonds. Duke avoided more trouble on the flop because her hand did not contain a diamond. Neely check-called all the way down and, when a diamond hit the river, he checked again. Sebok, holding the absolute nuts, inexplicably checked behind Neely, saving his opponent the last bet he had in his stack.

Sebok later claimed he believed he held the ace of hearts, which seems believable under the circumstances. But even though a “suit check” can be a little embarrassing when a number of the same suit hits the felt, this is one time when it was warranted. Neely busted out on the next hand and Sebok soon followed, and the mistake might not have cost Sebok the tournament, but it certainly was a strange one.

After the cards were flipped over, eventual runner-up Gabe Kaplan looked at the hands and, appearing confused, rhetorically asked, “There was no river bet?!”

That’s about all that needs to be said.

3. Presto! – David Sklansky goes broke with 5-5 – Going broke with a pocket pair in a three-handed game would be understandable for perhaps just about any player in the world; the only exceptions that come to mind would be Phil Hellmuth and David Sklansky, the pioneering poker theoretician who revolutionized the game by showing readers how to “get the best of it” with his groundbreaking book “The Theory of Poker,” and numerous other successful titles.

On the rare occasions that he makes a televised table, Sklansky is admittedly smitten with himself because it validates that he is player first, author second, and it shows his loyal devotees that the math genius isn’t just all words and no game when it comes to poker.

So when viewers watched the 2006 WPT Borgata Open final table, it was no surprise to see Sklansky deftly work his short stack into contention, repeatedly finding ways to get the best of it against a generally loose-wild table and climb his way into the final three. But that’s when the trouble started.

After his stack reached a respectable $4 million, the noted author raised to $400,000 from the button with 5-5. Ultra-solid rising star Chris McCormack looked down at 10-10 in the big blind and made it $2 million to go. After some deliberation, Sklansky moved the rest of chips in and was practically drawing dead when the 8-10-8 flop gave his opponent the full house.

The irony in his decision is that it would seem to contradict what you could reasonably bet would be Sklansky’s advice if you wrote to him about the exact same hand in a tournament you played. You have to consider your hand, your opponent, your threshold of pot commitment and other factors. Based on all of the above, Sklansky himself would probably tell you this is a clear fold.

Let’s start with the hand. If he held A-K in this spot, no one could argue with an instant shove-in even if he knew his opponent’s hand. Big slick plays best when it gets to see all five cards and there is a wide range of hands his opponent could have re-raised with that A-K has dominated. It would be hard to let go of A-K unless there was clear information that it was dominated (say both players behind you re-raise). However, Sklansky had a small pair, which rated to be only a small favorite or a huge underdog to any hand his opponent might re-raise with.

Now, the opponent. If you saw the show, it was clear that McCormack was the class of that final table, unafraid to tangle with and outplay loose-wild chip leader Mark Newhouse throughout the night. He is a much more solid player – Newhouse won the heads-up match only because he got a ridiculous run of good cards -- and McCormack’s re-raise should have come with more respect than if it had come from Newhouse. McCormack knew that Sklansky is super-tight, so his opening range is narrower than it would be from most players on the button in a three-handed game. He knew Sklansky must have a hand, and chose to come over the top anyway.

Finally, the chip threshold. Sklansky only had committed 10 percent of his stack to the raise and would have been fine chip-wise had he chose to muck. Granted, nobody ever won a championship by repeatedly laying down pocket pairs three-handed, but if there is one guy you would expect to be capable of it, that man is David Sklansky.

2. Phil Ivey’s H.O.R.S.E. call makes him look like a donkey -- It should be noted up front that the 2006 WSOP $50,000 buy-in H.O.R.S.E. final table probably stands alone as the most spectacular display of no-limit tournament poker skill ever televised. If you ever want to learn how the game should be played, make sure to watch the telecast whenever it is replayed. It was terribly disappointing that the WSOP chose to stick to the mixed-games format for the 2007 final table and deny viewers another chance to see the best of the best square off in a no-limit format.

For all the memorable outstanding plays that were made – Doyle Brunson’s muck of Q-Q on a low flop to Chip Reese’s raise with K-K, Ivey folding A-K suited to Reese’s re-raise with A-A – the couple of blunders that were witnessed were all the more perplexing.

The first was Ivey’s all-in call with A-10 off-suit against Dewey Tomko’s Q-Q. Ivey opened with a raise from early position and Tomko, a dwindling but not desperate short stack, didn’t hesitate to move all-in over the top. This wasn’t an instant call based on pot commitment; in fact, Tomko had enough chips that Ivey wasn’t even getting 2-to-1 on a call.

After some thought, Ivey declared, “I don’t see how I can lay it down,” and proceeded to make the call. Tomko’s queens held and he doubled up. It reminded me a move most often seen online, when the original raiser calls a huge all-in bet way behind for no apparent reason, other than to prove to the table he wasn’t raising with total garbage.

Don’t see how you could lay it down? My question is, how could Ivey NOT lay it down? For one, A-10 isn’t much of a hand from early position. Moreover, it isn’t much of a hand when faced with a re-raise and finally, A-10 really shrinks up when that re-raise comes from the tightest player at the table. There is not a single hand you can think of that Tomko would push in with that wouldn’t have the A-10 dominated. You would think A-Q would be the worst hand he would push with there, and the rest would all be hands that were at least a 3-to-1 favorite over Ivey’s. How Ivey failed to recognize this is perplexing, and it earned him a lecture from the grandmaster himself.

As the hands were turned over, Brunson gave Ivey a disgusted look and asked, “What did you think he was going to have when he did that … A-9?” Ivey responded that he was hoping to see pocket 8s, but even his argument sounded half-hearted.

1. David Singer’s misguided “continuation” bet – From the same H.O.R.S.E. final table, this play has to go down as the preeminent head-scratching fundamental blunder from a top pro in televised poker history. This one really makes you wonder how Singer navigated his way through the best of the best for several days to make it to the most elite final table of all time.

With a severely short-stacked Doyle Brunson in the big blind, Singer opened from late position with K-10 off-suit. Former Main Event champion Jim Bechtel looked down at A-Q in the small blind and, after he appeared to consider re-raising, accurately assessed the situation and chose to just call. Brunson gave his trademark sheepish grin and declared, “The hell with it,” and threw in the last of his chips with J-6 off-suit.

The ragged flop came queen-high and Bechtel checked, at which point Singer, with no hand and no draw … inexplicably bets $150,000 into a dry side pot. Bechtel looked confused and a little angry; he then raised enough to put Singer all-in and Singer folded. The queens held up, Bechtel scooped the pot and Brunson was eliminated.

The viewers and commentators were left wondering just what Singer was thinking when he made that “continuation” bet. ESPN commentator Norman Chad called it a “curious bet,” and this viewer is still curious. I would love to get the chance to ask Singer what went through his mind when fired on the flop. Then again, I can’t think of a reason that would make sense.

If the reasons for not doing so weren’t obvious enough, here is part of the laundry list: for one, Singer had no hand and no draw, and betting essentially robbed himself of taking a free card to hit his three outs; secondly, there was no money in the side pot; third, a dangerous player was all-in from the big blind (and calling Doyle “dangerous” is a gross understatement), and eliminating someone meant a jump in $60,000 in prize money for the remaining participants, which should have mattered to Singer, who was running short on chips himself and ended up in sixth place. All told, it might be the most bizarre play you’ll ever see from a so-called world-class professional.