IMO Yang clearly outplayed FT

[shmergle]

There were 205 hands at the final table. You can see them all at http://www.pokernews.com/live-reporting/2007-wsop/event-55-world-championship-no-limit-holdem/day7/

I made a chart of all the results, and ended up with a total of 204 hands. Close enough for online.

Anyway, of these 204, 28 came to a showdown and 25 a walk for the big blind.

Yang was involved in 22 of the 28 showdowns. 9 of these were checked all the way or involved a small bet. He lost 7 of them

The other 13 showdowns were all-ins. At the time the money went all in he was better five times and lost two, worse three times and lost two, even five times and lost two. So he should have won ~7.5 and in fact won 7.

Of the 151 hands someone won with a bet without having to show down, Yang won 64. Either he had an incredible run of good cards or he outplayed everyone else. Unless ESPN shows hole cards of all the hands we won't know for sure, but the latter seems much more likely.

And Yang received 16 of the 25 walks, attributable to his aggressive style.

Seems like a very well-deserved victory to me.

[Artsemis]

Thanks for a new topic on this

[Jasper109]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for a new topic on this

[/ QUOTE ]

[gisb0rne]

He also clearly got a lot better hands.

[Cornell Fiji]

While a new thread was not necessary the OP was well written and provided meaningful analysis that I had not seen before.

Thanks for the post shmergle; don't mind the haters, they are out in full force this time of year.

[ericicecream]

[ QUOTE ]
He also clearly got a lot better hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no crime in that. Alot of players get better hands yet don't win tournaments.

[David LoPan]

glad you started this thread, I was waiting for your opinion.

[Turn Prophet]

He outplayed the FT as much as Jamie Gold did. Take that as you will.

[Cornell Fiji]

[ QUOTE ]
He outplayed the FT as much as Jamie Gold did. Take that as you will.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. I watched both FTs live and I thought that Yang played MUCH better than Gold did. I think that the OP's analysis about all of the pots that Yang won uncontested is interesting and it is what differentiated him from gold (who won a lot at showdown).

I also think that Yang was infinitely harder to read than Gold. I consider myself to be an excellent hand reader and I was able to put Gold on a very specific range last year (often because he audibly said what he had) and I was unable to do that with Yang.

-Steve

[llleisure]

It'd be extremely interesting to see a comparable analysis of Gold's play at least year FT. I *think* that Yang either outplayed the FT or just ran insanely good for 205 hands. Gold actually showed down a lot of pretty unlikely hands whereas when Yang was showing down he more often than not seemed to have a reasonable hand (barring the odd J8.) He did make a pretty sick call with A-9 but that was a chance to take out a dangerous pro who had position on him and it doesn't cripple him if he's wrong there.

Nice post OP, do the same analysis for Gold last year so can objectively compare? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[W brad]

A couple months ago I was listening to David Sklansky on Dr. Al Schoonmaker's radio show.

The thing that I remember most from that conversation was David's emphasis on the idea that when a bad or mediocre player is aggressive, he is getting as close to optimum profitable play possible.

With a donk who is insanely aggressive against good players who are too passive, I'd take the donk to win more than his fair share.

Yang did get lucky in many hands, but he also won many hands by being properly aggressive. He did outplay most of the table.

[fees]

LOL at a donkament player outplaying other donkament players
also nice sample size

good post

[jsmith5]

[ QUOTE ]
...when Yang was showing down he more often than not seemed to have a reasonable hand (barring the odd J8.) He did make a pretty sick call with A-9 but that was a chance to take out a dangerous pro who had position on him and it doesn't cripple him if he's wrong there

[/ QUOTE ]

Great post by OP.

As far as the J8 push it was actually quite a smart play as Childs had already shown he could lay down QQ. I think it was a great resteal and even if he lost would continue to set the tone that he was table boss. I also agree with analysis on the A9 call vs Watkinson.

It appeared to a few of us in the media that Yang had been coached in the Navarro/Hellmuth style of table posture (leaning forward, covering mouth, etc). Maybe someone else has given this some verbage on here already, but would like to hear any one else's thoughts.

[Ace-Ex]

I'm not sure how you can say he got "way better hands." We hardly ever saw what he was holding, particularly during the first hour when he was absolutely running over the table. Seemed to me to be a strategic play on his part. Maybe he had AA every time and we just didn't see it yet.