EVERY final table hand shown was with Jamie Gold...
 

...except the one where wasicka takes out Kim.

Every other hand was with Jamie gold.

God that deck hit him up the head. I give him credit for talking his opponents into paying him off, but christ, damn near every hand shown where has a significant stake of the pot he hits a set, makes trips, make TPTK headsup, hitsw a gutshot, gets QQ into someone else's JJ...twice..and on and on. Or when he is behind and CALLS cunninghams allin with KJ and hits his King, or pushing 3 way pot allin into a deadpot with bottom straight draw, and getting there...

Like i say i give him credit for talking opponents into calling, but otherwise any monkey could play those cards and that rush. The cards basically played them self.

And why didnt binger call the floor when gold exposed his jack.....he could have had the pot right there...

Re: EVERY final table hand shown was with Jamie Gold...
 

[ QUOTE ]
And why didnt binger call the floor when gold exposed his jack.....he could have had the pot right there...

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure that Gold with have received either a warning or a penalty. I don't believe the hand would have been deemed dead.

Re: EVERY final table hand shown was with Jamie Gold...
 

And FYI - I saw the PPV and they did a great job of editing, what you saw was what you got, not many if any significant hands were played between the others solo besides Kim getting waxed.

Re: EVERY final table hand shown was with Jamie Gold...
 

[ QUOTE ]

Every other hand was with Jamie gold.

God that deck hit him up the head...gets QQ into someone else's JJ...twice..and on and on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, the thing that struck me was that quite a few times his opponents had legitimately playable hands, but he had an even better one. That's luck of the draw and he merely needed to play well enough to let them hang themselves--which he did, give him credit.

Re: EVERY final table hand shown was with Jamie Gold...
 

[ QUOTE ]
And why didnt binger call the floor when gold exposed his jack.....he could have had the pot right there...

[/ QUOTE ]

The hand wouldn't have been rule dead. Most likely Gold would have received a 10 minute penalty. Binger doesn't want that because he can't play Wasica heads up and they won't make a dent in Gold's stack through the blinds. Wasica should have been the one to call it but I figure he didn't want to look like a jerk on TV.

Re: EVERY final table hand shown was with Jamie Gold...
 

Every hand included Gold because he played most of the big pot hands at the FT and those are the ones that make it on TV.

And well, normally when you win the ME, you're there longer than the others, which obviously means that you'll be involved in more hand.

I don't blame Gold for calling AC's all-in with KJ. He knew he was behind, but he also knew that he couldn't outplay Allen in the long run (when Allen called off his bluff with ace high, he looked very shook up on the PPV) and that he had the chips to spare so then even if Allen did double up, he'd still have a stranglehold on the rest of the table.

Re: EVERY final table hand shown was with Jamie Gold...
 

How about the AT binger vs AQ cunningham hand?

Re: EVERY final table hand shown was with Jamie Gold...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And why didnt binger call the floor when gold exposed his jack.....he could have had the pot right there...

[/ QUOTE ]

The hand wouldn't have been rule dead. Most likely Gold would have received a 10 minute penalty. Binger doesn't want that because he can't play Wasica heads up and they won't make a dent in Gold's stack through the blinds. Wasica should have been the one to call it but I figure he didn't want to look like a jerk on TV.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. If they are smart, they play ery quickly, and are taking what, half a million from his stack every 3 hands? Sure, maybe they only get 3 or 4 million from him, but it all adds up. Coupled with the fact that neither of them then has the 800-lb gorilla breathing down their neck, it would have been a +EV move from either of them.

Actually, it looks like blinds were at LEAST 250k/500k/50k at the time it happened, so near a million evey three hands. If true, not calling the penalty on him is one of the biggest missteps in WSOP FT history. They coulda chopped out near 10% of his stack with no risk vs him.

Re: EVERY final table hand shown was with Jamie Gold...
 

Gold would have gotten a warning if anything was done. Nobody wants to see players removed from the final table for something like that even if it's just for 10 minutes.

Re: EVERY final table hand shown was with Jamie Gold...
 

There were def. several other hands that could have made the broadcast, and imo, should have been for variety. Notably the Wasicka double up through Binger and Binger's double up through Cunningham. However, Gold was the story, and they did a fine job of potraying how the final actually was in the few hands shown on the ESPN broadcast.

This is ESPN to though, people can take chip leads at final tables from a low stack and youd never know watching the broadcast.

Re: EVERY final table hand shown was with Jamie Gold...
 

My God Cunningham read him like a picture book.

Re: EVERY final table hand shown was with Jamie Gold...
 

What I found to be most bothersome about the whole focus on Jamie Gold was the intro to the final show. The whole "Jamie Gold you've made it this far, and you've had the chip lead." " Are you ready to win the biggest prize in sports?" "Blah, blah, blah."

It's the World Series of Poker, not Jamie Gold's World Series of Poker. Granted it was his to lose at that point, but still, I think it was overdone, and that that kind of hype was not neceassarry, and seemed disrespectful to everyone at the table, as well as to the event itself.

Re: EVERY final table hand shown was with Jamie Gold...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Gold would have gotten a warning if anything was done. Nobody wants to see players removed from the final table for something like that even if it's just for 10 minutes.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I agree with this, if the WSOP has instituted a rule for reasons of not prejudicing play, I have no problem enforcing it in this case, whether I like the rule or not. It's different than the swearing rule to me, and if Gold can get away with it, I believe others should get to also.

Also, where were all the penalties for telling somone your hand? I saw at least twice where he said his hand, if not exactly, he stated the value of his holding. This uneven application of stupid rules is bad for poker.

Re: EVERY final table hand shown was with Jamie Gold...
 

I covered a final table in an earlier WSOP event where this happened and here is what the floorman told me:

It is up to the discretion of the floor to decide if showing the hand was intentionally done to gain an advantage or accidentally shown becuase of an innocent mistake. If it was an innocent mistake, the player would receive a warning with no penalty. If it was deemed to be tactical, the player would receive a penalty. There is no way the hand would be mucked, though.

Keep in mind every floorman rules differently though. It seemed like Gold did it accidentally, so if someone called floor he would probably just get a warning.

And Gold was shown 90% of the time because he was in 90% of the pots. Nothing they can do about that.

Re: EVERY final table hand shown was with Jamie Gold...
 

[ QUOTE ]


It seemed like Gold did it accidentally, so if someone called floor he would probably just get a warning.



[/ QUOTE ]

What the hell were you watching? That wasn't an accident. He showed a jack because it may have completed a straight.

Re: EVERY final table hand shown was with Jamie Gold...
 

[ QUOTE ]
I covered a final table in an earlier WSOP event where this happened and here is what the floorman told me:

It is up to the discretion of the floor to decide if showing the hand was intentionally done to gain an advantage or accidentally shown becuase of an innocent mistake. If it was an innocent mistake, the player would receive a warning with no penalty. If it was deemed to be tactical, the player would receive a penalty. There is no way the hand would be mucked, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have been at a number of tables where a player intentionally exposed a card to gain an advantage, and every time the player was just given a warning.

Re: EVERY final table hand shown was with Jamie Gold...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I covered a final table in an earlier WSOP event where this happened and here is what the floorman told me:

It is up to the discretion of the floor to decide if showing the hand was intentionally done to gain an advantage or accidentally shown becuase of an innocent mistake. If it was an innocent mistake, the player would receive a warning with no penalty. If it was deemed to be tactical, the player would receive a penalty. There is no way the hand would be mucked, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have been at a number of tables where a player intentionally exposed a card to gain an advantage, and every time the player was just given a warning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough, but I;m guessing this wasn;t the first time he had done this over the course of the WSOPME, and if so, after the first warning, penalties are the next step.

Re: EVERY final table hand shown was with Jamie Gold...
 

Over here in the east, at least eastern canada and toronto, they have hardline rule that under no circumstances can anyone show their hand to anyone else at any point while still in the action.

If you do, your hand is dead. Immediately. No further discussion.

Heres a hardcore example of this and how its applied to our area. At a CPT event i played in couple of months ago everyone folds to the button. We were just about to go on break after our 6th hour of play.

He puts in a raise to something like 4600 trying to steal the blinds and anticipating they wont put up a fight just before the break. He failed to realize that the BB was a shortstack and was almost pot commited anyways with the BB and SB in.

Sure enuff the BB goes allin, and he has total of about 4800. As he pushes is obvious its an automatic call by the button, and i think that he even thought that the button original raise had him covered already, so he flips up his hand.

No matter what the button has he has to call the remaning 200 on what is now a 10000+ pot, but he was on a total steal with rags and failed to recognize the BB was such a potcommited short stack.

Technically there is still action on him cuz he hasnt called the extra 200, and since the other player flipped his cards he calls the floor stating the guy exposed his cards during the hand.

Sure enough, thats what the floorman ruled, button wins the pot uncontested, and the BB gets his extra 200 back.

No negiotating, no pleading, no warning, no budging as to what the floorman deems to be "fair" in his opinion. The hand is dead end of story.

And that is how its played over here.

Its frustrating for the other player in this case, but at least we all play by the rules and they don't get bent...

Re: EVERY final table hand shown was with Jamie Gold...
 

[ QUOTE ]
What I found to be most bothersome about the whole focus on Jamie Gold was the intro to the final show. The whole "Jamie Gold you've made it this far, and you've had the chip lead." " Are you ready to win the biggest prize in sports?" "Blah, blah, blah."

It's the World Series of Poker, not Jamie Gold's World Series of Poker. Granted it was his to lose at that point, but still, I think it was overdone, and that that kind of hype was not neceassarry, and seemed disrespectful to everyone at the table, as well as to the event itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Atleast Norman Chad kept Alan Cunningham as his pick for the win the whole time. I mean c'mon he's ALAN CUNNINGHAM!

Re: EVERY final table hand shown was with Jamie Gold...
 

Quick question, who had a higher percentage of the final table chips at the beginning of the final day--Greg Raymer or Jamie Gold.

Re: EVERY final table hand shown was with Jamie Gold...
 

My biggest beef was on Butler's bustout hand - both Gold and Cunningham called his preflop push, which wasn't an insignificant amount for Cunningham. Alas, ESPN broke in to show that hand only after the turn bet by Gold.

Re: EVERY final table hand shown was with Jamie Gold...
 

Kevmath (or someone else) will probably look up the actual numbers later, but using my memory, I think that both Raymer and Gold had approximately 30-31% of the chips in play at the beginning of their final tables.