[boo5000]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Reading it clearly PF, JJ was re-raised. Unless villain has loose image on the table, the raised indicated AA,KK,AK;
2. Since Phil act first, the call of villain's all-in may indicate Phil put villian on AK but want to get lucky catching J on later street? Pot-odd still doesn't justify?
3. What if Villian acted first on the flop and pushed all-in? Phil still would call?

[ QUOTE ]


another level in his game? please! he is a 9 time WSOP bracelet winner. The only problem Phil has is that he makes more money from all his other deals going on rather than poker. He hasn't "played poker for a living" for sometime now which has seen him play fewer and fewer tournaments. You could say his pokerbrat persona and the money it has made him has hurt his game a bit. He nolonger fully concentrates on winning poker tournaments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, when you don't play poker for a living and only think winning will get you extra money for fun, you would play differently.

Remember Chris Moneymakers' 88 all-in on the K9x flop and turned 8 cracked the AA? You can't explain everyhand technically, it has gamble/lucky factors. I think this year's ME winner will have many bad moves at the right time.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Phil had any feeling at all that he was bluffing, or being overagressive with a weaker hand, then he will check that flop. If he wants to get it all in anyway, might as well let the other guy hang himself instead of folding to a decent contiuation bet.

Phil probably picked up on something during the reraise.