[PITTM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If Raymer had not had KK, you guys would call this a great play. Every time you see a big bluff and it succeeds you guys call it "great" yet when it doesn't it's "donkish". When Raymer won the WSOP last year, you don't think he made big plays and got lucky because his opponent didn't have the cards? Luck isn't just about catching the winning card, it's also about being in the right situations at the right time.

[/ QUOTE ]

dear everyone in this thread,

please read/reread the theory of poker. remember the fundamental theorem of poker? youre playing your best when youre playing as if your opponents cards are face up and yours are not. raymer thought his hand was best, was absouletely correct and got all the money in. the people who critisize raymer here are insane, to say he called with "only a pair on a 4 card straight board" is just laughable, do we really think kantor called the preflop raise with a 4? maybe he has a set, but probably not, and regardless, raymers read was correct, he was ahead. poker is all about reads here, raymer made a perfect read, kantor made a horrid read, kantor wins, sure, thats poker, but no one should say raymer made a bad play or kantor made a great play, because that is simply not true. raymer made the perfect read and lost.


kantor committed to the biggest pot of the tournament with an 18% chance to win...simple facts. raymer made a hugely +ev move and lost. that sucks, but if that changes who played it correctly than i am shocked at how little thought people have given this before replying...

rj

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, what you just said is completely wrong. You equated the FTOP with being results oriented.

When you induce your opponent to make a play he wouldn't make if he could see your cards, that's an FTOP error from which you gain equity. But you can't turn it around and say that you lose equity every time you don't correctly guess your opponent's cards. It's true, in a sense, but also irrelevant.

A good poker decision has two components: (1) Put your opponent on the correct range of hands, and (2) Make the correct move based on that range of hands. If you correctly assess your opponent's range of hands, then the actual hand he ends up holding is irrelevant; it's luck of the draw, just like the cards that come off the deck are luck of the draw.

Say you put me all-in, and I correctly deduce that you would do this with any hand from AA-99 (to keep it simple). I have KK so I call, but oops, you turn out to have AA. Did I make a mistake by getting my money in as a huge dog?

Another example. Again you put me all-in and I correctly put you on AA-99. I call with my KK, you turn out to have QQ, but oops, you spike a queen and I'm out. Again, did I make a mistake?

Anyone who answers the two questions differently is missing something fundamental about poker.

[/ QUOTE ]


i disagree, i think there is a valid comparison here. my point was that you cant be results oriented, but that raymer played it better because he played it as if he knew kantor had a worse hand and got all his money in(just as he would have done if kantor's cards were faceup). kantor then called, which he would not have done if gregs cards were face up. this is my point. gregs read was dead on, kantors was not. gregs play was in line with the FTOP, kantors was not.

we have no way of knowing what their exact ranges and their reads was. i guess from the criteria you gave we couldnt really evaluate anyones play, since we dont know the exact range of hands greg put kantor on or vice versa, but greg was pretty confident that he was ahead and he was correct, my thinking is that both gregs range of hands and his actions were more correct than kantor, based on the actions i read happened in the hand.

rj