[capone0]

Did I say he played it well. I'm not results oriented. I said the guy got lucky. In his decision on the TURN he got stuck. You wouldn't have folded either, and you like him, we would call you a huge idiot. He made a bad decision, got stuck in his bad decision and HAD to call. Just like you would HAVE to call. Do you not get this? He HAD TO call after the semi-bluff. I hate the play, I wish Raymer was still here, but Raymer did nothing wrong, but he got the brunt of the loss. Kantor effectively did nothing right but won the pot. How is that results oriented? The guy got pot committed on a semi-bluff and had to call. I guess you would have folded......please. If Raymer won, and Kantor loss we would still call him an idiot. Play was idiotic, result was lucky. Obviously if you win a tourney you have to make 100% right decisions and can't make any wrong ones. That's why Raymer had 3500 on day 1, cause he never makes wrong decisions. I'm betting you 9 out of 9 players at the final table at 1 point in the tourney made the wrong decision and sucked out on someone. I honestly still don't get the point of the argument.

If Kantor had 5.8 million left after the semi bluff and Raymer had 6 million behind him in the all in, then I get why the call was a horrid after it was made, but it wasn't after he made the play.