The big Fossilman hand of yesterday

[superleeds]

I too may (and on occasion have in the low level T's I play) made the plays Kanter did here. The fact is he was outplayed by Raymer and did not make just massive donkey moves. If the turn is not a heart (or a Q or J) I doubt he becomes pot committed. It was a bad card for Kanter and he got lucky. That is all.

[Goodie54]

How often do plays like this happen with three tables left in the biggest and most important tournament in the world. I've had this happen a hundred times, but I think if it happened in this venue, I'd shoot myself.

To compare this to your retarded little 6 dollar tourneys on stars is assinine.

Peace

Goodie

[Yo Adrians!]

Raymer had a great run over two Main Events, and he also made another final table during this year's WSOP.

He took a bad beat. It's a bummer for Raymer and his fans, but it happens every day in every B&M and online casino in the world.

Lets enjoy following the rest of this Main Event - because it has been a fun one to follow - and move on with life.

After all, it's not like the Green Bay Packers just lost the Super Bowl or anything [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Take care, friends, and enjoy the final table updates tonight.

- yoadrians

[astroglide]

[ QUOTE ]
And now Kanter has the chip lead at the final table. If he wins this he will wish his name was Moneymaker.... 2+2ers will rip him a new ***hole. Bigtime.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, 7.5 million would be cold comfort to contrast with the musings of people on an internet forum. who wants the money at that price?

[PokerCrab]

I dont think we should just discard Kanter's play as a "donkey play". I feel bad for Raymer too but there is some legit sense behind his play.

this is what I gather from Raymer's recollection of the hand.
20/40k blinds and antes. Raymer raises to 100k and kanter with a suited connector JQh calls. Okay call with suited connector on late position.
Flop action - raymer bets 150k into like 260k pot on flop. Now this is what I think Kanter was thinking - he really thinks that this flop didnt help Raymer - calling is not too bad when you think about it. On the turn, he can catch a J/Q or he can raise to represent a slow play of a straight. But when the heart fell on the turn and raymer bets out 300k....it's debatable now what to do - call and get lucky or be aggressive and raise! THe raise is pretty good since it's a semi bluff bet and it actually represent you were slowplaying a straight. He may even take down the pot right there. I mean if Raymer didnt have a hugge pocket pair - he's folding for sure and even if he did - so what? he's got outs! So he pops it up another 600k and Raymer goes all in....I mean, you cant fault the guy was calling Raymer's over the top raise since he was so committed at that point.

I dont think we should call anyone a donkey for clearing through more than 6500 peeps. I actually like Kanter's play on turn even though he did get lucky on the river but he put himself in a position for that. I thikn they both played that hand the way they both could if they wanted to win that pot.

[PITTM]

[ 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

[PokerCrab]

oops - disregard my previous post about him representing a straight- I thought the flop was 4 5 3 with one heart. Still - I like the aggressive play. YEAH!

[jhall23]

[ QUOTE ]

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 ]

You realize this is the WPT forum correct? I am not shocked at all by this.

[fnurt]

[ QUOTE ]
An aggressive player with a shorter stack makes a 100k raise into a 140K pot. You have QJs and position and around 2 million in chips. Do you call?

Flop come small, one heart and you have two overs. Aggressive player in front bets 150K into a 340K pot. He could have a big pair, a small pair, two overs, two high cards, could be dominating you, you could be dominating him.... and you're getting getting over 3:1.

What do you do?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the correct way to look at it. This seems like a raise or fold situation.

Taking a card off with the hope of making a move on the turn seems suboptimal, BUT there are situations were it would be correct, depending on your history against the other player. If your prior hands have followed a similar pattern, then making an atypical move may be the best way.

Taking a card off with the hope of hitting something on the turn, which is more likely what he had in mind, is a concept I just don't like. You have 6 outs, plus 10 hearts that give you a flush draw with 1 card to go. Making top pair, though, most likely gets you into a "pick up the pot or lose all your money" situation, not really where you want to be. If the best you can hope for is to catch a heart so you can semibluff, bleh.

The call before the flop seems pretty unremarkable to me. It's not as though Greg needs a premium hand to open-raise and there's a lot of poker left in the hand.

[fnurt]

[ 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.