Did Mike M made a mistake with the Kings? (WSOP spoiler) - Page 4

nath · #31 11-16-2005, 08:00 PM

The thing about tells is, they mostly tell you how a player feels about his hand. You still have to use the action to that point and the cards on the board to determine what you think that hand is.
Mike could have read Lazar as strong, but it doesn't necessarily mean he can beat KK. There is not enough information for Mike to say "exactly AA", especially with the money in the pot already. If he CAN put Scott on AA still has to be right basically every time for a fold to be correct there.
I don't know anyone who could have done that there.

Vincent Lepore · #32 11-16-2005, 08:22 PM

When I heard this hand described previously on this forum I thought that given Matasows chip position he could have layed his kings down. There was an early raiser and then a hefty reraise by a player that was relatively short stacked. What can a short stack have to reraise an early raiser for something less than all of his chips? Gee there are only 2 hands I can think of and Matasow had one of them.

Then I watched the final table. After a while I realized that just because it was the final table of the WSOP did not mean that the play was worthy of the title. There was some horrible play at that table, especially by Lazar. Matasow would have had to give the hand a lot of thought and realized that the most likely hand the reraiser had was A,A. I'm not sure that was possible. Another reason Matasow probably can't give the reraiser Aces only is that the tight play seen when they were nine handed and trying to get to the final table and a 400k increase was now replaced by a situation that saw the next increment of money only 150k more and 7th only 150k more than that. This was a very unfotunate place for Matosow to find himslef but he still had a good stack when the hand was over. Another reason to go for it. He blew up after that hand in my opinion. Bottom line is I don't think the situation lent itself to Matasow not playing the hand and a solid reraise does nothing because the reraiser does not have very many chips. However if he reraises and the original raiser now comes over the top he might get away fro the hand. That is a reason for not moving in and just putting in a pot size raise.

Vince

Fallen Hero · #33 11-16-2005, 08:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There was an early raiser and then a hefty reraise by a player that was relatively short stacked. What can a short stack have to reraise an early raiser for something less than all of his chips?

[/ QUOTE ]

the correct answer would be: a LOT

Vincent Lepore · #34 11-16-2005, 08:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
the correct answer would be: a LOT

[/ QUOTE ]

Tha's funny. When I first heard the hand I thought there weren't many hand, 2 to be exact, that someone might play this way. Of course I was thinking how I would play in that situation. That's a big mistake. After seeing the quality of play at the final table I might agree with you. Of course you don't really mean "A LOT" now do you? Remember that the reraiser raised enough to tell everyone that he was pot committed given his stack size.

Vince

Vincent Lepore · #35 11-16-2005, 08:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, Hardly any decent analysis in this entire thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Including yours. Why is it that geniuses always leave out A,A as a possible hand for Lazaar when they do their analysis.

Vince

Fallen Hero · #36 11-16-2005, 09:02 PM

nobody left out AA, but no one thinks he has AA there even 25% of the time

Vincent Lepore · #37 11-16-2005, 09:14 PM

Please, you have an early raise and a hefty reraise by a short stack and you don't give him A,A 25% of the time? Yeah he has jacks or queens or A,K (not as likely since you have an early raiser and you have K,K) and isolate rather than trying to win the pot right there. O.K you win. You know my problem is with comments like "not a decent analysis in this thread" and then have sn analysis given that could just be plain wrong.

Vince

Vincent Lepore · #38 11-16-2005, 09:25 PM

One other thing you missed. Danneman raised to 400k and Lazaar raised enough to get a call from Danneman. He didn't want Danneman to fold else he would have moved in. He wouldn't do that with JJ or A,K and probably not Q,Q either.

Vince

Shoe · #39 11-16-2005, 09:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Matusow also was playing way too aggressively for the beginning of a final table

[/ QUOTE ]

Right... you should wade through a few more than 5600 players before getting agressive with your pocket kings.

Fallen Hero · #40 11-16-2005, 09:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
One other thing you missed. Danneman raised to 400k and Lazaar raised enough to get a call from Danneman. He didn't want Danneman to fold else he would have moved in. He wouldn't do that with JJ or A,K and probably not Q,Q either.

Vince

[/ QUOTE ]

you're giving this guy way to much credit