The big Fossilman hand of yesterday - Page 4

phuc · #31 07-15-2005, 10:58 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I would feel alot worse for Raymer if on that hand, Raymer went allin on the flop and then got sucked out on by Runner Runner. He didn't. When all the money was put in, Kantor had 9 outs.

[/ QUOTE ]

He had 8 outs. The king of hearts was in Raymer's hand.

capone0 · #32 07-15-2005, 11:04 AM

Sorry 8 outs. It's pretty irrelevant. When Raymer pushed he had 300k more. Guy had to call, 8 outs, 9 outs, 20 outs, etc. he was in after the semi-bluff. I hate the play, I wanted to see Raymer vs Matusow 2, but it didn't happen.

Quad_Damage · #33 07-15-2005, 11:06 AM

[ QUOTE ]
He had 8 outs. The king of hearts was in Raymer's hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

He had 11 outs if the board really did have 4 to a straight on it. 3 outs to tie.

superleeds · #34 07-15-2005, 11:07 AM

[ QUOTE ]
He had 8 outs. The king of hearts was in Raymer's hand

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not critizing you or anyone personally but the flaw when alot of Raymers (or other 2+2 favorites for that matter) hands are dissected its as if they were played face up.

capone0 · #35 07-15-2005, 11:15 AM

Thing out Raymer is, in order to win he's done the following things the last 2 years:

He's played extremely aggressive, he isn't LAGGISH but he isn't TAG either. If he played super TAG, he probally wouldn't have won either of the last 2 years. Because of this he gets a lot of action and into a lot of big pots which is essential to win a tourney like this. Now on this hand Kantor probally puts Raymer on 1 of 2 hands in order for him to play like this. A medium pocker pair, or 2 high cards. On the flop if the betting is right in others posts, Raymer underbets the flop. Now, with Raymer's reputation, he get's this call. Now on the turn, Kantor, sees he has 2 overs which are possible outs and a flush draw and he tried to buy the pot. He puts up too much of his stack on the semi-bluff and gets f'in pot committed, and has to call. Kantor makes many bad plays, he get's lucky.

But you must remember Raymer wants this action. He wants action 4 to 1 favorite, if he wins this hand, he's a pretty big stack. He get's his money in, and the card gods say, not this time. Raymer played it perfectly, Kantor won the hand. I don't think Raymer would have played the hand differently. He could have bet the flop harder, which is probally his one mistake, but he did bet the flop lightly against runner runner, which isn't a bad thing, but not a good thing in hindsight. Raymer just didn't get lucky yesterday for most of his chips, but I doubt he would have played the hand much differently other than betting the flop harder against the "donkey," who is now chip leader.

Felix_Nietzsche · #36 07-15-2005, 11:20 AM

Is Kantor your lover or something? If I said that grass is green and the sky is blue you would probably find a way to argue with me...

I made a post saying I was impressed with Raymer's play and that it was a shame that he took a runner-runner bad beat from an inferior player to knock him out. I do not know Raymer but I know good poker when I see it and I know bad poker when I see it. Now please go argue with someone else. You are very tiresome.

phuc · #37 07-15-2005, 11:21 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not critizing you or anyone personally but the flaw when alot of Raymers (or other 2+2 favorites for that matter) hands are dissected its as if they were played face up.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's cool if you criticize me. I think a forum like this is good for discussion. I come here to try to improve my game.

With that being said, I know I'm not a great tournament player, but I may have done the same thing as Kanter did here. He was playing a marginal hand preflop (less than marginal due to the raise, but he was taking a shot). He sees a flop that is probably a good flop for him to bluff at if the turn card is scary and if he puts Raymer on two big cards...(though he actually had KK, it's not unreasonable to put him on AK). If the turn isn't an A or a K, then I might semi-bluff raise or bet out on the turn (i prefer betting out) and if he calls, hope that I hit my Q, J, or anything else that might make a win for me. The heart on the turn made the semi-bluff that much easier to do. I may have done the exact same thing, except I would be held back by the fact that if I am wrong, I would be virtually knocked out of the tournament (by being short-stacked) if not felted at the end of the hand.

I prefer to fold the flop, but then again, if you never make any other plays or moves, or you let AK take it down unimproved against you all the time by playing too weak, you will lose anyway.

gisb0rne · #38 07-15-2005, 11:24 AM

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.

capone0 · #39 07-15-2005, 11:24 AM

Dude I don't even know who Kantor is. All I'm saying is Raymer wanted the action and got unlucky for once for a lot of chips. I wanted to see Raymer do well. He got unlucky for once and lost to runner runner. Sh!T happens, obviously you can't deal with that. Is Raymer your butt buddy? I've said repeatedly Raymer played it well and got UNLUCKY. If you played 1 million hands in the last 2 years, I'm pretty sure you've played hands perfectly and still lost. That's what happened to Raymer.

Boylermaker · #40 07-15-2005, 11:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Luck isn't just about catching the winning card, it's also about being in the right situations at the right time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Precisely. As well as Raymer played, there were numerous occassions throughout the tournament where a shorter-stack in LP moved in with a decent/good hand only to find Raymer in the blinds holding a monster.