The big Fossilman hand of yesterday

[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

[UATrewqaz]

Raymer had very good cards and played the hand very well.
His opponent had mediocre cards and played them questionably.


The Result: Completely irrelevant, see above, end of discussion.

[MushashiAce]

Raymer took his chances playing the hand so slow, and lady luck didn't treat him right that time. That's Raymers style, getting maximum value for his equity, but in this case he let his opponent hit a hand (or at least make a play). He took his chances, and it backfired, happens all the time in no-Limit, especially to most of the pros who enter this thing. I still think the defending champ played fine, and congrats to him getting as far as he did.

[detroitplayer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think people are forgetting about MURPH DOG re-raising Greg all in last year with like a 5 high flush draw and straight draw on the turn.

IIRC, people seemed to think that was a brilliant play. Greg could have had KK in that hand too.

[/ QUOTE ]

but he didnt? you seem really big on making up situations that didnt actually happen to make your point. as ive said like 15 times. johns play was good because his read was correct. kantors play was bad because his read was incorrect. get it now? nothing like being completely results oriented...

rj

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you know any less about the game? You are so lost. So now it's just about making the wrong read rather than being a total donk trying to give your money away? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] Another one for ignore....

[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.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

I guess there's one saying it's a good play. As I've said repeatedly I think it was a poor play. With his turn semi-bluff the guy was faced with a short stack or allin proposition and I believe he was getting huge odds on his call so he made a call any pro would have made on the turn. His pf and flop play were piss poor. His semi-bluff was poor, but that's poker.
********************************************
Other than his Pre-Flop, Flop, and Turn Raise he played played the hand like a professional. (sarcasm is dripping from my lips as I type this). To use the word professional to describe ANY aspect of the way Kantor played that hand is a crime against poker...

[Shillx]

The flop play isn't really debatable IMO since we don't know his reasoning for calling. What we do know is that he should have folded the flop if he wants to play the turn this way. His turn bet-call with a 4-flush is nothing short of terrible IMO.

If he called the flop with the intention of pushing any [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] on 4th street, you really can't fault the guy for his play. If he is going to bet 600k on the turn, he has to do so with the intention of folding to an all-in and there really isn't any way around that. If he wants to call the all-in getting 3:1 odds or whatever, he is making a bad call since it is 4:1 to hit the flush. If it turns out that he is getting 5:1 to call all-in (or if he knew that the 600k turn bet would tie him to the pot), he should have recognized the situation before hand and pushed straight away since you get that much more folding equity by betting all-in then 600k (I have no idea what kind of odds he got on his call, but either way it is bad poker).

Brad

[capone0]

Are you really that dense? I said he play was poor the whole way. He was forced to call. Are you that freaking stupid. His piss poor semi-bluff was a mis-read and he had to call. I forgot Felix you know exactly what everyone has at the table. I forgot poker is a game of missing information. I forgot Felix is the 10 time ME champion because he's never made a bad play in his whole poker career. And in the event of a mistake, he sucks out on someone. I forgot Felix has never sucked out on anyone. Felix, do you read what I wrote at all.

Here it is again. Kantor's play was poor, throughout. But when he made the all-in call on the turn he had to. Not because it was the right play but because he was pot committed off his mis-read. Even if he knew Raymer had KK, he had to call. Do you not get this? Do you not understand poker, HE HAD TO CALL.

[PITTM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think people are forgetting about MURPH DOG re-raising Greg all in last year with like a 5 high flush draw and straight draw on the turn.

IIRC, people seemed to think that was a brilliant play. Greg could have had KK in that hand too.

[/ QUOTE ]

but he didnt? you seem really big on making up situations that didnt actually happen to make your point. as ive said like 15 times. johns play was good because his read was correct. kantors play was bad because his read was incorrect. get it now? nothing like being completely results oriented...

rj

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you know any less about the game? You are so lost. So now it's just about making the wrong read rather than being a total donk trying to give your money away? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] Another one for ignore....

[/ QUOTE ]

no, i couldnt possibly know any less about poker, fantastic point. you did a terrific job at convincing me you must be a troll...haha, youre right, john murphy is a total donk trying to "give his money away" by making a well timed bluff at a player he percieved to be weak and winning... point taken. putting me on ignore just means you wont have to make such horrendous generalizations and flat out incorrect statements in response to my posts anymore, what a shame...

rj

[capone0]

Okay if what someone else posted is correct.

PF: Blinds 20/40K Antes 5. 8 People at the Table. Raymer Raises to 150k, Kantor Calls. Theres 400k in the Pot.

Raymer then bets half pot, 200k. Kantor Calls. Now there's 800k in the Pot.

Kantor Leads for 600k. Now there 1.4 Million in the Pot. He has approximately .9 left. Raymer goes allin. If Kantor wins the pot he has 3.8 Million Chips which is 23%. If he folds he has .9 left which is what a little less than half of average. His odds of winning the hand are 18%. Now he's not exactly getting the right odds for a call, but is it that bad, not really. Especially when he doesn't know his overcards aren't good. If he thinks there good he has 14 outs versus a potential AK of a different suit or any non-paired pocket pair. In that case he's getting 3 to 1 on his money. If odds are that Raymer has AK half the time and KK the other half, he is making the right call, sad as it may seem.