The big Fossilman hand of yesterday

[fnurt]

[ 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

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's put it this way. I think Kanter played it poorly, I just think it's an incorrect statement to say the reason his play was poor is because he got his money in as a 4-1 dog. That's not quite as results-oriented as saying a play was wrong because a bad card came on the river, but it's results-oriented nonetheless. Sometimes you can make perfect decisions and still get your money in as a dog, unless the assumption is that the perfect poker player would have X-ray eyes.

Some people are saying that Kanter should have pushed on the turn. There's an argument for that, but I think it misses the point. This was a hand that was purely optional for Kanter. He called with QJs, not because he rated to have the best hand, but because he figured he could either get a big flop or maybe outplay his opponent. That's fine. And then he calls 100k on the flop looking to make a move on the turn. Also a reasonable-sounding thing to do.

But when your "move" consists of getting all your chips in, betting your entire stack on the read that Greg is weak, you had better be pretty certain you're right. Unless you're in a desperate situation, you should try to find a better line of play than one which commits all your chips. If his best option on the turn was really to push, then I think he should have played the flop differently, rather than put himself in that position at all.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

Which post are you reading? If Kantor thought Raymor was raising with trash he should have tried to take the pot in the preflop or flop with a re-raise. If Raymor came back over the top, then Kantor can get away from his hand cheaply.

Or are you making a joke about the suckout? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[PITTM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's put it this way. I think Kanter played it poorly, I just think it's an incorrect statement to say the reason his play was poor is because he got his money in as a 4-1 dog. That's not quite as results-oriented as saying a play was wrong because a bad card came on the river, but it's results-oriented nonetheless. Sometimes you can make perfect decisions and still get your money in as a dog, unless the assumption is that the perfect poker player would have X-ray eyes.

Some people are saying that Kanter should have pushed on the turn. There's an argument for that, but I think it misses the point. This was a hand that was purely optional for Kanter. He called with QJs, not because he rated to have the best hand, but because he figured he could either get a big flop or maybe outplay his opponent. That's fine. And then he calls 100k on the flop looking to make a move on the turn. Also a reasonable-sounding thing to do.

But when your "move" consists of getting all your chips in, betting your entire stack on the read that Greg is weak, you had better be pretty certain you're right. Unless you're in a desperate situation, you should try to find a better line of play than one which commits all your chips. If his best option on the turn was really to push, then I think he should have played the flop differently, rather than put himself in that position at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree, i guess my point was just that kantors decisions were nowhere near perfect on this hand.

rj

[Scooterdoo]

The rivered heart really sucked for Greg. However, he was actually very fortunate that his opponent played his hand the way he did -- e.g., he was a big favorite to double up. If I recall correctly Greg was also very fortunate the day before when Williamson called his all-in raise with AJ and doubled him up (I think he had KK that time too). Now of course she could have hit her A and we would be talking about that hand being the one where a bad player (or a good player making a bad play) sucked out on him, but in that situation it worked out and put him back into the game. These things happen. That's why it's so hard to win these things.

[detroitplayer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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

[/ QUOTE ]

Holy christ. I thought Murph Dog's re-raise all in was [censored] amazing! It was one of the best plays the entire 2004 ME. C'mon, man. Get your head in the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

i didnt say it was amazing, you just mocked it and i said it wasnt mockable, because IT WAS A SOLID READ AND HE WAS CORRECT. you really really seem to have a problem understanding that the way these players process the information is the most important thing. simplifying a hand like that to make murphy look stupid makes you look like you have absouletely no idea what youre talking about. murphys read took the way greg had been playing for the last 3 days (youve never played with greg) took account the blinds, the amount of money in the pot and possible draws as well. instead you seemed to avoid thinking about all these factors and just post generalizations to make your points look the least big legitimate. john, on the other hand thought about those things and made a decision that turned out to be correct.

on the other hand there is you. you simply say "hes an idiot for raising with a flush draw and 5 high". this really shows us how little you knew about the hand, the situation and the decision john made. he and i both went to school in santa barbara our freshman year and had lots of mutual friends. i had one of these friends ask him about what was going through johns mind when he made that 3rd raise. john actually thought that raymer thought john was weak (which he was) so john decided raymer couldnt be too strong if he made an overraise into a player he percieved to be weak, so john raised him back to make greg think his read was incorrect. john was correct in doing this and got greg to lay his hand down. this makes me think that the raise WAS amazing. john thought it through very well and made a great play at a great time. but i guess since greg COULD have had pocket kings in this situation(although john thought he didnt and he actually didnt! what a suprise!) so yeah, johns play was really stupid because you need it to be to make yourself not look stupid, good situation to get yourself into.

rj

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. He still doesn't get it. Even after it was explained to him. I LIKED MURPH DOG'S PLAY. I AM NOT MOCKING MURPH DOG'S PLAY. I AGREE THAT IT WAS A GOOD PLAY AND A GOOD READ. KEEP RE-READING THIS UNTIL IT SINKS THROUGH YOUR FAT [censored] HEAD.

How you could reply with that nonesense after I JUST SAID it was one of the best plays of 2004 is ab-so-[censored]-lutely b-a-n-a-n-a-s! I mean, WOW!

[Felix_Nietzsche]

The difference is he did not risk his entire tournament on that hand.
When you have chips, you can make more plays.

[Oluwafemi]

[ 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.

Brad

[/ QUOTE ]

i surely would'nt care.

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
Thing is, hands like this happen all the time, big tourney or not. I've been backdoor drawed, runner runnered, perfect, perfected, etc. so many times when I didn't win a tourney. But when I win tourneys, I "avoid" these beats. Getting sucked out on big time for a lot of chips is a fact of life. The reason Greg won last year is he avoided beats like this, not because he's that much better than any of us, but because he was lucky to avoid them. This year he was unlucky to avoid it. Honestly 4 to 1 underdog isn't that bad. Not great either.

[/ QUOTE ]

he put a few bad beats on other players. or, he won his fair share of coinflips as the underdog. now it's the other way around. he's now the victim. when i look at last year's ME, it's not a shame he lost that way, it's karma that he lost that way.

[Oluwafemi]

[ 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. Not great, not something I would do and probally pretty donkish. I hope he doesn't win, but if he does, it wouldn't be that much of a suprise. You have to get lucky to win tournaments. This is a hand he got lucky on. You guys forget all the hands Raymer sucked out on last year to win the tourney, yes it wasn't many, but it was more than 1. But now Raymer get's sucked out on, when he was a 4 to 1 favorite, boo hoo. Yeah Raymer didn't suck out on 1010 vs AA, or A10 vs AK, or on Matusow. But now that Raymer finally gets sucked out on big time for once in 2 tournies (amazing), we have to feel sorry for him. I'm not that sorry for the guy. He deserves to be patted on the back, he played awesome the last 2 MEs, and finally got a bad beat he couldn't come back to. Sorry guys, but we don't need a kleenex for this one.

[/ QUOTE ]

halleluah!

[KingCon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]


Wow, I can imagine him saying something like, "You know, $7.5 million is nice, but really all I want is for 2+2ers to stop ripping me a new ***hole. It really hurts my feelings! :-( "

[/ QUOTE ]

I am sure he stayed up all night devoloping a strategy to win over the hearts of 2+2ers.