The big Fossilman hand of yesterday

[PITTM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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!

[/ QUOTE ]

i would reply, but youre obviously too worked up to think straight. i thought you were being sarcastic, which is why i replied. i guess think you would be a reasonable human being was another misstep, bummer.

rj

[detroitplayer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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!

[/ QUOTE ]

i would reply, but youre obviously too worked up to think straight. i thought you were being sarcastic, which is why i replied. i guess think you would be a reasonable human being was another misstep, bummer.

rj

[/ QUOTE ]

Just re-read the thread from the beginning. Everyone is going after this guy for for bluffing on the turn. My post was only pointing out that Murph Dog made a similiar play last year (though he did in fact have more outs, but alternatively could have only won with a flush if the other guy wasn't on a flush) and people seemed to agree across the board that it was a good play. I agreed. So, I am not sure why this guy this year is catching such hell for trying to make a similar play that by last year's standards was "good". My point about "Greg could have had KK in that hand too" was to show that it seems everyone else was being results oriented by saying Murph Dog's call was good because he won, not because it was actually a good play... because it would be hard to have a dramatically different opinion on both plays when both plays were made by people who were playing what they read, not necessarily what they held.

There ya go.

[Snarf]

[ QUOTE ]
According to Greg in his exit interview, Kanter called a $150K raise, then called a half-pot bet on the flop. On the turn, Greg bet again, Kanter raised, and Greg set him all-in. Kanter had no choice but to call on the turn, because he WAS pot-committed, but the call on the flop was a little weak.

[/ QUOTE ]

Greg steals a lot and he played his KK exactly like a steal play. He raised 2.5x the blind. He half-potted the flop. Kantor had seen Greg do this MANY times. He actually had little reason to think Greg wouldn't fold the turn. The sucky thing about the hand (besides how late it happened) is that Kantor fell RIGHT INTO Greg's trap. Greg had set Kantor up for this hand, and Kantor fell in - and got lucky. That sucks balls. I hate it when that happens.

[Snarf]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"How bout throwin your hand away when you flop no pair and no draw, ever heard of doin that?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, you tell them Matusow.

[ QUOTE ]

Mike Matusow limps on the button, and Tex Barch follows him in. The flop comes Qh-Jc-2c. Tex checks, and Matusow bets out $36,000 in chips. Tex calls. The turn is the 5h. Tex checks again, and Matusow makes it $100,000 to go. Tex calls again. The river is the Kh. Tex checks again, and Matusow goes into the tank. He comes up firing, making a $250,000 bet. Now it's Tex's turn to go in the tank. Eventually he calls, and Matusow shows 8h-6h for the flush. Tex mucks his hand. Matusow now has $3,130,000. Tex has $1,530,000.



[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Matusow did an interview about that hand. He picked up an embarassingly obvious (to Mike anyways) physical tell on Tex. He saw the tell on every street of this hand from Tex. So Mike essentially slow-played a hammer on Tex's bluffing ass. He probably woulda played it the same without the OESD I imagine.