Poll: Best moments of WSOP PPV telecast

[TehVader]

All of Scotty's time on the screen were gold

[RacersEdge]

[ QUOTE ]
Am I the only one not too impressed with AC's call with A high? Anybody who plays a lot of short-handed poker learns to make A-high calls -- especially on boards like that. Clearly it was a good call, but it wasn't insane.

[/ QUOTE ]

In was thinking the same - a paired board against a loose player - not an unreal call.

[deankeaton7]

in no particular order:
1). The cunningham A high call
2). the wasicka bluff
3). was i the only one that thought that oppenheim and grey were going out of their way not to call some of the players donkeys ("KQ is like nothing." "maybe hes been playing for a while and looks down at KQ and thinks its a big hand"...)
4). phil hellmuth refusing to give reads as to waht players have on a certain hand.
5). scotty nguyen saying cunningham would win. and then pwning pg in roshambo.
6). Losing 100BB's with JJ.
7). The class of all the players with all that money on the line.
8). Jen Harman saying she was sick for allen after he got knocked out. I love it how all the best players care so much for each other.
9). Ali telling Phil Hellmuth that Thomas Keller was waiting for him in the 1k-2k HUHE room on UB.net.
10). Wasicka sporadically playing like a world champion.

[private joker]

Speaking of that, am I the only one not as impressed with Wasicka's "sick" bluff? I mean it's a good bluff, but it would have been amazing to me if it got Allen to fold an Ace. The board was AAJ9 with three hearts, and Allen just had TT with the Th. There isn't a whole lot Allen can beat there BUT a bluff.

I'm not a Moneymaker fan, nor do I think his was the "bluff of the century," but at least that one got Sammy to lay down top pair on a rainbow board. Allen had to fear a flush, an ace, and a jack.

I applaud Wasicka's read that Allen was weak, but those are what every good pro bluff is about. The only thing exceptional about this was were the stakes. As a poker play, I think it's not amazing.

[dinopoker]

[ QUOTE ]
PG talking about how sick some people here were for bringing up the DW toe fetish.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I can't believe I forgot that one - that was hilarious!!

[fnurt]

[ QUOTE ]
Speaking of that, am I the only one not as impressed with Wasicka's "sick" bluff? I mean it's a good bluff, but it would have been amazing to me if it got Allen to fold an Ace. The board was AAJ9 with three hearts, and Allen just had TT with the Th. There isn't a whole lot Allen can beat there BUT a bluff.

I'm not a Moneymaker fan, nor do I think his was the "bluff of the century," but at least that one got Sammy to lay down top pair on a rainbow board. Allen had to fear a flush, an ace, and a jack.

I applaud Wasicka's read that Allen was weak, but those are what every good pro bluff is about. The only thing exceptional about this was were the stakes. As a poker play, I think it's not amazing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I have to differ with you. 3-betting all your chips with air, against a world-class pro, impresses the crap out of me.

[dogdrool]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Speaking of that, am I the only one not as impressed with Wasicka's "sick" bluff? I mean it's a good bluff, but it would have been amazing to me if it got Allen to fold an Ace. The board was AAJ9 with three hearts, and Allen just had TT with the Th. There isn't a whole lot Allen can beat there BUT a bluff.

I'm not a Moneymaker fan, nor do I think his was the "bluff of the century," but at least that one got Sammy to lay down top pair on a rainbow board. Allen had to fear a flush, an ace, and a jack.

I applaud Wasicka's read that Allen was weak, but those are what every good pro bluff is about. The only thing exceptional about this was were the stakes. As a poker play, I think it's not amazing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I have to differ with you. 3-betting all your chips with air, against a world-class pro, impresses the crap out of me.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing about the bluff is that it's amazing because it worked. So many things had to fall into place. If he busted on that play, we'd all be laughing about how he was a donkey.

Granted, when he turned that over, I was stunned. I also put AC on having a beast of a hand, so I was way off for the entire hand.

Upon further though, I see why Paul made that bluff. If AC has a boat, he's not going to raise there. If he has the trips, I also think he realy might not raise there. There's some chance AC has a low flush there. The only real hand that's raising there is a J, and Paul didn't think AC could call with a J.

Turns out that AC didn't even have a J. He just had two Ts.

So, don't get me wrong, I applaud the bluff and think it was great. I think it was better than AC's call with A-high, by far. But it's not the best bluff that I've ever seen.

[dogdrool]

By the way, it's kinda weird how so many people who love AC's A-high call and Paul's bluff basically seem to come from the school of "I never call a river bet with no pair" and "I never re-raise with nothing."

I mean, those were nice plays, no doubt about it. But that's what winning poker players do. They make plays like that. If you're never willing to call a river bet with no pair, how can you win?

Sick calls of legends are those like Stuey made with 9-high. When you call with 9-high because you really think you're good, then you're the boss.

[bb88]

I can't believe Scotty isn't running away with this!

[Whitewash]

[ QUOTE ]
Sick calls of legends are those like Stuey made with 9-high. When you call with 9-high because you really think you're good, then you're the boss.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, and how many great laydowns was Stu known for making?