Re: WSOP on ESPN thread (10/9 - ME Final Table)
 

i like how a lot of people here are saying how the christian god isnt affecting the cards in the wsop because hes doing other, more important things--like he isnt capable of doing several things at once. i thought the made-up christian god could do whatever it wanted and had no time constraints. anyway, lol at all the people (mostly americans) who actually believe in all the christian nonsense. (and yeah i know that ill see the truth when i burn in hell for eternity, so you dont have to tell me.)

lol, "father, i will glorify your name. let people see your miracles (such as an 8 on the turn)."

"come on father! in jesus's name, no weapon formed against you shall prosper!" (wtf? what is this supposed to mean? anyway, it lost.)

"make him a believer. make lee a believer, father." i guess the Lord would rather have lee lose and burn in eternal hell fire.




wowowowowowowowow. its fake, you guys. the christian god is fake--he doesnt really exist. jesus was just a faker or a lunatic with a few sucker followers (or maybe they were in on it, too) and the romans stapled him to a cross and he died. there. now the christians can stop with it already. sorry for raining on your parade, but its gone too far. its just silly. just stop it.

Re: WSOP on ESPN thread (10/9 - ME Final Table)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I like Kalmar's move there and wish more people would do it. I called you, so turn over your cards. It's simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's also a dick move

[/ QUOTE ]

With the plays Yang was making there was absolutely nothing wrong or dickish about that move.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally, I think it's MORE of a dick move to lead the action and then try to duck out of showing your cards. I would have made him show every time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly, in tournaments, I don't think it's a dick move to call a bet on the river and have the villian first show his hand. I actually think this should be a rule in tournament poker (along with DN "HU you can expose a card" rule as well as the "You are allowed to show just one card and not have to show both if all have mucked" rule).

You paid to see the cards, you should be able to see them. I mean, the bettor gets to see the caller's cards no matter what.....it is only fair.

ON FTP when you call a villian's river bet they always show the bettor's cards first. I think it's prudent for tournaments because you don't play that many hands or see many villian's hands, so if they get to showdown, you should be allowed to see the cards without discourse. This is also good for media and fans, too, because they can get to see how people play if they are watching live or via a pokerwire type of website.

Now if it was check-check on the river, THEN you should be allowed to muck freely because no one actually paid a bet to see who wins the showdown.

Now if it was a cash game, then yes, it is a dick move because of standard cash game poker equiette as well as the "gentleman's agreement" that should exist. A simple knock on the table, "you got it", or stating the hand like "9 high" should suffice.

Re: WSOP on ESPN thread (10/9 - ME Final Table)
 

[ QUOTE ]
How long did Yang and the other guy play heads up?



[/ QUOTE ]36 hands

Re: WSOP on ESPN thread (10/9 - ME Final Table)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The thing TV isn't telling you here is that Jerry was literally raising 80% of the hands...during the live broadcast we all thought he was on air here.

[/ QUOTE ]QFT

[/ QUOTE ]


am i the only one that can admit.. that in this hand .. if i had held QQ and had run into Yang playing the hand the way he did against childs the thought would go through my mind. "the way this guy has been raising like nuts i bet i have him beat... i'm gonna call. but wait.. what if this hand is the one that he has a monster. an overpair? a set? we've played against each other before and he knows i'm not fooling around with my raises.... he knows i've seen him overplay his holdings before. he wouldn't bluff me here... he wouldn't make this move against me when he knows how much of my stack i've already committed to this pot. he knows that i SHOULD call him here with the pot size being what it is. he's too smart of a player to bluff me right now. maybe i'm beat. do i really want to go out this early? i have a big enough stack to fold here. .....

most people posting here are ignoring the fact that there is a lot of thoughts that go into this hand. as it turns out yang was not bluffing .. yang believed his overpair was the best hand i am sure.

it's funny .. you all believe that childs screwed up by not calling.. and it seems that you all think that yang overplayed his jacks. so, if it is wrong in your opinion that childs folded his overpair to the board.. why is it that yang is a donk for shoving all in. you all seem to criticize the proper play.

Re: WSOP on ESPN thread (10/9 - ME Final Table)
 

I really don't get some of you guys...Yang was just one race away from being the low stack at four-handed, he made a horrible read against Childs and should have been gone first, he made terrible river bluffs, he was on a downward spiral from five to four handed.........etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.....

Yet he crushed/dominated/raped the table?????? Are you sure you even watched the entire ppv, or dreamed up your own version? At any given point he was just two hands away from being knocked out. Just any top pair against a better hand would have done post-flop, or someone picking up a dominating hand pre-flop against him (at worst). Guess what, it didn't happen...it ALMOST did many many times, but it ultimately didn't. And not to mention he was one race away from being only 3:2 chip leader at heads up...no way would Lam have stuffed that one up at that point against this easily trapped player.

Did he utilize the correct strategy for someone with his ability? Of course he did. Preflop and c-bets that is. Anything after that was just uncanny that he didn't once get trapped for the entire ft.

Re: WSOP on ESPN thread (10/9 - ME Final Table)
 

If Rahme said it was a bad fold, it was a bad fold [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: WSOP on ESPN thread (10/9 - ME Final Table)
 

Child's mistake was to overly focus on AA and KK in Yang's range and ignore the possibility of JJ. As soon as you add JJ into Yang's range it's an easy call.

Another thing to consider is that if you fold QQ here, you make it profitable for Yang to take his line with any 2 cards (although you could argue that this consideration should probably be reserved for players better than Yang). Still, any time you make it profitable for your opponent to play any 2 cards aggressively you are doing something wrong.

Re: WSOP on ESPN thread (10/9 - ME Final Table)
 

His praying got worse and then some...
Lee Watsinson's wife and Yang go toe to toe with their
invoking of the heavens

Re: WSOP on ESPN thread (10/9 - ME Final Table)
 

[ QUOTE ]

am i the only one that can admit.. that in this hand .. if i
had held QQ [...]the thought would go through my mind. "the way this guy has been raising like nuts i bet i have him beat... i'm gonna call. but wait.. what if this hand is the one that he has a monster. an overpair? a set? we've played against each other before and he knows i'm not fooling around with my raises.... he knows i've seen him overplay his holdings before. he wouldn't bluff me here... he wouldn't make this move against me when he knows how much of my stack i've already committed to this pot. he knows that i SHOULD call him here with the pot size being what it is. he's too smart of a player to bluff me right now. maybe i'm beat. do i really want to go out this early? i have a big enough stack to fold here. .....


[/ QUOTE ]

Some good intermediate-level thinking here. However, the bolded part is where you make the potential error. Can I assume you haven't played in the main event for several days before? The thing you're missing is that you're over-complicating the situation. Childs and Yang had no doubt played for many, many hours prior to the final table. If Childs is a great player then its his prerogative to realize Yang's level of thinking, and what Jerry's capable of in terms of out-thinking Lee. The great player part isn't necessarily correct. In fact, from what I've seen of Yang, he was very capable of re-raising pre-flop utg+1 with 8/8+, A/7clubs+ and then making this exact play without thinking it through as logically as you have construed. Sometimes you just need to "dumb it down."

This is the dumbed down version of the situation:

"Alight, I've seen how this Yang guy plays, he's one of those suicidal lag big-bet maniacs and raising machines - I need to watch out for him at the final table if he acquires some chips. Now at the ft: okay, he's been raising or re-raising pre-flop just about every single hand so far ...I have Q/Q utg, let's raise...he re-raises me...there's no way in hell I can possible put him on an over-pair...I mean, wow, how lucky can this guy possibly be getting? IF he has it , good for him, but hell, it's so so so much more likely he doesn't have it. Let's just flat call for obvious reasons. Okay no overcards, I'm probably gonna go with this hand but let's see. I check. Yang bets huge...alright I have to go here, I can't get away from this, if he has it, well done, but the odds and the psychology are in my favor by a long-shot and what a spot to double up to the chip lead (?). I'm of course beating all of his zeros (possible one over hands) which he probably has 20% and I'm even beating many real hands such as any flush draw and 8/8 to J/J which I'm sure I've seen him overplay plenty before. I'm all in..." Yang calls.

Now as an aside, if this hand had have been played by Cunningahn and Ivey, there's not even a point in analyzing the situation, because there's just no way of knowing how many levels of thinking they were going through, and how many different prior hands (the last few hours? the last few years? My sly/intrusive comments?) affected the final outcome and betting lines. But amateur Vs semi-amateur? Huh-uh. My dumbed down version rates to be accurate.

Re: WSOP on ESPN thread (10/9 - ME Final Table)
 

It`s not Yang...his extremely annoying scream ( Yeeeahhh!!! )and even the extremely embarrassing praying escapades that put me on life tilt the most.

I felt very frustrated when I was watching the idiocy they call ME-FT mostly because I could not believe a huge donk like Yang that obviously do not understand even some very basic poker concepts can get away with murder on a table where you at least have few Pros that can find the best strategy against a loser like him.
I mean...even a reraise all-in PF with 51%+ equity hands would have done it if anything.
Because thats what you up against.... a random hand FFS!!!!.

To be fair.. some of them tried and the pray-boy sucked out horribly I guess but still.... all of those self proclaimed "professionals" were playing like scared chickens and they were all trying to fold their way to victory....sad.
That Hilm dude tried to stand up to him but he choose the wrong moment of course..because all it took post-flop to kill the idiot was TPGK..and the idiots try to bluff instead.....grrrrrr.

So yeah, it was more disappointing to watch the bad plays of the better players then the praying idiocy.
Calling with gut-shots? bluffing? ARE YOU FUXING KIDDING ME ?????
I`m not gonna comment on the QQ vs JJ fiasco because the QQ guy is just a fish amateur and I don`t expect anything better from him.

Re: WSOP on ESPN thread (10/9 - ME Final Table)
 

[ QUOTE ]
His praying got worse and then some...
Lee Watsinson's wife and Yang go toe to toe with their
invoking of the heavens

[/ QUOTE ]

IIRC, Yang's praying started off at a high level of fanatical insanity but he toned it down as the table progressed and seemed to eventually pray in (insert Yang's first language here).

Too late for me to shift from the Anyone-But-Yang Club, but at least the event became watchable again.

Re: WSOP on ESPN thread (10/9 - ME Final Table)
 

So are we all ready to get the ME buy in changed to $25k yet ?

Re: WSOP on ESPN thread (10/9 - ME Final Table)
 

It should go to 12k or 15k first, and see from there. 10 to 25 is too big a jump.

Re: WSOP on ESPN thread (10/9 - ME Final Table)
 

[ QUOTE ]
am i the only one that can admit.. that in this hand .. if i had held QQ and had run into Yang playing the hand the way he did against childs the thought would go through my mind. "the way this guy has been raising like nuts i bet i have him beat...

[/ QUOTE ]

The QQ v. JJ hand was very early, only the 9th hand. So Yang probably didn't have the huge raising reputation yet.

Here's the first 9 hands:
1. Yang raises UTG to 1.4M. 1 call. Yang raises flop to 2.5M. Yang wins.

2. Kravchenko bets 750K from Button. Yang re-raises to 2M in the BB. Kravchenko folds.

3. Lee Childs raises to 720k from the button and everyone else folds

4. Hilm raises UTG to 720k and everyone folds.

5. Lam raises to 800k from SB and everyone folds.

6. (First hand shown on ESPN): Kahn raises to 600k UTG. Yang and Kalmar call. Everyone checks the flop. Yang bets 1000k on the turn and everyone folds.

7. Watkinson raises to 600K. Hilm raises to 2M from the button. Watkinson folds.

8. Yang raises to 800k. Rahme calls from BB. Rahme checks the flop. Yang bets 1M. Rahme folds.

9. The QQ vs. JJ hand.

I'm not sure if 4 raises in 8 hands is enough for Childs to think that Yang had been completely bluffing. (I don't know what Yang's reputation was before the FT.)

Re: WSOP on ESPN thread (10/9 - ME Final Table)
 

[ QUOTE ]
I had a separate tab open with the PokerNews live coverage of the Final Tables, so I thought I'd compare the hands shown on ESPN with the actual hands.

1. Hand 6
2. Hand 9
3. Hand 14
4. Hand 15
5. Hand 18
6. Hand 21
7. Hand 28
8. Hand 40
9. Hand 42
10. Hand 48
11. Hand 50
12. Hand 55
13. Hand 56

Episode 2
14. Hand 58
15. Hand 60
16. Hand 78
17. Hand 92
18. Hand 95
19. Hand 108
20. Hand 127
21. Hand 129
22. Hand 149
23. Hand 167
24. Hand 169
25. Hand 205

During the last hand Lon said that Lam was "putting the pressure on early," referring to the earliness of the heads-up portion. Actually, it was the 36th heads up hand.

4 handed play lasted a long time, which is why there were such huge gaps in hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

This thing went 16 hours and only 205 hands? Under 13 hands an hour including shorthanded play? Wow.

Re: WSOP on ESPN thread (10/9 - ME Final Table)
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure if 4 raises in 8 hands is enough for Childs to think that Yang had been completely bluffing. (I don't know what Yang's reputation was before the FT.)

[/ QUOTE ]

But the thing is, you don't have to put Yang on any bluffs to call here. It's enough to simply realize that JJ is in Yang's range. You need a very, very tight read on Yang to fold here. Specifically: AA-QQ and AcKc. Given Yang's play, that's excessively tight by any definition.

Childs' thought process seemed to be, "I have such a strong hand, how can I fold? But Jerry played his hand like AA/KK". The idea that Yang might have JJ (or even TT) didn't seem to even enter his mind. Furthermore, I don't think he considered for a moment how his raise-call-lead line might look to Yang. It was all about "how can I fold this?" and "Jerry could easily have me beat".

Re: WSOP on ESPN thread (10/9 - ME Final Table)
 

[ QUOTE ]
i like how a lot of people here are saying how the christian god isnt affecting the cards in the wsop because hes doing other, more important things--like he isnt capable of doing several things at once.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because he's always known what Yang was going to do and say he doesn't necessarily have to do it after Yang prays or while multi-tasking. If he had a spare nano-second 6 billion years ago, for instance, he could've changed the cards then.

Or, he could have just set up the cards to favor Yang at the moment of creation, since, again, he already knew what Yang was going to say.

I imagine god may be incredibly bored at this point, which, when you think about it, may explain a lot.

Re: WSOP on ESPN thread (10/9 - ME Final Table)
 

[ QUOTE ]
His praying got worse and then some...
Lee Watsinson's wife and Yang go toe to toe with their
invoking of the heavens

[/ QUOTE ]

Dear Jesus, protect me from those who follow you...

As someone who considers themselves a Christian, albeit probably more theologically liberal than most, I found the prayers at the final table a bit disconcerting. Having grown up in a strict Pentecostal household, with sincere parents who walked the walk as well as they talked the talk, I was told that you prayed for strength to use your abilities as well as possible, not to have a pile of money fall into your lap. Before sports, we prayed to stay healthy and prayed for the other team to do the same. This whole mercenary prayer thing is disgusting. It is exactly the opposite of what Jesus taught, and even if you question JC’s deity, his philosophy is about as morally sound as any you’ll find.

That said, Jerry Yang seems like a good person, and someone who will put his money to good use. His praying, to me anyway, sounded a little more supplicant than Lee Watkinson’s girlfriend, who sounded forbiddingly self-righteous. Her recitations sounded accusatory and vaguely threatening. She is, I’m sure, sincere…she is also probably borderline nuts. Life’s tough, and we have no right to deny anyone the philosophy that gets them through it, but that scary prayer/threat thing she did, basically wishing ill to befall Mr. Yang, is the kind of exclusive, holier than thou [censored] that gives Christianity a bad name. Well, that, and the inquisition. And the crusades. Oh, and biblically endorsed oppression, and shooting doctor’s at abortion clinics, and…aaah, the hell with it.


My take on it this: I have three healthy children, a wonderful family and good friends, a comfortable life. I’ve survived serious illness, and my mother was declared cancer free after battling one of the most virulent forms of the disease. I’m pretty blessed, I don’t think I’ll push my luck spending prayer credits asking for my pocket threes to hold up…

Also, Jerry Yang won because he decided that he was not as good as the others at the table, and had to be aggressive to win. He did it masterfully, and even when things got dicier for him, his adjusted his strategy, but did not abandon it. He played to win, while others were playing not to lose. It was textbook.

He was also classy in his winning, and, to get back to the subject at hand, gave thanks when he won. I may not agree with him asking God to stack the cards in his favor, but he seemed to lack the spiritual conceit inherent in most Bible thumpers.

That being said, I’ve always felt that religion was what happened when man took spirituality and screwed it all up. So in that mindset, I would like to present to you a thumbnail guide to poker/theological belief systems:


Poker Catholics-had their aces cracked because they masturbated

Poker Jews-have had their aces cracked so often, it just seems normal

Poker Lutherans-Their aces being cracked was preordained from the beginning of time, and no amount of skill/luck and/or preparation and study was going to prevent it.

Poker Hindu-had their aces cracked because they killed a family of four with a meat cleaver…in a previous life

Poker Buddhists-Their aces and their subsequent cracking were mere manifestations of illusion, and, as such, their aces were not cracked.

Poker Muslim Zealots-Cracked their own aces so they could spend eternity in the bosom of Allah and cavort with their 72 virgins

Poker Taoists-Aces get cracked

Poker Zen-“My aces and I are the same, and transcend being cracked”

Poker Agnostics-Don’t know if their aces were cracked or not, and frankly, don’t think it matters

Poker Atheists-Still can’t believe their aces got cracked.

Poker Satanists-Smiled as the dark lord cracked their aces

Poker Baptists-Aces got cracked, AND they’re going to hell for playing cards

Poker Mormons-All four pair of aces got cracked while multi-tabling, must now spend two year on a bike telling others of how they survived

(multi tabling=polygamy…get it?)

Poker Pagans-Resent the destruction of living, sentient trees to create the cards upon which were aces that got cracked

Poker Unitarians-Whether of not their aces were cracked, it’s important that they play in accordance to the dictates of orthodox strategy

Poker Scientologists-Spent over 10k to have someone tell them why they shouldn’t worry about their aces being cracked

Poker Jehovah’s Witnesses-Will be knocking on your door at seven tomorrow morning to tell about their aces being cracked, and offer you a copy of Watchtower.

Poker Nihilists-Rejoice in aces being cracked; can now resuming staring into an abyss as dark and cold as the ace of spades


If I offended anyone, well…I just don’t care…

Re: WSOP on ESPN thread (10/9 - ME Final Table)
 

Far from offensive IMO. If we can't laugh a little at ourselves and our beliefs (and I lol'd at this), it's just not worth it. Well played.

Re: WSOP on ESPN thread (10/9 - ME Final Table)
 

[ QUOTE ]


Yet he crushed/dominated/raped the table?????? Are you sure you even watched the entire ppv, or dreamed up your own version? At any given point he was just two hands away from being knocked out. Just any top pair against a better hand would have done post-flop, or someone picking up a dominating hand pre-flop against him (at worst). Guess what, it didn't happen...it ALMOST did many many times, but it ultimately didn't. And not to mention he was one race away from being only 3:2 chip leader at heads up...no way would Lam have stuffed that one up at that point against this easily trapped player.


[/ QUOTE ]

not sure what you're saying here.

how much better position would someone want to be in. as i remember he was never worse than twice the stack of second place. that's a commanding lead. it's hard to imagine a larger lead held throughout the final table.

when you're up 4:1 against an opponent .. you are two all ins away from losing. that's not a bad position.

so your argument that he was two hands away from trouble really doesn't say that he was in any trouble at all.

Re: WSOP on ESPN thread (10/9 - ME Final Table)
 

[ QUOTE ]
as i remember he was never worse than twice the stack of second place. that's a commanding lead. it's hard to imagine a larger lead held throughout the final table.

[/ QUOTE ]

You remember wrong. Between Khan's and Kravchenko's bustouts he doubled up so many of his opponents that he was down to a lead of 42/37/28/21.

And it's easy to imagine a larger lead. Have you forgotten last year already?

Re: WSOP on ESPN thread (10/9 - ME Final Table)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I had a separate tab open with the PokerNews live coverage of the Final Tables, so I thought I'd compare the hands shown on ESPN with the actual hands.

1. Hand 6
2. Hand 9
3. Hand 14
4. Hand 15
5. Hand 18
6. Hand 21
7. Hand 28
8. Hand 40
9. Hand 42
10. Hand 48
11. Hand 50
12. Hand 55
13. Hand 56

Episode 2
14. Hand 58
15. Hand 60
16. Hand 78
17. Hand 92
18. Hand 95
19. Hand 108
20. Hand 127
21. Hand 129
22. Hand 149
23. Hand 167
24. Hand 169
25. Hand 205

During the last hand Lon said that Lam was "putting the pressure on early," referring to the earliness of the heads-up portion. Actually, it was the 36th heads up hand.

4 handed play lasted a long time, which is why there were such huge gaps in hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

This thing went 16 hours and only 205 hands? Under 13 hands an hour including shorthanded play? Wow.

[/ QUOTE ]

thanks bro.. i watched the same ppv and have read the same hand histories.

if you remember correctly gordon and ali were intimating even at this early stage that yang couldn't be as strong as he came across each hand.

if you remember watching the ft it sure felt like yang was making moves even this early. of course .. this hand... when childs mucked face up further cememted that belief .. among me and my friends watching.

Re: WSOP on ESPN thread (10/9 - ME Final Table)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
as i remember he was never worse than twice the stack of second place. that's a commanding lead. it's hard to imagine a larger lead held throughout the final table.

[/ QUOTE ]

You remember wrong. Between Khan's and Kravchenko's bustouts he doubled up so many of his opponents that he was down to a lead of 42/37/28/21.

And it's easy to imagine a larger lead. Have you forgotten last year already?

[/ QUOTE ]

kudo's.. i stand corrected.

Re: WSOP on ESPN thread (10/9 - ME Final Table)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Dids is the moderator/poster on this board, that means he can say if he liked something or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are you making this a special mod privilege?

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant to say, "Dids is a poster, so he can give his opinion of something. And as mod, it's not his job to drop the delete/banhammer on any post that say "I don't like this..."

Re: WSOP on ESPN thread (10/9 - ME Final Table)
 

[ QUOTE ]
So are we all ready to get the ME buy in changed to $25k yet ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Should we first move up in limits so the donkeys respect our raises?

Re: WSOP on ESPN thread (10/9 - ME Final Table)
 

Can Pat Robertson and Billy Graham as guest commentators on the PPV broadcast be far behind??

Re: WSOP on ESPN thread (10/9 - ME Final Table)
 

If they were to issue a version of the PPV with hole cards added, that would be one great DVD set. I imagine it would have a lot of buyers at $50-100.

Re: WSOP on ESPN thread (10/9 - ME Final Table)
 

Anyone know where I could find the PPV coverage for the final table? I looked on pokertube and couldn't locate it.

I remember reading snide stuff about how everyone would see what an uber-Donk Rahme was at this table. But he really didn't do anything too much out of the ordinary.

Going all-in with Kings with a flopped ace on the board is questionable, but not really that bad. Way he figured it, Yang probably would've reraised him with air anyway, and Rahme wasn't folding (given Yang's very wide range) so he'd go all-in no matter what. Also, he had some fold equity because he might be able to make Yang lay down a weak ace. Which Yang almost did until Rahme started talking (people here are saying there was no way Yang folds there, and he probably doesn't, but until Rahme talked Yang was giving off signs of weakness).

Really, I don't fault the play much. He was in a tough spot. By no means whatsoever was that some laughable donk move. There were numerous worse plays in the FT that they showed on TV alone.

BTW on the USA chant, I'm pretty sure that was just reactionary to Lam's pro-Canada stuff. Also it seemed to be random observers starting it, not Yang's party. Which made it pretty awkward.

Re: WSOP on ESPN thread (10/9 - ME Final Table)
 

"Going all-in with Kings with a flopped ace on the board is questionable, but not really that bad. "

Agree, but wouldn't have been a better play to do that first (and not check/raise)? If part of the plan is to get a guy to fold a weak Ace, Rahmes final allin push was to weak to do that...Of course, Yang is calling even with A/2, so probably a mute point [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: WSOP on ESPN thread (10/9 - ME Final Table)
 

IIRC, the knock against Rahme was that he had 2 gears: uber nit and uber tilt. If he got lucky when tilting he'd shift back to nit until something would snap and he'd go back on tilt. His play looks OK on the ESPN coverage because most of the time he just folded everything.

Re: WSOP on ESPN thread (10/9 - ME Final Table)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Shame Kravchenko didn't win it. He played 10 times better than anybody else at the final table.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is IMO again a wrong perception created by showing a limited number of hands. Just like Yang seemed to lose many big hands and yet never move down much on ESPN, Kravchenko was doubling up without moving up much on ESPN.

On the small hands that PPV viewers saw, Yang was scooping up the blinds, limps, and even raises PF like crazy. OTOH, Kravchenko was quickly bleeding the chips he won in his double-ups, by limp folding or raise-folding pre-flop. Kravchenko played well only when he was in push-fold mode.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is right. Kravchenko played a good small stack. As soon as he got deep, he played very weak. At one time, Kravchenko was the second biggest stack and not far behind Yang. He ended up blinding himself down to the smallest stack and then got busted by Yang.

We saw three double-ups of Kravchenko by Yang. Yet, Yang was usually way ahead in the chip lead. The reason is because Yang dominated picking up the small pots not aired on ESPN and Kravchenko let himself get pushed around.

Re: WSOP on ESPN thread (10/9 - ME Final Table)
 

Man I wish all religious people were as cool as kudzudemon.

WSOP has definitely lost something. I'd rather watch Reaper than the second hour. Two, three years ago I would not have done this.
But, it still has it's moments. My brother and I have a lot of fun with "BULLDOZER" (especially after winning a coin-flip, that is priceless) and "MAKE ME BELIEVE!"

Re: WSOP on ESPN thread (10/9 - ME Final Table)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yup, this religious stuff is a joke. I cant watch any more.

VCR is recording and Ill watch with MUTE and alot of Fast Fowarding. That Hevad Kahn guy is also intolerable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny you say that - because that was by far the funniest thing I've seen - save for phil and mike of course..

Re: WSOP on ESPN thread (10/9 - ME Final Table)
 

[ QUOTE ]
I felt very frustrated when I was watching the idiocy they call ME-FT mostly because I could not believe a huge donk like Yang that obviously do not understand even some very basic poker concepts can get away with murder on a table where you at least have few Pros that can find the best strategy against a loser like him.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because poker IS a game of luck.

Also, if you believe in GOD - there is no such thing as luck since god has predetermined EVERYTHING..And if you pray with enough conviction (have enough faith) your prayers will be answered.

This wsop me is in many ways a MIRACLE!

I hope Yang really does some charity work and does not play a single hand of poker after . Perhaps he can also appear on anti-gambling pro-christian ads denouncing gambling.
That would really make all you poker fans mad!