[Rottersod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry limon, but what the hell are you talking about? PA's play was +EV no matter how you look at it. If Jamie has a set or hits a set with PA's gin card then PA is getting Gold's enitre stack. Also, I think you are hugely overestimating Jamie's ability. I think Jamie loses a fairly large chunk of his stack with AA or 2 pair there as well. And also you seem to be ignoring that PA could be calling with the best hand. That obviously wasn't the case in that instance, but Jamie does like to bluff a lot. How does running it 3 times prove that PA was lost????? He had the best hand, but Jamie had 10 outs and PA had ~365k invested in that hand. He obviously just wanted to reduce his variance and it worked out for him. Instead of a 365k loss he took a 125k loss from Jamie drawing out.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think the crux of this problem is that everyone is hugely UNDERESTIMATING jamies ability. ive actually logged alot of hours w/ jamie and he is a losing player but not crazy or stupid. and on the scale of losing players in the la 10-20+ nl hes a piker at best (PRE WSOP WIN)

[/ QUOTE ]

I like how you qualified that last sentence. Because I've seen him burn through $50K at a time at Hollywood Park.