Jamie Gold - Putting Things in Perspective

[thehun69]

I will admit I'm not that much of a Jamie Gold fan. That's no big deal; most of the posts regarding Jamie on twoplustwo have the usual donktastick and luckbox flavour to them. But, I think this issue needs to be revisited and looked under a stronger microscope.

I'll start and end my argument with a simple phrase: TAKE RESPONSIBILITY. In looking at Jamie's performance, yes he did have a sick run of cards for a lot of the tournament. In the earlier days it could have been luck, it may not have been, the broadcast really didn't show him all the way through, he became the focus right around day three when he started to charge through and Dmitri Nobles was giving away his chips. So, for the first three days, other than annecdotal reports, it is hard to say the kinds of cards Jamie was getting. Perhaps it was skill that got him to day three where it seemed that he was outrunning all sorts of trouble and would constantly spike miracle hands. But looking at that final table again, he simply bullied his way through a few key spots that could have changed the course of history had it gone the other way. He bluffed Cunningham off of a huge hand, when Alan had 10's but was worried about overcards. He bluffed the guy that came in third, whatshisname, in that infamous hand where he flipped over the Jack to show the guy, in the middle of the hand. As well, the biggest move of them all was the hand that will haunt Wasicka for the rest of his life where he folded his 78s when Jamie went all in after the guy in third pushed with his A10 and hit the ten on the board. Straight draw, flush draw, and Paul pusses out. It doesn't matter that there was a guy behind, you know that you are a favourite in the hand.
I bring up these hands to show that 1)it wasn't all luck but more importantly 2) the players in the tournament have no one to blame but themselves. Poor reads and poor decisions are why they finished where they finished and not only because of miracle hands. Yes, if Jamie busted you and you were the huge favourite and the miracle card spiked, then that was simply bad luck, you made the correct decision. But there are many many many instances where Jamie forced the other players to make extremely LOUSY decisions. If Wasicka would have called (hich is a frieking no brainer, even if he suspected Jamie with two pair or trips, it's still a call) history may well have changed right there. But he folded. Why? Jamie pushed him out of the hand. These players need to take repsonsibility for that. While Jamie did have moments where the cards were cold decked in favour of him, a lot of times he played a big stack powerfully as opposed to Dmitri Nobles.

Now, I'm not saying I endorse Jamie, or think that he is a great player. I don't think he is a player of superstar calibre, and his demeanor at the table was horrendously asssaholic. However, to CONSTANTLY in every post keep calling him a luck box and using that as a rationalization as to why others or yourself may have busted to this guy is pawning off responsibility to the wrong thing.

At the end of the day poker is about choices and decisions and trying to make the best ones given the incomplete information that is presented to you. Only one person makes that choice..YOU. Take responsibility and stop blaming or pointing to bad luck as to why other people became champions.

Let the flames begin.

THE HUN.

[Zetack]

Quite frankly, its hard to judge how good a player he was based on what we saw.

He did have an incredible run of cards. And unfortunately, he was never put to the test at the final table so we could see his mettle.

So I can't judge his skill very well. But I can judge that he comes off as a jerk.

--Zetack

[thehun69]

Nicely put. I was going to go on an additional direction talking about how much we can really know of a player given a 5 day tournament edited down into a few 47 minute episodes. But, had to work on something....

THE HUN.

[Valsuvious]

Michael Binger was the guy that finished in third place.

Anyways, you are right, in that Paul Wasica got pushed off of the hand by Jaime Gold in the one that sealed Binger's fate. However, I would have to look at it from the other side as well. First, you want to be playing for first place, but here you have the 2nd best stack at the table. The third stack went all in and the huge chip leader pushes all in. At that point, what do you think you are up against. My guess would be that my hand is dominated. I might not be, but I would venture to think that at least one of them had a huge hand and my fold reasoning would be, hey, I want to guarantee myself second place money if the chip leader wins the hand. I think that was the decision that ultimately he made. Whether Wasica's fold was correct or not, have you ever been put to a decision like that where if you lose the hand to the chip leader, you win 4 million. If you win, you have a good chance at 12 million. If you fold and the CL wins, you are guaranteed 7 million. Not sure about you, but I think I'll take that guaranteed 7 mill.

If he would have stayed in the hand, he would have won, knocked out Binger and took a huge pot putting him and Gold at about the same number of chips. I think though with the raise and reraise in front of him, he made the correct decision though that I would have made and figured that someone had me dominated.

I do agree with the Nobles comment though. Nobles took his big stack and donked it off to everyone. I love listening to his phone call to his buddy during that "man, I just spread 400k of my chips to the table" or something to that extent. Great times.

[thehun69]

[ QUOTE ]
Michael Binger was the guy that finished in third place.

Anyways, you are right, in that Paul Wasica got pushed off of the hand by Jaime Gold in the one that sealed Binger's fate. However, I would have to look at it from the other side as well. First, you want to be playing for first place, but here you have the 2nd best stack at the table. The third stack went all in and the huge chip leader pushes all in. At that point, what do you think you are up against. My guess would be that my hand is dominated. I might not be, but I would venture to think that at least one of them had a huge hand and my fold reasoning would be, hey, I want to guarantee myself second place money if the chip leader wins the hand. I think that was the decision that ultimately he made. Whether Wasica's fold was correct or not, have you ever been put to a decision like that where if you lose the hand to the chip leader, you win 4 million. If you win, you have a good chance at 12 million. If you fold and the CL wins, you are guaranteed 7 million. Not sure about you, but I think I'll take that guaranteed 7 mill.

If he would have stayed in the hand, he would have won, knocked out Binger and took a huge pot putting him and Gold at about the same number of chips. I think though with the raise and reraise in front of him, he made the correct decision though that I would have made and figured that someone had me dominated.

I do agree with the Nobles comment though. Nobles took his big stack and donked it off to everyone. I love listening to his phone call to his buddy during that "man, I just spread 400k of my chips to the table" or something to that extent. Great times.

[/ QUOTE ]

Binger, right, thanks. Getting to that hand...it all boils down to personal philosophy concerning the end game. I play to win it all, especially for something as big as Main Event Champ. Here, it is not a matter of simply risking three mil to win five mil, because being champion brings in a ton of extra things, fame, endorsemtents, paid appearances, magazine articles...book deals, so financially there is a lot more at stake. I simply go for it. There are a lot of IFS in the argument FOR folding. IF the CL wins then you blew your guaranteed 7 mil.. IF! Well, what happens if CL loses. Shorty just tripled up, has as many chips as you do and in a few hands you can get taken out of the tournament. So in my mind it is either that, or push on a monster draw. But again, it is all personal preferences.

Other than that, I agree...I loved watching Noble just donk it away.

THE HUN.

[Blizzardbaum]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Michael Binger was the guy that finished in third place.

Anyways, you are right, in that Paul Wasica got pushed off of the hand by Jaime Gold in the one that sealed Binger's fate. However, I would have to look at it from the other side as well. First, you want to be playing for first place, but here you have the 2nd best stack at the table. The third stack went all in and the huge chip leader pushes all in. At that point, what do you think you are up against. My guess would be that my hand is dominated. I might not be, but I would venture to think that at least one of them had a huge hand and my fold reasoning would be, hey, I want to guarantee myself second place money if the chip leader wins the hand. I think that was the decision that ultimately he made. Whether Wasica's fold was correct or not, have you ever been put to a decision like that where if you lose the hand to the chip leader, you win 4 million. If you win, you have a good chance at 12 million. If you fold and the CL wins, you are guaranteed 7 million. Not sure about you, but I think I'll take that guaranteed 7 mill.

If he would have stayed in the hand, he would have won, knocked out Binger and took a huge pot putting him and Gold at about the same number of chips. I think though with the raise and reraise in front of him, he made the correct decision though that I would have made and figured that someone had me dominated.

I do agree with the Nobles comment though. Nobles took his big stack and donked it off to everyone. I love listening to his phone call to his buddy during that "man, I just spread 400k of my chips to the table" or something to that extent. Great times.

[/ QUOTE ]

Binger, right, thanks. Getting to that hand...it all boils down to personal philosophy concerning the end game. I play to win it all, especially for something as big as Main Event Champ. Here, it is not a matter of simply risking three mil to win five mil, because being champion brings in a ton of extra things, fame, endorsemtents, paid appearances, magazine articles...book deals, so financially there is a lot more at stake. I simply go for it. There are a lot of IFS in the argument FOR folding. IF the CL wins then you blew your guaranteed 7 mil.. IF! Well, what happens if CL loses. Shorty just tripled up, has as many chips as you do and in a few hands you can get taken out of the tournament. So in my mind it is either that, or push on a monster draw. But again, it is all personal preferences.

Other than that, I agree...I loved watching Noble just donk it away.

THE HUN.

[/ QUOTE ]

You guys have the action in Wasicka's 78s hand all wrong. Gold pushed with his SD, then Wasicka folded, then Binger CALLED AI. If I'm Wasicka, I think I still probably call but its not as clear-cut as you are all making it because Binger insta-mucks anything but the nuts with Wasicka all-in ahead of him. Wasicka knows this and knows that Binger is on the short stack and will go out ahead of him if he folds, which means something like $2.5 million extra in Wasicka's pocket.

FWIW, I've been a Gold basher in the past. I think from what they showed on TV he was obviously on a rush of cards and made some hands in some big spots that allowed him to accumulate so many chips. Nothing wrong with that... same with Moneymaker, Raymer and Hachem before him. You have to get lucky not to be unlucky to win a tournament.

The difference between Gold and the other players I mentioned is they aren't angle shooting d-bags who collude with players next to them ("I said top top").

[revots33]

From what I saw on TV Gold seemed to play great big-stack poker. Maybe he lucked into the big stack, but once he got it he knew what to do with it.

I wouldn't dismiss someone as a luckbox who's got Johnny Chan vouching for his ability.

Nice post. Sure Jamie caught good cards but he used his stack as a weapon and put out the most dominant performance in a big tournament ever.

Most people are just jealous of someone who has better success then they do.

[Hotel Detect]

Ever since I watched the PPV final table of the ME I have thought that everyone's reaction to JG was completely unjustified. Sure he comes off as kind of an ass but have you people ever played poker? Every table im at has at least 2 douches that give JG a run for his money. Why does everyone take a guys attitude so personally? I really didnt think he did anything unbelievably obnoxious. The collusion stuff was pretty suspect but I blame the tournament staff for not intervening early and taking care of it - it was plain for all to see. Honestly, I perceived a lot of it to fall under table talk - and when Jamie refers to things like I told this guy to fold b/c I had a big hand, i am pretty sure that he was saying these things out loud and alternating when he was and wasnt telling the truth. This is at least the way i perceived it.

Everyone claims he is so readable, yet in a weeks worth of play none of the top pro's that made it to the end could find a spot to exploit this? I agree with OP, out of the big buyin tournys I've watched, JG put in one of the more impressive performances.

Just think of how difficult it is to keep your cool and wade through a 1k person mtt online - now tell me all it took was a 7 day run of cards (unheard of) for JG to take it down.

An honestly no offense, but if all you are watching is the edited espn versions and didnt even watch the final table (at a minimum) I do not think you can get a clear understanding of how he played.

[Matt Williams]

[ QUOTE ]
Ever since I watched the PPV final table of the ME I have thought that everyone's reaction to JG was completely unjustified. Sure he comes off as kind of an ass but have you people ever played poker? Every table im at has at least 2 douches that give JG a run for his money. Why does everyone take a guys attitude so personally? I really didnt think he did anything unbelievably obnoxious. The collusion stuff was pretty suspect but I blame the tournament staff for not intervening early and taking care of it - it was plain for all to see. Honestly, I perceived a lot of it to fall under table talk - and when Jamie refers to things like I told this guy to fold b/c I had a big hand, i am pretty sure that he was saying these things out loud and alternating when he was and wasnt telling the truth. This is at least the way i perceived it.

Everyone claims he is so readable, yet in a weeks worth of play none of the top pro's that made it to the end could find a spot to exploit this? I agree with OP, out of the big buyin tournys I've watched, JG put in one of the more impressive performances.

Just think of how difficult it is to keep your cool and wade through a 1k person mtt online - now tell me all it took was a 7 day run of cards (unheard of) for JG to take it down.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I don't understand why people hate JG so much. My impression was he was just as surprised as everyone else at the hands he was running into. Maybe it came off as being a douche to some people, but I didn't get that impression from him.

I thought Wasicka came off pretty bad saying he would beat JG if he had 10% of the chips in play heads up.