Alan Goerhing

[TheMainEvent]

I was just reading Howard Lederer's article on him:
http://www.howardlederer.com/howard-...-article8.html

I find it interesting that he is so successful playing almost entirely counter to what most good players would recommend:

-Slowplaying big pairs as a rule, rather than an exception
-2xBB raising preflop
-min-reraising preflop with very marginal hands
-generally keeping postflop bets small in relation to the pot

Obviously he's been successful playing this way, but is it really an effective strategy on it's own, or just a method for exploiting weaker players?

[THEOSU]

TME,

Goehring is sick. Weak players and pros alike have trouble against him because nobody has any f clue what he has, but he's usually able to figure out what his opponents have (although sometimes he's wrong, as that article mentions). It's pretty sick.

He's on my shortlist of "guys I'd be actively pissed off to find at my first table of the WSOP main event."

[ed8383]

[ QUOTE ]

-generally keeping postflop bets small in relation to the pot

[/ QUOTE ]
He wins small pot after small pot thus keeping himself safe and not risking a lot of his chips. Isn't this the same tactic Hellmuth uses?

[AcesUp]

Haven't read the article yet, but...

I've played against Alan numerous times, and he's probably one of the most (if not the most) frustrating opponents I've ever faced...

Alan isn't scared to take big chances to get deep into a big event. He'll push really hard with marginal hands, and will even get all-in pre-flop with hands that are unlikely to be the best, knowing that if he can get lucky, he will likely go deep into the money.

He tends to do this a lot around the bubble, realizing that not only will he double up if he gets lucky on one of these hands, but also that he'll scare the s**t out of his opponents who will tighten up even more on the bubble just to keep from risking their tournament life before the money.

That seemingly wreckless attitude, combined with the fact that he's tough to read (he'll play any two cards for a min-raise -- including premium hands), makes him very tough to play against.

I've been wondering for years how he's so successful, but the gist is that he plays a big stack very, very well, and he's willing to take great chances to build a big stack. Sure, he'll get knocked out on the bubble a good bit of the time, but those times where he gets lucky and wins a big pot at the right time, he'll tend go deep into the money...


-Aces

[balt999]

I personally like the way he plays. Very Imagitive...not to many people have the guts to play this style of poker, but it's very successful and should be respected.

[Arbitrage]

Alan - What was the deal with your CardPlayer cover pic? You looked like a corpse.

[irish79]

I don't understand why he gets hated on so much for his style of play. He has had more success then about 98.9% of the posters here. Not to mention the fact that people HATE playing with him because of his style and how hard he is to put on a hande. Is that not +EV to have opponents on gaurd the minute they see you at their table.

It seems most people in this forum simply discount or degrade any poker style that doesn't mirror a Sklansky,Malmuth,Zee,or Miller writing.

[Overdrive]

[ QUOTE ]


most people in this forum simply discount or degrade any poker style that doesn't mirror a Sklansky,Malmuth,Zee,or Miller writing.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Tom Bayes]

My take is that Alan Goerhing is the "Jim Furyk" of the poker world. If that analogy doesn't make sense to you, Jim Furyk is a very successful golfer with a highly unortodox swing who is close but not quite at the Tiger Woods/Phil Mickelson level. Just as almost no golf pro would teach you the "Jim Furyk" swing, almost no poker book or poker coach will try to teach you the "Alan Goerhing" style of tournament poker, as most of us would fail miserably trying to emulate it.

[TStoneMBD]

you guys (and by guys i mean low count posters) talk up to the respected posters here like you know more about poker strategy than they do. when respected posters who are making alot of money see poker players doing things that would not win in the games they play in, they often feel it can be wrong. so many of these famous tournament pros are not very good at poker. tournaments revolve around alot of luck and the caliber of opposition in these large buyin tournaments is very mediocre. id like to see how alan goerhing would fare in internet cash games instead of playing against fields of subpar tournament players.

i want to be clear however, i dont know much of anything about alan's style and have absolutely no idea how good of a player he is. he could be great for all i know. im simply pointing out that i see so many posters who clearly have a lack of knowledge about the game glorify famous poker pros and chastise internet experts who criticize them, and it bothers me because you clearly dont have the knowledge they do so what gives you the right to argue them? there is a difference between a good play and a bad play, and a good player might have the utility to properly analyze the difference. that doesnt necessarily mean they fit into a certain mold of player and cant think outside the box. of course there are different styles of nl and alan can probably manipulate his opponents very well. its also possible that alan has a lack of fundamental poker knowledge but his excellent hand reading skills carry him to greatness. the same could be said for phil hellmuth.

id imagine that anyone here who knows enough about alan goerhing that would be willing to criticize his play are excellent internet players who dont play a "S,M,Z,M" style of poker. btw, id probably bet on alan goerhing in a poker tournament over any of the aforementioned poker authors. i hope that doesnt come off as disrespectful.