WSOP on ESPN thread (8/28 - Day 1C and Day 1D)

[Veil]

[ QUOTE ]
"Jeezus Jamie Gold. That was an embarrassing display of IDK what! He was playing like it was a $1 tourney online and he had a plane to catch"

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I'll have to take your word on that one, seeing as though you must be doing the rounds on frequent $1 tourneys.

And to anyone else ignorantly bashing Gold in this episode: there wasn't a single hand he played badly that we saw (ESPN probably didn't show the hands that were making Gold upset about his play). The first hand, Hougaard played like an absolute moron calling that much so early on with these small blinds. But I guess all you guys know that already, being frequent main event players? The only thing Jamie did wrong was apparently not realise (was it first hand or edited I wonder?) how much of a lunatic Hougaard was, actually calling him down with that piece of junk when it's cleanly reasonable to put a pre-flop raiser on at least an over-pair this early on, or if you're going by the post-flop play and Jamie's tendency to raise pre-flop with any two cards; then him having 3/4, 4/5, etc, etc, is clearly reasonable, and to risk that many chips early on was absolutely amazingly bad.

The Rosent hand? Jamie thought he had over-cards and not the over-pair, DUH. So now, he does what most pros do and takes one off after a small bet (and after pairing). Now, turn bet is even smaller giving him correct odds to continue no matter what. Did I miss something? Jamie played this hand bad??? Which hand did he play badly? Oh that's right, the J/9 hand where it was extremely unlucky for his opponents to be playing the hand this way, and extremely complex to be able to call the river bet? Or the freakish flush hand when Hougaard tricked him by using what Gold PATENDED for crying out loud. And the other J/9 hand where Hougaard folded, I'd like to see any of you try and lie as good as Gold did there. I'm a part psych major and I've been trained to successfully tell lies with a 95% accuracy and I'll be honest in that I would have been suckered in there to fold too. And you're all whining about him whining with the 5/2o hand? Jeez, you guys must have never touched a girl, oh I mean played in a big tournament before. To get multiple callers first of all was unlucky, to make a straight and lose is also extremely unlucky. Was it a good fold? It was alright, but the thing is, no matter WHAT Gold does, you prejudicial, sarcastic fools will either be like "lolol good laydown??" or just stay silent and pretend it didn't happen.

And as an aside: anyone saying Gold got luckier in last years' main event than anyone who won a WPT or a recent main event should just reconsider this game, because if this is true then the entire game is luck. I mean, do you actually think Gold made more hands than he stole to get and hold this massive chip lead? Out of hundreds and hundreds of hands throughout the tournament, the pots he would be taking would result in him bluffing around 85% more often than him making a good hand and someone making something better for the pot to be worthwhile.

Oh and for the inevitable poster(s) that will respond with something about me loving Gold; let me say that Gold is undeniably and undoubtedly a fine tournament hold'em player. What he did in last years' main event will NEVER be equaled again. To lead for that long is just mind boggling and breathtaking and anyone who can't appreciative this because you may dislike his antics or the such - should either grow up or learn the bloody game.

PS: the last hand; how the hell can Tucker call 400 then decide, "Hm I guess I'll call FOUR THOUSAND more now with A/7" ?? And let's not forget the Ace-high vs King-high flush with only three diamonds on board. That has got to be one of the worst played hands of all time. Yet, you guys just focus on Gold because you're already predisposed to hating him. Nice one, guys.

[blankoblanco]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
-Moneymaker always looks taxed. If you're not having fun just give it up bro. Then he plays that chase-em-down style *gags*

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, he really looks he doesn't enjoy this at all.


[/ QUOTE ]
guys, that's just his face. seriously

[blankoblanco]

[ QUOTE ]

And to anyone else ignorantly bashing Gold in this episode: there wasn't a single hand he played badly that we saw (ESPN probably didn't show the hands that were making Gold upset about his play). The first hand, Hougaard played like an absolute moron calling that much so early on with these small blinds.

[/ QUOTE ]

hahahaha, are you joking? Seriously? Please be one giant level. If not, hello Jamie.

Hougaard didn't play like a moron.. he played like someone who knows exactly how Jamie Gold plays. And we also all know Gold is still dumb enough to keep trying it. He's horrible and he played horribly

[evagaba]

[ QUOTE ]


Actually, Moneymaker is a really nice guy. I played at the same table as him at Ceasars Indiana back at the WSOPCE in March (Event #1). He's actually a pretty good player IMO, and a nice friendly all around guy.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I played at a 2/5 cash game, with him 2 to my right, in Vegas last summer.

[wheels25]

I just point out this play: Gold already shortstacked on the button raises to 300 with 2d 3d and gets reraised to 1300. Gold decides to call. Well, I don`t know. Nothing against his raise, but calling there...

[charliecozz]

Welcome to the Forum Jamie. You are an absolutely phenomenal player, and congrats on losing most of your chips on your very first hand. Well Played Again!

[Rottersod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Kid: "i have a flush"
Jamie: "I call"

Jamie loses, kid has flush, LOL, LOL , LOL< see how annoying that [censored] is Jamie???!?!?

That first hand Gold played was hysterical and I guess he didn't try to screw his partner out of 1/2 his winnings or is this more Jamie damage control??

[/ QUOTE ]

My question on this one is, why didn't anyone call the floor on that kid? I mean they (the WSOP people) made a huge deal about how this year people were not going to get away with talking about their hand in a middle of a hand (like Gold did last year)?

I did like the fact though, that Jamie got burned by his own angle shoot from last year! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Best of all, even after the kid told Jamie he had a Flushie, Jamie STILL bets 3k into the kid!

[/ QUOTE ]

Because no one want to look like an idiot on national TV on day 1.

[DeuceSeven]

Isn't it best to figure out who the calling stations are before you start making big bluffs? Seems retarded to bluff a guy, that you don't know how he plays on the first hand of a mtt. Also taking into golds image, bluffing makes even less sense. Gold = donkey luck sac.

[pendragon]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm a part psych major and I've been trained to successfully tell lies with a 95% accuracy and I'll be honest in that I would have been suckered in there to fold too.

[/ QUOTE ]
No offense, but you ever got this tested or something? How could you possibly know you (or this training) has 95% accuracy?
[ QUOTE ]
but the thing is, no matter WHAT Gold does, you prejudicial, sarcastic fools will either be like "lolol good laydown??" or just stay silent and pretend it didn't happen.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that people around here are very negative often, and also probably judge too quickly based on the few TV hands we actually see. But from what we see, Jaime played pretty bad in this episode, and he agreed too.
[ QUOTE ]
Out of hundreds and hundreds of hands throughout the tournament, the pots he would be taking would result in him bluffing around 85% more often than him making a good hand and someone making something better for the pot to be worthwhile.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that Jaime probably wasn't any more lucky than most Main Event winners, all of whom not only have to play great but also have to get phenomenally lucky. But even with bluffing all the time you have to get lucky in that your opponents don't get the cards (especially that they don't have you crushed, and decide to slow-play suckering you in).

.
[ QUOTE ]
guys, that's just his face. seriously

[/ QUOTE ]
It wasn't just his face though, it was his demeanor...but maybe he is always like that, I really wouldn't know.

.
[ QUOTE ]
Hougaard didn't play like a moron.. he played like someone who knows exactly how Jamie Gold plays. And we also all know Gold is still dumb enough to keep trying it. He's horrible and he played horribly

[/ QUOTE ]
You're right here, from the little we saw he didn't play badly at all, he just knew what Jaime was up to. You have to give him credit for that, not criticize him.

I certainly don't think you should say that Jaime is horrible, I'm not sure where people get such massive anti-Jaime Gold venom from, but he did appear to play very badly here. He should have expected people to realize he played loose, and done the obvious poker counter-expectations/deception thing and played tight instead.

[Veil]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't it best to figure out who the calling stations are before you start making big bluffs?

[/ QUOTE ]

I already pointed this out, that this was the thing Jamie did wrong. But it's certainly not horrible to assume his opponent isn't this much of a calling station, and you might even say that this was unlucky (however usually at the beginning of main events, very many are calling stations). Gold guessed wrong, and I already pointed out it was a mistake.

[ QUOTE ]
But even with bluffing all the time you have to get lucky in that your opponents don't get the cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh??? It's called picking the right times to bluff and when not to; hence this was the skill involved in Jamie accumulating and keeping his stack the overwhelming majority of the time. I'm sorry, besides me, were any of you guys VIPS watching the hole card feed for tens of hours? Have any of you guys witnessed Gold crushing dozens and dozens of small local tournaments week after week? Just a question.