WSOP FINAL TABLE 2007 - Page 2

westhoff · #11 07-18-2007, 04:08 PM

Some of my thoughts:

1. Yang did some good things and some bad things. He also had the best cards by far. They played less than 200 hands before heads-up and look at just the hands he had to show, QQ, JJ, AK, 88, A10, etc.

2. I don't remember seeing AA the entire time. Although I think Yang had it when Childs folded QQ face up.

3. I was really surprised at the amount of people that were shocked at Rahme's KK. Have any of you ever played with old donk-nits? Obviously easy to say now, but I thought that it was so obvious Rahme had KK here. Also this hand is just too funny. A-rag vs KK on AJ8 flop and they both think they have the nuts.

4. The fact that it took less than 200 hands with those stacks and the blinds barely increasing every two hours to get to heads-up is [censored] ridiculous. This thing should still be going. Same thing happened last year. Chip leader going out 9th with 85, lol.

5. Anybody that doesn't think that Kravchenko was the best player at the table doesn't know how to play poker.

6. Now we'll have more asians playing and playing more aggressively (if that's possible). This is awesome!!!

7. I can't believe I stayed glued to my TV for 15 hours for poker without hole cards. Well done ESPN!

MyTurn2Raise · #12 07-18-2007, 04:11 PM

Yang, by far, played the best of anyone at that final table

was he lucky? YES

but he also just played better

MuppieDoll · #13 07-18-2007, 04:11 PM

Since he was an internet player, and there are so many internet players now making final table appearances, I guess we can discuss it.

Im sure he was a much weaker player "over all" then all the top pros. But if it was Alan Cunningham doing what he did, all we would have heard during the broadcast was praise. Praise for what a genius he was for sensing the tight table early and exploiting it .. and genius for playing his big stack. All we heard though was what a bad player this guy was. Baloney. Again, except for one spot, he consistently outplayed the table and consistently got his money in with the better hand ... and the resuckout on the river was just that.. a RE suckout... the money was already in.

I think it will be interesting to see how this table program gets produced by ESPN. I guess it depends on how willing he is or isnt in terms of selling the product. I think it will depend on how much money they can make for the WORLD SERIES OF POKER franchise

seke2 · #14 07-18-2007, 04:13 PM

All I know is that Yang opened a pot to 2.5 million preflop when the blinds were 120k/240k. I really don't care what else he did. Just knowing he did that even once is enough to know he's not a good player.

MyTurn2Raise · #15 07-18-2007, 04:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
5. Anybody that doesn't think that Kravchenko was the best player at the table doesn't know how to play

[/ QUOTE ]

cuz limp-folding is good?

fnurt · #16 07-18-2007, 04:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"On the last hand, with a huge mound of cash deposited on the felt, Lam moved all-in with an ace and queen of diamonds and Yang called with pocket eights.

When a queen, five and nine came on the flop, it looked like Lam, waving a Canadian flag, would be on the verge of a miracle comeback, making a pair of queens for the lead.

But a seven on the turn and a six on the river gave Yang a straight, sealing a win in which he dominated the final table from the moment the nine finalists sat down."

hitting runner runner to make a straight - i would consider that skill

[/ QUOTE ]

This post is silly. Do you see why?

FireStorm · #17 07-18-2007, 04:54 PM

Out of curiosity, to the OP: What did Hachem do that was so "lucky"? Other than Qd7d, which he shoved over a megadonk, Hachem was not in bad shape in a hand the entire ME set of televised hands.

As stated above, I'm in agreement that Rahme's KK was fairly transparent. Exactly the way you would expect a tight older player to misplay Kings.

OP actually has a decent point, albeit poorly stated. Announcers give positive accolades to pros even though they misplay hands, and then blast amateurs for the same moves.

gisb0rne · #18 07-18-2007, 05:02 PM

Reread your post and you'll see why he was a luckbox. The guy had a better hand every time someone played back at him. Who couldn't win with that kind of luck? You get an Ax every other hand and then when someone happens to reraise you have JJ. You're heads up playing every hand and raising 75% of the time, you get reraised and boom! you happen to have 88. Or the small stack raises all-in from the small blind and what do you have? Not 84o. Not J6s. Nope, you have A9.

The guy was destined to win. He did make many horrible plays, but when your opponents get no cards and you get lots of cards you can get away with it.

westhoff · #19 07-18-2007, 05:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
5. Anybody that doesn't think that Kravchenko was the best player at the table doesn't know how to play

[/ QUOTE ]

cuz limp-folding is good?

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, yes, it can be. Ever read No-Limit Holdem Theory and Practice?

grando · #20 07-18-2007, 05:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
5. Anybody that doesn't think that Kravchenko was the best player at the table doesn't know how to play

[/ QUOTE ]

cuz limp-folding is good?

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, yes, it can be. Ever read No-Limit Holdem Theory and Practice?

[/ QUOTE ]

kravchenko played a great aggressive shortstack, but as an average stack he was a weak-tight fish