Any justification of Gold's EP limping?

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
is telling your opponents your cards a good idea?

[/ QUOTE ]
Is limping telling your opponents your cards? A limper could have anything. Even if you limpraise, you could be doing that with a suited connector or whatever.

[fnurt]

[ QUOTE ]
is telling your opponents your cards a good idea?

[/ QUOTE ]

eh? not sure what this has to do with my post...

[MyTurn2Raise]

[ QUOTE ]
everyone who said he played great fails to see that he probably would have played even greater if he had openraised those hands instead of openlimped.

[/ QUOTE ]

would he still have gotten the QQ v JJ allins????

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
everyone who said he played great fails to see that he probably would have played even greater if he had openraised those hands instead of openlimped.

[/ QUOTE ]

would he still have gotten the QQ v JJ allins????

[/ QUOTE ]
If he had raised to 800K, Lee reraises to 2.5M, and Gold pushes. I think he is more likely to get the money in by open raising. When Gold limpraised, Lee could really only beat a bluff, and it was easier to get away from JJ.

However, that doesn't make the early position limps bad. It is kind of standard play, particularly for a big stack. It is just not standard for WSOP final tables, where there is usually little limping.

There was a lot of preflop reraising at this final table and a lot of limping. I think the two are connected. People were limping because they were afraid of being reraised if they raised.

[Willy]

It looked like he wanted to draw people into the pot so he could try to take it away from them. Very dangerous but it worked for him this time. If it had stopped working, hopefully he would have abandon that strategy.

[Scooterdoo]

During the telecast I kept on hearing pros like Steve Z saying it couldn't be right, but I have to respectfully disagree and I have evidence to back it up. If you watched the FT you'll see that it worked time and time again. He would limp. They would either come in or raise. He would call if they raised. He would wait for them to check or show weakness and he would raise and take down the pot. It happened again and again. By keeping the pots small he was not committed to his hands so if they did play back at him he could either call if he sensed weakness and then take it away on later streets, call or raise with a hand or just fold without losing much. It happened again and again.

If you listen to the Circuit you'll hear guys like Gavin Smith, The Grinder and E-Dog talk about this small pot/lots of flops strategy. Hey, if they were playing back at him more I would assume he would have adjusted his strategy and started to raise more. For that matter he had quite a few speeds. There were plenty of times when he was raising 2 out of every three pots. That seemed to work for him too.

[BLACKBOAT]

I think small pot/lots of flops strategy is right on. He said he liked to figure out how people play and then play the person. Makes sense when you have a big stack at a tight table to see alot of flops at bet at the ones that don't fit the other player's range - regardless of what your own cards.

[ddubois]

[ QUOTE ]
If you listen to the Circuit you'll hear guys like Gavin Smith, The Grinder and E-Dog talk about this small pot/lots of flops strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]
Those guys aren't open-limping. "Small pot" in this context is lots of small raises.

[Eder]

I was happy to see unorthodox play win the largest event ever.
The reason we think the deck hit him hard is because we only saw showdown hands.
His donk type play allowed him to stack many solid players that were unable to adjust to him.
I cant wait for the few hands that ESPN will show us.

[younghov17]

when the deck hits u in the face it doesnt matter how badly you play. he reminds me of the average lagdonk at party nl 100.