Phil Gordon is a [deleted]

[elcastigador]

how many bracelets does Gordon have again?.....oh wait....

Seriously can't stand some of the comments that were made. Thank Yang's gods for volume control.

[GotQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you really need a color comm guy who tells you that AK5 is a great flop for 55 or that "he needs a 9, and a 9 only, to stay in this tournament"? Gordon has strong opinions, and who knows, maybe that's why they want him on the broadcast?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah probably. I love it when he tells people how much to bet on each street, it's hilarious.

[JackCase]

[ QUOTE ]
how many bracelets does Gordon have again?.....oh wait....



[/ QUOTE ]

Gordon won a WPT tournament and finished 4th at a WSOP ME. He has also written several very good basic poker books. If people don't like his style, that's understandable and strictly a matter of taste. He can be annoying and abrasive. But I'm guessing that he is a better poker player than the vast majority of the people who are whining about him being clueless.

[The B]

[ QUOTE ]
I wish Gordon would stop criticizing and start analyzing.

[/ QUOTE ]

the Billy Packer of Poker

[Dunkman]

I thought pretty much everything Yang did was spot on, considering his situation. He knew he was one of the worst players at the table. As a result, he made big bets and overbets putting the better players at risk for their stacks. The better players obviously would rather not take flips, since they know they have an advantage, so they passed. Combine that with people's desire to move up in prize money, and it worked quite well. I'll agree some of his calls were pretty donkish, but they had the very beneficial side effect of preventing people from playing back at him with marginal hands, since they knew he couldn't fold. He obviously ran well, but for a player who is bad and is going to get outplayed pretty consistently in the long run, making hands short and putting people to decisions for their stacks PF is the best way to play because it minimizes their edge against you.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought pretty much everything Yang did was spot on, considering his situation. He knew he was one of the worst players at the table. As a result, he made big bets and overbets putting the better players at risk for their stacks. The better players obviously would rather not take flips, since they know they have an advantage, so they passed. Combine that with people's desire to move up in prize money, and it worked quite well. I'll agree some of his calls were pretty donkish, but they had the very beneficial side effect of preventing people from playing back at him with marginal hands, since they knew he couldn't fold. He obviously ran well, but for a player who is bad and is going to get outplayed pretty consistently in the long run, making hands short and putting people to decisions for their stacks PF is the best way to play because it minimizes their edge against you.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeh, I agree with this, except for the part about being one of the worst players at the FT. He took control of the table from the beginning. He played an effective aggressive game. You can't raise all the time and fold easily to a reraise. The commentators said it was impossible to put him on a hand.

Someone who plays a technically correct but weak/tight readable game is not necessarily a better player than someone who plays an aggressive unpredictable game. There were about several fairly strong players there and some more readable ABC types.

Yang could have been out if he had worse luck at the beginning. He and Rahme were the only two amateurs and both played in an obviously less polished style than the others. Yang is not as strong a player as Watkinson or Kravchenko, but I don't think he was one of the worse players at the FT.

Yang played very aggressively and took control of the table early, particularly with the hand he got Childs to lay down QQ face up. He won a coin flip with TPTK against pair and flush draw and a preflop coin flop and preflop 2-1 dog hand early. Then he played a pretty strong big stack game.

[elcastigador]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
how many bracelets does Gordon have again?.....oh wait....



[/ QUOTE ]

Gordon won a WPT tournament and finished 4th at a WSOP ME. He has also written several very good basic poker books. If people don't like his style, that's understandable and strictly a matter of taste. He can be annoying and abrasive. But I'm guessing that he is a better poker player than the vast majority of the people who are whining about him being clueless.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Gordon is not a strong player and his analysis is painful to listen to. He is a wealthy amateur who had some success at donkaments when they were smaller fields. He is also a a pretty good talker.


[/ QUOTE ]

Who likes to hear himself talk, hence him looking like a complete tool on poker after dark claiming to make stupid sophisticated reads against Sexton and opponents. And I could write a book on poker, doesn't give me the right to call one of the final four players at the ME an idiot for putting pressure on the big stack because he's a little inexperienced in that kind of a lime light. IMO Gordon just likes to hear himself talk about his overly thought-out philosophies about the unlimited texas hold them, being one of the most mediocre amatuer authors/players out there.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]

Who likes to hear himself talk, hence him looking like a complete tool on poker after dark claiming to make stupid sophisticated reads against Sexton and opponents. And I could write a book on poker, doesn't give me the right to call one of the final four players at the ME an idiot for putting pressure on the big stack because he's a little inexperienced in that kind of a lime light. IMO Gordon just likes to hear himself talk about his overly thought-out philosophies about the unlimited texas hold them, being one of the most mediocre amatuer authors/players out there.

[/ QUOTE ]
He gets paid to give opinions on what everyone has and so on. I couldn't do it. He is a pretty good talker with good presentation, looks, as so on.

However, his commentary was very ABC and weak/tight. He kept talking about how this or that is an automatic raise or bet, how people were playing too risky, and how you shouldn't limp or very the size of your preflop raises. Like playing in an obvious way is the way to win at the WSOP ME FT.

I actually don't think his books are that bad. However, he is a rich guy who enters a zillion major tournaments and made some final tables. I don't know if he could consistantly win playing many medium stakes online or live tournaments or at reasonable stakes cash games.

[Pokerpun]

I like PG and his books and DVD and website.

My problem with the commentary was that it was so basic ironically I felt there was not any "expert insight" for me in the commentary - I really think Daniel N , Hellmuth or possibly a lt of players could have given us more to get our teeth in to in the commentary - though perhaps ESPN had a policy of encouraging im to keep it simple.

[elcastigador]

[ QUOTE ]
I like PG and his books and DVD and website.

My problem with the commentary was that it was so basic ironically I felt there was not any "expert insight" for me in the commentary - I really think Daniel N , Hellmuth or possibly a lt of players could have given us more to get our teeth in to in the commentary - though perhaps ESPN had a policy of encouraging im to keep it simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

touche' sir