WSOP on ESPN thread (10/9 - ME Final Table)

[im a model]

i like how a lot of people here are saying how the christian god isnt affecting the cards in the wsop because hes doing other, more important things--like he isnt capable of doing several things at once. i thought the made-up christian god could do whatever it wanted and had no time constraints. anyway, lol at all the people (mostly americans) who actually believe in all the christian nonsense. (and yeah i know that ill see the truth when i burn in hell for eternity, so you dont have to tell me.)

lol, "father, i will glorify your name. let people see your miracles (such as an 8 on the turn)."

"come on father! in jesus's name, no weapon formed against you shall prosper!" (wtf? what is this supposed to mean? anyway, it lost.)

"make him a believer. make lee a believer, father." i guess the Lord would rather have lee lose and burn in eternal hell fire.




wowowowowowowowow. its fake, you guys. the christian god is fake--he doesnt really exist. jesus was just a faker or a lunatic with a few sucker followers (or maybe they were in on it, too) and the romans stapled him to a cross and he died. there. now the christians can stop with it already. sorry for raining on your parade, but its gone too far. its just silly. just stop it.

[ShizzMoney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I like Kalmar's move there and wish more people would do it. I called you, so turn over your cards. It's simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's also a dick move

[/ QUOTE ]

With the plays Yang was making there was absolutely nothing wrong or dickish about that move.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally, I think it's MORE of a dick move to lead the action and then try to duck out of showing your cards. I would have made him show every time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly, in tournaments, I don't think it's a dick move to call a bet on the river and have the villian first show his hand. I actually think this should be a rule in tournament poker (along with DN "HU you can expose a card" rule as well as the "You are allowed to show just one card and not have to show both if all have mucked" rule).

You paid to see the cards, you should be able to see them. I mean, the bettor gets to see the caller's cards no matter what.....it is only fair.

ON FTP when you call a villian's river bet they always show the bettor's cards first. I think it's prudent for tournaments because you don't play that many hands or see many villian's hands, so if they get to showdown, you should be allowed to see the cards without discourse. This is also good for media and fans, too, because they can get to see how people play if they are watching live or via a pokerwire type of website.

Now if it was check-check on the river, THEN you should be allowed to muck freely because no one actually paid a bet to see who wins the showdown.

Now if it was a cash game, then yes, it is a dick move because of standard cash game poker equiette as well as the "gentleman's agreement" that should exist. A simple knock on the table, "you got it", or stating the hand like "9 high" should suffice.

[gusmahler]

[ QUOTE ]
How long did Yang and the other guy play heads up?



[/ QUOTE ]36 hands

[JDesab]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The thing TV isn't telling you here is that Jerry was literally raising 80% of the hands...during the live broadcast we all thought he was on air here.

[/ QUOTE ]QFT

[/ QUOTE ]


am i the only one that can admit.. that in this hand .. if i had held QQ and had run into Yang playing the hand the way he did against childs the thought would go through my mind. "the way this guy has been raising like nuts i bet i have him beat... i'm gonna call. but wait.. what if this hand is the one that he has a monster. an overpair? a set? we've played against each other before and he knows i'm not fooling around with my raises.... he knows i've seen him overplay his holdings before. he wouldn't bluff me here... he wouldn't make this move against me when he knows how much of my stack i've already committed to this pot. he knows that i SHOULD call him here with the pot size being what it is. he's too smart of a player to bluff me right now. maybe i'm beat. do i really want to go out this early? i have a big enough stack to fold here. .....

most people posting here are ignoring the fact that there is a lot of thoughts that go into this hand. as it turns out yang was not bluffing .. yang believed his overpair was the best hand i am sure.

it's funny .. you all believe that childs screwed up by not calling.. and it seems that you all think that yang overplayed his jacks. so, if it is wrong in your opinion that childs folded his overpair to the board.. why is it that yang is a donk for shoving all in. you all seem to criticize the proper play.

[Veil]

I really don't get some of you guys...Yang was just one race away from being the low stack at four-handed, he made a horrible read against Childs and should have been gone first, he made terrible river bluffs, he was on a downward spiral from five to four handed.........etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.....

Yet he crushed/dominated/raped the table?????? Are you sure you even watched the entire ppv, or dreamed up your own version? At any given point he was just two hands away from being knocked out. Just any top pair against a better hand would have done post-flop, or someone picking up a dominating hand pre-flop against him (at worst). Guess what, it didn't happen...it ALMOST did many many times, but it ultimately didn't. And not to mention he was one race away from being only 3:2 chip leader at heads up...no way would Lam have stuffed that one up at that point against this easily trapped player.

Did he utilize the correct strategy for someone with his ability? Of course he did. Preflop and c-bets that is. Anything after that was just uncanny that he didn't once get trapped for the entire ft.

[MasterShakeJr]

If Rahme said it was a bad fold, it was a bad fold [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Silent A]

Child's mistake was to overly focus on AA and KK in Yang's range and ignore the possibility of JJ. As soon as you add JJ into Yang's range it's an easy call.

Another thing to consider is that if you fold QQ here, you make it profitable for Yang to take his line with any 2 cards (although you could argue that this consideration should probably be reserved for players better than Yang). Still, any time you make it profitable for your opponent to play any 2 cards aggressively you are doing something wrong.

[Dhani]

His praying got worse and then some...
Lee Watsinson's wife and Yang go toe to toe with their
invoking of the heavens

[Veil]

[ QUOTE ]

am i the only one that can admit.. that in this hand .. if i
had held QQ [...]the thought would go through my mind. "the way this guy has been raising like nuts i bet i have him beat... i'm gonna call. but wait.. what if this hand is the one that he has a monster. an overpair? a set? we've played against each other before and he knows i'm not fooling around with my raises.... he knows i've seen him overplay his holdings before. he wouldn't bluff me here... he wouldn't make this move against me when he knows how much of my stack i've already committed to this pot. he knows that i SHOULD call him here with the pot size being what it is. he's too smart of a player to bluff me right now. maybe i'm beat. do i really want to go out this early? i have a big enough stack to fold here. .....


[/ QUOTE ]

Some good intermediate-level thinking here. However, the bolded part is where you make the potential error. Can I assume you haven't played in the main event for several days before? The thing you're missing is that you're over-complicating the situation. Childs and Yang had no doubt played for many, many hours prior to the final table. If Childs is a great player then its his prerogative to realize Yang's level of thinking, and what Jerry's capable of in terms of out-thinking Lee. The great player part isn't necessarily correct. In fact, from what I've seen of Yang, he was very capable of re-raising pre-flop utg+1 with 8/8+, A/7clubs+ and then making this exact play without thinking it through as logically as you have construed. Sometimes you just need to "dumb it down."

This is the dumbed down version of the situation:

"Alight, I've seen how this Yang guy plays, he's one of those suicidal lag big-bet maniacs and raising machines - I need to watch out for him at the final table if he acquires some chips. Now at the ft: okay, he's been raising or re-raising pre-flop just about every single hand so far ...I have Q/Q utg, let's raise...he re-raises me...there's no way in hell I can possible put him on an over-pair...I mean, wow, how lucky can this guy possibly be getting? IF he has it , good for him, but hell, it's so so so much more likely he doesn't have it. Let's just flat call for obvious reasons. Okay no overcards, I'm probably gonna go with this hand but let's see. I check. Yang bets huge...alright I have to go here, I can't get away from this, if he has it, well done, but the odds and the psychology are in my favor by a long-shot and what a spot to double up to the chip lead (?). I'm of course beating all of his zeros (possible one over hands) which he probably has 20% and I'm even beating many real hands such as any flush draw and 8/8 to J/J which I'm sure I've seen him overplay plenty before. I'm all in..." Yang calls.

Now as an aside, if this hand had have been played by Cunningahn and Ivey, there's not even a point in analyzing the situation, because there's just no way of knowing how many levels of thinking they were going through, and how many different prior hands (the last few hours? the last few years? My sly/intrusive comments?) affected the final outcome and betting lines. But amateur Vs semi-amateur? Huh-uh. My dumbed down version rates to be accurate.

[Flip-Flop]

It`s not Yang...his extremely annoying scream ( Yeeeahhh!!! )and even the extremely embarrassing praying escapades that put me on life tilt the most.

I felt very frustrated when I was watching the idiocy they call ME-FT mostly because I could not believe a huge donk like Yang that obviously do not understand even some very basic poker concepts can get away with murder on a table where you at least have few Pros that can find the best strategy against a loser like him.
I mean...even a reraise all-in PF with 51%+ equity hands would have done it if anything.
Because thats what you up against.... a random hand FFS!!!!.

To be fair.. some of them tried and the pray-boy sucked out horribly I guess but still.... all of those self proclaimed "professionals" were playing like scared chickens and they were all trying to fold their way to victory....sad.
That Hilm dude tried to stand up to him but he choose the wrong moment of course..because all it took post-flop to kill the idiot was TPGK..and the idiots try to bluff instead.....grrrrrr.

So yeah, it was more disappointing to watch the bad plays of the better players then the praying idiocy.
Calling with gut-shots? bluffing? ARE YOU FUXING KIDDING ME ?????
I`m not gonna comment on the QQ vs JJ fiasco because the QQ guy is just a fish amateur and I don`t expect anything better from him.