Tiffany Williamson at it again in PCA

ligastar · #1 01-06-2006, 07:41 PM

Date / Time: 2006-01-06 14:00:00
Title: Greg Raymer Doubles Through Tiffany Williamson
Log: After a ten-high flop, Greg "Fossilman" Raymer moves all in. Tiffany Williamson, who had a reputation for making long decisions during the World Series of Poker main event last summer, spent about seven minutes pondering the call, even though she would still have about $18,000 in chips if she called and lost. She eventually did call, and showed -- pocket queens. Raymer shows A-Q, and he's dominated here; he'll need to catch an ace or a runner-runner straight to stay alive. An ace fell on the turn to give Raymer the lead, and he won the hand when the last card was a blank. Raymer doubles up to about $22,000 in chips, while Williamson is left with about $18,000.

suzzer99 · #2 01-06-2006, 07:50 PM

Sounds like Raymer's at it again. I had a Raymer-esque night two nights ago. Only got sucked out on is a big spot once, won most of my races. I wound up +$500 on 8 $60/$27 SNGs. Boy it's nice when things fall your way. Of course last night I went back to my usual Matusow-esque losing all my chips a bunch of times when I had someone "dominated", runner-runner flushes, straights and trips, etc. Blah blah.

ligastar · #3 01-06-2006, 08:00 PM

I don't understand why it would take someone 7 minutes to make a decision. I've only played in small ($150ish) live MTTs so the blinds move to fast to even consider thinking for 7 minutes, but I believe in the saying "think long, think wrong."

I'm not saying rush your decision...and I'm not saying don't try to take some time to speak to villain to get a read...but 2 to 4 minutes seems like the max I would spend.

Greg H.

suzzer99 · #4 01-06-2006, 08:01 PM

Yeah, especially with an overpair like QQ when you still have 18k behind. We don't know anything about the flop other than T-high though.

restrikt · #5 01-06-2006, 08:09 PM

Don't know how much money Raymer had left after the flop, but it must be a substantial amount, since it took Williamson so long to call. But if that were the case, could she really imagine Raymer going all in with KK or AA, let alone a set? Most likely, Raymer held AK, and she has him well dominated.

KneeCo · #6 01-06-2006, 08:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Sounds like Raymer's at it again. I had a Raymer-esque night two nights ago. Only got sucked out on is a big spot once, won most of my races. I wound up +$500 on 8 $60/$27 SNGs. Boy it's nice when things fall your way. Of course last night I went back to my usual Matusow-esque losing all my chips a bunch of times when I had someone "dominated", runner-runner flushes, straights and trips, etc. Blah blah.

[/ QUOTE ]

Raymer and Matusow have been playing for years, they have both played hundreds of thousands of hands, yet you somehow think one has won a significantly greater number of "coinflips" and such than the other? Have you considered the much, much, much more possible and logical possibility, that television editing in the case of Raymer and selective memory in the case of Matusow may not be telling the whole story?

As for Tiffany, after the WSOP episode aired, I posted on this board that I hoped she would have learned something from the whole experience so that she would (1) have a little more courtesy for other players in the future and (2) realize that if she takes 5 minutes minimum to make each decision she is seriously hurting her chances of making a FT. If this hand is any indication she didn't learn anything, big surprise.

UATrewqaz · #7 01-06-2006, 08:19 PM

Did she ask him for a count about 6 times and go wandering around the rail solicting advice?

suzzer99 · #8 01-06-2006, 08:20 PM

No of course I don't think Raymer is some significant % luckier than Matusow over his career. That would be ridiculous. I just mean what we see on TV and what we know of them. Raymer's had a pretty insane lucky run that last two years at the WSOP, regardless of how he's played. You have to to get that far. He's the first to admit it. And Matusow just seems to keep getting clobbered by miracle rivers to lose tourneys, which is the way I feel sometimes. I don't care if I was a big dog preflop, a 2-outer on the river still hurts.

Edit: Although... I'm pretty sure that if all you play is big MTTs, the variance is high enough that it's very possible to have a lucky or unlucky lifetime. I think I'd rather be the lucky guy.

KneeCo · #9 01-06-2006, 08:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Raymer's had a pretty insane lucky run that last two years at the WSOP, regardless of how he's played.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you have to be on an "insane lucky run"* to come in 1st and 25th, wouldn't you have to, within reason, have similar good fortune to come in 87th and 9th in those two huge fields?

*which I would agree with, though I might re-phrase it to simply 'running good' to give due credit to the great play of both men.

Banks2334 · #10 01-06-2006, 09:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
No of course I don't think Raymer is some significant % luckier than Matusow over his career. That would be ridiculous. I just mean what we see on TV and what we know of them. Raymer's had a pretty insane lucky run that last two years at the WSOP, regardless of how he's played. You have to to get that far. He's the first to admit it. And Matusow just seems to keep getting clobbered by miracle rivers to lose tourneys, which is the way I feel sometimes. I don't care if I was a big dog preflop, a 2-outer on the river still hurts.

[/ QUOTE ]
You just said that one isn't luckier than the other, but then conclude that Raymer is lucky and Matusow unlucky. You're falling for that TV editing magic. As for TW, she should get a swift kick to the nuts.