Who was the worst player at the WSOP final table

[betgo]

The top 4 were clearly good players. No comment is needed on Harrington. Arieh is well established and obviously played well. Raymer was somewhat established and was very impressive. Williams and Arieh removed any doubt about their abilities by both finishing in the top 3 in Connecticut.

Krux has 2 other WSOP ME final table finishes. The CardPlayer article by Glazer was very unflaterring to Matt Dean. Hughes, Anderson, McClain, and Dean are the most unproven of the bunch. Are any of them fishes?

[Equal]

Heh, interesting topic... I will be watching this thread like a hawk.

[TheRiverKnows]

Probably not Mcclain just cause he's a pro.

[Tyler Durden]

[ QUOTE ]
Williams and Arieh removed any doubt about their abilities by both finishing in the top 3 in Connecticut.



[/ QUOTE ]


Atlantic City ain't in Connecticut. I think it's in Nebraska.

[deuces09]

Dean. He's only played poker for a year.

His all-in call with jacks preflop with an incredibly deep stack against Murphy's AK was a terrible move. That said, Murphy made an equally stupid play with AK, but the call with JJ was just mind-numbingly bad.

That, and the fact he started the final table 2nd in chips and finished 7th. He was out of his league.

The only other guys I could make arguments for would be Mattias Andersson (youth clouded by acting like a jackass) and Glen Hughes (but only because I've never heard of the guy before, so who knows)

[Kevmath]

Glenn Hughes record can be found at: http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?a=r&n=9855

For what it's worth, here's my ranking of the final table:

1. Harrington
2. Arieh
3. Raymer
4. Krux
5. Hughes
6. McClain
7. Wiliams
8. Dean
9. Andersson

Kevin...

[slickpoppa]

You cannot say that Murphy's bet all-in with AK was equally stupid to a call with JJ.
Since he had an A and a K, the chances of someone else having AA or KK are very low. So at worst, he is a slight underdog to a hand like JJ. By BETTING all-in, he forces someone with a medium pocket pair to make a very tough decision becuase they are at best a slight favorite, but possibly a big underdog to AA or KK. He probably figured that even if someone did have a lower pcket pair, they would not risk their entire stack and a chance to be at the final table on a coin flip.
If you honestly think that calling all-in with JJ is the same as betting all-in with AK, then you are a bad poker player.

[Matt24]

I'd say Dean because it seemed like he was trying to give his chips away.

[deuces09]

[ QUOTE ]
You cannot say that Murphy's bet all-in with AK was equally stupid to a call with JJ.
Since he had an A and a K, the chances of someone else having AA or KK are very low. So at worst, he is a slight underdog to a hand like JJ. By BETTING all-in, he forces someone with a medium pocket pair to make a very tough decision becuase they are at best a slight favorite, but possibly a big underdog to AA or KK.

[/ QUOTE ]

This part, I agree with.

[ QUOTE ]
He probably figured that even if someone did have a lower pcket pair, they would not risk their entire stack and a chance to be at the final table on a coin flip.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the strength of my argument. He figured wrong! Murphy failed to make a good enough read that Dean would be capable of folding a smaller pocket pair than KK in that situation. If you can't make that read, you shouldn't make a move with AK. Consequently, failing to make this read results in a coinflip scenario for your tournament life, which is stupid given Murphy was doing a good job chipping away at other stacks.

[ QUOTE ]
If you honestly think that calling all-in with JJ is the same as betting all-in with AK, then you are a bad poker player.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Paul Phillips]

[ QUOTE ]
If you honestly think that calling all-in with JJ is the same as betting all-in with AK, then you are a bad poker player.

[/ QUOTE ]

That brings to mind an AK vs. JJ story.

At the borgata in 2003 I played the $500 buyin event the day before the WPT tournament. With about 80-85% of the field gone I was one of the chip leaders with about 65K. The only guy at my table who was even close had 60K.

I made a standard opening raise to 4000 (The big blind was probably 1500) in late position with JJ. He moves in for 60K in the small blind.

Conventional wisdom would tell you that you should never call here. But having played with him for hours, I felt with close to moral certainty the only hand this guy would play that way was AK. Now some people would say you shouldn't call here with JJ even if he shows you AK, but me? I'm not passing a 57% advantage on purpose. I called.

Flop a K, river a J. I felt bad because the guy started lightly celebrating before the river rolled off, which always makes the blow more crushing. I ending up winning that tournament. Ignoring the result though, who do you think played that hand well? Both of us, one, or neither? I don't think murphy's play with AK is necessarily good (or bad) and I don't think dean's call with JJ is necessarily bad (or good).

Also, I used to think having AK lowered the likelihood of the other guy having KK or AA to an acceptable level because it had almost never happened to me. Then I was busted out of about five tournaments in a month with AK running into one of those hands. And more recently...

At the bicycle club WPT event this year I was rolling, up to 260K with blinds only 2K-4K. I opened a pot for 12K with AK and chris ferguson re-raised me to 30K. He only had 130K total so I idiotically ignored the warning bells and said to myself "what's the worst that can happen, half your stack?" So I moved all in and he called with AA. Down to 130K.

The VERY NEXT hand I opened for 12K with AK again. Now a guy who has me covered puts in a HUGE re-raise to 60K. This kind of thing can really mess with your head. A couple moments ago I was one of the top ten in chips and now am I about to go broke? I finally folded AK face up. He showed me AA! If he'd put in a smaller re-raise would I have fired it in? It's frighteningly possible.

I think a lot harder about the value of AK these days than I once did but there's always plenty of room to improve. I took 7th in that event but who knows how much better I might have finished if I had saved some chips against jesus.

[La Brujita]

[ QUOTE ]
Ignoring the result though, who do you think played that hand well? Both of us, one, or neither?

[/ QUOTE ]

To me this is a tough play to criticize either way. If the pot size is about 8k or so (assuming antes) he has about 8x the size of the pot.

Sklansky has a good discussion of this when he suggests the best time to move in with AK is when moving in would be betting 2-5 times the size of the pot (part of the problem is if you push with too much more you risk too much for too little).

He also mentions the difficulty of playing with about 7x the pot size that there is little point in raising if you are not pushing bc you can't fold to a reraise.

The better play might well be a smooth call but that really depends on how the opponent had been playing imo. Paul was one of the chip leaders and I assume he had been pretty aggressive, AK is a hell of a lot better than most hands he probably raises with from late position so it is hard to criticize the push here.

Calling with JJ is a good play if you know your opponent has AK imo. That is a pretty huge edge to pass up especially with the chips in the pot. Of course it depends on (i) payout structure and (ii) how well your bankroll can take swings (in other words how key is cashing to you in this one tourney) but the default is it is an autocall.

You could say depending on circumstances each played it correctly and it was just one of those things that happens in tourneys.

[MLG]

As far as your stories go, I have a mild distaste for your call. If that situation arises early in a tourney then I say call, but at this point even if theoretically you should (and if he flipped over his cards I have no idea if it is) I know I couldn't. On the otherhand, man do I hate his play, its asking to only get called by the hands he doesnt want to play with (AA, KK obviously and also QQ and apparently JJ) but never a hand he is dominating. Anyway, I guess my question would be, if you were that sure, would you have called with 88, or 22?

[MLG]

your telling me if the SB repops it to 12 he's pot comitting himself, I have a hard time agreeing with that.

[The4thFilm]

Harrington.

Did he even hand a legit hand the last 2 days?

[La Brujita]

With a raise to 12k you only need about a 39% or so ev to call so you are only priced out against AA or KK and you hold an A and a K. If opponent is aggressive and he senses weakness he might well move in with any two so it would be hard to put him on those two hands with enough certainty to make a laydown.

I guess my point is either smooth call or move in at those stack sizes against an aggressive opponent.

I respect your opinion a lot MLG what do you think?

[Paul Phillips]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course it depends on (i) payout structure and (ii) how well your bankroll can take swings (in other words how key is cashing to you in this one tourney) but the default is it is an autocall.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suggest that people for whom (ii) is a factor are giving up fistfuls of equity.

[deuces09]

[ QUOTE ]

Flop a K, river a J. I felt bad because the guy started lightly celebrating before the river rolled off, which always makes the blow more crushing. I ending up winning that tournament. Ignoring the result though, who do you think played that hand well? Both of us, one, or neither? I don't think murphy's play with AK is necessarily good (or bad) and I don't think dean's call with JJ is necessarily bad (or good).

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you made a good play because you made a correct read and put yourself in a position where you were favorite to win. Chris made a questionable play. He has little folding equity since you're a professional capable of making good reads and calling with a slight edge, and your position raise in LP isn't a true litmus as to what hand you have.

My general criticism of Murphy and Dean lies in the fact they both had approximately 2.5 million or so, stacks that were healthy enough to play smart with and make a run for the title, let alone the final table.

Here's the scenario I pose to you, Paul:

This is purely hypothetical. Let's say you're in Matt Dean's position. Chip stacks are hypothetical since I don't know the accurate numbers, but there are 13 players left and both you and Murphy have large stacks. He moves in, and you suspect he has AK. You firmly believe you're a 57% favorite. If you call, you have a 57% chance of being the 2nd largest chip stack. You also have a 43% chance of being busted out of the tournament.

Here is the kicker: You've been gradually acquiring chips and picking up pots and chipping away much the same way Greg Raymer has, so should trends continue you could potentially get many chips over a longer period of time by continuing your playing style and not having to risk this much on a 57% edge. Does this change your thought process?

Should you fold with a 57% edge for all your chips when you have a huge stack and have been consistently accumulating chips with less risk?

[La Brujita]

[ QUOTE ]
I suggest that people for whom (ii) is a factor are giving up fistfuls of equity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Paul,

Of course they are almost by definition (hard to say for sure if there were a weird payout structure).

I mean if your opponent flipped over AK and you folded JJ with dead money in a pot with typical top heavy payments you must know you are giving up a fistful of equity.

That being said, as an example, the reality is if I won a satellite for a big event I would be willing to give up some ev to make a decent score. That is just a fact in an imperfect world.

[MLG]

I think you have to deal with a reraise if it comes, and then try to make the right decision even if that means calling (not the ideal situation because you are losing folding equity obviously). Keep the circumstances in mind though, these are the two biggest stacks in the tourney. If the button (in this case Paul, but im generalizing) is hyper aggro enough to move his stack in against the only stack that can damage him just because he senses weakness, then by reraising and calling you will be getting all the money in with the best of it a lot.

Generally speaking I don't think, "If I get rereraised I will want to throw-up" is a good reason not to reraise. Deal with that situation when it arises.

[La Brujita]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you have to deal with a reraise if it comes, and then try to make the right decision even if that means calling (not the ideal situation because you are losing folding equity obviously). Keep the circumstances in mind though, these are the two biggest stacks in the tourney. If the button (in this case Paul, but im generalizing) is hyper aggro enough to move his stack in against the only stack that can damage him just because he senses weakness, then by reraising and calling you will be getting all the money in with the best of it a lot.

Generally speaking I don't think, "If I get rereraised I will want to throw-up" is a good reason not to reraise. Deal with that situation when it arises.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am just debating you not fighting so don't challenge me to any scrabble game (I suck) but I think you need to think of the likelihood of the push before you make your decision as it will affect your decision. As an example in this exact hand, if you knew your opponent would fold 22-99 but reraise all in with TT-QQ wouldn't a push on your end be much better? Either way if he has AA or KK your money is going all in.

Of course the benefit on your end would be his raising with AQ AJ etc. but I thought you were folding to the reraise?

Still mulling this one over-I am still confused why we are talking poker on a poker forum.

[Paul Phillips]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, I guess my question would be, if you were that sure, would you have called with 88, or 22?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good question. To be consistent I should say yes, at least for some distance down the ladder; JJ vs. AK might seem an acceptable advantage where 22 vs. AK did not. In real life I don't know, but if I could suck it up to call with JJ I'm sure I could do it with a few more pairs.

[sdplayerb]

Do you think people go all-in too easily on reraises with AK where stack sizes don't warrant it, thus making it obvious to read, as you did (since no way he makes that raise with AA, KK and probably not QQ).
So would a better play be reraising the same as you would with AA/KK?
If he had made it 12-15K, what would your play be? Obviously that could be tough to answer since you would have to read a different situation that is tough to try to relive, but still interested.

[MLG]

I could start spewing insults if it would make you more comfortable. I'm just generally uncomfortable with your assertion that he would either move-in or fold with the hands you listed. There is at least some chance (and not a small one either in my opinion) that your opponent will call with hands like 99, 1010, JJ, AQ, AJ, as well as a lot of others. I don't think you can really narrow down before you make the decision which hands he will play which way after you raise (because honestly, I don't necessarily think your opponent will have decided).

[DimensionPresident]

Personally if I put someone on two high cards, I will almost always take the risk of going all in with a pair. Especially if I am already in the money and have a chance to build up my chips for a win. Only difference with JJ vs 22 to me is taking away two more outs on a straight possibility against AK.

[donny5k]

I'm sure you can see into their soul and determine they can't have a pair.

[Paul Phillips]

[ QUOTE ]
My general criticism of Murphy and Dean lies in the fact they both had approximately 2.5 million or so, stacks that were healthy enough to play smart with and make a run for the title, let alone the final table.

[/ QUOTE ]

If your goal is the title you can't fold a 57% advantage on purpose. You can if your goal is money though.

The JJ vs. AK situation I described was quite different from the dean vs. murphy one. In mine we were down to 15% of the field; they were down to one half of one percent of the field. The gap concept rears its ugly head with a lot more force when you are VERY deep and have a leading stack.

[ QUOTE ]
Here is the kicker: You've been gradually acquiring chips and picking up pots and chipping away much the same way Greg Raymer has, so should trends continue you could potentially get many chips over a longer period of time by continuing your playing style and not having to risk this much on a 57% edge. Does this change your thought process?

[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone overestimates their ability to accumulate chips at low risk. All the players think they can do this, but it's a zero-sum game so a lot of them must be wrong -- in fact more than half of them might be wrong because the ability to do this isn't spread equitably.

It's partly the selective memory fallacy again. EVERYONE wins lots of small pots. You follow that up by losing a big one and it feels like you really got the short end of the stick: "gee, here I was cruising along winning all these low-risk small pots and now I foolishly got involved in a big pot and lost it all back." How do you know that you're so much better at accumulating chips via small low-risk pots than your opponents are? They all somehow made it to the final 13 out of 2600 just like you did.

[ QUOTE ]
Should you fold with a 57% edge for all your chips when you have a huge stack and have been consistently accumulating chips with less risk?

[/ QUOTE ]

If your only goal is to win, unlikely. Because of proportional payouts, sometimes. And "consistently accumulating chips with less risk" is usually an illusion.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
Williams and Arieh removed any doubt about their abilities by both finishing in the top 3 in Connecticut.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they didn't.

[DimensionPresident]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure you can see into their soul and determine they can't have a pair.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. Just like I can look into your soul and see the remnants of a failed comedian.

[donny5k]

I was actually being serious, it's easy to read someone for AK when they have 88/99. They don't want to see a flop but like their hand.

[DimensionPresident]

Uh, yeah. Or they can have 6/2 os and are just making a move.

No one is ever 100% correct 100% of the time with their reads, and you pointing that out is inconsequential.

[Paul Phillips]

[ QUOTE ]
So would a better play be reraising the same as you would with AA/KK?

[/ QUOTE ]

It might be. This takes us into the "ah, he's zigging so I'll zag" department. Eventually you have to play the player. An overbet usually means something and an underbet usually means something, but what they mean depend on where they originated. You have to consider how this specific opponent is likely to react to your action.

At the $3K wsop event (broadcast recently cancelled) we combined 10-handed and were playing down to 9 for the tv table. I was about average with 200K when the button made a standard raise. I had AA in the small blind and fired my whole stack in, a sick overbet, but if there was one thing I knew about the button it was that he could not lay down a good hand. Sure enough he instantly called with 99 and I went to the final table as the chip leader.

[deuces09]

[ QUOTE ]
And "consistently accumulating chips with less risk" is usually an illusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it illusion to the player who accumulates the consistent small pots? Theory dictates that picking up a lot of small pots has negative equity in a tournament field in general, but does the theory change when trends are shifting in the player's favor? Can you say it's an illusion when the going is good?

This goes back to your statement about the coin flips.

"Seriously, forget about the math. If you knew you weren't being set up or hustled somehow and saw a coin flipped the same way fifty times in a row, wouldn't you be willing to give some pretty freaking long odds that it's going the same way next time too? I should hope so!"

Assume you're in day 6 of the WSOP. Chipping away at small pots has been beneficial the entire tourney. Wouldn't you put good odds that the trend should continue without having to risk your chips on a 57% edge?

[donny5k]

My point is even if you are somewhat confident in your read, cold calling an allin with 22 probably isn't +EV.

[ggano]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally if I put someone on two high cards, I will almost always take the risk of going all in with a pair... Only difference with JJ vs 22 to me is taking away two more outs on a straight possibility against AK.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
No one is ever 100% correct 100% of the time with their reads, and you pointing that out is inconsequential.

[/ QUOTE ]

Make up your mind...

[DimensionPresident]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Personally if I put someone on two high cards, I will almost always take the risk of going all in with a pair... Only difference with JJ vs 22 to me is taking away two more outs on a straight possibility against AK.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
No one is ever 100% correct 100% of the time with their reads, and you pointing that out is inconsequential.

[/ QUOTE ]

Make up your mind...

[/ QUOTE ]

My mind is made up. Are you having trouble deciphering the phrase "almost always" or did you miss where I clearly spelled out that doing so is "taking a risk" ?

And if you do comprehend all of that, then what exactly about those two quotes contradict each other? Oh, that's right. They don't contradict eachother at all.

Thanks for playing.

[donny5k]

They contradict each other because in the first post it seems like you are claiming it is a profitable play.

[sdplayerb]

Interesting.
So let's flip it.
You are in the SB with AK in his spot and chips and the cutoff with a huge stack as well, who is aggressive, but not crazy, raises to 4K. What is your play?

[Rob Blackburn]

Just to defend Matt a little here, he has 3 TV apperances in tourneys this year.

WSOP 7th(cash 675,00)
WPC/Dublin 2nd in his flight(cash 15,000)
UPC #7 2nd(cash 7,000)

Only Mr. Phillips can claim better record out of everyone posting here. He can't be that bad.

[Paul Phillips]

[ QUOTE ]
You are in the SB with AK in his spot and chips and the cutoff with a huge stack as well, who is aggressive, but not crazy, raises to 4K. What is your play?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's dependent on too many subtleties to list but usually I would just call. It's because the other options all offer too large an overlay. If you move all-in you are risking too much to win too little. If you re-raise with the intention of folding to an all-in you are giving up a lot of chips with a premium hand and giving it no way to win. If you re-raise with the intention of calling an all-in you are just asking to call with a small dog or a huge dog. If he just calls you you're out of position against a good player in a double-raised pot with a hand that needs to improve.

And if he folds to your re-raise: you really didn't need AK to accomplish that.

If you just call you keep the pot small which is typically wise when you're out of position. You'll almost always flop way ahead or way behind and can make decisions from there.

[Paul Phillips]

[ QUOTE ]
WPC/Dublin 2nd in his flight(cash 15,000)

[/ QUOTE ]

That was my flight too (jeff shulman and I went out on the same hand, 6th/5th, both holding AKs against joe beevers and his QQ.) Matt gets my thumbs-up as a player and a human being.

[DimensionPresident]

[ QUOTE ]
They contradict each other because in the first post it seems like you are claiming it is a profitable play.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're really confused. IF you have an edge and IF you make the right read on your opponnent, then it is a profitable play. Still with me? However, no one is right in their reads 100% of the time, (which should go without saying), there for it is still a risky play. Just as AA vs 72os is still a risky play even though it's still a big favorite.

Why am I even debating this?

[Rob Blackburn]

I knew I had dicussed this hand before on a forum, here is what Matt posted about it when we dicussed hands.

Matt's post.....
"Even though I went out about 3 hands later I guess I'm happy about laying down that hand to Arieh. I sure wish I could have made that read before I raised to 1.1 million though. As for Devil Fish, I received word over the phone that he had talked some trash about the way I played one hand (where I got all in with JJ vs. John Murphy and his AK).
Immediately after I was told that I noticed Devil Fish walking around and went over and put my arm around him. I said, "I heard you didn't like my play with the jacks." He started laughing and said I needed to protect my stack.
We had a good conversation though and when I saw him before the final table he wished me good luck. If I had it to do over again I don't know what I would have done. How many people would have called even if Murphy had flashed his AK? I had put only 1/6th of my stack in the pot (I think??) with JJ and easily could have gotten away from it in okay shape so it's a questionable play for what amounts to basically a coin flip (I know I'm a favorite ). The truth is I had a read that he didn't have Aces or Kings (he said in a interview he had the same read!) and that I thought he could have as low as 7's but most likely AK. I've thought about that hand more than any other hand in the tournament. I'd love to hear any responses."

I will tell Matt to check out the dicussion here.

[donny5k]

No you are confused. You have to calculate your EV against the range of hands your opponent could hold. Even if you are right a large percentage of the time and they have overcards, the few times they have a pair will make it a losing play in the long term. Your analogy to AA vs 72o makes no sense whatsoever.

[snakehead]

mcclain. he couldn't even win with aces. what a fish.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
mcclain. he couldn't even win with aces. what a fish.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. That clown couldn't even beat King-high with Jacks. He really was bad.

[DimensionPresident]

[ QUOTE ]
No you are confused. You have to calculate your EV against the range of hands your opponent could hold. Even if you are right a large percentage of the time and they have overcards, the few times they have a pair will make it a losing play in the long term. Your analogy to AA vs 72o makes no sense whatsoever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, this is worse than I thought. Seek a doctor asap. AA vs 72os just demonstrates that there is risk in every hand, no matter how big a favorite you are.

Cuckoo Cuckoo.

[donny5k]

How can you post here and not know the difference between profitable risks and unprofitable risks? Your analogy makes no sense because going all-in with AA against any hand is always profitable in the long run. While against a reasonable range of hands, going all-in with twos is at best even money long term.

[DimensionPresident]

You're simply not reading what I am writing. The only thing I said was any hand was risky, AA or 22. Never once did I compare the riskiness of the two.

You're talking about an anology I supposedly made comparing the hands AA and 22. Problem is I never made such an anology.

Back to basics here. My only point here is if I put someone on two high cards I will go all in with a pocket pair. The end.

If you have a problem with that there's not much more I can say.

[DonkeyKong]

I love when people say "my read was that they didn't have Aces or Kings" after 1 raise. This can be translated as "I can't play poker and assume the other guy has Aces or Kings so I am going to move all-in and just pray that they don't."

[gergery]

[ QUOTE ]


Back to basics here. My only point here is if I put someone on two high cards I will go all in with a pocket pair. The end.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is only good if you factor in the % of time you will be wrong on your read, and the EV you have in those situations. Because it doesn't take too many wrong reads where you are a 4:1 dog with an underpair to destroy the equity you get from many correct reads where you are a slight favorite.

[donny5k]

And my only point is even if you are right most of the time, it is still probably not a profitable play in the long run. And if you realize this, then you are knowingly taking the worst of it and posting about it on an analytical gambling forum.

[slickpoppa]

So true. In order for a call with a low pocket pair to be correct, your read needs to be correct X percent of the time, according to the formula:
55*X - 45*X + 20*(1-X) - 80*(1-X) = 0
10X + 20 - 20X - 80 + 80X = 0
70X = 60
X=.857

So, unless the pot odds are high, you need to be about 86% sure that your opponent just has two overcards for your call to be correct.

[sdplayerb]

yeah, situation questions are tough, since the answer is usually it depends.
i think another reason to just call is since you would rather not butt heads with the only person that can hurt you.

Per being out of position, do you then raise if you are on the button? Then if he calls, bet at a baby flop that he checks? Again, I know it depends on many factors is a viable answer.

[mattpackage]

What up guys - Matt Dean here for the first time. I got a heads up that there was a discussion going on about the WSOP here so I thought I'd throw my two cents in. As for the worst player at the final table I have to throw myself right up there at the top. I had the least experience of anyone at the final table and I think it obviously showed. I made some questionable calls with JJ that have been discussed over and over and I was playing in my first live tournament (over $100). Someone told me on another forum that I don't need to defend myself. I totally agree. I'm trying to be completely objective which is impossible but here goes nothing. I played tough poker for 4-5 days. No one knew who I was and none of that was on camera as I outlasted 2500 people. With that being said, I think a lot of things hurt me as the tournament progressed. I wasn't prepared for a 6 day - 12 hour a day tourney, the pressure was immense, and I was pumped to win $10,000 - not to mention $100,000+ or $675,000. To call all in bets with JJ is obviously not ideal. With that being said, I wasn't a blind stealer. I sat back for rounds at a time doing nothing. When I finally found a hand I raised and often someone would reraise figuring that I was so tight I would fold. I was lucky to have AA and KK a lot the first couple of days that this happened. Towards the end I was taking my chances with JJ. I know this isn't exactly the formula for winning an event but I'm working on being more versitile - maybe next tournament. Also, I was calling Arieh and Murphy, not exactly two rocks. Those two guys have my respect and more but they were often pretty aggresive with less than premium hands. I was all in only twice with underdogs (once when I got sent home and once with Davin Anderson A6 vs. AK - don't ask) and twice with coin flips (the JJ hands, you know which ones). Every other time I was all in I was a huge favorite and was lucky enough that they held up. Still, I was probably the worst player at the final table. I'm not ashamed of that fact. Someone mentioned my record in some other tournaments and I'll have to find that person and pay him/her off later I guess. I am continuing to try to better my game and improve. As for the best player at the final table I have to go with Arieh. I didn't get to observe Mike McClain much and this is nothing against the rest of the guys but Arieh really impressed me with his play. ESPN didn't show the hands he raised or reraised and won preflop which makes sense because they were pretty 'boring'. But he played very tough. We probably won't be best friends anytime soon but I respected his play. Raymer was great too and I'm probably short changing him but he doesn't care - he won $5 million. Picking Raymer is like picking Joe Torre as manager of the year - it's just too freaking easy. Hope this is entertaining at worst.

Matt Dean

[slickpoppa]

Good post. Your ability to candidly evaluate your own weaknesses is refreshing and will be a valuable asset. Welcome to the forum.

[DonkeyKong]

Thanks for sharing Matt... There will be some player hatin' coming from a few others but don't sweat it... just stick to poker...

As for JJ, I don't blame you for playing it as you did. It is smart to get the money in pre-flop, even as a caller, if your option is to try to outplay much more experienced tournament players after the flop with less than premium hands.

there are excellent threads on this site... stick around and don't let the hatin' get you down.

**what is the over/under on somebody talking trash and challenging Matt to a $5000 Pokerstars match??

[DimensionPresident]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Back to basics here. My only point here is if I put someone on two high cards I will go all in with a pocket pair. The end.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is only good if you factor in the % of time you will be wrong on your read, and the EV you have in those situations. Because it doesn't take too many wrong reads where you are a 4:1 dog with an underpair to destroy the equity you get from many correct reads where you are a slight favorite.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, after you're done factoring in the number of times I make a wrong read and am caught against an overpair, factor in the number of times I may have the overpair myself, or even catch someone on a stone cold bluff.

Thanks.

[Daliman]

well said, sir.

Not sure exactly where it came from first, but i'm pretty sure it's common knowledge that if you think you can outplay your opponents, you NEVER want to get alot of $$$ in unless you are assuredly a favorite, and if you don't think you CAN outplay your opponent, try to engage him in a big pot with the best hand you can find ASAFP. You did just that, and your reasoning even otherwise is fairly sound.

If it's good Enough for Chris Ferguson, it's DEFINITLY good enough for Matt Dean.

[Deorum]

[ QUOTE ]
Only difference with JJ vs 22 to me is taking away two more outs on a straight possibility against AK.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do not forget the board double pairing.

[Bulldog]

[ QUOTE ]
This takes us into the "ah, he's zigging so I'll zag" department.

[/ QUOTE ]

I prefer to call this department the "and you know that I would not put the iocane powder in the glass in front of me".

[donny5k]

I'd like to know what hands 22 is an overpair against.

[InchoateHand]

Great post boss--

I hope you weigh in on other less loaded, more strategically valuable threads.

You are one of three or four players who's performance outstrips their ego. Its refreshing.

[Rick Diesel]

[ QUOTE ]

For what it's worth, here's my ranking of the final table:

1. Harrington
2. Arieh
3. Raymer
4. Krux
5. Hughes
6. McClain
7. Wiliams
8. Dean
9. Andersson


[/ QUOTE ]

In an interesting side note, where would the final player at the table rank, 10th place finisher Marcel Luske.

I would put him in second place right behind Harrington, but not very far behind. Also I move Williams to 5th place and Hughes to 7th, but other than that I agree with your list.

Rick Diesel

[maryfield48]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This takes us into the "ah, he's zigging so I'll zag" department.

[/ QUOTE ]

I prefer to call this department the "and you know that I would not put the iocane powder in the glass in front of me".

[/ QUOTE ]

For me, it's the "Never go up against a Sicilian when death is on the line" department.

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]

In an interesting side note, where would the final player at the table rank, 10th place finisher Marcel Luske.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd think he would be either 2nd or 3rd.

Just a side rant..

Why is it that they stop play with 9 left instead of 10? Why then would you stop it at 8 instead of 9. Wouldn't it be better to let all the "final table" participants battle it out refreshed then to let one drop out after playing 13 hours in 1 day.

[Nottom]

Just figured I'd add a little somethign on the whole AK vs JJ thing. If Matt Dean didn't see himself as one of the top players at the table, it may be correct for him to make a big call with JJ while it may not be correct for Josh Arieh (or some other player who thinks he is one of the best in the field) to make that same call. Matt admits that he was probably one of the weaker players towards the end, so if he knows that and wants to win he is going to have to take a few gambles along the way that a more seasoned pro may not. (This is similar to Moneymaker's call with 33 against Dutch in last year's WSOP, althoguh I doubt MM was thinking about it like this)

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
For me, it's the "Never go up against a Sicilian when death is on the line" department.

[/ QUOTE ]

You truly have a dizzying intellect.

~D

[DimensionPresident]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to know what hands 22 is an overpair against.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to know why you think the following statement says the only pocket pair I am talking about is 22?

[ QUOTE ]
Back to basics here. My only point here is if I put someone on two high cards I will go all in with a pocket pair. The end.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, 22 is a pocket pair... but it's not the only pocket pair that exists. Nice try.

[wray]

IMHO if you make the call and win you're thought of as much smarter than when you lose.

I was playing in a tournament with 81 people. It paid the top 10. There were 11 people left with 810,000 chips in play. I had a little less than the average stack. I had about 70,000 and I noticed at the other table there were a few people with 150,000+. The blinds were about 4000-8000. I had AK OS. I was in 1st position and I raised to 16,000. One guy goes all-in with about 50,000. The next guy folds and the guy after that goes all-in with about 60,000. I could just hear Norman Chad over my shoulder telling me to fold after I raise and 2 people go all-in after me. But I thought about the players I was playing against, the fact that I would get in the top ten no matter what, and the fact that going to the final table as the chip leader is a lot better than less than the average stack. So I called and won the pot and eventually won the tournament. By the way ... the first all-inner had KJ suited and the 2nd one had pocket 4's.

So did I make a bad call?

[Vince Lepore]

I won't rate each player at the final table. I will say that I beleve that Williams, in my opinion, had little if any chance of beating Greg. I believe that would be true even if they had been even in chips or if Williams were slightly ahead at some point. BTW - I was there and I made a similar statement before they began heads up play. Williams appeared to play almost by rote, not giving much thought before making his play. I believe that this was most evident in the last hand that they played against each other. Williams did not seem to even consider the possibility that Greg might have an over pair to his 4's.

Vince

[sammysusar]

considering his second place at wpt borgata they guy must be the luckiest person on earth then. (or second to hansen)

[donny5k]

You are having lots of trouble with logic and quantifiers. A pair means any pair. So 22 is included in your statement. So therefore in your subsequent arguments, you are also referring to any pair, including 22. So when you say that you will encounter situations where you have the overpair, logically speaking you are saying you will encounter those situations with any pair, including 22.

Take a sentential logic class before you say "nice try" again.

[el_grande]

I can't believe you guys are having such a long winded argument about something so simple.

Every pair below AA increases the chance you are a 4:1 dog against an overpair by some amount. Therefore, you need to be more sure you are against overcards to make a call. You have to be quite sure you are against overcards to call your decent-sized stack off with something like 55.

Which is I think all donny5k is saying.

DimensionPresident is always very sure when he puts someone on overcards, which is rediculous. You can't be. You have to hedge that with some medium or high pair strength.

[donny5k]

Exactly, and he's trying to defend himself without sound logic or EV calculations.

[Vince Lepore]

[ QUOTE ]
considering his second place at wpt borgata they guy must be the luckiest person on earth then. (or second to hansen)

[/ QUOTE ]

A distinct possibility.... for both

Vince

[DimensionPresident]

[ QUOTE ]
You are having lots of trouble with logic and quantifiers. A pair means any pair. So 22 is included in your statement. So therefore in your subsequent arguments, you are also referring to any pair, including 22. So when you say that you will encounter situations where you have the overpair, logically speaking you are saying you will encounter those situations with any pair, including 22.

Take a sentential logic class before you say "nice try" again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Take a remedial english class before you say anything again... ever.

Yes, I said that there are situations where I will run into an underpair when I move in with my "pair". My "pair" may include any two of the same cards. Does a "pair" include 22? Yes, it does. Will I run into an underpair with 22? No, I will not.

For most people here with a greater than third grade education, or at least the knowledge that 22 is the lowest pair you can have in this game, you do not need to add "except 22" to a statement like that.

I assumed even someone like you fit into at least one of those groups, and that seems to be my only mistake thus far.

[DimensionPresident]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe you guys are having such a long winded argument about something so simple.

Every pair below AA increases the chance you are a 4:1 dog against an overpair by some amount. Therefore, you need to be more sure you are against overcards to make a call. You have to be quite sure you are against overcards to call your decent-sized stack off with something like 55.

Which is I think all donny5k is saying.

DimensionPresident is always very sure when he puts someone on overcards, which is rediculous. You can't be. You have to hedge that with some medium or high pair strength.


[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure what the "always very sure" statement is supposed to mean. If anyone is risking chips, that probably means they're sure of their move, right? Otherwise they wouldn't risk chips.

Since you geniuses seem to think risking your chips on a QQ-22 pocket pair while putting your opponent on high cards is a mistake, and I'm obviously not getting through to you, then I advise you take it up with any of the professionals who've made the same play.

[donny5k]

Listen, all of my points have been about 22 specifically. If you consistently do this with a hand like 22-55, you are going to run into an overpair often enough to make you a slight underdog to your opponent's range of hands. This doesn't make it wrong (pot odds), but you don't really have an edge.

[DimensionPresident]

[ QUOTE ]
Listen, all of my points have been about 22 specifically. If you consistently do this with a hand like 22-55, you are going to run into an overpair often enough to make you a slight underdog to your opponent's range of hands. This doesn't make it wrong (pot odds), but you don't really have an edge.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the problem. You're only focusing on 22 only when I never said 22 only. I said a pair. 22-QQ is eleven different pocket pairs. 9% of the time I will have 22, 91% of the time the opportunity exists for me to have an overpair (if I make the wrong read about my opponnent having two high cards). Obviously 33 has less of a chance than QQ, but I don't feel like getting into the math any deeper.

I believe I remember Paul Phillips moving in against the mouth with 77 or 88. Maybe you can start giving him [censored] too.

[DonkeyKong]

<<I believe I remember Paul Phillips moving in against the mouth with 77 or 88. Maybe you can start giving him [censored] too.>>

That's right. And I remember Matusow said he thought he had a small pair and Paul corrected him saying that 77 was not a 'small' pair and was in fact his million dollar (Bellagio) hand...

funny exchange with Paul saying "wouldn't that have been nice" as Matusow expressed wanting to bust Paul, in addition to adding to his chip count...

I am sure some will think this isn't that cool to say now that Matusow is behind bars but he sure looked coke'd up most of the time on TV, always shaking or rocking quickly... it was pretty obvious.

[DyessMan89]

Although none of them are fishes, I thought Matt Dean was the worst of the bunch.

[Sundevils21]

Maybe Matt Dean was smart enough to realize he was probably the worst player at the table. Then, based on that knowledge, he decided to take a few more risks. Knowing that he would be happy playing "coin flips" until the end of the tournament.
I'm not saying his play was right/wrong. That could have been his thinking though.

[donny5k]

How is this a relevant comment?
Why does it matter how often you have 22 as a subset of the possible situations? I am analyzing your decisions in the situations in that subset. So in other words, the other pairs DO NOT MATTER in my argument.

Obviously you do not feel like getting into the math any deeper because you lack the logical and mathematical ability to even construct a basic argument or analyze a situation as basic as this.
77 and 88 are not small pairs.

[DimensionPresident]

[ QUOTE ]
How is this a relevant comment?
Why does it matter how often you have 22 as a subset of the possible situations? I am analyzing your decisions in the situations in that subset. So in other words, the other pairs DO NOT MATTER in my argument.

Obviously you do not feel like getting into the math any deeper because you lack the logical and mathematical ability to even construct a basic argument or analyze a situation as basic as this.
77 and 88 are not small pairs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Holy [censored]. How do you still not get it? It matters because you're so [censored] hung up on this 22 pocket pair when it is only 9% of the time. After you take into consideration how many times I am wrong I am about my oppennent having a pair instead of 2 high cards... (for the sake of arguement, lets say I am wrong 50% of the time, although I gladly think this stat is much lower than 50%), then that 9% turns into a big problem only 4.5% of the time with 22. Even less if you trust my ability to read two high cards -- but that doesn't even matter.

And the other thing you can't seem to wrap your head around is while 77 or 88 may not be "small pairs" by your definition, it doesn't matter whether you consider them small pairs or not. 22 or 33 or ANY pocket pair would have won the hand because the other player had two high cards that missed.

I am done debating this... not just because you're one of slowest people I've ever had the displeasure of coming in contact with, but because I cannot justify the time spent arguing about a problem that exists 4-9% of the time IN that particular instance.

Even if I play 5 tourney's a month, how many times in those tourneys will I get dealt a 22, and out of those hands, how many times will I be faced with making a big decision while I have 22, and out of those hands, how many times when making that big decision will I put my opponnent on two high cards, and out of those hands, how many times am I wrong about my high card read?

You're trying to argue a situation that may only actually occur once a year, and that's simply retarded.

[donny5k]

My criticism of your play is directed solely at small pairs. HOW DOES THE PROBABILITY OF GETTING ONE OF THOSE HANDS IN THOSE SITUATIONS DETER ME FROM CRITICIZING YOUR PLAY IN THOSE SITUATIONS? There that was a lot of caps but you seem to have problems deciphering what I'm saying.

My point is consistently making this all-in call with a very small pair only has the best of it (and even then it is VERY slight) if your read is extremely accurate. After making this point days ago, you went on to ramble about "the times you have an overpair" which does not apply at all to my criticism.

"(for the sake of arguement, lets say I am wrong 50% of the time, although I gladly think this stat is much lower than 50%), then that 9% turns into a big problem only 4.5% of the time with 22. Even less if you trust my ability to read two high cards -- but that doesn't even matter."

You are losing an insane amount of EV if they have an overpair half the time. You are knowingly making the wrong play. The situation is not much better with pairs up to 55 or even 66.

Now you claim that I'm slow when you are arguing about the frequency of a situation having something to do with whether your play is correct in that situation or not. This is the equivalent of me saying that I fold on the river every time that I have the stone cold nuts, but since I only have the nuts a fraction of the percentage of rivers that I play, who cares?

[rgreenm90]

I actually think that if you include Luske, he may be the best. For certain, the Screamin' Swede is the most likely to bust, and I'm sure that the only thing keeping him in was the yelling (No Spade, No Spade!). Action Dan isn't very well suited to a short-handed game against Arieh, Raymer and Luske, which explains my list (not for best player, which is probably Harrington, but say everyone comes to this ten-handed table with same amount of chips).

Luske
Arieh (minus points for belittling numerous people including Williams)
Harrington
Raymer
Krux
Williams
Hughes
McClain
Dean
Andersson

[3rdEye]

[ QUOTE ]
Dean. He's only played poker for a year.

His all-in call with jacks preflop with an incredibly deep stack against Murphy's AK was a terrible move.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? If Dean believed (as seems to be the consensus) that he was a worse player than the rest of the field at that point, he should definitely be willing to play JJ for all his chips. As aggressive as Murphy was being, Dean easily could have been ahead of TT-88 or AK-AT (and perhaps KQ), and Murphy was definitely capable of making a play on Dean at that point. I can understand being conservative on the bubble at the main event, but it's reasonable to believe that Dean felt that, given that the players were on the bubble, Murphy was trying to take advantage of overly-tight play on the part of his competitors (e.g., Dean). I've made calls as marginal as Dean's on the bubble when I felt that I might have been ahead of a big stack who was potentially bullying on the bubble.

Murphy could have been on a wide range of hands, and I don't think Dean should necessarily have been afraid of QQ-AA.

Also, we didn't see all the hands previous to Dean's JJ call. If Murphy had successfully been coming over the top of players a lot of the time previous to Dean's JJ, that of course would make Dean's call much easier.

[DimensionPresident]

[ QUOTE ]
My criticism of your play is directed solely at small pairs. HOW DOES THE PROBABILITY OF GETTING ONE OF THOSE HANDS IN THOSE SITUATIONS DETER ME FROM CRITICIZING YOUR PLAY IN THOSE SITUATIONS? There that was a lot of caps but you seem to have problems deciphering what I'm saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

How many keyboards do you go through in a given year? All the drool must short circuit them or something.

There's nothing more I can say to someone like you. I will risk my chips with a small pair if I think my opponnent has high cards. You wouldn't.

Oh well, get the [censored] over it.

[el_grande]

I'm just waiting for the tourney where DimensionPresident goes all in with 44 thinking his opponent has overcards and he gets shown 77-55.

As soon as that happens, maybe he'll be convinced there are different considerations when you have 99 or 44.

[Charlie Kase]

I'd say Dean.

[fnurt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My criticism of your play is directed solely at small pairs. HOW DOES THE PROBABILITY OF GETTING ONE OF THOSE HANDS IN THOSE SITUATIONS DETER ME FROM CRITICIZING YOUR PLAY IN THOSE SITUATIONS? There that was a lot of caps but you seem to have problems deciphering what I'm saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

How many keyboards do you go through in a given year? All the drool must short circuit them or something.

There's nothing more I can say to someone like you. I will risk my chips with a small pair if I think my opponnent has high cards. You wouldn't.

Oh well, get the [censored] over it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do not have the magic ability to know when your opponent has two unpaired cards. You're not the only one who labors under this illusion, mind you. But the sooner you realize that all you can do in 99.9% of preflop situations is put someone on a range of hands, and that the range tends to include both paired and unpaired hands, the closer you will be to improving your game.

[2unlucky2win]

[ QUOTE ]
Ignoring the result though, who do you think played that hand well? Both of us, one, or neither? I don't think murphy's play with AK is necessarily good (or bad) and I don't think dean's call with JJ is necessarily bad (or good).

[/ QUOTE ]

Truthfully, and a bit wishy-washily, its all relative to who is playing the hands. With veteren players at the table, the required quality of hands raises, and JJ or AK all-in calls are riskier. But with internet cowboys who think any pocket pair or AJ unsuited is a monster lock, you need to adjust your play. So maybe the WSOP call was loose or even reckless, but that may be a necessary strain of play in this environment.

[ QUOTE ]

I think a lot harder about the value of AK these days than I once did ....

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? Do you consider it a drawing hand now?

[DimensionPresident]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just waiting for the tourney where DimensionPresident goes all in with 44 thinking his opponent has overcards and he gets shown 77-55.

As soon as that happens, maybe he'll be convinced there are different considerations when you have 99 or 44.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that's going to be even better than when I have 44 and my opponnent has AK and misses every street.