Link to Foxwoods trip report incld bust-out of Fossilman and Ron Rose

[DonkeyKong]

my sincere apologies if this has already been posted...

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=lovinger/041123

excerpt is Raymers bust-out hand:
"3:45 p.m. -- About half an hour later, I also knock Raymer out of the tournament, a turn of events that leaves me with mixed feelings.


On the one hand, I'm happy to have the chips, and I know it's a good story to tell my readers -- and my grandchildren.


On the other, it's an end to the free lessons and the loss of a congenial playing companion -- a real rarity in the dog-eat-dog world of poker. I know, Maess (my frequent e-mailer from Minnesota) I'm a hopeless loser.


With the Ah-Kh in ninth position, I raise the blinds (still $100-200) to $525. Raymer, on the button, makes it $1,525. I call. When I tell Matt Matros about the hand later, he says he would have re-raised. Given that I'm a lesser player, it probably makes sense to take every opportunity to go all-in with any kind of edge, or even a slight disadvantage. But I had a decent amount of chips left after calling Raymer's raise; and I wanted to see the flop, hoping I could either trap him with a favorable one, or back off and live to fight another few hands if the flop was unfavorable.


Anyway, the flop comes K-10-9 rainbow. I look up and see a sight that has frozen many a player's blood. About a foot away, Raymer is staring at me through his weird "Alice in Wonderland" glasses. I was taken aback for a moment -- he hadn't put on the glasses in the few other hands, all small, he had played against me earlier in the tournament.


"What's with the glasses, Greg?" I ask. "You didn't need them earlier."


He continues to stare at me until I check, at which point, as I suspected, he goes all-in for his last $5,000, slightly less than I have left. Now, it isn't impossible that he has me beaten. I rule out a Q-J, and K-K seems rather unlikely since I have one and another is on the board. But he certainly could be holding 10-10 or 9-9. In either case, there's nothing I can do about it; I can't get off A-K at this point. But the reality is that I'm pretty sure I've got him beat.


So I call. And sure enough, he's got an A-Q, meaning he needs a jack or running queens on the turn and river to win. Luckily for me, the turn and river bring a couple of meaningless small cards, and I'm suddenly sitting there with about $15,000 in chips, and some of the other players are starting to call me "The Terminator.""

[zaxx19]

OMG, do you mean to say Raymer busted out of the tourney with a decent stack by overplaying everyones favorite AQ??? Now thats shocking............ /images/graemlins/grin.gif He reraises 1/4 of his stack with AQ after a raise....Then plunged a still very playable stack in where he would only get called if he was beat....Oh man I'm definitely getting that book by him when it comes out. Please do not flame me unless you can actually defend his play here and actually have specific criticisms to what I'm saying. Ans since all i am doing is summarizing what ACTUALLY HAPPENED.....thats gonna be difficult but im sure there will be some interesting EV evaluations that somehow prove that this was the correct play.
/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[jslag]

That's a pretty condescending post, zaxx. I'm not going to flame you, I don't really do that sort of thing.

But I'm sure Greg had his reasons for going all-in. If his opponent has something like JJ, 99, 88, 77, etc. There's a good chance he could get him to lay it down. You say he can only be called by a better hand, but you cannot discount the fact that he had some folding equity with the play. His opponent checked and that is often a sign of weakness.

He re-raised before the flop, perhaps playing the player, not just the cards. So why not bet when his opponent checks? Some opponents might lay down a pair of kings to Raymer in this spot, I don't blame him for going all-in.

J.

[zaxx19]

Live as a bully die as a trapped one thats all im saying...
Look at his stack here relative to the fields and blinds. Why is there so much urgency to get all these chips in with a notoriously dissapointing hand like AQ?? Look I make the same play many times but not in the same context. And I am sorry if a KNOWN stakaholic reraises me when Im holding cowboys we are set too gamble and I mean for all the chips.
Its funny how most people on here will talk about reads on tight players(remember the discussion on the final table hand between the 2 young guys AK versus JJ) Alot of people came out too defend the A-K moving all-in bc how tight the J-J player was. Doesnt the converse also hold true. Perhaps J-J lays to a reraise by Harrington but doesnt his range widen on the hands a looser more aggressive player might have leading, him too make looser calls?? All I am saying is constantly picking big fights with AQ in your holster and with similiar stack sizes is not a great way too win tourneys. I think there are many pros who would aggree(Tomko, Harrington, Williams,Judah,Bigler,Cloutier...)Definitely debatable but given all the variables here looks like a greedy player getting punished for reraising with a hand that might be better mucked after an early raise by a tight player(jay talks about playing too tight so...). And furthermore when he gets flat called seems like his post flop play is ...if I connect I auto-push Im not really into that strategy either personally. Hard too say what i do on the flop bc I try not to get in these situations with AQ unless my stack forces me to.

[cero_z]

Hi zaxx,

Apparently, Greg can't make the wrong play ever, or his past successes are invalidated. You seem to think there's some justice in the fact that a "bully" got trapped. Being a bully in a poker tournament isn't like being a bully in real life, morally. You don't do it because you're insecure, or like hurting people.

As for his play of this hand, he messed up. I think his thinking was along the lines of, "He just called my re-raise. Furthermore, he checked to me on a draw-heavy board, so I think AK is unlikely, and AA is very unlikely. He was in a steal position, and he knows I know that, so he could have a number of fairly good hands. The T and the 9 out there scare me the most, since he might have a set, but if he doesn't, it will be pretty hard to call me. A set is just not that likely to be out, so I'm gonna gamble to try to win this 3000+ pot."

[PokerNeal]

Excellent article! Very enjoyable reading! One will learn something from the plays great players make even if they are losing ones!

I did not find this article condescending in the least. On the contrary, praise is given where it is deserved and the situation (plays) are sketched with humor and candor.

Bravo! Need more of these real life experience posts!

[zaxx19]

Im not a huge poker fan has Raymer won any other major tourneys??(10k buyins??) My only point was he did make a mistake, so I am glad we agree. The real question is why Greg just CANT Muck AQ here. Why is he "seeking out" confrontations with a troublesome hand against an admittedly tight player here?? The funniest part about it is if the opponent moves all in here the Raymerites will quickly discount AA or KK here in their calculations making this almost an autocall. The most ridicuous part is that others are saying this smooth call then check out of position denotes weakness(in a earlier response) so now he SHOULD move in on the flop. Whatever the opponent does unless he makes an obvious seesaw reraise is seen by raymerites as weakness and an explanation/justification of why someone should move all his chips in with AQ. I believe thats called a tautology(sp. eeek). Its also a classical fallacy though i forget which one from my frosh yr logic course. Look if yu want to bully bully. Dont come up with all kinds of convuluted reasoning behind your bullying because you know full well what you are doing as will table mates after an hour of play.

[DonkeyKong]

I think it was the pre-flop call and not a re-raise that probably told Raymer he was up against a pocket pair like TT-QQ. Then the supposed overcard hits (K) and Raymer tries to take it away behind a check. I don't see why Raymer needs to move all-in here -- why not only bet at it and fold to a raise? If you are behind, you have few outs.

Hopefully, Greg can explain his logic here... Probably just doesn't think it likely that he is up against exactly AK from the steal position... and something to do with having to make a move to get chips.

Would Raymer move all-in with a set here too? Seems like an overbet if he hit a set.

[Bernas]

[ QUOTE ]
Live as a bully die as a trapped one thats all im saying...

All I am saying is constantly picking big fights with AQ in your holster and with similiar stack sizes is not a great way too win tourneys. I think there are many pros who would aggree(Tomko, Harrington, Williams,Judah,Bigler,Cloutier...)

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe some of them might agree with you. However only a couple of those guys are world class rock solid tight players. Harrington is one of them. Very few other players can play this way with out being weak tight.

Most of the best players today play extremely aggressive. (Negreanu, Ivey, Flack, Ferguson, Greenstein, Phillips)


Cheers,
Brad

[BK_]

seriously, you would think you learned your lesson from that AQ post. you maintain an incredibly incorrect position, he is nice enough to explain why you are wrong, you backpeddle and try to make it seem like you were misunderstood, the you come here and blast some 10k buyin event play of his and try to use it to prove he sucks?

no offense (again), but if you cant see why half your posts are idiotic then you have 0 chance of becoming good at poker.

[betgo]

The semibluff by Raymer seems like a good play. He didn't know you had a king. Since you didn't reraise preflop, he was pretty sure you didn't have AK or KK, the K hands he was in the worst shape against. It also seems very much Raymer's style.

You definately should have reraised allin preflop with AK. You are out of position and against a better player. Reraising allin with AK is a classic move. Since this is late position action against a loose aggressive player, Raymer may not have much of a hand. You could be a 3-1 favorite against Ax or Kx.

Just because you knocked a world champion out of a tournament doesn't mean you out played him.

[betgo]

The check on the flop was a good move. However, since there wasn't that much left in Raymer's stack, pushing on the flop would not be that bad. He could have some kind of hand that had a better chance of drawing out on you than AQ did.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
seriously, you would think you learned your lesson from that AQ post. you maintain an incredibly incorrect position, he is nice enough to explain why you are wrong, you backpeddle and try to make it seem like you were misunderstood, the you come here and blast some 10k buyin event play of his and try to use it to prove he sucks?

no offense (again), but if you cant see why half your posts are idiotic then you have 0 chance of becoming good at poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

what does this have to do with zaxx becoming good at poker? that's ridiculous. his posts on the subject make perfect sense to me. had a lesser player made the same mistake with A Q that Greg did, i doubt all the explainations on why he was correct to do so.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
The semibluff by Raymer seems like a good play. He didn't know you had a king. Since you didn't reraise preflop, he was pretty sure you didn't have AK or KK, the K hands he was in the worst shape against. It also seems very much Raymer's style.

You definately should have reraised allin preflop with AK. You are out of position and against a better player. Reraising allin with AK is a classic move. Since this is late position action against a loose aggressive player, Raymer may not have much of a hand. You could be a 3-1 favorite against Ax or Kx.

Just because you knocked a world champion out of a tournament doesn't mean you out played him.

[/ QUOTE ]

does'nt sound to me like he was implying he outplayed a world champion. it looks to me like the world champion outplayed himself.

[BK_]

[ QUOTE ]

what does this have to do with zaxx becoming good at poker? that's ridiculous. his posts on the subject make perfect sense to me. had a lesser player made the same mistake with A Q that Greg did, i doubt all the explainations on why he was correct to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

i am assuming you missed his posts in the AQ thread from last week, or do not understand yourself that one hand or misread does not define a players skill. no where did i mention that gregs play was good here. i am talking about the overall logic (poker or otherwise) that he shows in his posts, including this one.

[betgo]

Since the money was not deep, most people would have pushed on the flop with an ordinary pair. With top pair / top kicker in this case or a better hand, it was possible to slow play. That may have led Raymer to believe that he might be ahead.

There is a lot of pot odds and folding equity to Raymer's move. There a lot of hands Raymer could be up against where he is ahead or has atleast a 30% chance.

Since this isn't pot limit, I would have just made an overbet reraise allin with AQ against a late position raiser. That is the only move of Raymer's I would question. I would assume that Raymer felt he had advantages of position and being the better player so that he could make the smaller reraise. I assume he was planning on going allin on almost any flop.

All you geniouses who could play better than a world champion, what would you do here on the flop? Check/fold?

[BK_]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
seriously, you would think you learned your lesson from that AQ post. you maintain an incredibly incorrect position, he is nice enough to explain why you are wrong, you backpeddle and try to make it seem like you were misunderstood, the you come here and blast some 10k buyin event play of his and try to use it to prove he sucks?

no offense (again), but if you cant see why half your posts are idiotic then you have 0 chance of becoming good at poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

what does this have to do with zaxx becoming good at poker? that's ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

oh i guess i didnt answer your guestion. his posts in the last 2 weeks have not shown common sense or logic. im not even talking about the ones specifically related to hands. these are two very important skills to becoming good at poker. therefore i believe that he has little chance of becoming good at this game. call it a hunch, but it is a pretty confident one. ok no more zaxx bashing posts from me. i hope i am wrong and he just decides to post like a 10 year old to rile people up.

[adanthar]

There was a thread on Jackpot Jay in the TV/WPT forum. According to Greg's post prior to the Foxwoods tourney, he is (or was) apparently very weak tight.

Draw your own conclusions.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

what does this have to do with zaxx becoming good at poker? that's ridiculous. his posts on the subject make perfect sense to me. had a lesser player made the same mistake with A Q that Greg did, i doubt all the explainations on why he was correct to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

i am assuming you missed his posts in the AQ thread from last week, or do not understand yourself that one hand or misread does not define a players skill. no where did i mention that gregs play was good here. i am talking about the overall logic (poker or otherwise) that he shows in his posts, including this one.

[/ QUOTE ]

of course one bad play or misread does'nt define a player's skill. i never implied that Greg's skill level was in question. you must be reading into something that is not there.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
of course one bad play or misread does'nt define a player's skill. i never implied that Greg's skill level was in question. you must be reading into something that is not there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good players are not necessarily psychics. If Raymer had been able to tell from looking at his opponent's face that he had top pair, he would have check/folded. It was a difficult situation on the flop, and I am not sure playing passively was better.

He had AQ against AK in late position. If his opponent had reraised allin preflop as he should have, Raymer would called and the result would have been the same.

I said before that Raymer could have reraised allin preflop. However, looking at the figures, that would have been too much of an overbet.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
of course one bad play or misread does'nt define a player's skill. i never implied that Greg's skill level was in question. you must be reading into something that is not there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good players are not necessarily psychics. If Raymer had been able to tell from looking at his opponent's face that he had top pair, he would have check/folded. It was a difficult situation on the flop, and I am not sure playing passively was better.

He had AQ against AK in late position. If his opponent had reraised allin preflop as he should have, Raymer would called and the result would have been the same.

I said before that Raymer could have reraised allin preflop. However, looking at the figures, that would have been too much of an overbet.

[/ QUOTE ]

yet and still, folks on 2+2 are always discussing things like lesser players getting in trouble with playing A Q, either the way he did or the way you said he could've played (or any other numerable ways). the fact that it can be explained away because he's world champion is a bunch of crap. i saw him play a dominated hand like this in the WCOOP
Main Event (i think it was 6 8o) where he played aggressive with it (i think he called a raise preflop with it against Sealand), flopped and turned a 6 and 8 for two pair, then went all-in on the turn. Sealand paused a what seemed like eternity, then called him with A A. an Ace hit on the river and knocked Greg out of the tournament. had a lesser player went out like this in a ball of flames, he would have gotten creamed for even playing 6 8o to begin with. yet, because Greg is world champion and a respected 2+2 poster (and gave a hand/thought analysis on why), people had a problem when me and a "few" others to having something contrary to say about it.

[phixxx]

zaxx, try not making EVERY SINGLE POST of yours controversial and upbeat. You don't need to try and impress everyone by being an idiot every single post you make.

By the way, stop posting 100 times a day.

[nolanfan34]

One thing no one has mentioned. This wasn't the Foxwoods main event. This was a $500+ buy in tournament.

Anyway, the structure was probably one that moved up fairly quickly, so Greg might have been more willing to gamble with his hand.

I didn't notice it the first time I read Jay's article, but I thought the chip stacks sounded low.

Just a point of clarification.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
yet and still, folks on 2+2 are always discussing things like lesser players getting in trouble with playing A Q, either the way he did or the way you said he could've played (or any other numerable ways). the fact that it can be explained away because he's world champion is a bunch of crap. i saw him play a dominated hand like this in the WCOOP
Main Event (i think it was 6 8o) where he played aggressive with it (i think he called a raise preflop with it against Sealand), flopped and turned a 6 and 8 for two pair, then went all-in on the turn. Sealand paused a what seemed like eternity, then called him with A A. an Ace hit on the river and knocked Greg out of the tournament. had a lesser player went out like this in a ball of flames, he would have gotten creamed for even playing 6 8o to begin with. yet, because Greg is world champion and a respected 2+2 poster (and gave a hand/thought analysis on why), people had a problem when me and a "few" others to having something contrary to say about it.


[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, I don't agree that Raymer seriously misplayed this AQ hand.

While it is true that great players do make mistakes (and Raymer is an excellent player, but not a proven world class player at this point), I think it is interesting to look at what they are doing with plays that seem wrong. There may be something that seems crazy to us, but is actually something we should be doing.

There has been a lot of criticism of apparently loose raises and calls by loose aggressive players like Brunson, Hanson, and Raymer on the WPT forum. Part of this is they don't indicate the pot odds on TV or show all the hands that were stolen without a fight. However, it is also possible that the ppeople doing the criticizing are playing weak/tight in similar situations in their own games.

[j0wlev]

This displays my avid hate for AQ.

Pre-flop: I like the re-raise. The blinds are good enough to steal and the orginal raiser is in the CO. Re-raising here with any big ace is something I like to do. The smooth call made by the orginal raiser tells he has a pokect pair, quite possibly AA, or a big A.

On the flop: There are many hands that could have hit that Ron Rose is likely to have. 99, TT, K10, Q10, J10, A10, A9.
The only hands Raymer is likely to be at best a favorite to is A2-8. I don't think his moving in here is a good play at all. He had to know he was beat.

[zaxx19]

First-off I never backpeddled on anything. I apologized for being slovenly in my post and admitted it was written so poorly that it could be easily misconstrued. I made the sad assumption that everyone would understand that of course pot odds play SOME role in determing action taken in tourney poker(my point was only that they shouldnt be used appart from other considerations). Apparently you either never bothered too fully read my post or just dislike me which is perfectly reasonable considering some of the extreme nature of some of my posts. I also would never judge anyones poker playing skills at how lucid and organized their posting in an internet forum is...call me silly. Remember David Sklansky is perhap one of the best writers on all matters serious and having to do with poker; and while he is an excellent and world class high limit holdem player, I think he even would admit he might be outmatched at say the "BIG GAME" at the bellagio or say heads up versus Ted Forrest in a PLO game....
I think its kind of sad that some people discourage others from posting on this forum. Ive repeatedly said Im not even an excellent NLH MTT player yet, of course that isnt the point. Posting should never be an exercise in reinfocing commonly held preconceptions held by a group of similar players with similiar styles because that would be of very little benefit too anyone. I would compare this too listening to Rush Limbaugh. I am a GOP member yet i still find listening to Limbaugh a waste of time. Why, bc the discussions between Limbaugh and his callers is usually mutually reinforcing and serve only to perpetuate one line of reason without seriously contrasting it with others. Remember NLH is an almost infinitely complex game involving both mathematics and psychology; the more perspectives on playing and strategies an individual might encounter(whether they come from other players superior OR inferior to you) the more possibilty for growth an individuals game potentially has.


For those who made comments with certain assumptions about the given hand here now is the specific passage describing it:

With the Ah-Kh in ninth position, I raise the blinds (still $100-200) to $525. Raymer, on the button, makes it $1,525. I call. When I tell Matt Matros about the hand later, he says he would have re-raised. Given that I'm a lesser player, it probably makes sense to take every opportunity to go all-in with any kind of edge, or even a slight disadvantage. But I had a decent amount of chips left after calling Raymer's raise; and I wanted to see the flop, hoping I could either trap him with a favorable one, or back off and live to fight another few hands if the flop was unfavorable.


Anyway, the flop comes K-10-9 rainbow. I look up and see a sight that has frozen many a player's blood. About a foot away, Raymer is staring at me through his weird "Alice in Wonderland" glasses. I was taken aback for a moment -- he hadn't put on the glasses in the few other hands, all small, he had played against me earlier in the tournament.


"What's with the glasses, Greg?" I ask. "You didn't need them earlier."


He continues to stare at me until I check, at which point, as I suspected, he goes all-in for his last $5,000, slightly less than I have left. Now, it isn't impossible that he has me beaten. I rule out a Q-J, and K-K seems rather unlikely since I have one and another is on the board. But he certainly could be holding 10-10 or 9-9. In either case, there's nothing I can do about it; I can't get off A-K at this point. But the reality is that I'm pretty sure I've got him beat.


So I call. And sure enough, he's got an A-Q, meaning he needs a jack or running queens on the turn and river to win. Luckily for me, the turn and river bring a couple of meaningless small cards, and I'm suddenly sitting there with about $15,000 in chips, and some of the other players are starting to call me "The Terminator."

SO 1)Raymer could have had a suspicion that Jay was stealind as he was in the CO.

2) There was little money in the pot already when Raymer saw his AQ monster.

3) Both stacks are large and enormously comfortable to play at this point.

4)Jay Lovinger(Author of the article)- Is admittedly very very tight early in tourneys, and there is even an allusion to Matros telling him the other players can sense that.


Point 1 makes his reraise a little more logical. Points 2/3/4 i believe make this play just unecessary at best...and irrational for all his chips IMHO.

[TPR]

After having watched Greg in a couple of TV tournaments, the one lasting impression that I have received is that he doesn't put those shades on to prevent his opponents from reading him as much as it allows him to read his opponents without them being put-off by his staring and when he does it. If you noticed, when the flop comes down, Greg is always looking directly at his opponent and not at the flop. He's reading his opponent's reaction to the flop. I believe in the case of this hand being discussed, he has already ruled out A's and K's due to the pre-flop betting, and he just wants to know if his opponent connected with the flop. I believe he made this all-in with A-Q purely on his misread of his opponent having missed the flop.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
yet and still, folks on 2+2 are always discussing things like lesser players getting in trouble with playing A Q, either the way he did or the way you said he could've played (or any other numerable ways). the fact that it can be explained away because he's world champion is a bunch of crap. i saw him play a dominated hand like this in the WCOOP
Main Event (i think it was 6 8o) where he played aggressive with it (i think he called a raise preflop with it against Sealand), flopped and turned a 6 and 8 for two pair, then went all-in on the turn. Sealand paused a what seemed like eternity, then called him with A A. an Ace hit on the river and knocked Greg out of the tournament. had a lesser player went out like this in a ball of flames, he would have gotten creamed for even playing 6 8o to begin with. yet, because Greg is world champion and a respected 2+2 poster (and gave a hand/thought analysis on why), people had a problem when me and a "few" others to having something contrary to say about it.


[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, I don't agree that Raymer seriously misplayed this AQ hand.

While it is true that great players do make mistakes (and Raymer is an excellent player, but not a proven world class player at this point), I think it is interesting to look at what they are doing with plays that seem wrong. There may be something that seems crazy to us, but is actually something we should be doing.

There has been a lot of criticism of apparently loose raises and calls by loose aggressive players like Brunson, Hanson, and Raymer on the WPT forum. Part of this is they don't indicate the pot odds on TV or show all the hands that were stolen without a fight. However, it is also possible that the ppeople doing the criticizing are playing weak/tight in similar situations in their own games.

[/ QUOTE ]

actually, the play does'nt seem crazy to me. he was in trouble preflop with the hand and then the trouble got magnified when he went all-in. happens to everybody. people need to quit bringing up the "world champion" argument as a reason for not questioning his play.

[BK_]

[ QUOTE ]
people need to quit bringing up the "world champion" argument as a reason for not questioning his play.

[/ QUOTE ]

poker is a game of incomplete information. by the time the hand reaches the board (sometimes without stack sizes and blind amounts), the level of incomplete information is much larger than it was to the pro. then, you usually get people who don't have the poker knowledge to asses the pro's situation correctly anyway. it is usually those people that heavily criticize particular plays, believing that they can play the given situation better, with probably around 10x more incomplete information than the pro. thus, the proper response to these people usually is "he can assess situations much better than you (he is a world champion calibre player), he had more much more informatoin than you, therefore it is likely you are wrong in your judgement". that is usually shortened to "he won the wsop, you play 10 dollar mtts" another way to look at it is that most of the plays we see posted here were made based on a particular read the pro had on what the opponent would do with his particular range of hands. so usually the only way we can criticize his play is if somehow we got a better read on the player through the tv, and through one hand, then the pro got live. obviously that is next to impossible

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
people need to quit bringing up the "world champion" argument as a reason for not questioning his play.

[/ QUOTE ]

poker is a game of incomplete information. by the time the hand reaches the board (sometimes without stack sizes and blind amounts), the level of incomplete information is much larger than it was to the pro. then, you usually get people who don't have the poker knowledge to asses the pro's situation correctly anyway. it is usually those people that heavily criticize particular plays, believing that they can play the given situation better, with probably around 10x more incomplete information than the pro. thus, the proper response to these people usually is "he can assess situations much better than you (he is a world champion calibre player), he had more much more informatoin than you, therefore it is likely you are wrong in your judgement". that is usually shortened to "he won the wsop, you play 10 dollar mtts" another way to look at it is that most of the plays we see posted here were made based on a particular read the pro had on what the opponent would do with his particular range of hands. so usually the only way we can criticize his play is if somehow we got a better read on the player through the tv, and through one hand, then the pro got live. obviously that is next to impossible



[/ QUOTE ]

if that's the case, why even post B&M hands by "world champions" on 2+2 where $10 MTTs players can comment on them? the simple fact that he is "world champion" means nothing to me. anybody can win ONE BIG Tournament. is Chris Moneymaker "world champion calibre" material because he won? what about Robert Varkoyni? a "world champion/world class" player to me is someone who reaches and wins final tables throughout the year. as i said in another thread, if all your superb hand/tournament/math analysis and strategy don't translate into consistent success in multiple tournaments, i could care less if you won the WSOP ME. what else have you won besides some $500 buy-in local tourneys? there are plenty of other good professional players who have never won the WSOP ME. does that mean that Greg is somehow superior to them because he did? does that mean that a guy whose crowning achievement is ONE BIG WIN amongst mediocre to average success over the last several years as basically a dominant LOCAL player mean that he is better at assessing a situation with "imcomplete information" better than a David Pham who reached and won alot more final tables? what about Miami John Cernuto? or Hassan Habib? that's why i say you guys put to much stock in Greg's "world championship". yes, he won. yes, he's a good player. but that's it. have him reach the final table next year. have him win another WSOP bracelet or a few WPT titles or a Cal State Championship. have him reach 15 to 20 final tables every year. if not, just like Chris Moneymaker, this will be the only win he is remembered for.

[BK_]

im not sure why you are trying to prove to me that one win doesnt make someone a world class poker player. last i heard, you didnt need to be a world class player to be able to play a hand better with a certain level of information than a necessarily worse player with less information

i am explaining why people respond with that statement to newbies on this forum, and why it is acceptable for them to do so. nevermind.