don't slam amateurs for making final table

Really i think its a good thing, and it is not neccessarily a reflection that it must be all luck that they made it. I'm sure they are all very, very good poker players to make it that far.


The fact that hardly any big names of recent years made it far might have more to do with what is going on with poker as a whole.


With the advent of internet poker, and the growing coverage the game gets via TV and other media, it seems that more and more people are getting into it (myself included). I play now (mostly online) any free time i get.


As such, many more people, few of which are well known in poker cirlces, are entering WSOP.


For many of these so-called no names, this might very well be the only or one of very few major tournaments they enter. Whereas the other poker regulars celebrities (hellmuth, brunson, negreanu, etc. etc.) that seem to come up often in the money listings and place in major tournaments, enter these tournamnets all the time day after day.


So just because of that, it should be expected that they show up more often in the final tables of big tournaments, because they are in so many of them. Of course they are good players, but who's to say these new breeds arent at least as good. If they start entering every event at wsop, and every other major tourney, then it would be a level playing field.


Just like baseball.....ususally the homerun king of the season gets all the accolades, but nobody seems to notice that they also usually lead the league in strikeouts as well......

While I agree with most of what you say, there is also another factor. It is the fact that being willing to move in a lot in these types of tournaments takes away most of the advantage that the better players have. This is pointed out in David's new book.

I have to go to the bathroom...This is pointed out in David's new book... Can someone from two+two please give an opinion w/o a plug for another book.

r u saying that u dont like the no limit format of the main event?(talking to Mason or whoever). Because i hear alot about it not being the true judge of poker excelance, and i think that while it may not be the best judge of a poker chapion, it is probably the most interesting, and that is what is good for poker. Besides who really considers the winner of the main event the poker champion or the year? Also i am really sick of people critiqueing the play of the final table, i do love poker discussion but to hindsight others who played where most wont is rediculous and a clear downfall of our industry(besides countless others). to be more specific i think the greed and egotinisticism of poker will forever keep it out of the spotlight. forgive my misspelling im drunk.

While I agree with the drunk hockdog that we shouldn't "slam" the "amateurs" play, this IS a poker forum for discussion. Me saying that Russell's all-in with a J6 is a bad move is a relevant point and my opinion although it might not be correct to some. As long as we as posters don't become attackful and downright mean in our comments I see no problem with critiquing one's play. If you look back in History there has been a lot of bonehead plays by great players at the final table. A few examples are Huck Seed's going all-in pre-flop with J-8 and busting out, Ron Stanley in 97' going all-in with j-8o after the flop came KQ5 and John Strempz had pocket Aces and so forth. The reality of it is that NL HE is going to have a lot of plays that look like the players are "amateurs" when they run into a hand but I guarantee these plays happen all the time by even the top "professionals"(Cloutier in 98' with KQ on a board of 743with 2 spades(Cloutier had no spades). Because of the nature of picking up pots in NL it is just going to look that way.

i just think that far to many poker players who are not in the action feel like they would have done so much better. i agree that discussion on hands played is a key to improvment, im just annoyed with all the jackasses that are out there, and im not calling anyone here that, but i was at binions and there were so many "experts" in the room that i almost left. sorry about the commas but im still drunk.

nothing wrong with critiquing individual plays. But i just don't agree with all these people all of a sudden saying its not about skill but luck anymore. Of course luck is a big factor, but it always was, even when big names are winning it.


and yes, its easy to slam individually poor plays that seem poor, but obviously those people in most cases are going for a strong bluff.....which happens all the time, most of the time you will never see the cards so you dont know. Occasionally the bluff backfires and people say how 'stupid' that was.


Just last year, didnt the eventual champion mortenson, get reraised by something like pocket q's preflop, and then he moved allin with his q8 offsuit, forcing his opponent to lay down the q's. Everyone hailed that as an awesome professional like move because it worked. but that was one call by the other player away from being an idiotic move.


Ayone at the final table know what their doing, and are generaly all skilled at this.....at that point, i think its mostly up to the cards

"It is the fact that being willing to move in a lot in these types of tournaments takes away most of the advantage that the better players have".


Yes I agree that "move in specialists" as I think either Andy Glazer or another author (can't remember his name) refers them as in an article; do take away some edge of the seasoned (solid type) better players.


But Mason, don't you agree that moving in is also in the better players arsenal as well? I do.


The key is not to be picked off. I think Stu Unger was a master at this as well as picking off these types (1997).


The examples that Joe Blow gave of bonehead plays would not be examples if they were successful. Seed, Stanley and TJ, all would qualify to me as better players. I can't remember who Huck busted out against when he went allin with J-8 (BTF) but Ron was up against John Strempz and TJ with Kevin McBride, both of which were very unpredictable players who liked to play a lot of hands. I'm quite sure both Ron and TJ didn't expect a call or they would not have moved in, although Ron's was very questionable because John led out OTF and Ron appeared to be steaming. TJ moved in with the best hand OTF and got unlucky. I still think TJ should have at least a pair or a draw to move in here. I believe if TJ would have moved in BTF, Kevin would have mucked. IMO, moving in against these player types are much more difficult to do.


John Strempz (1997) should have gone broke twice. The first time was when he moved OTF after flopping a straight and a flush draw against Mel Judah's top 2 pair. The second when he moved in with 10-10 against Stanley's KK and spiked a 10 on the end.


So I'm not sure if I agree that it takes away "most" of the better players advantage, because these "move in specialist" have to pick their right spots as well and go broke just as fast (maybe faster) than the better players (as John should have).


Just my thoughts.


KC50

I think Huck busted out against Noel Furlong, another hyper-aggressive player.


It's all very well a good player picking these plays off but unless you have a real monster there is a clear element of risk. Consider Phil Hellmuth's AK v QT hand.


Even though moving in is also in the better player's arsenal for sure, there is no doubt that a lesser player can reduce his disadvantage considerably by making big all-in moves as the aggressor.


Andy.

I can forgive your spelling, it's your ignorance that I have a problem with!

Actually, bathrooms are very good places for reading our books. I'm sure you already know that and keep a stack of them there.

"Even though moving in is also in the better player's arsenal for sure, there is no doubt that a lesser player can reduce his disadvantage considerably by making big all-in moves as the aggressor."


It is the expert's job to recognise his opponent for what he his, and adjust appropriately. I was under the impression that better NL players make their bones by accurately picking off this type of lesser player.

Isn't it possible that the "good" players aren't good enough to adjust to the kinds of unknowns that dominated this year's WSOP?

"It is the expert's job to recognise his opponent for what he his, and adjust appropriately. I was under the impression that better NL players make their bones by accurately picking off this type of lesser player."


Excellent comment Marlow. In my post I touched on this using Stu Unger as about the best example there might be.


"Isn't it possible that the "good" players aren't good enough to adjust to the kinds of unknowns that dominated this year's WSOP?"


I don't think that's the case. With a field as large as it was, IMO it's very difficult for anyone not to get unlucky with the best of it at some point.


Take the case of Greg (FossilMan) Raymer, one of our regular posters here at 2+2. He described the hand that knocked him out in this forum below. He has excellent reading skills and was put to the test when Tony D raised enough to put him all-in if he called. Greg's AQ of hearts against Tony's 10-4 off suit. Tony turned a straight and Greg was history.


I think now what Mason and Andy meant was in consideration with the entire field, not necessarily on individual basis.


Just my thoughts,,


KC50

Isn't the mark of a "better player" the ability to adjust to the game at hand and the structure under which it is played? Player A can be a better player at game X than Player B, but B might compare more favorably at game Y. Thus, if moving in more often is the more advantageous strategy in a no-limit tournament, use of this strategy is evidence that the player in question is a "better player" in no-limit hold'em tournaments.


Many of the posters above appear to be defining "better players" by reputation or professional status rather than by more objective criteria.

Your first paragraph is very true.


But how do you think those defined as being "better players" by reputation or professional status got that status if not by a proven track record using "objective criteria"?


The Yankees may get swept in NY by the Royals (I think they did last season) on a given weekend but who would you bet on getting to the playoffs?


Not taking away the fact that the more chips Robert V accumulated the more he attacked because that's what he's supposed to do.


This is not a personal offer or challenge but a mere question I pose to you.


Would you take an even money bet right now that Robert V. will last longer than Helmuth, Cloutier, Chan and Siedel in next years event?


I think not.


KC50

Your baseball analogy got me thinking..


OK, even though it's called the World Series of Poker, the fact of the matter is, no matter how sh!tty a player you are, if you've got $10,000 and some free time, you can enter the WSOP. There's no poker prerequisite. There's no minimum hours of play, there's no minimum money ranking, nothing! Just some cash and some time. That's It! Look at the celebrities that have entered over the years.. Yasmine Bleeth?? Come on.. imagine the talk that would start if someone like that were to take out a "pro"!! But it could happen!


SO, if people really want a true World Series of Poker, then a system needs to be dreamed up, either based on money or points earned through play in other tournaments throughout the year. In this "true" World Series, only the top XX players of the year, based on the point or money system, would qualify for the "true" WSOP. I'm not saying get rid of the current WSOP event, because it's just too sweet of an event (God bless ya, Binions!) but start up a year-end event. The build-up would be great! Maybe more sponsorship would come with a system like this too.. hmm?!?


I don't know if this idea has ever been thrown around, but I can't imagine how it couldn't have been in some way, shape or form.


So lets go.. lets hear your thoughts on this idea!


CHiP

well i guess we found one of the jackasses i was talking about.

Although your idea seems logical (to somewhat mirror major sports teams playoffs and championship events, World Series, Super Bowl, Stanley Cup, etc...) IMO, this event has got too large (not only in participants but the purse) to change it now.


KC50

CONSISTENCY THROUGH ADAPTABILITY.


adapting to situations i think allows great players to both survive the dry sessions and take full advantage of marginal edges often (as steve badger has been known to say); also identifying "lucky streaks"helps too.


i wouldn't fully agree with the notion that the great players have lost because of their lack of knowledge about their players. What i would agree with is that there are generally more players taking more shots at the greats, with or without an edge; eventually, if confronted enough times, any player will win some, lose some, and usually it's the BAD BEAT that breaks the camels back, i.e. Fossilman's AQ hand.


hate to resort to cliche's, but playing the odds can be deadly????


X

"I think now what Mason and Andy meant was in consideration with the entire field, not necessarily on individual basis."


KC50,


I understand what you mean, but can't we reframe this on the basis of the whole field as well? If we were to look at this as The Pros VS The X Players, wouldn't we expect a few more of The Pros to make it into the bubble?


This WSOP was driven by a different kind of player. This new player plays (or tries to) like Phil Ivey... solid all-around skills, but with an aggression that seems to border on recklessness. These "gamblers" were the guys who kept getting the money.


Perhaps the WSOP loose-aggressive phenomena was a fluke created by the ubiquitous "short run." But I have to wonder whether there's more behind it. It is possible that these hot (former) unknowns possess a sound working theory behind their wild play that foils conventional poker wisdom? Personally, I think that we would miss a great opportunity if we wrote this WSOP off as a statistical blip, instead of opening ourselves up to the possibility that these guys have figured out a way to break the rules.


Let me know what you think,


-Marlow