PDA

View Full Version : Who was phil gordon talking about in his most recent pdcast (rebuy NL)

mithong
06-09-2005, 04:28 PM
and what do you think is worse, calling half chips with AJ going all in with KK.
slickpoppa
06-09-2005, 04:30 PM
What the hell are you talking about?
mithong
06-09-2005, 04:32 PM
www.expertinsight.com/_Podcast.html (http://www.expertinsight.com/_Podcast.html)

best coverage on the wsop on the internet
asofel
06-09-2005, 04:34 PM
[ QUOTE ]
www.expertinsight.com/_Podcast.html (http://www.expertinsight.com/_Podcast.html)

best coverage on the wsop on the internet

[/ QUOTE ]

i think he was talking more about the "calling half chips with AJ going all in with KK" part...
slickpoppa
06-09-2005, 04:34 PM
[ QUOTE ]
www.expertinsight.com/_Podcast.html (http://www.expertinsight.com/_Podcast.html)

best coverage on the wsop on the internet

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that was obvious from your first post.
mithong
06-09-2005, 04:39 PM
iw as talking about the very end of the cast, when he was talking about the two "famous" players
La Brujita
06-09-2005, 04:45 PM
These talks are pretty good, I like his discussion of the qq hand.

Calling with AJ isn't automatically a terrible play-it just depends on the range of hands you think opponent goes in with and your ev against that range.
mithong
06-09-2005, 04:52 PM
i cant believe daniel busted out last on the bubble with top pair.
billyd
06-09-2005, 05:14 PM
Mike Sica won the $3,000 NL last year, and I think he said the other was Hoyt (sp) Corkins.
ohkanada
06-09-2005, 06:38 PM
He didn't. He had 2 pair.

12 rebuys wasn't enough to get Daniel Negreanu into the money. He was tonight's bubble boy when his J 10 turned two pair. The Jack on the turn also made Meng La a straight with his 9 7 of Clubs. Daniel called all-in with four outs and didn't hit.

Ken
ohkanada
06-09-2005, 06:40 PM
He didn't like that the KK raised all-in instead of making a 3xBB bet. I believe the guy had 10xbb and moved in.

As far as the AJ call, calling 1/2 your stack to an UTG raise all-in is not optimal.

Ken
La Brujita
06-09-2005, 06:43 PM
Ken how is your luck running at wsop?
plaid
06-09-2005, 06:44 PM
Phil also rips into the players at his table (end of the recording).

Anyone know who the players are? Cardplayer doesn't list Phil's table: http://cardplayer.com/poker-tournaments/event.php?id=1229&screen=result


Here's my guess, based on today's early action:

There are 9 players. Hoyt is definately one of them (I love that Phil said his name by mistake on the earlier KK v AJ hand).

So, we've got:
Frank Vizza
Nam Le
Hoyt Corkins
Meng La
David Lewis
?
?
?
Phil Gorden
Scooterdoo
06-09-2005, 07:28 PM
No, he thought both plays were bad. I agree that all-in KK if no one is in the pot is not great. Even if you are just at 10x BB it's not great because you do want some action. That said, if you are short-stacked you are more likely to get called with a push than you would if you had a deep stack. I suppose this is why Hoyt called him with his AJ. He felt that the UTG player was making a move. He was wrong, but it worked for him.
mithong
06-09-2005, 07:31 PM
that is pretty ridiculous that people were putting 75k in when the blinds were only aorund 3k.
ClaytonN
06-10-2005, 01:32 AM
Bracelet winner raised all-in with kings (13k, blinds 600-1200), which sorta makes sense to me (??) Hoyt called with the AJ.

I've yet to see many examples of Hoyt making good plays. Someone point me to an example...

Just listen to Phil carefully: "Everyone folds around to Hoyt, erm, everyone folds around to uh, the small blind, who considers it...
TightIsRight
06-10-2005, 04:29 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Just listen to Phil carefully: "Everyone folds around to Hoyt, erm, everyone folds around to uh, the small blind, who considers it...

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, this is ridiculous.
grass
06-10-2005, 07:37 AM
he's talking about hoyt corkins and wtp millionare mike gracz (who he mistaken for braclet winner mike sica).

phil gordon doesn't have a clue about what he is talking about. the situation coulda been gracz going all-in continuously when he was below 10x bb which lead to corkins calling him w/ a-j. phil gordon is an idiot. if his income was solely based on his poker winnings, he'll be living in a cardboard box.
MyMindIsGoing
06-10-2005, 07:45 AM
[ QUOTE ]
he's talking about hoyt corkins and wtp millionare mike gracz (who he mistaken for braclet winner mike sica).

phil gordon doesn't have a clue about what he is talking about. the situation coulda been gracz going all-in continuously when he was below 10x bb which lead to corkins calling him w/ a-j. phil gordon is an idiot. if his income was solely based on his poker winnings, he'll be living in a cardboard box.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't seem to know that Gordon is a very wealthy man. Even if he loses $1000000 per year playing poker he will still have enough money to be rich when he dies. He is not that great, but he is not clueles either.
grass
06-10-2005, 08:12 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
he's talking about hoyt corkins and wtp millionare mike gracz (who he mistaken for braclet winner mike sica).

phil gordon doesn't have a clue about what he is talking about. the situation coulda been gracz going all-in continuously when he was below 10x bb which lead to corkins calling him w/ a-j. phil gordon is an idiot. if his income was solely based on his poker winnings, he'll be living in a cardboard box.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't seem to know that Gordon is a very wealthy man. Even if he loses $1000000 per year playing poker he will still have enough money to be rich when he dies. He is not that great, but he is not clueles either.

[/ QUOTE ]

you can't read very well can you. look at my last sentence a couple more times.
drewjustdrew
06-10-2005, 10:48 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
he's talking about hoyt corkins and wtp millionare mike gracz (who he mistaken for braclet winner mike sica).

phil gordon doesn't have a clue about what he is talking about. the situation coulda been gracz going all-in continuously when he was below 10x bb which lead to corkins calling him w/ a-j. phil gordon is an idiot. if his income was solely based on his poker winnings, he'll be living in a cardboard box.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't seem to know that Gordon is a very wealthy man. Even if he loses $1000000 per year playing poker he will still have enough money to be rich when he dies. He is not that great, but he is not clueles either.

[/ QUOTE ]

you can't read very well can you. look at my last sentence a couple more times.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the "he'll" part was confusing. It implies that poker is his sole source of wealth.