My mea culpa on Varkonyi

[Daliman]

First off, i'll admit it... I know what I meant to say and why, but did a horrible job explaining it. Of course it's possible to outplay without being able to bluff, but it is another tool in the repertoire of any player, and it helps to have it available. Yeah, the QT last hand wasn't a bad call, but my point was more that i don't think RV is capable of making a quality fold.
I personally think RV went at this tournament more with a math-based strategy that a poker based strategy, which, given his and his coaches' background. is probably not exactly a revelation by me if correct. It seems to me RV was employing a bit of play style where he would, when chipped, take risks with hands that were, while not great, were likely not dominated. Now, in my opinion, this caused some terrible reads to go well for him e.g. QT vs AK against Hellmuth. AT the end of the tournament, he got run over with cards, and I think i can can safely say with few dissenters that most anyone who got his cards would have won too, but I don't hold that against him. RV's main problem, in my opinion, was he seemed the classic anti-player; all too often, he would act counter to his hand, except if there was decent action preflop. Now, my memory may be tainted by watching his mostly bad, weak play at WSOP 2003,(funny how he played AA twice like they were 27o, yet overcommits on KK...), but MAN, does he give people every last opportunity to draw out on his made hands.
I doubt many of you who were rightfully flaming me really think RV is any good, and if you do, well, that's your opinion, you have a right to it, but if it matters, i doubt many share it. Part of my problme is i'm always on 4 tables when i'm posting and dont always get to fully work through what i'm thinking, what I mean, and how to express it properly. So yeah, in retrospect, some of those posts were pretty goofy, but it's not always so east to explain the minutae that seperates crappy play from great play. If you want to think me an idiot from now on, so be it...i doubt it will affect my earn, and hell, it may help it.
/images/graemlins/smile.gif /images/graemlins/smile.gif
Anyways, flame on.....

[legend42]

I agree with everything you say about Varkonyi. I think we were just responding to your "you can't win if you can't bluff" declaration. And even then, I understood the point you were trying to make.

No doubt that Varkonyi was extraordinarily lucky, and is far from a great player. Even his bluff of Scotty in last year's WSOP, a move that many praised here, was actually pretty lucky. I don't think he had any idea what Scotty had, or what he might represent with a bet, but just figured he'd take a stab on the river. He was just lucky the board had 2 overcards to Scotty's pair.

[Rushmore]

In response to your redundantly-titled post...

I agree with everything you have said, except the following:

[ QUOTE ]
funny how he played AA twice like they were 27o, yet overcommits on KK...),

[/ QUOTE ]

Who's not getting broke with those kings in that situation?

Otherwise, let's face it: Robert Varkonyi is the least-talented of all of the WSOP main event winners. This is clear to most of us here, I think.

[arod4276]

whats up dali,,, i agree with most except i have to concurr with rushmore about the kk hand. scotty is a known bluffer and very agreesive player. I wondered why is took him so long to call with the kk. sometimes the cards play themselves and u are going to lose.. ie,, aa vs kk. It would have been one thing to make that laydown against the rock of rocks, ,, say dan harrington, or someone known as the tighest of the tight, just not scotty at that point. later arod4276

[Daliman]

"Who's not getting broke with those kings in that situation?"

Wel, alot of people can and DO get away from Kings to significant action early in a major tournament. I have folded KK preflop b4 in somewhat similar circumstances,(once, and it ain't easy), and from what i rememver, the betting was something like RV 300, SN 1100, RV allin( i dont remember for sure). If my memory is close to correct, my opinion is he should have went around 3000, and then pitched when Scotty came over the top again. Again, not an easy play, but part of what separates then men from the boys, (not that scotty isn't above a big bluff, as we saw vs brenes, but i doubt he's going allin or close early on day 1 less than AA when it not necessary).

[Rushmore]

I meant against Scotty, in particular.

You make a good point, though, about his original raise. Had it been bigger, he could more easily make the laydown when Scotty comes over the top, as he would have to give Scotty more credit for aces.

Ironic, huh? Having more money in the pot makes it potentially easier to get away from the hand. Such a mysterious game.

[J.R.]

not that scotty isn't above a big bluff, as we saw vs brenes, but i doubt he's going allin or close early on day 1 less than AA when it not necessary.

For what it is worth, I have heard that scotty (and many other bigger names) play fairly conservative early on, so that does support your idea that perhaps Varkonyi might have or should have been able to get away from the kings had he not pushed after the re-raise.

[cferejohn]

[ QUOTE ]
...his bluff of Scotty in last year's WSOP, a move that many praised here, was actually pretty lucky. I don't think he had any idea what Scotty had, or what he might represent with a bet, but just figured he'd take a stab on the river. He was just lucky the board had 2 overcards to Scotty's pair.


[/ QUOTE ]

True, but I have seen Scotty N. make more big laydowns (usually correctly) than nearly anyone. He managed to correctly (in that he was beat) lay down TP/TK in one of the early WPT episodes. I can't remember the details, but I remember the board wasn't very scary and thinking that there was no way in all of creation I would make that laydown online.

I can't imagine he makes these sort of laydowns all the time, since he would get run over. He probably has a very high opinion of his ability to read people (probably justifiably so), and was sure that the hands he was up against were better than one pair.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
. He managed to correctly (in that he was beat) lay down TP/TK in one of the early WPT episodes.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are referring to the 2003 WSOP where they "said" Scotty had AK with a board of Kxx however on RGP Scotty said they never saw his cards and asked him later what he folded. So I don't believe for one instant he laid down AK on that hand.

[thirddan]

It may have been in the first Bellagio WPT against John Henigan when Scotty folded (A5s) on a board of 588KA, Henigan had trip 8's...

[daryn]

actually wake up call i think i remember this hand from TV. it was wsop 2003 just like you said:

chuc huong (sp?) had KK to scotty's AK on the Kxx flop, and scotty made a great laydown, for all cameras to see.

[ThePimpulator]

[ QUOTE ]
actually wake up call i think i remember this hand from TV. it was wsop 2003 just like you said:

chuc huong (sp?) had KK to scotty's AK on the Kxx flop, and scotty made a great laydown, for all cameras to see.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although chuc huong (sp?) would be considered one of the "super tight" to which someone earlier was refering. And didnt he make a huge bet too (50k I believe)? Gotta fear your AK there.

ThePimpulator.

[daryn]

yeah, i'm not trying to say it was a superhuman stuey read, but it was a very good read and a very good laydown.

also i was just trying to correct wake up call /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Rushmore]

[ QUOTE ]
It may have been in the first Bellagio WPT against John Henigan when Scotty folded (A5s) on a board of 588KA, Henigan had trip 8's...

[/ QUOTE ]

I would hope we could all make this laydown.

[Paul Phillips]

[ QUOTE ]
actually wake up call i think i remember this hand from TV. it was wsop 2003 just like you said:

chuc huong (sp?) had KK to scotty's AK on the Kxx flop, and scotty made a great laydown, for all cameras to see.

[/ QUOTE ]

That hand was made up, as were some others. See this thread at google (http://tinyurl.com/3584h) for more details. It was as much as admitted by the producers.

It turns my stomach that the "reality television" approach to journalism was sufficiently successful at the WSOP that almost all ESPN viewers believe in events that never happened.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
yeah, i'm not trying to say it was a superhuman stuey read, but it was a very good read and a very good laydown.

also i was just trying to correct wake up call /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

It appears that you did a very poor job of correcting me there daryn! /images/graemlins/smile.gif Paul Philips validated my version of the events.

[daryn]

i don't understand what exactly you're saying, or what is being said by paul.

are you saying they faked the hand? because i saw board cards, i saw chuc's hand, i saw scotty's hand.

are you saying they pieced together stock footage to build a fake hand?

[Army Eye]

[ QUOTE ]
i don't understand what exactly you're saying, or what is being said by paul.

are you saying they faked the hand? because i saw board cards, i saw chuc's hand, i saw scotty's hand.

are you saying they pieced together stock footage to build a fake hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

The hand was mostly as they showed it, but apparently Scotty's hole cards were made up.

[daryn]

seems like standard shady conspiracy theory to me. if scotty's hole cards were made up, then chuc's must have been also, no? i'd be interested in hearing more about this subject.

[JustPlayingSmart]

daryn,

Take a look at the whole thread Paul linked. It's an interesting read. Since Scotty and Chuc were not at the TV table this hand, there is no way we could actually see their hole cards. There were no lipstick cameras set up to view them. Thus, speculation is that ESPN asked the players what they had in this hand, and used this in their broadcast.

There is also a lot of discussion about the hand in which Jonathan Kaplan was eliminated. He had JJ on a T hi flop against Scotty Nguyen, and on ESPN Scotty has KT and hits a K on the river. Jonathan says he remembers Scotty's hand (and since it was the hand he was busted with, I would tend to believe him), and that Scotty had K9s, for a flush draw and overcard. He also says that if you watch closely, you will notice the button moving during this hand. Howard Lederer even chimes in to say he agrees that it looks like ESPN got this hand wrong.

[daryn]

right, read the thread, very interesting. also mentioned in that thread is that there was a hand with dutch boyd and someone else where dutch spiked a 4 on the river and his 44 beat the other guy. that table was not the tv table either, so did they fudge that hand too? except in that case they would have had the hole card info because the hands were all in and turned up.

[Rushmore]

[ QUOTE ]
seems like standard shady conspiracy theory to me. if scotty's hole cards were made up, then chuc's must have been also, no? i'd be interested in hearing more about this subject.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I have found this thread fascinating. It now seems that ESPN is at least willfully permitting this bad information to appear on its broadcasts.

Put it this way: If there were no cameras (which there weren't), and the hands are not shown down, do you honestly believe that accepting Scotty at his word as to what he held would be the fast track to gaining the truth? Of course not. (DISCLAIMER: And it's not just Scotty who wants to keep his play a secret. Witness Mr. Eric Seidel at the Taj PURPOSELY not revealing his hole cards to the cameras.)

Anyway, to me, the amazing thing is that ESPN went on to announce these cards as if they had seen them, which, in retrospect, could not have been the case.

This strikes me as incredibly irresponsible and disingenuous. ANYONE would agree that the proper protocol would be to qualify these hands with a phrase or graphic indicating the fact that these cards are not as certain as those displayed by the lipstick cameras at the TV table.