analysis: final hand of wsop 2004

[blank]

i can understand all the action preflop and flop, but turn and river, williams just played poorly.

raymer: 88
williams: A4

flop: 4,5,2
turn: 2
river: 2

on the turn, the only thing williams could beat were pocket 3's or a bluff, so basically a bluff. raymer was glowing with confidence. williams was still holding a gut-shot though, an amateur river-gut-shot. BUT, if raymer was holding 33, which is the only thing besides a bluff williams could beat at the time, then another 3 wouldve completed williams straight BUT raymer would've made a full house. other than that williams could only hope to river a miracle ace.
conclusion: easy read and easier lay down on the turn.

on the river, another two came.

same situation as above. just like the turn, williams can only beat a bluff. raymer had been betting and re-raising all hand, and i could smell his confidence from my living room. raymer was the one who moved all in too, so its not like williams was trying to steal it. williams CALLED raymer's all-in when all he could beat was a bluff.

conclusion: once again, it shouldve been an easy read and a REALLY easy lay down for williams. williams not only deserved to lose, i dont even think he deserved to finish second for that poor play. but then again, he'd been playing for who know how many hours straight, and the mind can get a little fuzzy. either way, it was exceptionally poor play, but i'd still put him in the top 4 of the final table.


blank

"wtf!! i cant believe he called me with rockets, what a dumba$$."
- josh arieh

[chio]

i agree, he played the hand terribly, if he was going to committ all his chips, at least he should have gone all-in to not give raymer a free look at more cards if he had something like AK or whatever.

as much coverage as williams got for being being a nice guy (which i'm sure he is), from what i could gather he played horribly. called a big all-in for all his chips with K7o???
called arieh's big preflop raise HU with 55 for 1/3 of his stack??? (at least he could have reraised, calling was the worst option here) these are serious fundamental errors. i was thinking "ugh"

[Solitare]

Did Williams make some mistakes? Sure. He's a 23 year old kid sitting at the final table of the WSOP with millions on the line. Mistakes should be expected.

Did he get lucky? Yes. Won quite a streak of coin flips, but then, so did Raymer. That's poker.

But he somehow over the course of 12 hour days of poker managed to avoid making a big enough mistake to knock himself out. He entered the final table as a short stack and finished 2nd. He must have been playing pretty well to accomplish that. And he's just a 23 year old kid.

You'd think he'd get a pass from the bashing this forum likes to do.

[mrbaseball]

[ QUOTE ]
it shouldve been an easy read and a REALLY easy lay down

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh huh [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] If you say so? Oh that's right you could see his cards.

His mistake there was not being aggressive enough. Middle pair and a gutshot and an Ace (top overcard) is a monster headsup. He shoulda turned up the heat rather than calling.

But you are right after seeing the cards through the lipstick camera it was simple to put Raymer on 88 or any other overpair!

[Big_TX]

I like the call with 55 and the check in the dark--he was shortstacked against an agressive player who was betting aggressively with Marginal hands --On one hand with A3o Chad said something like "he would bet with a 3 and a crackerjack box" At this point I think they were up to 800k prize money, so seeing a flop with 55 shortstacked was a decent gamble.

[ohkanada]

The 55 call for 1/3 of his stack and the check in the dark was a terrible play.

He is hoping to flop a set which happens 1 in 7 times but is paying 1/3 of his stack to do it? Do the math, it doesn't add up.

If he was doing a stop and go, and planning on betting all-in on any flop then maybe it is fine, but he checked in the dark which gives Josh the 1st bet which means he quite likely has to call off his last 1 million in chips facing overcards.

Ken

[hockey1]

[ QUOTE ]
He is hoping to flop a set which happens 1 in 7 times but is paying 1/3 of his stack to do it? Do the math, it doesn't add up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why did he have to be playing for the set? I think your premise is wrong. On a ragged flop he can easily make a play, and may even have the best hand. That said, the preflop call is pretty marginal, especially out of position.

[Ghazban]

[ QUOTE ]
If he was doing a stop and go, and planning on betting all-in on any flop then maybe it is fine, but he checked in the dark which gives Josh the 1st bet which means he quite likely has to call off his last 1 million in chips facing overcards.


[/ QUOTE ]

I was thinking his plan was a stop-and-go, too. Apparently, he was running the lesser known (and generally ineffective) stop-and-idle.

[ohkanada]

But he checked in the dark. So unless he plans to call an allin bet on a raggedy flop it is a bad play. Or he hopes Josh checks and then he plans to bet out on the turn?

From Erick Lindgren who won a few WPT events last year:

"David Williiams play with the two fives vs josh was awful"

Ken

[Gator]

If David knew Greg's hands (i.e. middle pair) perhaps it can be argued that his best play would have been to go all-in on the flop. There is signficant fold equity. If Greg decides to call, David has outs with 3 aces, four threes, and two fours with two cards to come. The total fold/win equity exceeds David's chip equity presuming he loses the hand (even if they checked it down and he doesn't bleed any more chips).