To the Moneyaker followers

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

In addition, last time I checked, 99QQQ vs QQQ with A kicker = 4 outs.

7 outs, Al. 7. There was a 6 on the board. Pairing that 6 would make MM a higher boat than Ivey.

That's not the issue. I don't see how anybody here can say laying down top trips/top kicker against a very aggressive player would be the right play here.

Even if you're so sharp as to think Ivey only makes that bet with 4 hands (99, 66, KQ, QJ), you're ahead 8/14 of the time, with 7 outs when you're behind.

Sorry. But if I think I'm a 3-2 favorite with 1 card to come to bust Phil Ivey. I make this call 100% of the time. maybe Howard Lederer or Phil Hellmuth fold here, but I don't. And I don't think you fold here either.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

You are not going to draw me into a flame fest, but you did convince me to notify mat "the axe" sklansky of your pointless personal attack on me.

al

[Sincere]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if you're so sharp as to think

[/ QUOTE ]

Its funny because in the heat of the moment I seriously doubt that MM 'thought' anything. All he saw was 'I got 3 queens' You saw the tape, he didnt even stop to 'think' about anything.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

His whole thought process may have been - I'll underbet the pot here on the flop, Ivey will probably call and try to bluff me on the turn.

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]
Its funny because in the heat of the moment I seriously doubt that MM 'thought' anything. All he saw was 'I got 3 queens' You saw the tape, he didnt even stop to 'think' about anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny how nobody mentions Phil Ivey's TERRIBLE call on the flop. MM was better than a 90% favorite on the flop, and I doubt there is anyone on this board who would have mucked MM's hand to Ivey's raise on the turn. Anyone who says otherwise is full of [censored].

Phil Ivey was the one who played this hand poorly (because of his call on the flop), not MM.

But what I really wonder is when you are going to get tired of rehashing this...

[Sincere]

[ QUOTE ]
Funny how nobody mentions Phil Ivey's TERRIBLE call on the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, does the term implied odds mean anything to you? If I remember right MM's bet was not very big at all. Plus, the fact that there were 2 Q's on board makes it less likely that someone else held one. MM couldve made that same bet with AK or AJ or something to trying to steal. So, theoretically Ivey could've easily been in the lead and if he wasnt, it didnt cost him very much to call. So either he was ahead or behind with huge implied odds to call.

[ QUOTE ]
and I doubt there is anyone on this board who would have mucked MM's hand to Ivey's raise on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wont dispute that, there are probably very few people in the world who would lay down right here. The point I was trying to make was that MM didnt even stop to think and evaluate anything about the situation, he just called blind. My point is even though most people still wouldnt lay down, most all very good players would have atleast stopped to think about and evaluate the situation.

At that point in the hand an expert would've thought about what his opponent had, what his opponent thought he had, and what his opponent thought he thought he had. The fact that MM only thought on one level and what his own two cards were showed his immaturity as a player. IMO.

[B-Man]

It's because he probably plays better than you.

[ QUOTE ]
Um, does the term implied odds mean anything to you? If I remember right MM's bet was not very big at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Based on a quick search, Ivey was getting about 4-1 pot odds on the flop bet; depending on the suits (which weren't listed), Ivey was anywhere from an 8-1 to a 12.6-1 dog. Even if he somehow won the hand and doubled up (a little better than double (but less than triple) considering 3 players stayed for the flop plus the dead money pre-flop), Ivey wasn't getting anywhere near the implied odds he would have needed to make this call. Furthemore, when you consider that there are 10 players left at the WSOP, and Ivey is considered to be one of the two best players remaining (if not #1), why would he even consider a call on this board, where he might be a favorite, but also might be a gigantic underdog (or even drawing dead)?

[ QUOTE ]
Plus, the fact that there were 2 Q's on board makes it less likely that someone else held one. MM couldve made that same bet with AK or AJ or something to trying to steal. So, theoretically Ivey could've easily been in the lead and if he wasnt, it didnt cost him very much to call. So either he was ahead or behind with huge implied odds to call.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. Yup, calling a flop bet with an underpair to that type of board is a good tournament strategy, in case the preflop raiser is "trying to steal." I suggest you try this strategy for a while and let us know how you do. As stated above, Ivey did not have "huge implied odds."

Ivey made a terrible call on the flop. Ivey was a much bigger dog on the flop than MM was on the turn.

P.S. I think Phil Ivey is a great player, but even great players make mistakes. This was a big one.

[charlie_t_jr]

[ QUOTE ]

At that point in the hand an expert would've thought about what his opponent had, what his opponent thought he had, and what his opponent thought he thought he had. The fact that MM only thought on one level and what his own two cards were showed his immaturity as a player. IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't have much to add, and don't really care....I just get tired of this crap....look at that quote..."an EXPERT"...and the quote..."immaturity as a player"....do we forget the background of MM? He's a guy who got lucky on line to win a seat...and went on to play some pretty good poker, with some lucky breaks along the way...he was not, and as far as I know, he or no one else has ever claimed him to be an expert. And your surprised a guy playing his 1st live tourney at the WSOP showed immaturity as a player?

Chris Moneymaker is the 2003 WSOP champ...its not going to change....folks please...please....get over it.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Funny how nobody mentions Phil Ivey's TERRIBLE call on the flop.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Um, does the term implied odds mean anything to you? If I remember right MM's bet was not very big at all

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm almost positive it was a pot sized bet on the flop. Iplied odds would have been VERY limited, and nonexistant if opponent has a Queen.


[ QUOTE ]
The fact that MM only thought on one level and what his own two cards were showed his immaturity as a player. IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think that was exactly how it happened, but
#1 He said in earlier shows he let Ivey and Chan outplay him. He may, and probably did, actually decide that he was going to call no matter what Ivey did while Ivey was debating HIS play. Many people forget that the playerr waiting to act doesn't have his brain turned off. JUsr because yo utake little/no time to call when action is on you doesn't mean you hadn't thought about your action LONG before then. It's called thinking ahead.
#2 MM would tell you himself in a second that at that time, he was immature as a player. When overmatched, however, you want to get all your chips in vs the better player in decent shape whenever possible. NOw, obviously, 7 outs isn't exactly decent shape, but he couldn't be NEARLY sure. Even if he DID know what Ivey had, it's not a terrible play to call there really,(not positive of this statement though, i'd have to see the stack sizes/bets exactly to judge.) This is similar to what Ferguson did vs cloutier. He didn't think he could counterpunch with him, so he put it all out there on one hand. Now, the scenario started bad for Jesus, but the result was good. This is higher-level thinking which Jesus used to his advantage,(luckily) and I personally think MM just kinda stumbled upon, (again, luckily).

MM was a solid player, and is even better now, and, again, is -EV to ANY tournament pool overall.