Fischman has Brunson all Figured Out

[mostsmooth]

[ QUOTE ]
I never thought anyone would overtake Hellmuth as the most fundamentally unlikeable poker player on the planet, but Fischman didn't even break a sweat in passing Phil. God, what a weaselly, arrogant c**k. I spent the whole episode last night daydreaming what it would be like to punch his teeth down his throat. I am actually surprised at how much I hate him.

[/ QUOTE ]
as ive mentioned before, fischman has made me like negraneau. i previously thought he was the most irritating, but he seems like a saint compared to fischman

[Tuds75]

Your wrong on his "jerk" persona giving him the fame he is getting. Barry Greenstein, Doyle Brunson, Howard Leder, Gavin Griffin, and James Vogul (I included Gavin and Vogul because they, like Scott Fischman, are first time bracelet winners this year and they were also shown on TV) all have won WSOP bracelets and they are popular and all acted like in class manner after doing so. This acting the fool/poker brat ROUTINE that Phil Hellmuth has made famous on televised poker is what Scott Fischman and many others are trying to copy,so they can aquire some fame. They are getting fame the wrong way. Just winning gets you that fame.


Tuds

[Deorum]

[ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't Fischman's play be better if he'd gone all in himself when the other player went all in, instead of just calling? I know Brunson is still going to call with KK, so the end result is the same. But Fischman doesn't know that hand is out there, and he risks a lot of other mid to high PPs calling by not moving in himself before it ever gets to Brunson.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good point. By just calling with the AK, Fischman
allowed himself some space to fold if someone came back over
the top with an all in raise. He may have called trying to
lure someone else into the pot with a dominated hand, but
when Doyle moved in, it should have been a clear fold to
Fischman.

As for the comments about only being even money at best, he
was getting better than even money on his call. But there
is something deeper at work here. If Fischman had won the
hand, he would have had a commanding chip lead. In a
tournament, there are often many other factors to consider
than simply pot odds and what you think your opponent has.
I am not advocating a call on his part in this particular
situation, but certainly there are other things to consider
than pot odds and the likelyhood of his winning the hand.

[$DEADSEXE$]

it's no so much a jerk persona as it is a cocky, im better than you persona.
No matter how skilled you are or legendary. To the average person watching tv...they will remember the gus hansen's,phil hellmuth's etc over the phil ivey,doyle brunsons etc.

Not saying thats good...its just reality.
Who's more famous in terms of name recognition..Amorossa or Bill the winner.
I'de say the crazy black chick.

[Toro]

The only hand I saw was the one Brunson had 77 in early position and limped and Ficshman had AK and raised to 4000, back to Doyle who re-raised all-in.

Then Ficshman says "I can beat QQ". That was quite the stupid statement. If he could beat QQ, I think his money would have beaten Doyles into the pot.

Then he asks Doyle if he got QQ and Doyle smiles and gives him a disgusted chuckle which I thought meant "you think you're going to get a tell off me, kid?"

Not wanting to gamble, he folded so all he accomplished with his stupid talking was to make Doyle feel good that he was able to get the kid to lay down a better hand(Doyle not knowing he didn't have a pair better than 77).

[lolita16]

Funny. I made this same comment about Phil Ivey's play of AK against Doyle when he limp reraised all in and got blasted by this group. I guess it depends on the character of the player as to what you all think of the play.

[TheJackal]

Doyle had KK against Fischman and QQ against Ivey, which is what makes a big difference (more than 2:1 as a pose to 1:1). Even though the play was the same, the cards were not.

[lolita16]

Yes I realize that. My point in that thread was that when holding AK if you put your opponent on AA,KK,QQ, or AKs, calling with the AK is a bad play. You are a huge dog against AA and KK, a small dog against QQ, and even or a slight dog to AK if your opponent is suited and you are not.

The blasting from this group is that Doyle will do that with many hands, not just the ones mentioned. I believe that *against Phil Ivey* (as opposed to against a newbie or Fischmann), Doyle would only make that move with that grouping of hands. I'll never be able to win this one because we see Doyle make great plays with other hands against some other players which I believe are more *read dependent* (such as the push with 77 against Fischmann) by Doyle.

My only point was that I didn't like Phil's play in that particular spot. I think Phil Ivey is a phenomenal player; far better than I could ever hope to be.

To finally illustrate this point, see the Foxwood's WPT event when Phil moved over that top of Howard Lederer with an AQs only to find himself facing KK and being knocked out of a tournament in which he held the chip lead most of the day.

I had hoped my post would result in discussion of such things as when should you consider mucking huge starting hands like AK or AQs when facing a big raise from a credible player. Instead, from this forum, I got you are an idiot and everything you say is irrelevant.

I find it interesting that Phil was a genius and Fischmann was an idiot based on essentially the same play.

[West]

I was thinking about the "I can beat QQ statement" too. Obviously that was a ridiculous statement, but maybe his thought process was that he was considering calling if he felt sure it was a coin flip (Doyle not having AA or KK), and maybe he was hoping to get some kind of read from Doyle in this regard by making that statement about being able to beat queens.

[Toro]

I think you're right. I think he calls if he puts Doyle on 77 because he would have had the odds.