|
|
#1
03-12-2004, 12:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
To the Moneyaker followers
He is lucky, period. It wasn't skill, he hadn't developed it by the point of the World series. I do believe he is well on his way now though as it was a huge learning experience for him.
Before the World Series, what were the odds placed on him to win the whole thing? If you could add up all the suckouts he did throughout the tourny - odds wise all his 22-1 11-1 ect shots he hit (and the fact that noone really sucked out on him) , I am guessing that he had just as good of a chance of winning the lottery. Now sell me on why he was a skilled player again? OUTs 
|
|
#3
03-12-2004, 01:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: To the Moneyaker followers
Why did you post this? It has been discussed a million times. Is this a benefit to the 2+2 community? How the hell are you any authority on whether or not someone is a good player? Are you a top-notch pro? Shaddup already.
|
|
#5
03-12-2004, 02:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: To the Moneyaker followers
[ QUOTE ]
He is lucky, period. It wasn't skill, he hadn't developed it by the point of the World series. I do believe he is well on his way now though as it was a huge learning experience for him. Before the World Series, what were the odds placed on him to win the whole thing? If you could add up all the suckouts he did throughout the tourny - odds wise all his 22-1 11-1 ect shots he hit (and the fact that noone really sucked out on him) , I am guessing that he had just as good of a chance of winning the lottery. Now sell me on why he was a skilled player again? OUTs [/ QUOTE ] This is all fantasy. You want some cheese with that whine?
|
|
#8
03-12-2004, 03:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: To the Moneyaker followers
I havn't discussed this a million times... not even once. And I think he is a good player. The point of my post was the questions I asked, not to flame you people who are all horny about this guy. My questions where, what were the odds of him winning leading up to the tourny. Did you guys miss this, the point of the post? And, adding up all the odds of the beats he did... collectively would this compare to winning the lottery or something like 20,000-1... 1,000,000-1.. i have no idea, that is why I am asking.
PHIL IVEY played better consistantly, if you have to even ask that question than you have no business replying to my post.
|
|
#9
03-12-2004, 05:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: To the Moneyaker followers
Ok, you say Phil Ivey, yet Phil Ivey called a big bet from Moneymaker in that fateful AQo vs 99 hand, when he not only called it, but called it knowing there was a player behind him. He called a large bet for a 22-1 shot and got VERY lucky, yet all anyone ever talks about is how lucky MM got and how bad he played it when he hit his 6.5-1, like ANYONE else there is foldding top trips, best kicker.
Phil Ivey is a great player, but his propensity to overplay small/medium Pocket pairs was the ruin of him. Also, earlier in the tournament, he pissed away 90k of his ~200K stack vs sammy farha calling his bet on the end with a 9448A board, Ivey called w/ K9? Farha showed him quads. TERRIBLE PLAY. Not a single play MM made was half as bad. And don't give me the hand vs brenes; brenes tried to trap by betting small, and he got caught. MM DOES NOT CALL brenes's allin there, guaranteed, but MM DID think he could possibly win simply by coming over the top, which he WOULD have on the raise alone if brenes had ANY better hand than 88 that was less than kings, period. Try again. The Farha hand alone was pathetic on Ivey's part. Worst part is, if he was right, he's some kinda genius. But the 19 times out of 20 he's wrong, "oh well, i had a read". Same thing Hellmuth does, calling crap Ace high on opponets allin flop bet, when he KNOWS they have to have a pair.....
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
