First Post
 

Hey, whats up guys. This is my first post here. I have been lurching around here for some time. As most of you might be aware, that of late, I have been playing mostly Live events. Things have been going very well. However in the next few months I'm going to concentrate and spend lots of time playing online big buy-in events at stars. Also thinking about playing some at party poker. I heard from a few freinds that the Daily Supers and weekend tourneys are worth looking into. So with that being said, I just wanted to make a few freinds here, and maybe add some things to these forums, and at the same time learn from many of you. So, don't be surprised if you see me around quite a bit. Thanks, and good luck to all.

Re: First Post
 

Congratulations on your success so far and welcome to the forum.

Re: First Post
 

Are you THE David Williams? As in, second place is 2004 WSOP, "supposedly" cheated at Magic, etc. etc.?

If so, I'd like to hear your side on that whole Magic scandal thing.

And welcome to the forums.

Re: First Post
 

Welcome.

-SossMan

Re: First Post
 

Great to have you. Nice to see you introducing yourself in the mtt section instead of the television forum.

Re: First Post
 

Welcome .
P.S. could you p.m. me your party poker handle. Ill send you mine. I wont give it out to anybody. I promise. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: First Post
 

Hey Dave, I've been reading 2+2 regularly myself so when I saw your post I thought I'd sign up. Your friends are correct to suggest the Party Super tournaments. I've been playing in 2-3 supers a week for the past couple months to a fair amount of success and I'm not much of a player yet. I live in ATL now with Aziz, and he also does quite well in them. Anyway, I'd check them out.

Btw, to the people who keep bringing up the incident at MTG Worlds, I played in quite a few Pro Tours myself, and Dave is a widely respected player. He's gone out of his way to help me improve my Magic game, so I'm sure he'll bring a lot to this forum.

Re: First Post
 

Welcome to the forum. You picked the right spot for your first post, don't bother with the World Poker Tour section. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: First Post
 

what is all this magic talk? there is a pro tour?

-Brad

Re: First Post
 

Dave, are you playing in the Super Wednesday tonight?

Re: First Post
 

Hey, welcome to the forum. Looking forward to your posts in the future.

Congrats on your successful year so far and hope it continues,

ts-

Re: First Post
 

Welcome David. What's your online handle? You probably won't have any trouble getting support in your tourneys, but you can always count on the 2+2 gang to come sweat ya at the final table(s) in Stars and Party. Just let us know where you'll be.

-Z

Re: First Post
 

Are you enrolled in college this semester?

Re: First Post
 

DW's PokerStars handle is RugDoctor

That said, am I the only skeptical one here? This is 1 post, no backing of identity, registered very recently

Oh well, maybe I'm wrong [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: First Post
 

That's always a possibility, but as far as I know, we haven't really endured many impostors on this board. I assume the poker stars that post on here are the real deal until proven otherwise.

-Z

Re: First Post
 

Welcome. I really enjoyed watching your WSOP. Wish I would have been there at the end with you. I had the opportunity to play next to Marcel at a tourney at the Hard Rock the other day, and shared the great experience, al biet short, that you did. Look forward to seeing you posts.

Re: First Post
 

Dave,
I met you at the world series this year.
Good luck on line and congrats on your recent B/M play.

Re: First Post
 

Thanks for the welcome. YES I'm THE Dave WIlliams. He is I. Im sorry, I could not respond sooner, but I got busy last night with some school work. I'm taking 3 course (tues/thurs). My goal is to make those my study days, and that should leave the rest of the week open to poker, mostly online tourneys as I said before.

I want to make clear that the reason I have come to these forums is to improve my online MTT game. I'm not much interested to discuss personal issues about my past, or about other poker players. Feel free to fire away about certain hands that you have seen on TV or have heard about. Hence, this is why im posting here and not on the WPT forum.

My stars handle is RugDoctor. I'm still in the process of opening my PP account. I will let you know my handle when I do. THanks for the welcome and support. Later -DWilli

Re: First Post
 

Okie doke.

Can you explain your thought process behind the 55 vs. AK hand with Josh Arieh when you checked in the dark?

Re: First Post
 

Welcome to the board. My advice is do not mess with Dirtrancher on Pokerstars.

Re: First Post
 

Like I said before, its great to have you on board, and Im sure you'll be a huge asset to this forum. Anyway, I'm sure lots of us are thinking it, so I'll ask you. What was your rationale for playing 55 the way you did at the final table?

It seems to me (and to a bunch of other people I think) that you called 1/3rd of your chips off playing for set value. I would understand the preflop call a little more if you planned on betting out/moving in on some flops, but you check in the dark. Thoughts?

Re: First Post
 

So, I guess I was 2nd, not 1st.

Re: First Post
 

Welcome to the boards, great to have you.

What specifically have you learned from Marcel’s guidance? Maybe a top 5 list of best tips would help us here.

--Greg

Re: First Post
 

My PP handle is Huckseed96. I will be changing it in November. Advance thanks for sharing your Handle when you finish signing up. Look forward to your input on here and it is good to see you resuming your education. I think that alone shows that you have a good head on your shoulders. It would be easy to quit school and live off poker.Also if you see someone ask " Does the Brown Trout stay in your closet", you will be able to answer yes now. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

Re: First Post
 

Can't wait for your contributions to this forum. Thanks for coming here instead of the WPT area!

Re: First Post
 

I'm still cynical without some proof, but if you're the real DW then welcome to the board [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: First Post
 

[ QUOTE ]
Okie doke.

Can you explain your thought process behind the 55 vs. AK hand with Josh Arieh when you checked in the dark?

[/ QUOTE ]

I figured this hand would come up. The check in the dark is basically a move that helps you pick up "tells" on your opponent, without comprimising position. Mainly I want to see how he comes out, is he betting, is he checking, does he look weak, strong, etc.. So by me auto-checking, im now putting the ball in my opponents court without him having any clue as to what I could be holding. I figured if I don't flop a set, im not really sure where I stand. So basically, I was going to defer my move, and then counter any move made by Josh. A check in the dark works the best with medium to low pairs and suited connectors. In this situation the check in the dark did work out wonderfully. It's not a play that I highly suggest, its just something that I did because I think I did get caught up in the moment. It was by no means me trying to show off or be cocky.

Re: First Post
 

[ QUOTE ]
Mainly I want to see how he comes out, is he betting, is he checking, does he look weak, strong, etc.. So by me auto-checking, im now putting the ball in my opponents court without him having any clue as to what I could be holding.

[/ QUOTE ]

This certainly has been a highly debated hand, but the fact of the matter is that a lot of people didn't like your play. Obviously kudos for playing so well in that event (and finishing 2nd in that WPT event), but the 55 hand and the A4 hand has lead TV viewers to see you as a lesser player than you really are, sadly (since a large majority of your other hands on ESPN were all-in hands).

My argument is that a dark check could work much more efficiently against a more tighter player, because I have to believe Arieh would have fired on the flop representing any hand. So if you miss, you're potentially looking at overcards, Arieh making another large sized bet that will obviously pot commit you, and you looking at a multitude of different hands Arieh could have that have you beat. But I digress...

What I am more interested in is the A4 play, final hand. You guys had humongous stacks relative to the blinds, and I was surprised to see you calling down each of Raymer's bets. You said you thought he had overcards, I believe. Surely there must have been some point where you thought "This isn't the best time"? Given Raymer's aggression, you had to have had a helluva read that he had high cards, because just about every other possible hand to put him on has you beat.

Re: First Post
 

Out of curiousity, what would you have done if the board came three high cards, lets say 8 J Q, and he put you all in? Also, what hand did you put him on at the time if you don't mind me asking?

Re: First Post
 

I don't think against an aggressive player this is the best play. HE will be betting most flops with a 99% chance of overcards, so unless you hit a set you are facing a very difficult decision rather than forcing josh to a difficult decision, with 1/3 of your stack already involved, this seems less than ideal.

I don't mean to be a jerk, but it is OK to say you misplayed a hand rather than trying to rationalize it after the fact. Again, a lot of people do this, so I am not trying to call you out or anything.

-Phil

Re: First Post
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Okie doke.

Can you explain your thought process behind the 55 vs. AK hand with Josh Arieh when you checked in the dark?

[/ QUOTE ]

I figured this hand would come up. The check in the dark is basically a move that helps you pick up "tells" on your opponent, without comprimising position. Mainly I want to see how he comes out, is he betting, is he checking, does he look weak, strong, etc.. So by me auto-checking, im now putting the ball in my opponents court without him having any clue as to what I could be holding. I figured if I don't flop a set, im not really sure where I stand. So basically, I was going to defer my move, and then counter any move made by Josh. A check in the dark works the best with medium to low pairs and suited connectors. In this situation the check in the dark did work out wonderfully. It's not a play that I highly suggest, its just something that I did because I think I did get caught up in the moment. It was by no means me trying to show off or be cocky.

[/ QUOTE ]

this analysis is very incomplete without knowing stack sizes...that makes a huuuuuuge difference in whether or not the dark check was a good play or not. I suspect that you had too high a percentage of your chips in the pot preflop for the dark check to give you enough implied odds to hit a perfect flop (which you did...A5x, Josh holding AK).
The fact that he put you all in on the flop leads me to believe that the pot represented somewhere in the neighborhood of at least a quarter of your stack, if not more (since Josh probably doesn't overbet the pot the pot there with TPTK).
By checking in the dark, you gave up your only other way to win the hand...by firing on a flop that had only 1 or 2 non-face card overcards (assuming you put him on unpaired Face-face or Ace face).

As far as the A4 final hand....if you put him on unpaired overcards, you really should have put a raise in there on the flop or at a minimum, on the turn....your hand is much, much too vulnerable to allow him to keep peeling off cards.

Again, without a good idea of stack sizes, all this analysis is pretty useless.

Again, welcome...


-SossMan

Re: First Post
 

SossMan:
DW had approximately 1.5 million in chips, committing 1/3 (500k) PF with the 55. Arieh had DW well covered.

Re: First Post
 

dave, i don't think anyone is questioning the check in the dark. i like the move given the situation. i don't generally check dark, just because it takes my option of betting first at the pot. also, if this flop came favorable but not great for you, say... 3 rags, you would probably want to fire out here. if you feel you had the best hand on a favorable flop, i don't think with 3 rags up josh is going to fire into a pot when you're 1/3 of the way in with just AK.

the real question is why you called the hand to begin with. i am not a seasoned pro nor do i even claim to be as good as you (hell, i have no idea how good you are, because i have yet to play with you, i've only seen a few dozen hands on tv), but i don't like calling 1/3 of my chips with a hand that is at best a cointoss favorite. you know that josh is a very aggressive player, but he could easily be firing back with any pair, or any big ace. so, i would have had no problem getting away from 5's when he reraised. i would either want to pick up the blinds, or get a call and flop a set and hope to double up.

when you called 1/3 of your chips off, let's say you don't flop a 5. the flop is the same, and josh has top pair top kicker, and all you have is 3rd pair to the board. now what do you do? you've committed 500k of your 1.5m, and you're now looking at an ace high flop with pocket 5's. if he bets all-in, you're getting 3-1 to call with your 5's i believe, if my rough math in my mind is right. obviously you could fold them on that flop, but why would you have called off that many chips instead of either just moving them all-in or folding? all-in or fold to me is the only way to play this pot.

maybe i am off base and you can explain it to me better, but that's my thoughts.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Okie doke.

Can you explain your thought process behind the 55 vs. AK hand with Josh Arieh when you checked in the dark?

[/ QUOTE ]

I figured this hand would come up. The check in the dark is basically a move that helps you pick up "tells" on your opponent, without comprimising position. Mainly I want to see how he comes out, is he betting, is he checking, does he look weak, strong, etc.. So by me auto-checking, im now putting the ball in my opponents court without him having any clue as to what I could be holding. I figured if I don't flop a set, im not really sure where I stand. So basically, I was going to defer my move, and then counter any move made by Josh. A check in the dark works the best with medium to low pairs and suited connectors. In this situation the check in the dark did work out wonderfully. It's not a play that I highly suggest, its just something that I did because I think I did get caught up in the moment. It was by no means me trying to show off or be cocky.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: First Post
 

[ QUOTE ]
maybe i am off base

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense, but extremely. You can take math and make this call in a cash game, but there is zero way you could call 55 on a flop of 2JK, 48T, ATQ, etc. etc. etc. unless you had ungodly-good reading skills.

If he doesn't hit the 5 and Arieh moves in, he has to fold. Simple as that.

Now, that said, DW was hanging around on a smallish stack for what seemed like the last 2 days until he got the best of Dean and Harrington. So perhaps the fact he was managing himself well with such a small stack lead to him taking such a risky gamble?

Re: First Post
 

[ QUOTE ]
dave, i don't think anyone is questioning the check in the dark.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that is exactly what everyone is questioning.

Re: First Post
 

[ QUOTE ]
If he doesn't hit the 5 and Arieh moves in, he has to fold. Simple as that.

[/ QUOTE ]

he's calling 1/3 of his stack for a set. he's not exactly getting the right odds here to call. he played the pot only to flop a set, unless he was willing to make a gamble and call on a "safe" flop.

Re: First Post
 

[ QUOTE ]
he's calling 1/3 of his stack for a set. he's not exactly getting the right odds here to call.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, which is why pushing or folding on the flop ought to be the only real options against Arieh.

[ QUOTE ]
He played the pot only to flop a set, unless he was willing to make a gamble and call on a "safe" flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever safe flop exists when you miss your 5 (such as 234, or 3 of a suit to match one of your fives) is too rare an occurance to rationally call and see a flop.

Re: First Post
 

[ QUOTE ]
I figured this hand would come up. The check in the dark is basically a move that helps you pick up "tells" on your opponent, without comprimising position. Mainly I want to see how he comes out, is he betting, is he checking, does he look weak, strong, etc.. So by me auto-checking, im now putting the ball in my opponents court without him having any clue as to what I could be holding. I figured if I don't flop a set, im not really sure where I stand. So basically, I was going to defer my move, and then counter any move made by Josh. A check in the dark works the best with medium to low pairs and suited connectors. In this situation the check in the dark did work out wonderfully. It's not a play that I highly suggest, its just something that I did because I think I did get caught up in the moment. It was by no means me
trying to show off or be cocky.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know that in poker we always try not to be results oriented, but considering you doubled-through that bastard Arieh, that was absolutely the right play.

I swear if I ever have the displeasure of meeting that guy in real life I'm going to stomp his guts out.

Re: First Post
 

[ QUOTE ]
True, which is why pushing or folding on the flop ought to be the only real options against Arieh.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, then we're in agreement [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
Whatever safe flop exists when you miss your 5 (such as 234, or 3 of a suit to match one of your fives) is too rare an occurance to rationally call and see a flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed again

Re: First Post
 

Hey everyone, I just talked to Dave on AIM today, and this 2+2 DaveWilliams isn't him. He asked me to post to let everyone know that he's not going to be posting online, so this guy and any future imposters are not him. Thanks.