The Beauty of Mike Matusow\'s Game
 

Ok-- it's not the "in your face" razzing of Brother Phil, which was clearly over the top.

It was the actual poker played last night. Hellmuth complained at one point to his father that it was "all-in", "all-in", clearly unsettled by facing do or die decisions too often.

At one stage when Hellmuth made a big raise with AQ offsuit, and Matusow responded with a push, Phil said "Is this your Matusow blow-up moment?", then folded and saw Mike turn over 8c3c. Which was only a 37-63 dog.

And that's the point, isn't it? Once you realize your opponent (opponents, actually, because Corkins was pushing a lot, too) is willing to push with a lot of hands, then you can't really respond unless you have a big pair. A strong Ace-x hand is only in a dominant position of the other guy pushed with a lesser ace. The fear of a race against a pair or simply a garden variety 60-40 situation like the confrontation above makes it almost impossible to call, particularly when you are short or second short stacked, as Hellmuth was most of the night.

Hellmuth had to hope for post-flop action, and Corkins and Matusow were able to avoid a killer confrontation. Maybe Corkins did get lucky with a couple of monsters, but my sense about Matusow is that he flat outplayed Hellmuth with a better strategy.

Which, come to think of it, is what he was pretty much saying in his objectionable manner all night long. But 3+ hours of 3 handed poker was a pretty amazing thing to watch, if only by cardplayer's reporting.

Re: The Beauty of Mike Matusow\'s Game
 

Phil's tight strategy wasn't that bad, it got him to 3rd.

Still, I agree with your assessment and think that Phil should spend some time playing 30/3 SNGs on Party to practice against all-in or nothing action.

Re: The Beauty of Mike Matusow\'s Game
 

PH is still a very good player.

But the game has evolved to the point that supertight has a tough time winning, and you could see it in the play last night. He basically backs himself into a corner where unless he thinks he's in a dominant position he will fold to an all-in bet. Matusow played him brilliantly.

Re: The Beauty of Mike Matusow\'s Game
 

I had the privilege of being there and oh, what a show. I got into the room around 4:00 p.m. just before the 3000/6000/500 level. I stayed until it ended at the 10000/20000/3000 blind level.

The person that gave Hellmuth a really hard time was Corkins, not Matusow. Matusow did a little bit too, particularly after Phil complained about his somewhat weak tight strategy not working. He waited most of the night to trap Hoyt who raised him in almost every hand he was in when he had position.

Then, when Hoyt raised with a ridulously shaking hand (which I can't believe Phil didn't see--easier for me to see because the camera was focused on it), Phil all in reraised him with AQ and got called by AA.

The back and forth action between the three was very well balanced for some time, basically over the course of 2 levels.

The hand that actually made the big difference and stopped the equilibrium was Matusow calling with AQs versus another Corkins all in overbets. Hoyt had AKo. Matusow spikes a king on the turn and gets 850k of the 1.140 million chips in play. Based on Hoyt's earlier play, Matusow really couldn't lay that hand down and it turned out to be very fortuitous that he didn't.

I think given the excellence of the play in this event, the good table banter between Mike and Phil, and a number of interesting hands, this will be a very enjoyable production.

Re: The Beauty of Mike Matusow\'s Game
 

At one point 3 handed Corkins open raises on the button for 10xbb with 43s. Can anyone explain the intent behind this play? Matusow calls him with A6o in the big blind and then pushes some ten high rag flop that Corkins has no piece of, he almost has the nut low, but so much money is already in the pot that he has to call just in order to hit some backdoor pair/str8 in case Mike just has overs.

Why such a big initial raise with this hand? Why not just push if you have to call on the flop anyway after commiting so much of your stack?

Is Corkins just a rich donk that play's a lot of tournaments? He does own a cattle rich. Those guy's make really good money.

Re: The Beauty of Mike Matusow\'s Game
 

[ QUOTE ]
The hand that actually made the big difference and stopped the equilibrium was Matusow calling with AQs versus another Corkins all in overbets. Hoyt had AKo. Matusow spikes a king on the turn and gets 850k of the 1.140 million chips in play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you mean he spiked a queen on the turn?

Re: The Beauty of Mike Matusow\'s Game
 

It's clear that Corkins is doing something right.

Re: The Beauty of Mike Matusow\'s Game
 

[ QUOTE ]

The hand that actually made the big difference and stopped the equilibrium was Matusow calling with AQs versus another Corkins all in overbets. Hoyt had AKo. Matusow spikes a king on the turn and gets 850k of the 1.140 million chips in play. Based on Hoyt's earlier play, Matusow really couldn't lay that hand down and it turned out to be very fortuitous that he didn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

If a king came onn the turn, Hoyt would have won. Some of you guys are so confusing when you narrate hands. Don't you review your posts before submitting them?

Re: The Beauty of Mike Matusow\'s Game
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The hand that actually made the big difference and stopped the equilibrium was Matusow calling with AQs versus another Corkins all in overbets. Hoyt had AKo. Matusow spikes a king on the turn and gets 850k of the 1.140 million chips in play. Based on Hoyt's earlier play, Matusow really couldn't lay that hand down and it turned out to be very fortuitous that he didn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

If a king came onn the turn, Hoyt would have won. Some of you guys are so confusing when you narrate hands. Don't you review your posts before submitting them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Settle down. It's a typo. Anyone with a brain can see he spiked a queen to win.

If it's that confusing, you could just check cardplayer.

-kyo

Re: The Beauty of Mike Matusow\'s Game
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The hand that actually made the big difference and stopped the equilibrium was Matusow calling with AQs versus another Corkins all in overbets. Hoyt had AKo. Matusow spikes a king on the turn and gets 850k of the 1.140 million chips in play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you mean he spiked a queen on the turn?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. I just noticed that. I'm sydexlic or something.

Re: The Beauty of Mike Matusow\'s Game
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The hand that actually made the big difference and stopped the equilibrium was Matusow calling with AQs versus another Corkins all in overbets. Hoyt had AKo. Matusow spikes a king on the turn and gets 850k of the 1.140 million chips in play. Based on Hoyt's earlier play, Matusow really couldn't lay that hand down and it turned out to be very fortuitous that he didn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

If a king came onn the turn, Hoyt would have won. Some of you guys are so confusing when you narrate hands. Don't you review your posts before submitting them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. I used to, but I stopped. I don't really need to any way. The non-[censored] types can read the post and figure out the incongruencies. And the [censored] types can mention the error and help get it corrected.

Re: The Beauty of Mike Matusow\'s Game
 

Which tournament or show was this?

Re: The Beauty of Mike Matusow\'s Game
 

[ QUOTE ]
Is Corkins just a rich donk that play's a lot of tournaments? He does own a cattle rich. Those guy's make really good money.

[/ QUOTE ]

My understanding is that Corkins is a very good player who recently reappeared on the tournament scene a couple of years ago.

He faced Hellmuth at a WPT main table awhile back and just ate him alive. Phil had no idea what to do with him. I think he was complaining about Corkins getting "lucky" that time, too.

Re: The Beauty of Mike Matusow\'s Game
 

When did this air? Or has it not been on yet?

Re: The Beauty of Mike Matusow\'s Game
 

[ QUOTE ]
Which tournament or show was this?

[/ QUOTE ]

This tournament was the 2005 World Series of Poker Tournament of Champions. It occurred 2 days ago at Caesar's Palace in Vegas and will air on December 24th this year.


The other tournament mentioned was a World Poker Tour Event. Hoyt did get mad lucky at that event, but IMO Hoyt outplayed Phil in this event. It was a competition between a somewhat tight aggressive player and a loose aggressive player.

There was a battle of poker philosophies at the event that I found interesting. Phil was arguing against Mike's loose style of play while Mike criticized Phil's somewhat weak-tight style of play. It was an ongoing discussion throughout the course of the tournament. Interestingly, neither side could see that both styles have their advantages and disadvantages, at least not verbally acknowledged.

Re: The Beauty of Mike Matusow\'s Game
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Which tournament or show was this?

[/ QUOTE ]

This tournament was the 2005 World Series of Poker Tournament of Champions. It occurred 2 days ago at Caesar's Palace in Vegas and will air on December 24th this year.


The other tournament mentioned was a World Poker Tour Event. Hoyt did get mad lucky at that event, but IMO Hoyt outplayed Phil in this event. It was a competition between a somewhat tight aggressive player and a loose aggressive player.

There was a battle of poker philosophies at the event that I found interesting. Phil was arguing against Mike's loose style of play while Mike criticized Phil's somewhat weak-tight style of play. It was an ongoing discussion throughout the course of the tournament. Interestingly, neither side could see that both styles have their advantages and disadvantages, at least not verbally acknowledged.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but that's why the top players know how to switch gears.

For Phil to play weak-tight as the huge chip leader at the final table, then refuse to open up even when it was down to the final three, was just stupid.

Apparently he's a control freak who just can't understand just how much luck there is in poker. Sometimes you just gotta shove your chips in preflop and hope for the best.

I know, I know, "How many bracelets do *I* have?"

But now that Corkins has revealed this huge leak in Phil's game, I think Phil's in trouble if he doesn't change his approach.

Re: The Beauty of Mike Matusow\'s Game
 

Thank you. I saw the wpt one before. Didn't know about the wsop toc. How did u guys see it if it didn't air yet?

Re: The Beauty of Mike Matusow\'s Game
 

[ QUOTE ]
Thank you. I saw the wpt one before. Didn't know about the wsop toc. How did u guys see it if it didn't air yet?

[/ QUOTE ]

Live updates at www.cardplayer.com. It's still up there, if you have some time to kill.

Re: The Beauty of Mike Matusow\'s Game
 

Phil is not supertight at all. He tries to take down alot of small pots with small raises and bets. Hes definitely a lose player in that respect.
Negreanu has said his main weakness is that he is afraid to play big pots when he will be only a marginal favorite like in the AQ hand and some people can exploit that. Granted if he gets a big rush of cards he'll probably have even more chips because people will try to make big bets to get him off pots.

Re: The Beauty of Mike Matusow\'s Game
 

Yeah, I agree. Good points.

I was thinking about it and noticed that Phil managed to stay even with the other 2 players with 3 left with what seemed to be significantly less risk. He gets props for that. Some other stuff, he made some mistakes. He had a read on Matusow and didn't take advantage which was a big mistake. Too risk averse.

He shifts gears too, but he doesn't properly adjust for other players being LAG.