Anyone else really dislike the showing of the QQ?

[Easy E]

WHY would you do that after someone made that laydown against you? What, you think they dumped Kings?

Stupid stupid stupid... but there was a fair amount of that on the show.

The A3 call on the all-in... does it make sense to play for a 3 outer (if you are behind) to take someone out? It wasn't an insignificant number of chips.

I did question Norm's rant about the Q9 call. He was getting over 2:1 and unless he figured to be way behind the short stack (if he held a big pair), he's getting pot odds to call and try to knock him out if he's holding a smaller pair or only one overcard.... or not?

If ESPN kisses up to the Crew (of Losers) one more time.... and the Jesus Card-o-Matic commericals can stop now (besides, isn't a cucumber harder to slice that way than a dinky carrot?)

The ending STILL kills me... lucky bastard

[Cleveland Guy]

I didn't have a problem with the showing of the QQ.

you told the guy he was right in his guess - in that his 10s were way behind.

You also build a lot of equity in future re-raises. Guy's will think of what you had last time when you re-raise all in.

I wouldn't have shown that 4,5 of Spades like that one guy did. He set himself up to be picked of.

[Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't have a problem with the showing of the QQ.

you told the guy he was right in his guess - in that his 10s were way behind.

You also build a lot of equity in future re-raises. Guy's will think of what you had last time when you re-raise all in.

I wouldn't have shown that 4,5 of Spades like that one guy did. He set himself up to be picked of.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did like the showing of the QQ, but I did not like not showing Fischman AK. Further, I didn't like the fact that he chatted up his QQ but was stone cold on the AK hand. With that being said, if Fischman puts him on AK, which I think he did, he made a solid laydown in my opinion.

[MicroBob]

i didnt watch the whole thing (i'll catch most of it via their 9-zillion re-runs) but i did see the QQ followed by the AK hands that Washington played.


i think he got really rattled when the other guy said 'so..you have kings' which was close enough to the truth to make washington realize that he was being pretty damn transparent.

that's why he clammed up on the AK hand too....he realized that the more he talked the more he was giving away and the stupider he looked.



i thought it was TERRIBLE of him to show his QQ there.
the guy could not have been 100% sure of his read for crying out loud....and by showing his Q's he basically was telling the whole table 'yep...i really am that easy to read.'

if he was sophisticated enough to send out false-tells after that then MAYBE showing the Q's is okay....but this wasn't the case. he knew that his tells were getting picked off.

he was going to muck...and then bowed into the peer-pressure of the table...you could distinctly hear someone say 'and he shows.....' and i think there was some other 'cmon...you HAVE to show after that kind of talk.'

washington should have just told them to 'suck it' and 'you guys can see it on tv in a couple months'.

[scotnt73]

exactly, but to be honest he was the worst player ive ever seen at a final table so nothing that he did surprised me. what about the guy that went all-in while only looking at the King. what a damn moron. he didnt look short stacked to me. someone tell me if i missed something. he was acting like he had somewhere to go!

[jacksfull]

I think he was actually short-stacked. He had quite a few checks, but the blinds were sky-high by then. Still, I would have looked at both of my cards.

[jjnidguy]

yeah it was probably a bad idea to show the QQ. I mean it showed everyone he didnt have too many balls which isnt a great thing to show a final table of cutthroats. Then again it could later on induce that wild player to play even more recklessly on the wrong hand. I think the fold could have been thought out more though. If his wild opponent had a King, he'd have trips and he wouldnt have overbet the pot the way he did. He obviously wouldve slow played in some way. But then again Ive never been to the final table of a WSOP event. Maybe after days of playing mind racking poker against pros and getting that far, you dont want to take any risks what so ever. Maybe he just wanted to abort that hand with acceptable losses. I have that attitude at final tables sometimes. He won in the end(without gratuitous luck) so I wont criticize his play to much. And he beat "the Knife" heads up. Dude, that is an accomplishment. Watching the Knife in that WPT event.... Man.. that dude is a great frickin player... mad props to him, hes totally underrated and there isnt enough buzz around martin de knuff.

[AaronO]

I did like the showing of the QQ, but I did not like not showing Fischman AK. Further, I didn't like the fact that he chatted up his QQ but was stone cold on the AK hand. With that being said, if Fischman puts him on AK, which I think he did, he made a solid laydown in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is laying down JJ to AK a solid laydown? I would think that you would be happy to get your money in if you think you're a favorite at all.

[JasonP530]

As stated in Sklansky's tournament book, and reinerated numerous other places, just because you have the best of it does not mean you want to get your money in. If there are 3 left, 2 guys have a exacly million and one has $5. The two with a million should never get all in with AK vs. QQ. Even if the guy with AK turned his hand up. The prize pool equity isnt even close.

[Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
As stated in Sklansky's tournament book, and reinerated numerous other places, just because you have the best of it does not mean you want to get your money in. If there are 3 left, 2 guys have a exacly million and one has $5. The two with a million should never get all in with AK vs. QQ. Even if the guy with AK turned his hand up. The prize pool equity isnt even close.

[/ QUOTE ]

Couldn't have stated it better myself, Thank you!