Matusow's 97 hand vs Raymer

Annie Duke · #1 09-05-2004, 12:08 AM

Hi all--

I have been out of pocket for the last week and was wondering if there had been any discussion on here of Mike Matusow's 97s hand vs Raymer's AJd. I think it is an extremely interesting hand in terms of multi-table tournament theory and believe that Mike made a really severe mistake in calling there.

I was wondering if anyone had discussed it on here as I think it is a really important and interesting hand. Let me know and if it hasn't been talked to death already I will venture forth with my opinion on it ;-)

Annie

pokerraja · #2 09-05-2004, 12:17 AM

Hi Annie,
yes it has been talked about on here. there were quite a few threads about that particular hand. there were also some threads about that hand in the "world poker tour" section. I for one would be very interested to hear your analysis of the hand. I also thought it was a bad play by mike. He said he had a feeling. But in that situation a "feeling" is not good enough in my opinion.

nolanfan34 · #3 09-05-2004, 12:23 AM

Annie,

There have been some discussions. One thread in particular in the World Poker Tour, etc. area had a bunch of discussions about it.

Specifically the question was asked whether Mike realized he was behind or not, as Greg was a slight favorite after the flop.

Regardless of what discussion has taken place so far, it would be great to hear what you think about the hand. Having played with Mike, do you think this is a classic "Matusow meltdown" or was this an isolated incident? On the show, before calling he talks about his read of Greg, but I'm wonder what the read was. Probably just overcards, but not two diamonds.

nolanfan34 · #4 09-05-2004, 12:24 AM

Yeah, what he said. Beat me to the punch! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

AtlBrvs4Life · #5 09-05-2004, 12:25 AM

I would also like to know if Mike now realizes that he was behind on the flop and was holding the inferior hand. Has he admitted that his call was wrong?

nolanfan34 · #6 09-05-2004, 12:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I would also like to know if Mike now realizes that he was behind on the flop and was holding the inferior hand. Has he admitted that his call was wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

The strangest part was that I can't see him putting Greg on many hands that he could have been more than just a coinflip favorite on, unless he pegged him for a low PP or something like that. But that couldn't have been his read, because he should have known Greg wouldn't risk his tournament with an underpair to the flop most likely.

Still does strike me as such a strange hand, I just can't imagine risking most of my stack on that hand, unless he was just really obsessed with knocking Greg out for some reason, and decided to risk the coinflip.

lastchance · #7 09-05-2004, 12:32 AM

Well, in a cash game, if you know your opponents got that particular hand, you probably call, even if you're behind, because the pot's big enough where it's worth it to call.

In a MTT, it's different, though. If Matusow takes Raymer out, he has a huge chip stack which is great in MTT's, but being shortstacked sucks a lot more than have a huge number of chips ownz, IMHO.

And yeah, Matusow probably didn't know that raymer had enough outs to say he was the favorite. You want to take a stand against the aggresive bully, but I just don't know.

Annie Duke · #8 09-05-2004, 12:51 AM

Here is my opinion--Mike had a very healthy stack at the time of the hand. If he loses the hand he will lose 2/3 of his chip stack and be left with an extremely unhealthy stack. This is very important in deciding if the call was correct.

When Greg moves in after the flop it is pretty easy to put him on a narrow range of hands. He is aware that Mike called preflop so Greg is unlikely to be on a complete bluff here moving in on a tricky player who has called an early position raiser before the flop. So it felt to me like either a man protecting a hand like JJ or AT or somesuch--both of which have Mike buried or a man with a lot of outs like QJ, two overcard diamonds or, even worse, QJd. Against any of these hands Mike should not be calling even if he technically has the winning hand at the moment of the call.

Mike is basically a dog to any hand Raymer is moving in there with. Even if he takes a read that he might have technically the best hand at the time of the call Raymer is still likely to have a lot of outs regardless and may very well be a favorite, as, in fact, he was. Even though Mike was technically getting the right price on the hand he wasn't getting the right price on the range of hands Raymer could have. More importantly he was gambling 2/3 of a very large stack with the possibility of crippling himself on a coin flip. The problem with this is that chips don't have a constant value in a tournament because all the chips are palying for a fixed prize and they do not have a face value. The chips Mike was losing were worth a lot more to him than the chips he would be adding to his stack so this makes the price the pot was offering skewed in the negative direction--making the call even worse.

Another problem is that if you are playing at a table of maniacs--as Mike was--there is no need to gamble it up with them. You can pick up the money in a much better spot letting them bluff off to you when you have them buried. Mike's call there rewards the super aggressive player whose game is based on gamble rather than punishes that player. That is one of the biggest problems with the call.

JMHO, of course.

Annie

nolanfan34 · #9 09-05-2004, 01:02 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The chips Mike was losing were worth a lot more to him than the chips he would be adding to his stack so this makes the price the pot was offering skewed in the negative direction--making the call even worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's interesting you mention this idea. I've read about it in Sklansky's TPFAP, and this clearly is a great example of the concept.

Specifically it's ironic since during the episode Mike was making jokes about people only needing to get 25+ million more chips to win, and warning people to not blow it on one single hand.

Another question then for discussion. What about Matusow's PF call? Standard? ESPN's a little fuzzy about the stack sizes, blinds, etc, but I wondered about making a call like that PF when it's likely to be heads up Post-flop. I know pros play a wide range of hands...I guess in a tourney that big I'd worry about getting myself trapped into a bad decision.

Of course I'm weak/tight, FWIW

pokerraja · #10 09-05-2004, 01:06 AM

annie i totally understand and agree with your assesment of the hand. I however disagree with this quote you say "Mike's call there rewards the super aggressive player whose game is based on gamble rather than punishes that player. That is one of the biggest problems with the call". It sounds like you are discrediting raymer as a gambler rather than a solid/sound poker champion. I havent seen raymer play all that much, but from reading his essays/ threads, I would be willing to bet that he is as good as any of the top pros.