A Response to Hellmuth and Matusow

oaktoon · #1 06-05-2005, 10:03 PM

Phil amd Mike-- ever willing to use their vocal cords-- each basically attacked amateur players at the WSOP yesterday for their willingness to b et coin flips and push excessively. They each argue that one of the beauties of NLHE is the post-flop action and that is being lost in the WPT/TV in general influenced penchant for the all-in bet.

Let me first state that I see a lot of value in their arguments and they each have-- to use Matusow's own words when he was a chip leader yesterday-- earned some credibility as protectors of their sport/craft.

But I respectfully disagree from this standpoint: to play that way may be the amateur's best chance and he/she/we know it.

By way of introduction, I've been playing in live events for 6 months (40 or so by now) and another 6 before that on the internet. Never before at such a venue as the WSOP. But I'm a halfway decent player-- made level 5 in Event Two-- played in two supersatellites the last two days and made the final table in one-- I was the "bubble"-- and the 2nd to last table in the other. I'm not a fool. And my appreciation for the game grows daily.

But aside from the fact that Phil and Mike now owe a fair amount of their livelihoods to all of us amateurs-- (if pro golfers could once say they credited Arnold palmer for a quarter of every dollar they earned, and Tiger Woods now probably twice that, I'd say the top poker pros owe .75 of each dollar to Moneymaker, Raymer, ESPN and the lipstick camera which brought all of us to poker)-- I would think one can defend the amateurs' play.

I know that in extended combat with any of the top pros, I'm going to get beat. But if I have a draw like the guy who crippled hellmuth yesterday (and Phil, you have no right to complain since if the guy put you on the most likely hand-- AJ-- he not only had the 7 outs on the straight draw, the 7 additional outs for the flush, but he also likely had 6 more outs from his K-Q overcards (he didn't of course since Phil had two pair)-- how could anyone not have called with a chance to double up with 20 outs twice???), I'm gonna take it.

And that would apply to another key juncture or two in the tournament. We aren't as good, so at some point we-- like Columbus-- have to take a chance. In my case I was crippled by the last hand before Level Four. I had 5000 chips and was UTG. I told myself don't play the hand, but then I looked at Big Slick. Limped-- no raise until the SB who pushed with about 3000 chips. I thought "he probably has JJ or QQ, but it could be a lesser ace"-- so i gambled. Hit a K on the flop, but with the Q on the flop came a 9 and 10 on the turn and river to fill out his straight. Maybe I should have been more careful, but as a pretty good amateur as opposed to a great pro, I figured I had a decent shot at getting a nice stack, so I took it.

I don't believe we're ruining poker, though again I can see the validity of Phil/Mike's complaints. It is what it is-- the world changed two years ago, and it's never going back.

Phill S · #2 06-05-2005, 10:11 PM

One deals drugs with Fed agents and the other made just over 60K playing poker last year.

If they cant adjust to the new age of poker, who cares?

The more things change, the more they stay the same - faces come and go, but the game stays the same.

Phill

SoftcoreRevolt · #3 06-05-2005, 10:17 PM

That isn't at all fair to say about Mike.

d10 · #4 06-05-2005, 10:18 PM

Yeah it's rediculous. But I hear there's a new form of poker where you can't just push all-in whenever you want. The betting is structured, effectively forcing post flop play. Sounds interesting, maybe it will catch on?

Probably not.

toots · #5 06-05-2005, 11:05 PM

Thanks to TV, most of the new Hold 'Em players think that "all in" is the entirety of the game.

Sorta like playing russian roulette with three loaded chambers. Rather pointless when you think about it.

paperboyNC · #6 06-05-2005, 11:21 PM

In TPFAP Sklanksy criticizes NL hold'em as tournament poker because a player can simply move all-in pre-flop a lot and force tough decisions on pros.

Skipbidder · #7 06-06-2005, 12:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]
That isn't at all fair to say about Mike.

[/ QUOTE ]

Might not be fair, but is straightforwardly true.

My dislike for him doesn't have anything to do with this, however. I don't like him because he is a prick.

daryn · #8 06-06-2005, 12:01 AM

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
I'd say the top poker pros owe .75 of each dollar to Moneymaker, Raymer, ESPN and the lipstick camera which brought all of us to poker)-

[/ QUOTE ]

uhh... some of us played poker BM.. before moneymaker.

NLfool · #9 06-06-2005, 12:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah it's rediculous. But I hear there's a new form of poker where you can't just push all-in whenever you want. The betting is structured, effectively forcing post flop play. Sounds interesting, maybe it will catch on?

Probably not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh yeah it's already kind of caught on. It's called Pot Limit

twankerr · #10 06-06-2005, 12:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah it's rediculous. But I hear there's a new form of poker where you can't just push all-in whenever you want. The betting is structured, effectively forcing post flop play. Sounds interesting, maybe it will catch on?

Probably not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh yeah it's already kind of caught on. It's called Pot Limit

[/ QUOTE ]

yah...POT LIMIT IS WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT.