Matusow's 97 hand vs Raymer

[Annie Duke]

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]

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]

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

[nolanfan34]

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.

[Annie Duke]

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]

[ 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

[gergery]

Mike mentioned on one of the WPT broadcasts that he has a history of making one big-type mistake. That must have been it.

-greg

[sdplayerb]

he also blew up in the multi-rebuy event when paul phillips rivered a flush and it was obvious he was beat.
even negreanu, his good friend, said on tv what a terrible play it was.

he also had a similar hand to the WSOP final in the showdown at the sands when he made a push with the flush draw and Myung called with top pair (matusow had raised preflop).
Myung said thanks for the chips, and matusow made a comment on on how Myung was either barely ahead or crushed..implying a debatable call.
He was in the same situation here, and made the debatable call.

I also don't like his preflop call against a very aggressive player since unless he flops huge, he could have a very very tough decision.

And as Annie said, with that table, no reason to risk your chips in such a situation. Other than Greg, and until the other chip leader arrived, that was a great table to be at.

SD

[GoldenHorde]

I think its a great example of how strong aggressive play leads to other players playing poorly against you. When you are consistently hammering at everyone people want to make that "great" call when they hit any part of a flop.

Like you said it was obviously a bad call against any hand Greg was representing and I think that was more frustration then any sort of read Mike claimed to have.

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]
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.


[/ QUOTE ]

Let's assume for the moment that Mike had some sort of read that Raymer did not have a hand that was crushing him (JJ, AT, etc.). Also he should be aware that Raymer would not push with absolutely nothing, so I think (with the initial assumption) he should assume he is a slight dog to two overcard diamonds or QJ, which he IS getting the right price to call with. My assumption that Mike had such a read is giving him the benefit of the doubt, and the call is terrible without such. I think we can all agree on that.

BUT, despite that it would be a correct call in a cash game:

[ QUOTE ]

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.


[/ QUOTE ]

Your last sentence above is exactly why I don't like the call, and I believe I said as much in my other thread on the WPT forum. He's got a healthy stack, he can easily wait to be the aggressor against other players and build his stack with such a big chip lead. I believe that Raymer was pushing 200000 chips into an 87000 pot or so, which is plenty of overlay for the coinflip, but the fact that a call would cripple Mike makes it not worh it.

By the way, this is the thread that we have on that hand on the WPT board.