WSOP Day 1A: "Official" Results, News & Discussion

[Jurollo]

[ QUOTE ]
There were 1,885 players playing today

i have seen 2 figures for top prize. one is $7mil, the other $10mil.

if they have almost 6,000 players and only pay $7mil (or even 10 mil imho because the field is at least double, plus ~800 players) then this sucks. 2500 players paid $5MIL. more than double that field and only add $2mil to first? this is insanely flat and/or deep.

[/ QUOTE ]
The tourney director told me it was 15% to 1st. There were 5,661 entries so that makes 1st over $8mill.
~Justino

[GrannyMae]

15% to 1st

that's brutal

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
15% to 1st

that's brutal

[/ QUOTE ]

You can always play in some other tournament that pays out $8M for first place.

I think the idea of a flatter and deeper payout for the main event is good. It'll keep people coming back.

[pokergripes]

[ QUOTE ]
In six pots in the prior twenty minutes, this guy never stopped betting once he started. I was 100% sure that he was going to bet the river regardless of what card came. I did not think he had diamonds, and so I was intending to check-jam on any river but an A and an 8.

I don't know if I could have gotten away from it if he'd bet my stack on the river. Hindsight is 20:20, but I'd say it was 50:50.

[/ QUOTE ]

IF you are pretty sure that:

--He does not have a diamond draw, and

--He will bet the river with top two even if a diamond comes off, and

--He might get away from the hand for a push of your last $8,000 or so in chips at the $5,000 pot on the turn if you check raise,

then I think it's a mildly better play to check-call the turn (like you did), rather than jamming on the turn when he bets the $2k into the $3k pot.

However, when he calls my check-raise on the flop and then underbets the turn, I also worry that he could have an overset (such as the eights), or a diamond draw, given his propensity to auto-bet even when he should take a free card (like he should here with the diamonds, unless he's going to over-bet to try to take it down right there on the semi-bluff).

So, I think a lot of things have to be "just so" for the check-call to be better, or you have to be worried he could have the over set of eights.

The <10% risk of him hitting his four outer can't be the reason to check-call if you're putting him on top two, but with the added concern that he could have the set of eights given his flop and turn play, I think you can justify a "wait and see" approach if you're pretty sure you're not letting him draw cheaply for the diamonds. However, if you gave him a meaningful chance of holding diamonds, then I think you'd have to bet at least the $3k pot on the turn to freeze him out anyway in the first place (can't take the risk he checks behind you)...therefore, I like your play of the turn more after thinking about it more, although not really for the "tourney life" reason you suggested, but rather because he also could be holding the set of eights given how he played it.

[Howard Treesong]

[ QUOTE ]
therefore, I like your play of the turn more after thinking about it more, although not really for the "tourney life" reason you suggested, but rather because he also could be holding the set of eights given how he played it.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I'm in a set over set position here and the river is an immaterial card, then I'm going broke to the hand. This guy was quite aggressive, and his play is consistent with a middle or big A. The A was scary enough to slow me down, but my thumbs would burn off from shoving in on the river to any bet by this guy on any card but an A or a diamond, and MAYBE an 8.

This guy is aggressive enough that there's just no way to isolate his hand to 88 with enough precision to warrant a fold. AK-AT or A8 from him plays similarly. There are three ways for him to hold 88, but 50+ ways for him to hold a big A or A8. And with this guy, I discount 88 even further because I think he'd make a bigger raise from the button against many limpers with that hand.

[TimTimSalabim]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
15% to 1st

that's brutal

[/ QUOTE ]

You can always play in some other tournament that pays out $8M for first place.

I think the idea of a flatter and deeper payout for the main event is good. It'll keep people coming back.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mike Caro makes some interesting counter-arguments here.

[Biloxi]

[ QUOTE ]
Danno and Moneymaker

[/ QUOTE ]

cousins?

[pokergripes]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
therefore, I like your play of the turn more after thinking about it more, although not really for the "tourney life" reason you suggested, but rather because he also could be holding the set of eights given how he played it.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I'm in a set over set position here and the river is an immaterial card, then I'm going broke to the hand. This guy was quite aggressive, and his play is consistent with a middle or big A. The A was scary enough to slow me down, but my thumbs would burn off from shoving in on the river to any bet by this guy on any card but an A or a diamond, and MAYBE an 8.

This guy is aggressive enough that there's just no way to isolate his hand to 88 with enough precision to warrant a fold. AK-AT or A8 from him plays similarly. There are three ways for him to hold 88, but 50+ ways for him to hold a big A or A8. And with this guy, I discount 88 even further because I think he'd make a bigger raise from the button against many limpers with that hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I think I lay your hand down if he pushes on the river absent my having filled in a purely good way for me (ace pairing is not on that list), and I also think he doesn't necessary push with three eights if a diamond comes off...but that being said, if you were prepared to call a push on the river and get busted by three eights, then I think you did need to jam on the turn, because there was also a risk that he held the diamonds. But obviously a close call either way, and much easier to talk about with the twin benefits of time and hindsight...!

btw, have you been playing with grant the past day or two?