wpt foxwoods

[shaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
If he decides to go all-in with either of those hands, he wins this hand and has something like a 3.2M to 2.3M chip advantage over Nick w/ a couple of guys within striking range at around 1M. Instead, he folds, and Nick takes a commanding lead, far ahead of the other three.


[/ QUOTE ]

And if my grandmother had wheels, she would be a bus.

Why are these what-would-have-been musings so intriguing to you?

Oh, yeah, and CONGRATS NICK!

[daryn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If he decides to go all-in with either of those hands, he wins this hand and has something like a 3.2M to 2.3M chip advantage over Nick w/ a couple of guys within striking range at around 1M. Instead, he folds, and Nick takes a commanding lead, far ahead of the other three.


[/ QUOTE ]

And if my grandmother had wheels, she would be a bus.

Why are these what-would-have-been musings so intriguing to you?

Oh, yeah, and CONGRATS NICK!

[/ QUOTE ]


he's just commenting on the rollercoaster nature of these huge poker tournaments that make superstars out of the winners.

oh, and i would have gone with: "if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle"

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If he decides to go all-in with either of those hands, he wins this hand and has something like a 3.2M to 2.3M chip advantage over Nick w/ a couple of guys within striking range at around 1M. Instead, he folds, and Nick takes a commanding lead, far ahead of the other three.


[/ QUOTE ]

And if my grandmother had wheels, she would be a bus.

Why are these what-would-have-been musings so intriguing to you?

Oh, yeah, and CONGRATS NICK!

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are they intriguing? Man, tourney poker is one of those things where one card or one good/bad super-close call is often the difference between busting out for $25,000 (or nothing!) and making $2 million!!! How can you not find that interesting? To me, that is pretty much the most interesting part of tourney poker!

Raymer at WSOP against that Kanter guy. Raymer doesn't get sucked out on and he has a solid shot at being repeat WSOP champion. Instead, Raymer is out and Kanter makes a couple mil or whatever. Man, I don't see how you don't find this stuff intriguing!

As for Nick, as a 21yo WPT champion and a successful high-limit cash game player both live and online, I think he is potentially the most marketable person in poker right now (possibly moreso than Raymer/Hachem/etc.).

[shaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If he decides to go all-in with either of those hands, he wins this hand and has something like a 3.2M to 2.3M chip advantage over Nick w/ a couple of guys within striking range at around 1M. Instead, he folds, and Nick takes a commanding lead, far ahead of the other three.


[/ QUOTE ]

And if my grandmother had wheels, she would be a bus.

Why are these what-would-have-been musings so intriguing to you?

Oh, yeah, and CONGRATS NICK!

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are they intriguing? Man, tourney poker is one of those things where one card or one good/bad super-close call is often the difference between busting out for $25,000 (or nothing!) and making $2 million!!! How can you not find that interesting? To me, that is pretty much the most interesting part of tourney poker!

Raymer at WSOP against that Kanter guy. Raymer doesn't get sucked out on and he has a solid shot at being repeat WSOP champion. Instead, Raymer is out and Kanter makes a couple mil or whatever. Man, I don't see how you don't find this stuff intriguing!

As for Nick, as a 21yo WPT champion and a successful high-limit cash game player both live and online, I think he is potentially the most marketable person in poker right now (possibly moreso than Raymer/Hachem/etc.).

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree wholeheartedly with all your characterizations. Maybe I just play so many tournaments, that I'm clearly immune to it, and consider the freaky nature of MTTs just par for the course.

I originally read your comment on Nick as "remarkable" rather than "markettable" and though both are quite true, it remains to be seen how agressively Nick will pursue his marketting potential.

To me, the most interesting thing about all of this is that there are scores of kids who, at 21, have access to knowledge and opportunity that I never did at that age--and that was only seven years ago!

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If he decides to go all-in with either of those hands, he wins this hand and has something like a 3.2M to 2.3M chip advantage over Nick w/ a couple of guys within striking range at around 1M. Instead, he folds, and Nick takes a commanding lead, far ahead of the other three.


[/ QUOTE ]

And if my grandmother had wheels, she would be a bus.

Why are these what-would-have-been musings so intriguing to you?

Oh, yeah, and CONGRATS NICK!

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are they intriguing? Man, tourney poker is one of those things where one card or one good/bad super-close call is often the difference between busting out for $25,000 (or nothing!) and making $2 million!!! How can you not find that interesting? To me, that is pretty much the most interesting part of tourney poker!

Raymer at WSOP against that Kanter guy. Raymer doesn't get sucked out on and he has a solid shot at being repeat WSOP champion. Instead, Raymer is out and Kanter makes a couple mil or whatever. Man, I don't see how you don't find this stuff intriguing!

As for Nick, as a 21yo WPT champion and a successful high-limit cash game player both live and online, I think he is potentially the most marketable person in poker right now (possibly moreso than Raymer/Hachem/etc.).

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree wholeheartedly with all your characterizations. Maybe I just play so many tournaments, that I'm clearly immune to it, and consider the freaky nature of MTTs just par for the course.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't find it unusual, and I obviously EXPECT that is what will happen in tourneys. I just find that situation to be interesting. One turn of a card is potentially the difference between someone spending the next five years dealing cards and making $30k/year or being a household name and poker superstar.

This fascinates me in all walks of life. We just happen to talk about poker here. However, I find this just as interesting in all walks of life. In entertainment, getting cast on one sitcom vs. another is the difference between being Jennifer Aniston and some random waitress or stripper in LA. One guy liking a song at your showcase can be the difference between being international rock star or a guy with some random job. Here in the Bay Area, it is stunning to see what single events end up propelling one company to be worth billions while another almost identical company never makes it off the ground. I find all this kind of stuff fascinating.


[ QUOTE ]
I originally read your comment on Nick as "remarkable" rather than "markettable" and though both are quite true, it remains to be seen how agressively Nick will pursue his marketting potential.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea how good this kid is, but one has to respect that he has been successful across a wide range of games both online and live (NL, limit, tourney, ring, etc). This is much more impressive to me than guys who have some really hot run in one specific area.

[ QUOTE ]
To me, the most interesting thing about all of this is that there are scores of kids who, at 21, have access to knowledge and opportunity that I never did at that age--and that was only seven years ago!

[/ QUOTE ]

On the flip side, seven years ago kids had an unprecedented opportunity to make $100M+ if they had the right idea and a lot of luck and good timing in the dot-com boom.

[shaniac]

[ QUOTE ]


On the flip side, seven years ago kids had an unprecedented opportunity to make $100M+ if they had the right idea and a lot of luck and good timing in the dot-com boom.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah but those kids, for the most part, had or needed college degrees, which is a big difference. Also, probably more luck.

[ClaytonN]

[ QUOTE ]

I have no idea how good this kid is, but one has to respect that he has been successful across a wide range of games both online and live (NL, limit, tourney, ring, etc). This is much more impressive to me than guys who have some really hot run in one specific area.

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW, Gigabet has said on this forum that he considers Takeover to be the most tough and difficult player to play against, this being from experience between the two in multiple tournaments and huge HU SNG's. I have no idea how good Takeover is either, but that statement says a lot.

wow he looked young didn't know he was 21 years old...goddamn he's gotta be the youngest major tourney winner in poker history. i guess it was a matter of time before a 21 year old kid would win a major televised tourney. after this shows, every kid will want to be like him and play poker.

[N 82 50 24]

In terms of "what if" scenarios, there was a big one with 30-something people left...

I was railtarding Steve Jacobs (aka stevesbets, a friend of mine from home) and he had about 250K in chips. He raised from MP with 88, BB calls with A5. The flop came 456 and the BB check, Steve bet about 2/3 of the pot and the BB raised all in... leaving Steve with about 75K if he called and lost. He called after a short think and the turn came A to give the pot to the BB (Abe Gray). The BB in the hand then had a stack of almost 400K. While you can say "that's poker," the stack really should have been Steve's. Anyway, the next hand (or maybe two hands later), Gray doubled up Nick's KK with AQ on a Q66 flop. He should have lost money for sure, but it isn't the type of hand you really want to lose virtually all of your chips with. That's where Nick initially got his big stack and he managed to cruise with that to the win... Without that 5 outer hitting for a loose player, Nick may not have accumulated the chips that later allowed him to abuse Haligon (as far as we could tell on the rail) and the rest of the table on the way to the win.

[ QUOTE ]
In terms of "what if" scenarios, there was a big one with 30-something people left...

I was railtarding Steve Jacobs (aka stevesbets, a friend of mine from home) and he had about 250K in chips. He raised from MP with 88, BB calls with A5. The flop came 456 and the BB check, Steve bet about 2/3 of the pot and the BB raised all in... leaving Steve with about 75K if he called and lost. He called after a short think and the turn came A to give the pot to the BB (Abe Gray). The BB in the hand then had a stack of almost 400K. While you can say "that's poker," the stack really should have been Steve's. Anyway, the next hand (or maybe two hands later), Gray doubled up Nick's KK with AQ on a Q66 flop. He should have lost money for sure, but it isn't the type of hand you really want to lose virtually all of your chips with. That's where Nick initially got his big stack and he managed to cruise with that to the win... Without that 5 outer hitting for a loose player, Nick may not have accumulated the chips that later allowed him to abuse Haligon (as far as we could tell on the rail) and the rest of the table on the way to the win.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah that's certainly interesting...every hand is that important and affects subsequent hands. kinda makes you wonder how perfect you need things to be set up for you to enter the winner's circle.

u went to penn? the penn crew seem to be doing pretty well in vegas