|
|
#42
11-19-2005, 12:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: wpt foxwoods
this is all obvious, but all you can do is put yourself in a position to be there. i played about as good as i can play and there was nothing i could do. i'm pretty confident that if you give me take's cards on day 3 i'm a millionaire today.
|
|
#43
11-19-2005, 05:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: wpt foxwoods
[ QUOTE ]
this is all obvious, but all you can do is put yourself in a position to be there. i played about as good as i can play and there was nothing i could do. i'm pretty confident that if you give me take's cards on day 3 i'm a millionaire today. [/ QUOTE ] You also took a 3-outer beat on the river after getting all in on the turn for a big pot. A few pots this way or that way and it's all different... Poker can be very cruel.
|
|
#44
11-19-2005, 05:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: wpt foxwoods
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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. [/ QUOTE ] You're joking right ? (about the college degrees)
|
|
#45
11-19-2005, 08:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: wpt foxwoods
[ QUOTE ]
Right, I'm aware that Gigabet has thoroughly convinced a critical mass of 2+2ers that he is the final frontier in poker, but I'm trying to highlight how absurd that is. [/ QUOTE ] Then this is more an argument of Gigabet's credibility then? Fine. I will take it that you've read through his strategy posts and narratives and you were unimpressed. I happen to think his opinions of other players holds a lot of weight, because he's one of the top sng players around and posts like the block theories and almost there with success and failure make him a valuable asset to the forum.
|
|
#46
11-19-2005, 10:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: wpt foxwoods
[ QUOTE ]
Then this is more an argument of Gigabet's credibility then? Fine. I will take it that you've read through his strategy posts and narratives and you were unimpressed. I happen to think his opinions of other players holds a lot of weight, because he's one of the top sng players around and posts like the block theories and almost there with success and failure make him a valuable asset to the forum. [/ QUOTE ] My argument has nothing to do with credibility or the quality of Gigabet's 2+2 prose. I just find it kind of hilarious that, as per some poster's comments, Takeover's accomplishment is not beating high stakes games regularly, nor a seemingly effortless ability to snap off large-field high stakes tournaments, but rather being the object of....GIGABET'S ENDORSEMENT! Gigabet's comment was flattering and nice and all but it holds as much importance as a similar statement from me on literature might: I read Old Man and The Sea. Man, that Hemingway, he's the best. You can trust me on that, because I've read them all.
|
|
#47
11-19-2005, 10:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: wpt foxwoods
[ QUOTE ]
This one could turn out to be a really key hand. Date / Time: 2005-11-18 14:14:00 Hand #25 - Nick Schulman has the button in seat 2, and Berman moves all in for $575,000, and Schulman quickly calls. Now Licastro goes into the tank in the big blind, and he studies the situation for several minutes before folding. Berman shows Ah-Jc, but he's dominated by Schulman's Ac-Kd. Berman needs to improve here to stay alive. The flop comes Qc-6s-2s, and Berman is in trouble, needing to catch a jack or a runner-runner straight to survive. The turn card is a blank (they didn't show it or announce it), and the river card is a 9. Lyle Berman is eliminated in fifth place, earning $345,000. 1. Nick Schulman - $4,200,000 (seat 2) 2. Tony Licastro - $1,300,000 (seat 3) 3. Allen Cunningham - $1,200,000 (seat 5) 4. Bill Gazes - $850,000 (seat 6) If Licastro was just showboating, nevermind. But, if he was really thinking, I figure there's a decent chance he had a pair, or maybe AQ. 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. Will be interesting to find out what Licastro had. [/ QUOTE ] I was in the audience for this final table right behing the Licastro contingent. After he folded, he came to the rail and told his buddies there he folded TT. That isn't necessarily true, but if it is, what do people think of the fold? I didn't like Tony's play at all; he seemed to just move in or fold all the time, even when he was not short stacked. The most baffling hand to me was the KT hand (Gazes opens for 115K, Shulman makes it 400K in the SB, Licastro pushes ~470K with KTo, Gazes pauses a while, then pushes with AA and Shulman instamucks-- flop comes QJ9 and Licastro about triples up). Is this a good play? It seems like he's basically saying "I think you're both full of it and I certainly have the best hand". Neither Gazes nor Shulman were particularly aggressive preflop up until that point (at least at the TV table) so I don't think he had reason to believe they both happened to pick that hand to get out of line. I suck at tournaments so if this is SOP, just say so.
|
|
#49
11-20-2005, 01:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: wpt foxwoods
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] This one could turn out to be a really key hand. Date / Time: 2005-11-18 14:14:00 Hand #25 - Nick Schulman has the button in seat 2, and Berman moves all in for $575,000, and Schulman quickly calls. Now Licastro goes into the tank in the big blind, and he studies the situation for several minutes before folding. Berman shows Ah-Jc, but he's dominated by Schulman's Ac-Kd. Berman needs to improve here to stay alive. The flop comes Qc-6s-2s, and Berman is in trouble, needing to catch a jack or a runner-runner straight to survive. The turn card is a blank (they didn't show it or announce it), and the river card is a 9. Lyle Berman is eliminated in fifth place, earning $345,000. 1. Nick Schulman - $4,200,000 (seat 2) 2. Tony Licastro - $1,300,000 (seat 3) 3. Allen Cunningham - $1,200,000 (seat 5) 4. Bill Gazes - $850,000 (seat 6) If Licastro was just showboating, nevermind. But, if he was really thinking, I figure there's a decent chance he had a pair, or maybe AQ. 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. Will be interesting to find out what Licastro had. [/ QUOTE ] I was in the audience for this final table right behing the Licastro contingent. After he folded, he came to the rail and told his buddies there he folded TT. That isn't necessarily true, but if it is, what do people think of the fold? [/ QUOTE ] i hate the fold. you'd think schulman would have reraised with anything bigger. maybe he would just call with jacks, but i don't know..
|
|
#50
11-20-2005, 01:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: wpt foxwoods
[ QUOTE ]
I just find it kind of hilarious that, as per some poster's comments, Takeover's accomplishment is not beating high stakes games regularly, nor a seemingly effortless ability to snap off large-field high stakes tournaments, but rather being the object of....GIGABET'S ENDORSEMENT! Gigabet's comment was flattering and nice and all but it holds as much importance as a similar statement from me on literature might: I read Old Man and The Sea. Man, that Hemingway, he's the best. You can trust me on that, because I've read them all. [/ QUOTE ] I was merely adding the gigabet thing rather than it be the "main point". I'm not even qualified to dispute Takeover's tourney and cash games skills.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
