ZeeJustin: A Case Study

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree completely. That reraise with AQss was ridiculous. The fact is, ZeeJustin had a healthy stack when that hand occured and was competely unjustified in taking such a gigantic risk. When a tight, early position player who has nearly as many chips as you do raises 1/3 of their stack, AQss is an extremely marginal hand to play, and reraising assuming he had fold equity was a pretty terrible play by Justin. Of course, we all know what happened that hand... unreal.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't recall reraising an EP raisor with AQs ever. What hand are you talking about? Or is this a joke that I'm just not getting?

[ansky451]

[ QUOTE ]
Or is this a joke that I'm just not getting?

[/ QUOTE ]

It sure seems that way.

[KaneKungFu123]

Are live tournaments deeper then online tournies?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't analyze him to find his weaknesses. Justin is a great player and everyone knows that. Poker will be poker. Are you saying Phil Ivey or Daniel Negreanu would be a losing player if you took out their wins? MTT are for the big scores, how can you say he got lucky this past Sunday? You make the smart plays, you get rewarded, easy as that. So in essence, if Justin wouldn't have won, then everyone else above him got lucky....I don't think so. I think too many people look at poker for luck.

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely agree, but the problem is you forgot to carry the two in your second calculation. If you did that, then you'd see that he made the right play coming over the top with AQss in the third hour.

[/ QUOTE ]

He won, stop arguing and quit being jealous. I bet if you won huge money like he does, you wouldn't be stepping your foot into any trash talk. He made the plays that mattered and won the tournament. Whether he came over the top, made the wrong calls...etc, he did what needed to be done, it's simple as that.

The reason why you people argue so much about how a player plays is because you try to put poker on a standardized system of playing and you're forgetting that everything is totally random!

[ansky451]

[ QUOTE ]
He won, stop arguing and quit being jealous. I bet if you won huge money like he does, you wouldn't be stepping your foot into any trash talk. He made the plays that mattered and won the tournament. Whether he came over the top, made the wrong calls...etc, he did what needed to be done, it's simple as that.

The reason why you people argue so much about how a player plays is because you try to put poker on a standardized system of playing and you're forgetting that everything is totally random!

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you for real?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't analyze him to find his weaknesses. Justin is a great player and everyone knows that. Poker will be poker. Are you saying Phil Ivey or Daniel Negreanu would be a losing player if you took out their wins? MTT are for the big scores, how can you say he got lucky this past Sunday? You make the smart plays, you get rewarded, easy as that. So in essence, if Justin wouldn't have won, then everyone else above him got lucky....I don't think so. I think too many people look at poker for luck.

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely agree, but the problem is you forgot to carry the two in your second calculation. If you did that, then you'd see that he made the right play coming over the top with AQss in the third hour.

[/ QUOTE ]

He won, stop arguing and quit being jealous. I bet if you won huge money like he does, you wouldn't be stepping your foot into any trash talk. He made the plays that mattered and won the tournament. Whether he came over the top, made the wrong calls...etc, he did what needed to be done, it's simple as that.

The reason why you people argue so much about how a player plays is because you try to put poker on a standardized system of playing and you're forgetting that everything is totally random!

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you missed a LOT of sarcasm.

[M.B.E.]

Is it true that with a 10% payout structure, good players, on average, are ITM only a little more than 10%? I would have guessed it is closer to 20%.

I understand your point that good players are aiming for the final table, not just to make it past the bubble, but even so: there are so many bad players who finish out of the money much more than 90% of the time.

[Johnnyj580]

[ QUOTE ]


He won, stop arguing and quit being jealous.

[/ QUOTE ]


Easier said than done. Everytime I go to his site to catch up on any big scores he's recently made, I'M JEALOUS.

I drew a table with Zee and Emptyseat88 in the WCOOP 7Hi/Lo. I was extremely impressed with Zee's play, but not so much as the 'other guy' (who happened to finish in the top 3). (Also: I played like [censored] crap in this tourney)


John
-What I wouldn't give to pick his brain for one day when he plays 50 $200+15 SNGs

[ QUOTE ]
I don't recall reraising an EP raisor with AQs ever. What hand are you talking about? Or is this a joke that I'm just not getting?

[/ QUOTE ]

I remember seeing you win a race with AQ close to the end. But I don't remember any other details.

[ QUOTE ]
if say you have a 100 buyin BR for $250 MTTs, you should NOT be playing $250 sats for $2500 buyin events. unless you're just playing them to sell the $2500. Variance will INCREASE.

[/ QUOTE ]

But according to Erik Lindgren: Even if online poker is not my thing, there are innumerable ways for the small time player (me!) to enter big-time tournaments without paying the full entry fee, which will often be $10,000 or more (gasp!). (How Erik?) Believe it or not, it's easy to get the the World Poker Tour. He'll show me not just how to get there, but how to win there.

So take that you 500 buy-in ninnies. I have a book, and a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.