"Tourney players are idiots" -Mike Matusow - Page 2

adios · #11 06-05-2005, 12:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Even though he is annoying he has a good point, people who watch the wpt and such are being taught to love coinflips way too much, too much preflop pushing really diminishes the skill of the game, which is mainly seen postflop.

[/ QUOTE ]

When people need chips what else are they supposed to do? My take on what Matusow stated was that he took up big cards against short stacks with pairs and lost more than his share in a short period (doubt if he lost 6 in a row btw) when he was a slight dog. Sklansky in his tournament book pointed out this flaw in the structure of NL Hold'em i.e. that moving all in pre-flop negates a superior players advantage alot (not totally). Lot's of money to be won in these tournaments and when people recognize they need chips to have a competitive stack they try to double up so they're willing to gamble.

fyodor · #12 06-05-2005, 12:48 AM

your idea of funny and my idea of funny differ a lot.

He was attempting to cover up what he considered a bad beat story with what he considered humour. He was beat preflop and he wasn't funny.

Tough luck.

David Sklansky · #13 06-05-2005, 12:51 AM

"What I meant was that although the hands turned out to be best, the players making the plays, in many cases, seem not to understand that they are pushing a way behind/nominally ahead situation."

That analysis is flawed. Because they are the ones who are doing the pushing. I'll let others elaborate.

arvin · #14 06-05-2005, 12:55 AM

I like how he named Can Kim Hua a different name. Can Can Cua. I think the luck factor in these tournaments will be huge. Mike did admit his stupidity when he said he bluffed off his last remaining chips.

WSOPwinner10 · #15 06-05-2005, 12:57 AM

David, I usually agree with you, but you're wrong here

"That analysis is flawed. Because they are the ones who are doing the pushing. I'll let others elaborate."

Surely you know if a guy raises to 20,000 and you have 30,000 and you go all in, the guy calls with any two and is correct to. That is the situation Matusow and Rushmore were talking about.

TimTimSalabim · #16 06-05-2005, 01:01 AM

It doesn't diminish the skill of the game at all. Part of the skill of the game is to adjust to weak players, which apparently Matusow failed to do.

lorinda · #17 06-05-2005, 01:06 AM

Why is he trying to steal the blinds with Q8 off someone who can reraise him with hands like 33? (and presumably KQ, 99, Q9s, A2, KT etc).

Edited list of hands to make my point more clear.

Lori

TimTimSalabim · #18 06-05-2005, 01:16 AM

That's just what I was thinking when I was watching the video. Gee Mike, if people are calling your all-ins with any small pair, maybe you should stop making moves on them with K high.

Rushmore · #19 06-05-2005, 01:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
"What I meant was that although the hands turned out to be best, the players making the plays, in many cases, seem not to understand that they are pushing a way behind/nominally ahead situation."

That analysis is flawed. Because they are the ones who are doing the pushing. I'll let others elaborate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I should have finished with "...against a player who will definitely not be folding."

TransientR · #20 06-05-2005, 01:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
That's just what I was thinking when I was watching the video. Gee Mike, if people are calling your all-ins with any small pair, maybe you should stop making moves on them with K high.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is what I thought. Last time I checked any small/medium pair is a slight favorite over two overcards head-to-head. And Mike's saying he lost six coin flips in a row lacks credibility, IMO.

Frank