Whining Matusow, and a question

gisb0rne · #1 11-21-2005, 12:58 AM

I watched the first part of the final table WSOP and it seems like all Matusow does is whine. He thinks he's some kind of brilliant player but really all he did was play like a fish at a $11 SNG imo. The guy makes it to the final table out of thousands of players and he thinks it's due to his great play. No class at all.

"No justice when I play great."
"I played the best 6 days of my life."
After showing his 85s bluff: "I have to play great like that because I never get any cards or get a cooler (referring to his KK vs. AA)."

My question is: Do most players attribute their success in any given tournament to their great play? Do you think Hachem believes he won because he outplayed everyone or because he basically had the most luck?

Guthrie · #2 11-21-2005, 01:03 AM

Being a whiner like Matusow or Helmuth gets you a lot more TV time than Lederer or Ivey.

A_Junglen · #3 11-21-2005, 01:06 AM

After the KK vs AA he was obviously shaken, but he played EXTREMELY well leading up to the final table. I still can't get over the KQ allin hand vs 10-10 on the A-J-x board.

gisb0rne · #4 11-21-2005, 01:36 AM

What is playing well? Getting lucky that your opponent happens to have the right hands for your moves? Reading your opponents so you know that they are weak or strong? I think too much of "playing well" is just luck that turned out right.

Here's a simple example:

Lets say you're in the middle of a tourney and your opponent puts you all-in when you have QQ. Now that opponent has AA/KK 90% of the time and JJ or worse 10% of the time. If it's mathematically incorrect to call but you do and your opponent happens to have JJ...did you play well?

slipoker · #5 11-21-2005, 02:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think Hachem believes he won because he outplayed everyone or because he basically had the most luck?

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't Hachem go on record stating he got lucky on one hand the entire week? You have to be good to get lucky in a tournament, the longer you stay in based on skill, the more times you have to get lucky. I have not watched much of the WSOP coverage, but I can tell you this, it's a combination of skill and luck, and out of everyone at the final table, I think there is no question, that Matusow was the best player there. End of story.

#6 11-21-2005, 02:43 AM

I consider playing well is knowing what your opponent has and making the correct decision based on what that player's hand is (and knowing what he's going to do with it).

Your example is very flawed because two reasons--one being I've never even seen that specific example and two you wouldn't call with the QQ in that scenario. If you made that kind of mistake consistently (calling off your money with the worst hand) you wouldn't have even made the money.

gisb0rne · #7 11-21-2005, 04:51 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Your example is very flawed because two reasons--one being I've never even seen that specific example and two you wouldn't call with the QQ in that scenario. If you made that kind of mistake consistently (calling off your money with the worst hand) you wouldn't have even made the money.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you saw a pro make a call on TV with QQ vs. some schmuck's JJ how do you know it was correct? Just because the guy turned up with the inferior hand doesn't necessarily make it right, but it looks like the pro played great.

The pro's who make it to the final table aren't any better than the pro's that bust out on the first day, they just got one heck of a lot luckier. Matusow is smoking crack if he thinks he was unlucky or even just average luck in the WSOP. You don't get to the final table out of 6000 players without having a vast amount of luck.

tonypaladino · #8 11-21-2005, 06:14 AM

Matasow is a great poker player. If you can't see that, there's something wrong with you.

Hellmuth is great too, he just seems to have a problem adjusting to different situations.

JooWish622 · #9 11-21-2005, 11:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
What is playing well? Getting lucky that your opponent happens to have the right hands for your moves? Reading your opponents so you know that they are weak or strong? I think too much of "playing well" is just luck that turned out right.

Here's a simple example:

Lets say you're in the middle of a tourney and your opponent puts you all-in when you have QQ. Now that opponent has AA/KK 90% of the time and JJ or worse 10% of the time. If it's mathematically incorrect to call but you do and your opponent happens to have JJ...did you play well?

[/ QUOTE ]

i hate this guy

johnnybeef · #10 11-21-2005, 03:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I watched the first part of the final table WSOP and it seems like all Matusow does is whine. He thinks he's some kind of brilliant player but really all he did was play like a fish at a $11 SNG imo. The guy makes it to the final table out of thousands of players and he thinks it's due to his great play. No class at all.

"No justice when I play great."
"I played the best 6 days of my life."
After showing his 85s bluff: "I have to play great like that because I never get any cards or get a cooler (referring to his KK vs. AA)."

My question is: Do most players attribute their success in any given tournament to their great play? Do you think Hachem believes he won because he outplayed everyone or because he basically had the most luck?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for reminding me why I don't post in this forum much.