The dude who cried when his K high flush lost

[EnderW27]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've been playing for a long time and never saw anybody cry at the table before. I've seen some people whose lives were ruin by gambling cry in a bar, but not at the table.

There's no crying in poker(at the table).

[/ QUOTE ]

I once lost to a runnerrunnerrunnerrunner draw, and that was when my parets drove all the way down from michigan to see my play the game! and did I cry? No. Do you know why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your parents sealed your tear ducts shut with acid when you were two?

[ QUOTE ]

This was shortly after my QQ hit it's set against a guy with AA (we got all-in AFTER I hit the set) and he was down to $1k chips in an instant. He didn't cry either.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read that this is exactly what happened to Stephen Hendry, the ex multiple world snooker champ, this year - do you know if this was him?

[Kyle Stark]

[ QUOTE ]
but yes, a Milwaukees Best commercial is in order here.

[/ QUOTE ]

When i actually invisioned a giant beer can crushing the guy with the tag line "Men should act like men"....Coke came out my nose at work.



When fossil man won 5 mil and was watching the footage with his wife and teared up, fine...i probably would too. That is life changing. When the no armed guy was tearing up in the interview...fine...again he's there doing something he didn't think possible after a devistating life altering event making it improbable.

Matusow could go either way, his life was in ruins and he thought that was his big chance to get it back together and lost it on a coin flip (even though he thought he was way ahead).

When you lost to the absolute nut and you have the 2nd nut AND you don't go broke....man up.

And on the flip side though, the other guy doing a touch down and saying "that's what I'm talking about" ...that' burns my ass cause the hand played itself on the river so why act like you did something brilliant.

[ QUOTE ]
Did anyone feel bad for this guy? " I played perfectly for 3 days" Give me a break. Do you want your mommy? Maybe David William's mom can bring you some milk and cookies to make you feel better.
Be a man. You're playing poker not tiddly winks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like the announcer said "I doubt that". And its possible to play perfectly and still lose. So your second nut got busted. Happens.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]

And its possible to play perfectly and still lose.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yes, it's possible.

But anyone who says they played perfectly for any extended period amount of time either doesn't know what "perfectly" means OR doesn't understand what perfect poker is.

With the boatload of a mistakes many of us make on a regular basis, I find it horrifying when Random Guy On TV thinks that under what might've been the most pressure he's ever been on that he did something I don't think he (or almost anyone on the planet) is actually capable of doing.

Now if he said "I played well for three days..." or "I played solidly for three days..." it would be an entirely different animal and I'd buy it.

But not "perfect."

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

Me - im more likely to say "I didnt suck too badly this week". [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

But name 3 people who lay this hand down as we saw it on TV? To me, it looked as though the winner was trying to push him off a baby flush, not the second nut.

[Miggo]

re: playing perfect poker.

Is this a true statement?

If you have the nuts after the river with one other in the hand, and you don't double up or put him out, there is no way to tell if you played the hand perfect.

Because on the river when you bet, you need to bet something you think he'll call, and if you don't don't go all in or put him all in, you'll never know if you bet the perfect amount. Is this being to results orientated, and when you talk about playing perfect poker is this being too specific? Just thought I'd throw this out there. I think this is a very interesting topic. I try to take the Fossilman approach and try to make the best decision whenever I have to make one, and a big part of this is the size of the bet. Thanks for the good discussion on this.

[BarronVangorToth]

I think you can play a hand perfectly (i.e. there is no way to play it better). This is VERY hard - especially in NL.

However, to say you did that two hands in a row ... 10 in a row ... hundreds in a row ... THOUSANDS in a row...

See?

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

Another variable as to why it is near impossible to play perfect, is that you do not always know what your opponent has. If you win the pot w/out a showdown, you may think you played the hand perfectly but you may have been able to extract more money from him (No limit, especially), so even though you won, you did not play perfectly.
This illustrates the fallacy of results oriented thinking in poker. The guy who cried is being way too results oriented, in this regard.

I haven't seen a lot of hand analysis on this, and I tend to think it might have been a poor call. Granted, ESPN almost NEVER graces us with the pot size, bet size, etc, and we did not see the run of the hand until the river, so it's not as easy to judge. But if you're forced to call off a large percentage of your chips on a river raise with a three-flush board, I am not sure you can call without the nuts or a dead-solid read.

And it is read-dependent, no doubt. Again, we didn't see the hand play out. But you when players move in on a three-flush board, they're almost always on 1) a bluff trying to use a scare card or 2) the nuts.

I would guess there are plenty of fish out there who overvalue J-high flushes, etc, but at that late stage in the main event? I think if you call off that many of your chips there, you can go ahead and stop talking about how you've played "perfect."