Anyone have Exact Chip Counts of the Raymer vs. Kanter hand?

[DesertCat]

[ QUOTE ]
My point is that this late in the tournament, after having outlasted 6k people, you don't NEED to make this play. You don't NEED to put yourself in a position to get outdrawn. Why even take that chance?


[/ QUOTE ]

If there were 25 players left, Greg's stack was below par (average would have been 2.3M, assuming Greg had 2.1M at the start of the hand). In an equal field, his odds were 25-1. But let's say he's 20% better than the field (which is my memory of what he thought at that point), such that he was only 20-1.

Increasing his stack to 2.7M makes him 15.6-1 (with same 20% "skill" advantage) or 6% to win. Increasing his stack to 4.2M would make him 9.6-1, or 10.4% to win.

So look at is as he took an 82% likely gamble that if he won, meant he could win 73% more often.

Of course I'm oversimplifying in your favor. Pushing on the turn is a disaster if his opponent has a made straight or set, so there is no 100% Kantor folds scenario. Playing the hand the way Greg did ensured that while he still lost the same to made hands, he won much more from bluffs and from charging for draws. Pushing just ensures you lose the max and win the minimum.

[Brad F.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, Mike Matusow called Greg an Internet Donkey on TV. I mean, it must be true, right?

Remember to only get your money in with the nuts, NEVER try to force your opponents to make mistakes that potentially cost them all their chips.

Gotta love these new posters that pop up with single-digit posts and start trying to tell the 2004 WSOP champion and the guy who fought through 5600 players again this year and finished 25th that he played it wrong. Ugh.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, I didn't know there was a post count qualification that you had to meet before responding to a hand strategy discussion. I also didn't know that the 2004 World Series Champ was beyond review. (someone should tell this to the Moneymaker haters)

No wonder everyone gets run off this board. I posted my opinion, and forget that this is Raymer, and just think about the hand logically. All you guys seem to think it's great that Raymer put his tournament life in jeopardy As a 82% favorite at this stage in the tourney.


[/ QUOTE ]

FYP.

Please tell me when Greg should've put his tourney on the line? Not when he had aces, because he's not even an 80% favoirte against most hands PF.

Your argument is that Greg shouldn't have put his tournament on the line. Ok. Fine. But when should he have?

You can't just hope to win without showdowns or fold when you have a chance of getting drawn out on. Right?

If your argument is simply "He should've waited until later", I guess that's fine. But Greg would've at some point had to have gotten his money in to win this tournament. He would've had to face a showdown. Greg wasn't playing just to make a million. He was trying to win.

That being said, he played this hand perfectly.

Your comment about the Williamson hand makes me think that he should've folded that too... do you think that's the case?

Brad

[mlagoo]

obviously you fold aces preflop if you have a decent chipstack with 25 players left in the wsop. why risk it?

You make some great points. Nice to see there's someone with a brain that's willing to discuss the hand/strategy logically. Instead of the: "Raymer's great, he plays perfectly, how dare you, you're a troll, you suck, etc".

I agree completely with the accumulation theory. You have to take chances, you have to get your money in when you have the best hand, and you're there to win not just survive. However, in my opinion, the accumulation phase was completed at this point. I believe with the blinds and antes that Raymer would've taken at least a 700k pot, and put him a little above 3mill. Raymer had to feel that he could outplay most of the people left. He could easily play smallball here. Matusow made a great point regarding Ivey. He said every time he looked over, Ivey was involved in a big pot. He said he knew that Ivey wouldn't last because of his strategy. It would've been different if Raymer was below average in chips, and needed to double. He didn't. He would've been near the chip leaders with a 700k pot. Survival was more important here, on this hand, then trying to double up.

[grandgnu]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, I didn't know there was a post count qualification that you had to meet before responding to a hand strategy discussion. I also didn't know that the 2004 World Series Champ was beyond review. (someone should tell this to the Moneymaker haters)

No wonder everyone gets run off this board. I posted my opinion, and forget that this is Raymer, and just think about the hand logically. All you guys seem to think it's great that Raymer put his tournament life in jeopardy on one pair (he didn't know what Kanter had, btw) at this stage in the tourney.
Why isn't there any posts yelling at Hachem for his absurd move of pushing all his stack in when Ivey made a play at the pot. He had trip Jacks. He should've sucked more chips from Ivey, right? I mean, it would've put him in a great position to win. Oh yeah, he did win. My bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ugh. If you come in here like some self-assured "plick" when you have 1 and 1/2 posts on these boards, and begun to criticize the play of someone like Greg Raymer, yeah, you're going to get run off the boards. Here's why:

1. You're WRONG

2. Greg was RIGHT

3. Greg bested something like 2500 players in 2004 and outlasted close to 5600 this year and had a shot at winning it again. You don't get THAT lucky in large fields like that two years in a row, there's obviously an extremely high level of skill involved.

4. Raymer caused his opponent to make a mistake and created a large pot that would make it even easier for him to bully others and accumulate chips, as most of the remaining players were trying to move up in the money spots.

Poker is about causing your opponents to make mistakes (whether it's getting their money in as a dog to you, or getting them to fold a better hand).

Raymer got unlucky, but was a huge favorite to win. The guy was a donk for playing Q/J sooted anyway. Even if he hits his pair, he's likely behind if Raymer is on A/Q or A/J. The guy saw sooted paint cards and decided to gamble with them.

Then he didn't believe Raymer had a hand and made a play on the turn, with outs to his flush (which I respect, it wasn't too bad a play, if Raymer doesn't have K/K or if the guy is trying to represent a made set or something).

[Brad F.]

[ QUOTE ]

I agree completely with the accumulation theory. You have to take chances, you have to get your money in when you have the best hand, and you're there to win not just survive. However, in my opinion, the accumulation phase was completed at this point. I believe with the blinds and antes that Raymer would've taken at least a 700k pot, and put him a little above 3mill. Raymer had to feel that he could outplay most of the people left. He could easily play smallball here.


[/ QUOTE ]

This statement is fine. It's an opinion, I think it's wrong, but I respect that opinion.

[ QUOTE ]

Matusow made a great point regarding Ivey. He said every time he looked over, Ivey was involved in a big pot. He said he knew that Ivey wouldn't last because of his strategy. It would've been different if Raymer was below average in chips, and needed to double. He didn't. He would've been near the chip leaders with a 700k pot. Survival was more important here, on this hand, then trying to double up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you compare it to the Ivey situation which is quite different. Ivey was reraising like crazy, creating big pots, just like Raymer did in this spot, yes. But Ivey was doing it with air, which he didn't need to do.

Raymer didn't need to double up, that's true. But he did need to continue to put himself in positions to win a tournament.

If Greg keeps this pot small, he would've been in at least one or more positions before the FT which would've required him making a decision for close to all of his chips. I really am wondering in your head when it becomes ok for him to take his read and run with hit?

Just trying to understand.

Brad

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
I posted my opinion, and forget that this is Raymer, and just think about the hand logically. All you guys seem to think it's great that Raymer put his tournament life in jeopardy on one pair (he didn't know what Kanter had, btw) at this stage in the tourney.


[/ QUOTE ]

Even if a donkey made this play it would have been correct. That is what you fail to understand, the fact that you are mistaken and everyone else is correct.

[troymclur]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with everything you've said. He played it perfectly to setup Kanter, and take his stack. My point is that this late in the tournament, after having outlasted 6k people, you don't NEED to make this play. You don't NEED to put yourself in a position to get outdrawn. Why even take that chance?
I respect Greg, and I know he got a terrible beat. But, he knows as well as anyone that one pair to the river is NOT a great play for ALL your chips. You absolutely positively DON'T want a pot going to the river at this stage in the tournament. Greg could've taken close to half of Kanter's stack, and STILL be in great position to win the tourney without having to go to a showdown.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, if you want to get all the chips in the tourney, why wouldn't you set your self up for a 9:2 showdown favorite? You have to risk chips to win, if you want to move up in place, then you're right, Greg should have played it harder; but he doesn't want to move up in place, he wants to take 1st.

You sound like a softy trying to survive the bubble.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with everything you've said. He played it perfectly to setup Kanter, and take his stack. My point is that this late in the tournament, after having outlasted 6k people, you don't NEED to make this play. You don't NEED to put yourself in a position to get outdrawn. Why even take that chance?
I respect Greg, and I know he got a terrible beat. But, he knows as well as anyone that one pair to the river is NOT a great play for ALL your chips. You absolutely positively DON'T want a pot going to the river at this stage in the tournament. Greg could've taken close to half of Kanter's stack, and STILL be in great position to win the tourney without having to go to a showdown.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, if you want to get all the chips in the tourney, why wouldn't you set your self up for a 9:2 showdown favorite? You have to risk chips to win, if you want to move up in place, then you're right, Greg should have played it harder; but he doesn't want to move up in place, he wants to take 1st.

You sound like a softy trying to survive the bubble.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, I give. Everyone else is correct. I'm wrong. Thank's for pointing it out. Funny thing though. Seems to me that Greg lost the hand, and ended up going out. Wasn't that what happened? Hachem faced with the same situation, played it differently, and stayed in to win. Hmmmmm...

Funny, I saw Hachem play big pairs very strong a few times. Shutting the door. Damn donkey. I just don't get why he played this way when he had the chance to build the pot, and take even more chips.

I have a funny story for everyone that you might enjoy. I was knocked out of the WCOOP main, and was railing some big name players. I was watching Raymer, and he had a pretty healthy stack. Top 10% I believe. He called a standard raise from another stack that was a little less then his. Flop came down low card rainbow. He called a half pot bet. Another low card hit the turn, but two diamonds were on the board. Raymer moved in. Guy called. What do you think Raymer had? K-10 diamonds. What do you think the other guy had? Who do you think won?

[troymclur]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with everything you've said. He played it perfectly to setup Kanter, and take his stack. My point is that this late in the tournament, after having outlasted 6k people, you don't NEED to make this play. You don't NEED to put yourself in a position to get outdrawn. Why even take that chance?
I respect Greg, and I know he got a terrible beat. But, he knows as well as anyone that one pair to the river is NOT a great play for ALL your chips. You absolutely positively DON'T want a pot going to the river at this stage in the tournament. Greg could've taken close to half of Kanter's stack, and STILL be in great position to win the tourney without having to go to a showdown.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, if you want to get all the chips in the tourney, why wouldn't you set your self up for a 9:2 showdown favorite? You have to risk chips to win, if you want to move up in place, then you're right, Greg should have played it harder; but he doesn't want to move up in place, he wants to take 1st.

You sound like a softy trying to survive the bubble.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, I give. Everyone else is correct. I'm wrong. Thank's for pointing it out. Funny thing though. Seems to me that Greg lost the hand, and ended up going out. Wasn't that what happened? Hachem faced with the same situation, played it differently, and stayed in to win. Hmmmmm...

Funny, I saw Hachem play big pairs very strong a few times. Shutting the door. Damn donkey. I just don't get why he played this way when he had the chance to build the pot, and take even more chips.

I have a funny story for everyone that you might enjoy. I was knocked out of the WCOOP main, and was railing some big name players. I was watching Raymer, and he had a pretty healthy stack. Top 10% I believe. He called a standard raise from another stack that was a little less then his. Flop came down low card rainbow. He called a half pot bet. Another low card hit the turn, but two diamonds were on the board. Raymer moved in. Guy called. What do you think Raymer had? K-10 diamonds. What do you think the other guy had? Who do you think won?

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you hear that? It was my point, sailing over your massive head.

I figured out your problem, you're a moron.