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

[ QUOTE ]
I'm kind of suprised that Raymer didn't lose it that hand. I'm impressed.

Think about how Phil H. would react in the same situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. We might have had our first televised murder if it had been Phil.

I applaud Greg Raymer for taking that bad beat the way he did. He was obviously upset (his cheeks were flushed) but he never said a bad word and went on playing. I think his beating out 8000+ players over 2 years has to be the greatest feat in WSOP history and I think he earned a lot more respect from the poker community for going so far this year. He's a good guy.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He should fold the turn because it's a dangerous board and he has one pair. Why even push the turn? He knows he's going to get called since Kanter raised 600k. Yes, Kanter had two hearts, but that's results oriented thinking.

At teh same time, I think Kanter made a bad play by not pushing the turn. If he is going to raise, just push.

If Raymer is pot commited, ok. If he's not, I'd get out. Most times he's beat on the turn against a strong raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

It sounds like you only play online, which is basically the weakness in Kantor's game. You mention that 1 pair is usually beat by a turn raise, which is true. But, you don't seem to be willing to give me credit for making a good read of a relatively transparent opponent. If we were playing online, I would give Aaron's play a lot more credit. But, since we were playing live, he should have been thinking about me, and what cards I was holding, and how I would play them, rather than just looking at the cards on the table and in his hand. Or, instead of just thinking I might have AK, he should have been looking at me and trying to figure out how likely a hand AK was for me at that time. And I don't mind, I'm glad I was able to get millions of dollars in the pot as a 9:2 favorite; I'm only disappointed that I lost.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[/ QUOTE ]

Greg,
I disagree. I think you played this wrong. You opened yourself up to getting drawn out. That's the cardinal sin of big pocket pairs? First, you made a low standard raise for this table, and get called. You then make a half pot bet that simply looks like a continuation bet. Then another heart and pair comes on the board. At this point, you have to move in, or check/fold. Instead, you make another half-pot bet. You're really just keeping the guy alive. Keeping him in the pot. Letting him draw.

You made the correct read, but from Kanter's point of view it just looks like you're not confident in your hand. I realize that this is the whole point, but why even try this at this point in the tourney? You only have one pair, and you're giving the guy the entire board to beat you. Why not shut him down, and take the 750k/1 mill pot? You had a good stack, and there was no need to play large pots. Kanter played this hand terribly, but it was FAR too late in the tourney to mess around. You didn't deserve to go out like that.

- Joe

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. The way to win tournaments is to win big showdowns and GR got AK to put all his money in on a huge draw. GR's chip stack at the time was big but he still needed to accumulate a lot more chips. If he had won that pot he would have been able to push the table like he did last year when people did not want to play many hands so they could move up the money list and he may have been at the final table with a much larger stack than anyone else. Notice how even the final table stack is spread this year?

[ QUOTE ]
Also, ESPN occassionally reairs the ..[snipped]..Varkonyi episodes, so you have more correctly played hands to look at.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. Varkonyi? Correctly played hands? Do these phrases go together? How about blind luck at the most opportune time of his life?

[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]
LOL. Varkonyi? Correctly played hands? Do these phrases go together? How about blind luck at the most opportune time of his life?

[/ QUOTE ]

He won didn't he? I'll let IndyJoe elaborate. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
LOL. Varkonyi? Correctly played hands? Do these phrases go together? How about blind luck at the most opportune time of his life?

[/ QUOTE ]

He won didn't he? I'll let IndyJoe elaborate. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Hee hee. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
LOL. Varkonyi? Correctly played hands? Do these phrases go together? How about blind luck at the most opportune time of his life?

[/ QUOTE ]

He won didn't he? I'll let IndyJoe elaborate. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Geesh, my point with Hachem is that you certainly CAN WIN by playing big pairs strong without trying to trap and see a showdown. Everyone keeps saying that you can't win unless you risk your entire stack, and get maximum value on every hand. THAT'S not true, and THAT'S bad strategy. Certainly there will be times when you have no option, and you just hope your hand stands up (Raymer vs Williamson). Other times you have a choice, and it's not the correct play to put your entire stack on the line more then necessary.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
LOL. Varkonyi? Correctly played hands? Do these phrases go together? How about blind luck at the most opportune time of his life?

[/ QUOTE ]

He won didn't he? I'll let IndyJoe elaborate. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Geesh, my point with Hachem is that you certainly CAN WIN by playing big pairs strong without trying to trap and see a showdown. Everyone keeps saying that you can't win unless you risk your entire stack, and get maximum value on every hand. THAT'S not true, and THAT'S bad strategy. Certainly there will be times when you have no option, and you just hope your hand stands up (Raymer vs Williamson). Other times you have a choice, and it's not the correct play to put your entire stack on the line more then necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since it was AK who CALLED GR all in with just a low draw I would say that HE is the one who put his entire stack on the line. GR played to win the tournament. AK played like a donkey but even donkeys get lucky once in a while. It's not bad strategy to let the donkeys think they are horses only to show them they really were asses.

[prana]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
LOL. Varkonyi? Correctly played hands? Do these phrases go together? How about blind luck at the most opportune time of his life?

[/ QUOTE ]

He won didn't he? I'll let IndyJoe elaborate. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Geesh, my point with Hachem is that you certainly CAN WIN by playing big pairs strong without trying to trap and see a showdown. Everyone keeps saying that you can't win unless you risk your entire stack, and get maximum value on every hand. THAT'S not true, and THAT'S bad strategy. Certainly there will be times when you have no option, and you just hope your hand stands up (Raymer vs Williamson). Other times you have a choice, and it's not the correct play to put your entire stack on the line more then necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

More than necessary ok. With KK, a STRONG read that your opponent is weak as hell, and an all low card board that confirms your belief that your opponent is weak as hell and I have to wonder why the hell you are still arguing here. How often are you laying down KK here? How often do you get reraise bluffed out of pots you should have won? What the hell is he supposed to do, nut peddle the rest of the tournament until he gets blinded or gets AA with an A on the flop. If you can't play KK this way why when you have a read I don't think you should be playing poker.

By the way the people were all overbetting Williamson not to get her to fold but to get her to call with inferior hands which she had been doing because she thought everyone was bullying her. Your thinking is backwards.

Go reread Cloutier and maybe you will learn something. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[sweetjazz]

Varkonyi proved that you CAN WIN by betting the hell out of QT. What does that have to do with how a fart smells in Ljubljana?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
LOL. Varkonyi? Correctly played hands? Do these phrases go together? How about blind luck at the most opportune time of his life?

[/ QUOTE ]

He won didn't he? I'll let IndyJoe elaborate. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Geesh, my point with Hachem is that you certainly CAN WIN by playing big pairs strong without trying to trap and see a showdown. Everyone keeps saying that you can't win unless you risk your entire stack, and get maximum value on every hand. THAT'S not true, and THAT'S bad strategy. Certainly there will be times when you have no option, and you just hope your hand stands up (Raymer vs Williamson). Other times you have a choice, and it's not the correct play to put your entire stack on the line more then necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

More than necessary ok. With KK, a STRONG read that your opponent is weak as hell, and an all low card board that confirms your belief that your opponent is weak as hell and I have to wonder why the hell you are still arguing here. How often are you laying down KK here? How often do you get reraise bluffed out of pots you should have won? What the hell is he supposed to do, nut peddle the rest of the tournament until he gets blinded or gets AA with an A on the flop. If you can't play KK this way why when you have a read I don't think you should be playing poker.

By the way the people were all overbetting Williamson not to get her to fold but to get her to call with inferior hands which she had been doing because she thought everyone was bullying her. Your thinking is backwards.

Go reread Cloutier and maybe you will learn something. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, okay, you've all convinced me! I'm sorry I was such a fool. Greg made an incredible play with a perfect read. He got all his money in as an 80% favorite. That he lost with his one pair on the river after giving his opponent 5 cards to draw to is just mind blowing. Shocking as a matter of fact. It was really dumb of me to think that Greg couldn't have played as effectively with a $3 million stack as he could've with $4 million. He wouldn't have any chance to win without that additional amount. What was I thinking. You simply have to put your entire tournament life on the line there. Letting that donkey draw to his flush. Letting him see a 5th card there against your mighty KK. I mean you can't lose with Kings or Aces.

I've changed my mind. Thank you ALL for the enlightenment! Seriously, thank you. From now on, I will always play my big pairs weak, and keep the donkey's on the string, so they can see the entire board.

Thanks again.