"Official" ESPN Coverage of WSOP Main Event: Final Table

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why are Lazar/Chad/McEachern so bent out of shape about the "Quad aces hand"???

It's not like he (Lazar) would have gotten much action IF ANY on the flop/turn/river...he merely would have won what was in the pot.

Settle down guys...

From what I remember, Lazars preflop fold appeared correct to me.

Very surprised he went on tilt so badly after that hand. And Chad was acting like Lazar would have tripled up on that hand or something, what a fool.

Am I missing something? Or is this just another example of Norman and Lon not knowing anything about tournament poker?

[/ QUOTE ]

With three aces on the board, he's going to at least get a value bet call out of both of them. Check the flop, check the turn when you hit the quads, value bet the river. Sure, you're not going to triple up, but you'd come away with a decent pot, when you add the pre-flop action, plus blinds and antes. You probably wuld get the river bets out of them, neither Black nor Barch (at least on TV) seemed to scared of tossing in the river bets.

I think his tilt came from the fact that he folded the fourth ace, added in with the huge amount of pressure that was on all of them at that point. You saw it how he was talking on the next two hands. He felt he should have gambled on the previous hand, and went on tilt for the next two. Everything was, "I'll gamble with you, let's gamble."

[/ QUOTE ]

Are we sure those really were his 2 next hands? The final table went on for about 13 hours. ESPN had to do some serious editing to get it down to a 2 hour show with commercials, interviews, etc. What did we actually see - 20 hands?

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]

Are we sure those really were his 2 next hands? The final table went on for about 13 hours. ESPN had to do some serious editing to get it down to a 2 hour show with commercials, interviews, etc. What did we actually see - 20 hands?

[/ QUOTE ]

It really was three consecutive hands. You can check the Card Player log to verify this. This was a rare case where what we saw on TV was probably an extremely accurate representation of what happened.

[Sykes]

From what I saw, I liked Danneman's and Hachem's play throughout the table. Sure you could say that Steve got lucky against Black, but what is Steve supposed to do on that board?

The only 2 plays I didn't like were Hachem's call with bottom pair when heads-up. Why not just check-raise and end the hand?

Also, the JJ hand. I totally disliked his call. Seriously, I know there is a $1.75 million difference in money, but you have to consider the # of times that Steve is calling Barch's all-in with AJ/AT/KQ, do you really want him in?

Look at it this way:

Hachem pushes over the top, and Steve folds any hand that's not KK/AA (assuming he folds AK/QQ) and wins, He has a 2 to 1 on Steve going to HU. Gain in money = 1.75 million

Hachem pushes over the top, Steve folds, and Barch wins. Barch/Hachem/Steve practically have the same # of chips between them. Gain in money = 0

Hachem calls with JJ. Checks it down with steve. Steve hits a set and wins the hand. You go to HU with a 2 to 1 deficit. Gain in money = 1.75 million

Hachem calls with JJ. Checks down with Steve. Barch spikes an ace and wins the hand. Now they have about the same number of chips. Gain in money = 0



The difference between all 4 scenarios is basically, if you want the bracelet, you need to push it all-in pre-flop.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Are we sure those really were his 2 next hands? The final table went on for about 13 hours. ESPN had to do some serious editing to get it down to a 2 hour show with commercials, interviews, etc. What did we actually see - 20 hands?

[/ QUOTE ]

It really was three consecutive hands. You can check the Card Player log to verify this. This was a rare case where what we saw on TV was probably an extremely accurate representation of what happened.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cool. Thanks.

[ QUOTE ]
Why are Lazar/Chad/McEachern so bent out of shape about the "Quad aces hand"???

It's not like he (Lazar) would have gotten much action IF ANY on the flop/turn/river...he merely would have won what was in the pot.

Settle down guys...

From what I remember, Lazars preflop fold appeared correct to me.

Very surprised he went on tilt so badly after that hand. And Chad was acting like Lazar would have tripled up on that hand or something, what a fool.

Am I missing something? Or is this just another example of Norman and Lon not knowing anything about tournament poker?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you completely. I was watching and kept wondering what Norm was smoking. 2 aces on the flop, there may have been some action since the 2 others had pocket pairs but I doubt it would have been all in unless one of them was really feeling loose. Lazar simply lost his composure - I think he was really tired and right then his energy level dived.

i was wondering if steve even knew to check down. when the queen hit, i thought he might bet it and make a difficult decision for hachem. depending on the amount, hachem might have to lay down jj.

[Dominic]

..that we didn't get to see how Hachem climbed from 5 million in chips (right after his double up with the 77s) to over 16 million when they came back from commercial?

I would've liked to see more hands from the eventual winner; especially since he was so short-stacked at the beginning.

[PITTM]

wow, i didnt notice that hachem had 87 when kanter floped trips with A7 vs barchs aq. even luckier than previously thought? sweet.

rj

Couldn't agree more. I will say that while the poker on the laughable celebrity poker showdown is not so stellar, but at least you get to see more hands. Overall I think the commentary is better on that show from Phil Gordon.... I really don't learn much from the world series, it is more entertainment than lesson.

[B Dids]

Like I said elsewhere, ESPN did a terrible job of showing how long they played. That said, it would probably end up being either really boring, or way over dramatised.