The Beauty of Mike Matusow's Game

oaktoon · #1 11-09-2005, 01:29 PM

Ok-- it's not the "in your face" razzing of Brother Phil, which was clearly over the top.

It was the actual poker played last night. Hellmuth complained at one point to his father that it was "all-in", "all-in", clearly unsettled by facing do or die decisions too often.

At one stage when Hellmuth made a big raise with AQ offsuit, and Matusow responded with a push, Phil said "Is this your Matusow blow-up moment?", then folded and saw Mike turn over 8c3c. Which was only a 37-63 dog.

And that's the point, isn't it? Once you realize your opponent (opponents, actually, because Corkins was pushing a lot, too) is willing to push with a lot of hands, then you can't really respond unless you have a big pair. A strong Ace-x hand is only in a dominant position of the other guy pushed with a lesser ace. The fear of a race against a pair or simply a garden variety 60-40 situation like the confrontation above makes it almost impossible to call, particularly when you are short or second short stacked, as Hellmuth was most of the night.

Hellmuth had to hope for post-flop action, and Corkins and Matusow were able to avoid a killer confrontation. Maybe Corkins did get lucky with a couple of monsters, but my sense about Matusow is that he flat outplayed Hellmuth with a better strategy.

Which, come to think of it, is what he was pretty much saying in his objectionable manner all night long. But 3+ hours of 3 handed poker was a pretty amazing thing to watch, if only by cardplayer's reporting.

Solitare · #2 11-09-2005, 01:42 PM

Phil's tight strategy wasn't that bad, it got him to 3rd.

Still, I agree with your assessment and think that Phil should spend some time playing 30/3 SNGs on Party to practice against all-in or nothing action.

oaktoon · #3 11-09-2005, 03:55 PM

PH is still a very good player.

But the game has evolved to the point that supertight has a tough time winning, and you could see it in the play last night. He basically backs himself into a corner where unless he thinks he's in a dominant position he will fold to an all-in bet. Matusow played him brilliantly.

benkahuna · #4 11-09-2005, 04:19 PM

I had the privilege of being there and oh, what a show. I got into the room around 4:00 p.m. just before the 3000/6000/500 level. I stayed until it ended at the 10000/20000/3000 blind level.

The person that gave Hellmuth a really hard time was Corkins, not Matusow. Matusow did a little bit too, particularly after Phil complained about his somewhat weak tight strategy not working. He waited most of the night to trap Hoyt who raised him in almost every hand he was in when he had position.

Then, when Hoyt raised with a ridulously shaking hand (which I can't believe Phil didn't see--easier for me to see because the camera was focused on it), Phil all in reraised him with AQ and got called by AA.

The back and forth action between the three was very well balanced for some time, basically over the course of 2 levels.

The hand that actually made the big difference and stopped the equilibrium was Matusow calling with AQs versus another Corkins all in overbets. Hoyt had AKo. Matusow spikes a king on the turn and gets 850k of the 1.140 million chips in play. Based on Hoyt's earlier play, Matusow really couldn't lay that hand down and it turned out to be very fortuitous that he didn't.

I think given the excellence of the play in this event, the good table banter between Mike and Phil, and a number of interesting hands, this will be a very enjoyable production.

A_C_Slater · #5 11-09-2005, 04:26 PM

At one point 3 handed Corkins open raises on the button for 10xbb with 43s. Can anyone explain the intent behind this play? Matusow calls him with A6o in the big blind and then pushes some ten high rag flop that Corkins has no piece of, he almost has the nut low, but so much money is already in the pot that he has to call just in order to hit some backdoor pair/str8 in case Mike just has overs.

Why such a big initial raise with this hand? Why not just push if you have to call on the flop anyway after commiting so much of your stack?

Is Corkins just a rich donk that play's a lot of tournaments? He does own a cattle rich. Those guy's make really good money.

legend42 · #6 11-09-2005, 04:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The hand that actually made the big difference and stopped the equilibrium was Matusow calling with AQs versus another Corkins all in overbets. Hoyt had AKo. Matusow spikes a king on the turn and gets 850k of the 1.140 million chips in play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you mean he spiked a queen on the turn?

Notorious G.O.B. · #7 11-09-2005, 05:08 PM

It's clear that Corkins is doing something right.

lonn19 · #8 11-09-2005, 05:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]

The hand that actually made the big difference and stopped the equilibrium was Matusow calling with AQs versus another Corkins all in overbets. Hoyt had AKo. Matusow spikes a king on the turn and gets 850k of the 1.140 million chips in play. Based on Hoyt's earlier play, Matusow really couldn't lay that hand down and it turned out to be very fortuitous that he didn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

If a king came onn the turn, Hoyt would have won. Some of you guys are so confusing when you narrate hands. Don't you review your posts before submitting them?

Kyo Souma II · #9 11-09-2005, 05:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The hand that actually made the big difference and stopped the equilibrium was Matusow calling with AQs versus another Corkins all in overbets. Hoyt had AKo. Matusow spikes a king on the turn and gets 850k of the 1.140 million chips in play. Based on Hoyt's earlier play, Matusow really couldn't lay that hand down and it turned out to be very fortuitous that he didn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

If a king came onn the turn, Hoyt would have won. Some of you guys are so confusing when you narrate hands. Don't you review your posts before submitting them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Settle down. It's a typo. Anyone with a brain can see he spiked a queen to win.

If it's that confusing, you could just check cardplayer.

-kyo

benkahuna · #10 11-10-2005, 07:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The hand that actually made the big difference and stopped the equilibrium was Matusow calling with AQs versus another Corkins all in overbets. Hoyt had AKo. Matusow spikes a king on the turn and gets 850k of the 1.140 million chips in play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you mean he spiked a queen on the turn?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. I just noticed that. I'm sydexlic or something.