OT: WSOP Main Event TV

ericlambi · #1 11-09-2005, 02:30 PM

I assume a lot of people are watching the WSOP main event on TV. Who else is astounded by how bad most of these players are? I knew that getting lucky was a requisite of doing well in that tournament, but I figured it was impossible to get far without actually playing well too. A bunch of these players are complete tools . . . this Kanter guy (chip leader) that booted fossilman is beyond horrible. The woman that made it to the last 3 tables . . . I don't think she'd probably ever played before because she was even worse than Kanter. Half of these players couldn't beat Party $25NL long-term. Unbelievable.

What are the poker gods thinking? I guess there is no justice in poker.

4_2_it · #2 11-09-2005, 02:33 PM

Wrong forum. I'll say that since we see less than .1% of the hands these guys/gal play it hard to make any definitive judgement as too their abilities. We can judge their personalities, but not their skill.

KowCiller · #3 11-09-2005, 02:41 PM

I find myself agreeing with your general sentiment, but as 4_2 said it's tough to judge people by such a small sampling... although I can say that I've made judgements about people i've played against in cash games based on one hand before, and in most cases those judgements were spot on...

I dont know much about tourneys other than what I've read in HoH 1&2, but it sure seems like many of the people who have made it far love to get real deeply involved with likely dominated holdings.

As for the raymer/kanter hand, it's so dependent on table flow and stack sizes that it was hard for me to tell if it was a good or bad play based on raymer's range.

KoW

PokerFink · #4 11-09-2005, 03:08 PM

You would probably get the same opinion of many of the top pros if you saw the way they play certain hands.

"What the hell is Gus Hansen doing? He's raising 2h9h under the gun? How is he a pro?!"

Remember that after last year, people thought Raymer was a fish. It's hard to made judgements based on ESPN's coverage of maybe three or four hands that they play.

Also, many of the players (Williamson, Danneman come to mind) acknowledge that they are amatuers that have no idea what they are doing. There is nothing wrong with being a total luckbox if you realize that you are.

#5 11-09-2005, 07:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Wrong forum. I'll say that since we see less than .1% of the hands these guys/gal play it hard to make any definitive judgement as too their abilities. We can judge their personalities, but not their skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

boondockst · #6 11-10-2005, 02:00 AM

A lot of the "stupid" plays you see are advanced tournament concepts that you apparently can't grasp. If you think you can survive through a tournament of 5000+ people by playing TPTK, you're sorely mistaken. Steals and resteals and reresteals are thus common, as seen in the A2s vs. K5s hand between Ivey and Black. Saying they can't beat Party NL25 from what you saw of their play is highly naive. First, it's a tournament, not a cash game. Second, there's probably just a touch (read: sarcasm) more hand reading in a tournament like that than Party NL25. If you have a read that you're ahead (Kanter's Q6) and have significant FE, why not make a move? You don't seriously feed off the commentary ESPN has about Kanter's luckboxing do you? (I mean i'm sure he got cards but someone has to)

Take two of the VERY FEW that ESPN shows you of Raymer. In his big hit, he is betting with pocket kings and Kanter tries blowing him off the hand. It doesn't work, and by the time he realizes this, he's pot-committed to his 20% chance of a flush hitting on the river. While not likely, his two overcards could have been outs as well if Raymer had a holding like 99/TT. People see this as absolutely a horrid play.

Yet in the hand where Raymer has QJ vs. Black's TT, Raymer makes a continuation bet on a king high board and gets check-raised by Black's TT. This could be seen as equally reckless, especially if Raymer had something like AK and Black hit a ten on the turn/river.

You need to put the few hands you get to see in perspective.

el_grande · #7 11-10-2005, 02:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Wrong forum. I'll say that since we see less than .1% of the hands these guys/gal play it hard to make any definitive judgement as too their abilities. We can judge their personalities, but not their skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

Williamson called an early position raise followed by a huge all in reraise by Raymer with AJo. I think I can pretty much judge skill from that. Raymer is only doing this with AA-QQ and AK. That's a 25% equity call folks.