Another Tuesday night poker... and another $25 out of my wallet. This really sucks. It's only been 3 weeks of playing for me (since I missed last week) but either my play is atrocious, I'm not getting cards, or a combination of both... and this post is becoming kinda deja-vu-ish (if that's not a word, well, now it is). My last hand? Blinds at 8-16, I made it $40 with pocket 6's. It was down to 3 players and top 2 got paid. I had about another $80 behind me. The big blind goes all in which had me covered just enough but not by much. So it was $80 more into a pot that was approx $160+. At that point, I figured he would move in with two high cards so I called. He had QQ. End of story. For those who know, it's "devilsad4c8". What do you think? Should I have folded? I just couldn't see how I would survive with only $80 left if I folded and 3 players left. But maybe I give up too easy. I don't know.
The funny thing was that he had a massive chip lead for a while. Then a crazy hand happened. The blinds I believe were 5-10. It was 3 handed at this point. He raised it to $30. Then, another player reraised it $40 more. So he reraises again. This time all in. At this point, it's starting to be clear that they both have big hands. Especially the aforementioned devilsad4c8 definitely had a big hand cuz otherwise he wouldn't do this. Well, "JJ" calls and turns over pocket 4's!!!! Devil turns up KK and at this point, he had "JJ" covered so "JJ" is all in. Well, what do you know. He spikes a 4 on the river for a set and cripples devil. But, couple of questionable calls later when devil went in (and I say questionable because the all-in was for like $60 after the flop and he would call with absolutely nothing... not even like two high cards, I mean just random stuff. JJ, if you're reading this, some of those calls were very questionable). So, that gave devil second life... enough to bust me out.
Key hand that crippled me early was when I hit top pair, turned two pair, only to lose to a flopped set of 2's. The guy was relatively short stacked so I put him all in and he called in a heartbeat. That crippled me early, even though I was able to climb back up but not enough. I gotta win soon. It's getting very frustrating...
On a totally different note, during the day, I have two friends that I discuss a lot of poker with over email. It's great because if it's up to me, I could talk about poker all day. So, we discuss certain scenarios that my friend finds online or certain hands from Tuesday night poker group, etc. Well, one of the topics that came up today was about the pros and their opinions of the pros and who's good, who's not, etc. It was a very interesting discussion. They felt that certain pros were riding the wave because they happened to have the bankroll to play the tournaments and hence, they're popular. I think I was more in support for the pros than the other two were. This was the discussion that ensued:
I'm sure you guys watch poker as much (if not more) on TV as much as I do. I actually recorded a bunch of WPT and WSOP tourneys just to watch and analyze. And what I've come to realize is that a lot of "pros" aren't that much better than the average player. I see them make moves that any bluffer does or slow play a monster (who wouldn't?). So to Sia's point, a lot of these players are just riding the wave and somewhere along the way made a lot of $ and are able to play at high stakes and make a lot of money (as well as lose a lot). And a lot of them just 'intimidate' people at the table just b/c they are the "pro". Here are my additions to the list;
Not to sweat:
Chris Furgeson (although you can't get a physical tell, he pretty much plays by the book)
Josh Arieh (plays overly aggressive poker)
Dave Williams (see above)
Definitely don't want sitting to my left:
Scotty Fischman (very aggressive but knows how to apply the aggression)
Eric Lindgren (solid player all around)
Phil Laak (he's just too unpredictable)
This was my response:
And add Antonio Esfandiari on the list of not wanting on your left. I agree and disagree with you guys. I disagree about the point you guys make about they have money so they can win or lose a lot of money. The guys I listed were like high on the list of cardplayer tournament player of the year (including which I did not but guys errrrr kids like Shannon Shorr, Nick Schulman, etc) which means they are consistently turning in great performance. And you guys say that you watch them on TV and they're not that great. Well, do you realize the number of people they have to survive in order to get there? The fact that you see them maybe twice (anything more is downright impressive) on TV (which is generally just the final table) is actually more impressive than you give them credit for. And let me add this about Dave Williams and Josh Arieh. They may play Ramel poker but with much better timing and better read. If you only saw them make out of control moves, then you only saw them in bits and pieces or the TV highlights only focused on those things because if you're watching WSOP, they weren't prime time players at that point. Which is why I think recently, the more popular shows are like GSN's high stakes poker. It shows the poker players in a different setting and the poker they play there are pretty high level, though I immediately caught Negreanu's tell on one hand when he held K-10 and the flop was Q-10-5 and he pushed all in against Antonio's JJ. (Esfandiari picked up on that tell as well and called the all in, just to be rivered by the king and lose $80,000 of his own money).
Oh, and definitely add Tom McEvoy on that list of jokers. But I would include Dave Williams and Josh Arieh on the list of not wanting on my left.
Also, the stories I hear about some of these guys and how they "made it" is pretty unreal. You think you need a bankroll to be better? Think again. Take the Chris Ferguson experiment for example. If you haven't heard, it's where he made a $20,000 bet with a friend that he could take $1 online and turn it into $20,000. I think he did that in like 6 months maybe? Maybe a little more. And he won the bet. Kids like Shannon Shorr built up a ridiculous bankroll but he started with a few hundred dollars and the kid's like 22. I mean these are guys who are playing at a different level. I think it's the ability to adjust to different competition. It's not about playing a certain hand a certain way or slowplaying a big hand or making a crazy bluff. Those are just instances you are seeing on tv. I think being able to switch gears and adjust is the biggest thing and these top pros are doing that well. Much better than you guys give them credit for.
This conversation followed an initial email from Sia regarding how he thought a lot of "pros" that people sweat, including Doyle Brunson weren't all that great. Even though I don't agree with them, it was a very interesting discussion, I thought, about how different our perceptions were. If any of you other guys want to include another pro for a good one or a bad one, feel free to comment. And please, I think Mike Matusow being a donk is a given. What about favorite players? My all time favorite is obviously Negreanu, followed by a lot of the young guys like Erick Lindgren, John D'Agostino, Phil Ivey, and Allen Cunningham. I also seem to favor the European crowd like Marcel Luske and Gus Hansen.
One last note: No matter how much WPT tries, they're never gonna find a suitable replacement for Shana Hiatt. She was the best as the host for WPT...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Negreanu is the best there is in my book (aside from me of course). He's also my "favorite" because he adds personality to the game. Even better, he uses that personality to get very valuable information from average joe's who talk simply because they are thrilled that he's even talking to them.
By the way, I think i would have called Devil just like you did with your 6's. He's the type of player that in any given situation could have been going in with just overs. If you just limped in with your 6's that would be different but you had already committed half your chips.
I believe somewhere in your discussion (and mention of the High Stakes Game starts it), you have to distinguish between tournaments and cash games.
It is no secret that aggression, even hyper-aggression, is dominant, so the likes of Williams, Esfaniari, etc. are either out early (walking into monsters), or do quite well. I didn't see anyone listed, including Matasow, that I don't think is an exceptional poker player (I love watching the Mouth absolutely abuse rookies- I can watch that interaction with Raymer 1000 times).
Negreanu is so good it's just stupid. Also qualifies as the above aggresor, but absolutely must be the bets I've seen at reading people. He's insane.
Farha is another, and certainly the Grinder.
The reality is also that given the money some of these 'pros' have, placing in the tournament really isn't the goal, they want the title. I believe this changes the style significantly at all stages of a tournament, and definately distinguishes itself from a cash game.
Oh by the way, I'm Sia's friend, Bubba. Apparantly I need to start my own blog.
I actually totally agree about the Grinder and Farha. Solid players.
I think if you choose other, you can just leave your first name in to comment.
Btw, Bubba, great comment. Very true, what you said about the difference between cash game and tournament play. I will probably mention that in one of my upcoming posts. I think a lot of people undermine the difference (and there is a BIG difference) between cash and tournament play.
But honestly, right now, my favorite show is GSN's high stakes poker. It really puts all other poker tourneys to shame. The banter, the play, etc is very interesting and you could really tell the good ones (Doyle, Negreanu, Farha, Mizrachi, etc) vs the guys who are a level below (maybe Antonio and Phil Laak, at least in that group) and the amateurs (there was a doctor and a restaurant owner, both of whom were getting outplayed fairly consistently). If you guys don't have a chance to see it regularly, it's worth DVR-ing. That's what I do. Or you could catch them on Youtube. Totally worth it.
Post a Comment