WSOP - $2500 6 max...
 

This is one of the events I was hoping to play in this year. Maybe next year.

They are down to nine players left:
Chip leader - Daniel Negreanu
Also still alive and kicking - Dutch Boyd and Joe Hachem.

Good stuff.

Correction: Eight playrs left and Boyd just took the chip lead:

I probably not even in the top 10 most knowledgable people logged on right now, but couldn't Daniel have gotten away from those Aces the way the hand played out?

stats for final table today
 

And Then There Were Six
Day two of Event # 5 $2,500 NL Hold-Em Short Handed 6/Table has come to an end with our final 6 players. Tomorrow's final table will start at 2 p.m. and the chip stacks look like this:

Russ "Dutch" Boyd- $909,000

Michael Goodman-$573,000

Joseph Hachem-$297,000

Peter Hassett-$150,000

David Soloman-$93,000

Jeff Knight-$62,000

Tomorrow is also day two of Event # 6 $2,000 NL Hold-Em which starts at 2 p.m. and the first day of Event # 7 $3,000 Limit Hold-Em which starts at 12 p.m. Cardplayer will be back tomorrow bringing you all the updated coverage of each event.

I'm rooting for Dutch, but Hachem will be tough in this scenario, real tough.

Anyone that roots for Mr. Boyd loses respect with me.

hachem aint doing bad.

Nice job there by the champ. Didnt think he was as good as raymer, but everyone is better than moneymaker. Prove me wrong joe

At the risk of this thread getting ugly, I'll respond by saying I respect your stance on that issue.

I have spoken with Dutch in the past, gotten advice from him on poker as well as other things, and see his side of the PokerSpot issue.

I was not one of the people who got screwed in the deal, perhaps if I had then my opinion would be tilted a bit.

There is more to Dutch than just that one issue.

I am sure if you were on the rail rooting for Dutch to bust you would not be alone, probably in a long line.

Dutch Boyd is the muthafuckin bomb, regardless of anything that has happened in the past the guy is a genious, he is cery intellegent and a nice guy overall, i ahve spoken to dutch a couple of times on aim, and he has helped me with my game so much ans earned my respect

Yep.

And if anyone else wants advice, just send an AIM to me him using the screenname Duch Boid. He loves giving advice in freerolls and playmoney games.

What did ditch do that was bad?
 

Did he burn some people on an investment or something?

I'm not going to retype the whole story here. Search this site, or better yet google... "Pokerspot" is all you'll need to search for.

Dude sorry for the inconvenience
 

Dont have the whole site and all its content down.

Huh?

All I was saying was to do a search and you'll find everything you wanted to know and more. That would be way easier than anyone trying to rehash the story.

You can also read it (as I recall) on Dutch's site, rakefree.com - in the FAQ. when he posted here, I'm pretty sure he pointed people to that.

Kewl
 

Thanks

Okay, I've been biting my tongue for the last few weeks, cause I'm trying to get away from this type of thing, but......you're being a tool. And your posts, well, god they suck. Worse than this one.:thumbsup:

I gotta call bullshit here, you haven't bitten your tongue ONCE that I can ever remember. If anyone shoots from the hip, it's Pshabi.

shabi shoots from the hip, the ass, the mouth, or anything he can gesticulate with

Not to dare get this thread back on topic and make it worth more than absolutely nothing (I think New Guy and eejit are competing to see who can make the most useless 1 liner posts - and yes, eejit is winning (by a LOT)) - but we're down to three players right now, and it's shaping up to be a Boyd/Hachem final.

Maybe if Dutch wins some nice $$, he'll start paying back all the people he owes money. Yeah, I doubt it too, but you never know. He's guaranteed $150k right now, and will all but surely scoop at least a quarter mil, or maybe even almost a half.

I really don't want to argue about this, but Dutch wasn't the one who stole the money so why should he be responsible to pay anything back?

If you don't want to argue about this, why would you make this post?

Let's put it this way.... if I convinced you to invest $1000 with me (or if I lost a $1000 sports bet with you, for that matter), when it came time for me to pay you back and I couldn't - because someone stole the $1000 from me - are you seriously trying to tell me that you wouldn't look at it as me owing you $1000 any more???

I mean, if I told you I was on my way to pay you and I got mugged, would you really shrug it off and tell me you'll just collect from the mugger instead? Um... yeah, I don't think so. And I'm not even throwing in all sorts of other things into the analogy, like me telling you I didn't get mugged and that I still have the money and that it's ok for other people to keep investing with me and so on and so forth.

Don't get me wrong - I like Dutch. He's been nothing but cool to me. But while he may or may not be legally liable for paying back the missing money, I think it would be awfully nice of him to try (as he once said he would do). It's just the right thing to do.

Fair enough.

pshabi
 

Good to know how you feel!! I guess i'll just observe!!!You too Tp . I offer what I can

I think this is a fine example of what pshabi was talking about.

But hey, at least the thread is off topic again!

Whatever
 

Didnt know all the rules . Maybe you should put up a rules section.I try to offer what I can and I appologize to everyone that has to get involved but the attack in my opinion wasnt called for. This will be the last I speak of it. .Oh and phasbi you're a tool!!Horrible poker player. You should read more in this fourm. Sorry all . Back to topic !!

:confused: :confused: :confused:
Rules?
Pshabi is a horrible poker player?
:confused: :confused: :confused:

Pshabi wasn't trying to attack you (nor was I). He was just pointing out that the majority of your posts seem to be one liners that don't really add much to the threads they are posted in. That's fine now and then, of course (and NO, you don't have to be some sort of poker expert to contribute around here - questions are contributions too), but at some point, enough is enough. At least that was my interpretation of his post. And I never "attacked" you. I just didn't know what this crap was all about:

Speaking of "rules" or suggestions, your posting part of your post in the title section of each thread and then the rest in the normal part is getting annoying too. It makes quoting you (like this) very difficult, and makes some replies to your posts make less sense that they would if you would just type in the post box like everyone else.

Lastly (one more suggestion), in the future, if you have completely new information that you'd like to talk about, start a new thread instead of hijacking a perfectly legitimate one.

got it captian. So sorry

So, Hachem makes it back to the final table of a WSOP event, somewhat legitamizing his win of last years ME. Raymer makes an incredible run last year in the ME after winning the year before. Did Moneymaker just get VERY lucky?

Yes.

Considering how "badly" Moneymaker has been running since he won the tournament...yes...he just got extremely lucky.

He's just some average joe with standard poker ability that was amazing for a week.

Raymer is an unbelievable big stack player that will push and push and push and it works. Hachem seems to be just a solid good player that does well given a break or two (he did get pretty lucky as shortstack last year).

===========
To add...

I've seen Raymer do really stupid things and play awful...and I don't understand how he just goes in to races and pushes people around over and over again

As much as people would like to say that MoneyMaker just got "lucky".
I don't buy it.

His field was what 2000+ people?
No matter how hard the deck hits you, you don't just get "lucky" to win a field of that size.
It just can't happen. Skill must have played a part in that. And to deny that fact is simply wrong.

835 or so

Luck was certainly part of it -- as was his aggression at times

The sad truth is very bad players can get very far in tournaments if they are overly aggressive and know how to play a big stack well. Sure they'll make tons of mistakes along the way, but they also get to be in situations where if they get lucky theyll have a lot of chips... situations a more careful player wouldn't be in.

Even take Raymer for an example.... early on in a tournament (not the WSOP, another event, I remember TP posting about this) reraising all in with a flush draw, being called and losing when he didn't hit. Not saying he's a very bad player, as his record speaks for itself, but just giving an example of these types of aggression. If you ask me it was a bad move on his part -- but I bet it's one he'll make everytime

The reason moneymaker gets a lot of bad rep is for two main reasons....the first is because of making incorrect decisions on several occassions (yet drawing out) and having players give him gifts on several occassions at the 03 ME. The 2nd is because of his track record post 2003 ME

He didn't beat 2000 people...he beat like a little over 800 players. There's no question that every poker has to have both luck/skill to win a tourney of this nature....but the way he got there and his record shows....he's not as skilled as most poker players out there.

He put the money in bad at least twice in the tourney. The 88 vs AA against Bernes where they both miss the flop and he called the all in only to catch his set on the turn. And the hand against Ivey where he made trip queens and top pair vs the full house of iveys, only to river the A for bigger full house.

He made a few amazing calls like the one against Dutch Boyd with 33 vs overcards.....but his record since the wsop win has shown he's now where the level as other pros. One of the shows that clearly shows this is the Poker Superstars II....he never had a chance to win anything...and was totally outplayed most of the time.

I don't know....I would put Varkonyi and Moneymaker in the same category as one year miracles.

Did Varkonyi DEFINE the term lucky.... especially at the final table, my god

and he got a 'poker coach' for the next year... Ignoring how funny that is and what it says about his main event braclet....if this guy (the coach) was so good why wasnt he playing in the ME??

Funny shit

Rarely, if ever do Chip and I agree, this won't be any different. Moneymaker beat a MUCH shorter field than Raymer or Hachem, not 2000+, and he was the very definition of LUCKY to win that tournament.

Varknonyi simply got dealt cards that wouldn't let him lose. I'll never forget the call of the match, I think it was Gabe Kaplan (maybe not) who said "And Robert Varkonyi's hard luck continues" after Varkonyi looked down at AA for the third time in 10 hands, something like that. At least we all learned that Q 10 is the nuts.

I think Hellmuth still hates him, though Hellmuth hates everyone that isn't named Phil Hellmuth.

Now hold on a secon here. No one asked if Moneymaker had any skill. The question was "Did he get VERY lucky," to which the answer was YES. Now ask me if Raymer or Hachem got very lucky and again I'll say YES. You HAVE to get lucky to take down one of these huge field tourneys. That's all there is too it.

People always look at luck as sucking out, but it also comes in the form of not being sucked out on. If you get your money is as a 4:1 favorite 10 times in a tourney, YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO LOSE 2 OF THOSE!!! So, if you manage to not go broke in that spot after 10 times, you got VERY lucky.

With all that said, yes, Chris Moneymaker is a decent player - he's much better now than he was at the 2003 WSOP (IMO, anyway). But quite frankly, if I had to rank myself against the champions in question, I'd rank us like this:

Raymer
Hachem
Me
Varkonyi
Moneymaker

I'm trying to be objective when I do this too. And I haven't seen Varkonyi play enough to know exactly where to rank him - he could certainly be ahead of me, but I decided to give myself the edge. :)

I think it was Norman Chad who made that comment, and just so you know, that was a fine example of SERIOUS tv editing. They showed the AA hands and SAID that they came back to back (on the first two hands of the tourney, no less), but the first hand wasn't the first hand, and the second one came HOURS later. I've spoken with Varkonyi about this, and he was pretty annoyed about how they edited that to make it look so much different than reality. And that was from the 2003 WSOP, btw - the year after he won.

Luck is when preparation meets opportunity.

I agree with pretty much this entire post. Raymer plays a much different game than I do, and sometimes, like you, I don't "get it," but I don't think the "awful" plays you are seeing are NEARLY as awful as you think. Remember, he's playing an ultra-aggressive style and he's more than willing to take chances to build that stack early in hopes of going DEEP in the tourney (or busting out early). He's not a "try to get into the money" kind of guy. He's playing to win, and once he does get that big stack - look out.

I play a lot more like Hachem. I love Greg's game and I have a LOT of respect for him (I think he's a better player than Hachem), but I'm not comfortable with it... It's just doesn't mesh with my natural style.

fixed

In regards to Raymer, I was reading a thread about him (that he actually posted in) on 2+2 last night.

There have been 5 live tournaments w/ 2000+ players. Ever.

Guess who's the only person to play in and cash in all 5? Best big field tourney player ever?????????? I think you can say that.

I can't play Raymers style simply because every time you bust out playing like that you know you didn't have to.

Could I have shoved all my chips in on a flush draw against Matusow and then go on to win the tournament? No. Matusow had him covered and if the flush card doesn't fall history is all together different.

Thats his game, and if I am ever deep in a big tourney the LAST person I want to see on my left with a big stack is Greg Raymer.

He had more outs than just the flush...he had two overs...which makes the play correct. I believe he was actually the favorite in on the hand...and there's a good chance Matusow would fold the hand as well. Frankly, in a field of that size, you have to gamble quite often in order to win. I'm sure even Dan Harrington has to gamble quite often to make all his final tables.

5 isn't actually a huge sample size, but that's still pretty awesome.

I REALLY wanted him to Final Table the 2005 Main Event. He was well on his way too. Even after the beat he took, getting as far as he did was a huge accomplishment.

because of Raymers style he will have alot of FT cashes and alot of early bustouts.

Raymer rather bust out day 1 and not make the money then play 3 days and just miss the money or barely make the money, I can respect that.

its not my style of play but I can respect anyone who can play like that and make it work for them.

[quote=Windbreaker]. And the hand against Ivey where he made trip queens and top pair vs the full house of iveys, only to river the A for bigger full house.

QUOTE]



if your saying this was a mistake on his play then you are way way way off, I dont think his call or push or whatever on this hand was bad at all. I mean he has got trip queens only like 2 or 3 hands beat him right here and Ivey could of had anything including a high pair or Q with worse kicker.

I hear this over and over how lucky he got in this hand, but I dont know many people that would lay down in this same spot. I agree Chris isnt as good as Greg or Joe but hell he is decent. I have sat with Chris on stars one time playing 3/6 NL and he isnt terrible. Id put him in the average category, did he get lucky? hell yes. Did Greg and Joe get lucky? hell yes!

anyone that says it was all lucky is clueless, anyone that says he is terrible is clueless. It took alot to get through his sattie then win it and he did it, I dont care if it was 800 people or 2000 he still deservers the respect for winning the damn main event. He also made some great plays and im sure he got sucked out once or twice too. It happens, now his track record isnt too hot since then but oh well.

I'm not going to comment on your ranking, because how can we really debate something like that? I guess it's good you have the confidence of putting yourself ahead of two prior WSOP ME winners, but to each his own.

People hate on Varkonyi, and I think it's largely because he was (and remains) unknown at the time of his WSOP victory. I've said it before on this forum (and I'll say it again): I've watched him play very high limits against Phil Ivey in Atlantic City before and after his huge win.

Does that mean he is/was a great player? Of course not, but he at least had some kind of bankroll if he's playing 50/100 and 75/150 against seasoned professionals.

Just my $.02.

EDIT: typo.

"Raymer is a beast" is the correct answer.