I agree 100%. People have made judgments on the quality of play of these guys after watching about 2% of the hands they played. Yeah, Moneymaker got luck against Brenes, but he had a bigger stack. Did it ever occur that he must have played reasonably competent prior to that point to even have that big a stack?
Last year there was a huge debate on 2+2 about Moneymaker calling Ivey's all-in with 10 left, with a bunch of know-it-alls saying it was a stupid call. The problem was, it wasn't a stupid call, it was a good call. Anybody who says they'd lay down top trips/top kicker to a player as aggressive as Ivey doesn't deserve to even make the comment. Even if you compltely discount Ivey making that play with JJ or TT, the range of hands is 99 (3), 66(3), KQ(4), AQ(3), QJ(4) and QTs (1). Add in pure bluff (10%), and even assuming that Ivey is twice as likely to make the move while ahead, Moneymaker is ahead better than half the time *and* has 7 outs when he's behind. Now consider that a) he's still alive if he loses and b) he already stands to make more than 200% his annual salary if he busts out 10th.
Ridiculously easy call.
To win a 800+ player tournament you have to both play well and get lucky. One of the two won't cut it (which is why with these size fields, Hellmuth is a huge dog to ever win again).
|