2007 world series of poker - scotty nguyen

[spidey07]

So scotty was posturing he a set of Qs? Either way, the bet from hilm on that king should have signaled something.

I don't know much about all the psychology at play, but if I have a hand I'll bet it. I do see a lot of players at the final table pushing all in a lot. Maybe to bully the smaller stacks.

 

[manly]

Originally posted by: spidey07
So scotty was posturing he a set of Qs? Either way, the bet from hilm on that king should have signaled something.

I don't know much about all the psychology at play, but if I have a hand I'll bet it. I do see a lot of players at the final table pushing all in a lot. Maybe to bully the smaller stacks.

Hilm's bet size of half the pot gave no info, and Scotty possibly took it as a bet to take down the pot. After the SB's check, a player with position could plausibly bet with any pocket pair 88 or higher and represent the King. Scotty was clearly fuming from the previous big hand with Hilm; but he could have figured if Hilm had AK or better he wouldn't have bet so strongly there. I believe it's a combination of tilt & a bad read.

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: manly

Originally posted by: DBL
Right. A top pro would have a much better chance at winning. However, I have no idea if my numbers were realistic. They were just for illustration purposes.

Also, winning and making the money are very different. You could argue that making the money is an indication of having a successful tournament. If the average odds are 10:1 to make the money, the pro at 3:1 would make money (a lot actually) over the long run playing tournament poker while the amateur would lose money if his odds were 30:1. However, you could definitely say that the amateur playing solid poker has a realistic chance to make the money for any 1 tournament.

This is not correct. Merely making the money very consistently (1/3) would not be very profitable.

Would that not depend on the structure of the tournament? 1/3 at a SNG where 30% make the money would probably make for break even play. But in the WSOP, only about 10% make the money. If you can consistenly cash in 1/3 of tournaments with this type of structure, you would do very well.

But making just one final table in the WSOP ME pays enough to make one a successful tournament player for the year (in terms of profitability). 2006 champion Jamie Gold is considered a fluke, but unless he plays high-stakes cash games, his bankroll is going to last years in major events.

I don't think anyone disputes this. OTOH, wrt bankroll, you are assuming a lot of things I would not necessarily assume for a serious poker player.

As far as the big hand in question, I'm not sure it's enough to say the other player got under his skin or tilted him. The only reason he'd check-raise AI with 2nd pair against a player that could cripple him is if he honestly felt the other player was either behind or could not call the bet. It's very plausible he thought he was up against a mid-pair (88 through JJ) because he wasn't re-raised pre-flop. All the obvious hands that beat him would have played the hand differently; and since Scotty had AQ the monster pocket pairs aren't very likely for that board. No doubt the heads-up jousting with Hilm caused him to implode though.

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: Vic
Just a footnote, it's not disrespecting the pros, I think some people don't give these amateurs enough credit. Obviously, luck is involved. There's no doubt that Gold last year and Yang this year both had incredible runs of luck. But they both also capitalized on those runs with foolproof strategy by consistently appearing strong while being strong. Their opponents just couldn't believe they were running that lucky and so they got a ton of action.

The real pros love the increased attention (endorsements, etc.) and entrants in poker tournaments. It results in an overall softer field as well as the ability to play for 8 million as opposed to 1 million.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: manly

Originally posted by: spidey07
So scotty was posturing he a set of Qs? Either way, the bet from hilm on that king should have signaled something.

I don't know much about all the psychology at play, but if I have a hand I'll bet it. I do see a lot of players at the final table pushing all in a lot. Maybe to bully the smaller stacks.

Hilm's bet size of half the pot gave no info, and Scotty possibly took it as a bet to take down the pot. After the SB's check, a player with position could plausibly bet with any pocket pair 88 or higher and represent the King. Scotty was clearly fuming from the previous big hand with Hilm; but he could have figured if Hilm had AK or better he wouldn't have bet so strongly there. I believe it's a combination of tilt & a bad read.

Thanks for the insight. I think this is why amateurs do well. They play loose (like me) and they gamble. You can reduce it to odds and value but in the end, it's still gambling.

 

[manly]

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: manly

Originally posted by: DBL
Right. A top pro would have a much better chance at winning. However, I have no idea if my numbers were realistic. They were just for illustration purposes.

Also, winning and making the money are very different. You could argue that making the money is an indication of having a successful tournament. If the average odds are 10:1 to make the money, the pro at 3:1 would make money (a lot actually) over the long run playing tournament poker while the amateur would lose money if his odds were 30:1. However, you could definitely say that the amateur playing solid poker has a realistic chance to make the money for any 1 tournament.

This is not correct. Merely making the money very consistently (1/3) would not be very profitable.

Would that not depend on the structure of the tournament? 1/3 at a SNG where 30% make the money would probably make for break even play. But in the WSOP, only about 10% make the money. If you can consistenly cash in 1/3 of tournaments with this type of structure, you would do very well.

Yes, S&G payout structures are much different from multi-table tourneys. The biggest improvement in a small S&G is from the bubble position (0) to the lowest money placing. All MTTs are top-heavy, so making the money really isn't that big of a deal from a profit standpoint.* That's why successful tourney players "gamble" so much. If you're too solid, you'll get blinded out or merely turn a small profit by placing.

* Since the WSOP Maint Event is a $10K buy-in, it's still "nice" for the average entrant to earn back his buy-in.

Also remember that heads-up, 2nd pair (and top kicker) is a huge hand that most good players don't fold.

 

[buzzsaw13]

Originally posted by: freesia39

Originally posted by: binister
Hevad Khan annoys the hell out of me.

Lollerskates

It was great when that other player told him to sit down and knock it off.

"BULLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLDOZERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!"

I was rooting for him to win, he's really big on the SRK forums and even more so since he made final table. He's got the fighting game player mentality I like, the talk unsurmountable amounts of shit and have the skill to back it up

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: buzzsaw13

Originally posted by: freesia39

Originally posted by: binister
Hevad Khan annoys the hell out of me.

Lollerskates

It was great when that other player told him to sit down and knock it off.

"BULLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLDOZERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!"

I was rooting for him to win, he's really big on the SRK forums and even more so since he made final table. He's got the fighting game player mentality I like, the talk unsurmountable amounts of shit and have the skill to back it up

That does not change the fact that I'd rather have 9 phil helmuths at my table than 1 Hevad based solely on their annoyance factor. I'd rather listen to Phil's bad beats all day long than listen to that tool.

 

[KarmaPolice]

I can't remember exactly what happend but it was a horrible move...

The pot wasn't that big and the risk of going all in did not outweigh the pot.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: DBL
That does not change the fact that I'd rather have 9 phil helmuths at my table than 1 Hevad based solely on their annoyance factor. I'd rather listen to Phil's bad beats all day long than listen to that tool.

If he was at a table I was playing at I think I'd shoot him.

 

[PepePeru]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: DBL
That does not change the fact that I'd rather have 9 phil helmuths at my table than 1 Hevad based solely on their annoyance factor. I'd rather listen to Phil's bad beats all day long than listen to that tool.

If he was at a table I was playing at I think I'd shoot him.

too bad its not 1885.


yeah he annoyed me to watch on TV, in person...I'm surprised more people didnt tell him to give it a rest. Some guys probably did, it just wasn't shown on TV.