2007 world series of poker - scotty nguyen

[Dunbar]

Are you talking about the hand where had AQ against 55? He flopped top pair with top kicker, the other guy flopped a set. Can't really fault him for getting all in with top pair and no draws on the board. He lost a lot of chips and was probably steaming on the next hand he played. When you're short stacked a flush draw isn't a terrible hand to move in with. If your opponent folds you get chips, if not you still have a drawing hand.

I've watched Scotty on TV in a lot of tournaments. IMO, he seems to get bored or tired and start making bad all-in moves and questionable calls. Sometimes you suck out and win the hand, most of the time you don't. I've also noticed the same thing in Phil Ivey who incidentally hasn't been doing very in tournament poker either.

 

[goog40]

He has a history of having too much to drink and playing erratically at final tables on TV.

 

[randay]

i want annie duke...

 

[Epic Fail]

Originally posted by: randay
i want annie duke...

dude, she is old and not a hot milf.

 

[shopbruin]

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!!!!!!!!!!"

 

[Dunbar]

I think Annie Duke gained back a lot of the weight she lost.

 

[Epic Fail]

Originally posted by: Dunbar
I think Annie Duke gained back a lot of the weight she lost.

damn I searched for Annie Duke fat and the google failed me, just remember that it was her brother that was really fat back in the day.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: yamadakun

Originally posted by: randay
i want annie duke...

dude, she is old and not a hot milf.

i dont understand it either, but im pretty sure.

 

[mooglemania85]

Originally posted by: yamadakun

Originally posted by: LS20
who is that girl
she is a cutie patooey

Maria Ho.

Name: Maria Ho
Location: Arcadia, CA, United States
Cashes: 7
Total Winnings: $264,176
ProRank 1 Position: 1730 [ DETAILS ]
Age: 24
Marital Status: Single
Children: None
Started Playing Poker: November 2002
Favorite Poker Game: NL Texas Hold 'Em
Ambition: To make a positive impact for this world and the people in it, to be successful in my own right whether it be through poker or other ventures, and to find genuine happiness in the simple things that make life beautiful.
Hobbies: Singing, dancing, spending time with family and friends, curling up with a good book and learning new things.
Favorite Movie: Sound of Music, The Shawshank Redemption, Braveheart.
Favorite Music: Hip Hop/ R & B/ Soul
Favorite Place: Rome
Poker Players I Respect Most: Doyle Brunson (of course!), Daniel Negreanu, Phil Ivey, Barry Greenstein, and Huck Seed.
If I could change anything in the world: I would change the lack of acts of kindness and respect we give each other on a daily basis.
If I could change anything in the poker world: I would want to change the perception that all poker players are only interested in playing poker all day, every day, there are many great pros that I know of who have a lot of other interests and are extremely talented and skillful at other things, as well. (Kenna James is an awesome singer!)

 

[poopaskoopa]

Originally posted by: yamadakun
And the amateur Joseph Hachem won 2 million on the WPT tour after his win as main event champion.

IIRC, he had quit his day job to focus on poker before he won the 2005 main event.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: AgaBoogaBoo
Any of you guys here playing poker for real money on Pokerstars? We should have an AT tournament or something - any idea if private tournaments can be arranged?

Used to, but it's now illegal in my state. 8-(

Goodbye easy cashflow.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: randay
i want annie duke...

Agreed.

 

[LS20]

Originally posted by: mooglemania85


Name: Maria Ho
Location: Arcadia, CA, United States
Cashes: 7
Total Winnings: $264,176
ProRank 1 Position: 1730 [ DETAILS ]
Age: 24
Marital Status: Single
Children: None
Started Playing Poker: November 2002
Favorite Poker Game: NL Texas Hold 'Em
Ambition: To make a positive impact for this world and the people in it, to be successful in my own right whether it be through poker or other ventures, and to find genuine happiness in the simple things that make life beautiful.
Hobbies: Singing, dancing, spending time with family and friends, curling up with a good book and learning new things.
Favorite Movie: Sound of Music, The Shawshank Redemption, Braveheart.
Favorite Music: Hip Hop/ R & B/ Soul
Favorite Place: Rome
Poker Players I Respect Most: Doyle Brunson (of course!), Daniel Negreanu, Phil Ivey, Barry Greenstein, and Huck Seed.
If I could change anything in the world: I would change the lack of acts of kindness and respect we give each other on a daily basis.
If I could change anything in the poker world: I would want to change the perception that all poker players are only interested in playing poker all day, every day, there are many great pros that I know of who have a lot of other interests and are extremely talented and skillful at other things, as well. (Kenna James is an awesome singer!)

doesnt look like the interviewer girl



but anyvayz, you cant win if you dont gamble!

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: buck
These guys (elite players like Scotty baby) play on a much more advanced level than we can understand. I dont want to even begin to explain what he did because he has been playing longer than alot of us have even been alive. You dont become an elite champ like scotty without playing on the highest level.

Doesn't matter how elite they are, they all still do stupid things.

Which is why no pro has won the WSOP since what....2002?

The game just isn't THAT hard. If it was, there's no way an amateur could come in and compete at all.

Hell, Moneymaker had never even played with people before....internet only. The WSOP was his first live game.

Think you could take up golf, start beating all your friends, maybe win a local tournanment or two, then step up to the PGA and beat Tiger or Phil?

Not in a million years.

I have to agree with this. The results of the WSOP for the last few years pretty much bear this out. If you can understand position, pot odds, your chances of hitting your outs and shorthanded play (only necessary for the final stages), you can be in a postion to win a tournament. Of course, you can increase these chances by making accurate reads on your opponent. That is the only part of the game that can truly separate a good player from an exceptional one. However, this becomes less advantageous in the later stages as most of the remaining players play a generally solid game.

Of course, the fact that any decent player has a realistic chance of winning a holdem tournament is what makes it such a great game and what produces $8 million payouts.

Bottom line is that Scotty tilted. He was playing well but clearly changed strategy due to a couple of tough hands. It happens to just about everybody.

 

[Dunbar]

Originally posted by: DBL
I have to agree with this. The results of the WSOP for the last few years pretty much bear this out. If you can understand position, pot odds, your chances of hitting your outs and shorthanded play (only necessary for the final stages), you can be in a postion to win a tournament. Of course, you can increase these chances by making accurate reads on your opponent. That is the only part of the game that can truly separate a good player from an exceptional one.

I couldn't disagree more, solid fundamental poker skills are simply a prerequesite anyone dropping $5-10k on a tournament buy-in should have. Having a solid poker game is not enough to win a tournament against a highly competitive field. The fact is there are probably fewer than 500 poker players good enough to support themselves playing poker. As far as amateurs winning tournaments, luck is a huge component in the short term, especially amongst a field of 6500 players. Like the lottery, somebody has to win, and it isn't always the best player (or even one of the best). Look at the incredible run of luck Jamie Gold had at last year's main event. What separates the lucky from the great players is their success over the long term.

 

[Phokus]

With that many players, it's really not surprising that amateurs come out of the woodwork and win these things nowadays. The ratio of amateurs to pros must be staggering. The fact that Scotty Nguyen consistently plays well and goes deep at these events shows you how talented he is.

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: Dunbar

Originally posted by: DBL
I have to agree with this. The results of the WSOP for the last few years pretty much bear this out. If you can understand position, pot odds, your chances of hitting your outs and shorthanded play (only necessary for the final stages), you can be in a postion to win a tournament. Of course, you can increase these chances by making accurate reads on your opponent. That is the only part of the game that can truly separate a good player from an exceptional one.

I couldn't disagree more, solid fundamental poker skills are simply a prerequesite anyone dropping $5-10k on a tournament buy-in should have.

Clearly, you don't believe that everyone who drops 10K on the WSOP understands all the fundamentals I listed. There obviously has to be a small subset (aka "dead money") who never have a chance in such a large field due to their limited understanding of the game.

Having a solid poker game is not enough to win a tournament against a highly competitive field.

You have to define "solid poker game". If you are including all the skills I listed, then I disagree. Someone who understands those skills and with no obvious leaks (i.e. tells) does have a realistic shot not much lower than their expected outcome based purely on odds.

For example, if someone like Phil Ivey is 2000:1 in a field of 6000, someone who understands the fundamentals as I listed them but is otherwise unproven could be something like 18000:1 in the same field. Throw in enough players like this (as there always would be) and someone with these type of odds has a very realistic chance of winning.

The fact is there are probably fewer than 500 poker players good enough to support themselves playing poker.

I agree here, although a lot of people good enough ruin their chances by not adhering to bankroll theory as well as getting involved in other types of -ev gambling. However, making a living from poker and winning the WSOP of poker are two very different things. One requires you to sustain a long string of luck (WSOP) on top of solid play while the other requires poker skills greater than your average opponents (the rake must also be accounted for here also).

As far as amateurs winning tournaments, luck is a huge component in the short term, especially amongst a field of 6500 players. Like the lottery, somebody has to win, and it isn't always the best player (or even one of the best). Look at the incredible run of luck Jamie Gold had at last year's main event. What separates the lucky from the great players is their success over the long term.

Now I think your are getting it. If you notice my comments were in reference to the WSOP and not the long term. If you think I was stating that a fundamentally sound player has a chance to win against an exceptional player OVER THE LONG RUN, then you have misunderstood.

 

[Dunbar]

I guess we're in agreement on some points, but I still don't agree with the characterization that it isn't "that hard" to play tournament poker and have a reasonable chance of winning. I think it is incredibly tough and challenging, and the fact that amateurs win them should surprise noone. Just the simple fact of the ratio of amateurs to pros (Probably 100 to 1 or more) explains that outcome. It's like saying somebody who buys a lottery ticket has a chance to win, sure but what are the odds of winning? When you say that Phil Ivy 9 times more likely to win you realize that is a enormous advantage in gambling? If you play blackjack correctly the house has a 1% advantage, Phil Ivey has a 900% advantage over the amateurs (using your example)!

So to summarize, we agree that an amateur is likely to win a huge tourmanent. I think that has to do with the simple ratio of amateurs to pros. IMO, the average amateur (with solid fundamentals) playing in a tournament is getting terrible odds on their money.

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: Dunbar
I guess we're in agreement on some points, but I still don't agree with the characterization that it isn't "that hard" to play tournament poker and have a reasonable chance of winning. I think it is incredibly tough and challenging, and the fact that amateurs win them should surprise noone. Just the simple fact of the ratio of amateurs to pros (Probably 100 to 1 or more) explains that outcome. It's like saying somebody who buys a lottery ticket has a chance to win, sure but what are the odds of winning? When you say that Phil Ivy 9 times more likely to win you realize that is a enormous advantage in gambling? If you play blackjack correctly the house has a 1% advantage, Phil Ivey has a 900% advantage over the amateurs (using your example)!

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.

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: Dunbar
So to summarize, we agree that an amateur is likely to win a huge tourmanent. I think that has to do with the simple ratio of amateurs to pros. IMO, the average amateur (with solid fundamentals) playing in a tournament is getting terrible odds on their money.

I pretty agree to a certain extent. However, in reality I don't think the odds are as bad as you think and nowhere near as bad as my example. The reason for this is that there are so many more amateurs than pros. The average amateur player may only be slightly worse than the tournament average, considering only a small % of the field are pros. They just can't skew the numbers that much. In fact, if you could identify those who have no chance b/c they have a poor understanding of the fundamentals, you could argue that a fundamentally sound amateur may not be getting terrible odds on their money at all.

Also, while Phil Ivey could be a 9:1 favorite against any one amateur, remember that we are not distinguishing between individual amateurs when they make the final table. Essentially, in a sense, he is playing against all amateurs from the viewers perspective, which is why his chances of making the final table would be so much worse than that of any "amateur".

 

[ponyo]

Originally posted by: Dunbar

I couldn't disagree more, solid fundamental poker skills are simply a prerequesite anyone dropping $5-10k on a tournament buy-in should have. Having a solid poker game is not enough to win a tournament against a highly competitive field. The fact is there are probably fewer than 500 poker players good enough to support themselves playing poker. As far as amateurs winning tournaments, luck is a huge component in the short term, especially amongst a field of 6500 players. Like the lottery, somebody has to win, and it isn't always the best player (or even one of the best). Look at the incredible run of luck Jamie Gold had at last year's main event. What separates the lucky from the great players is their success over the long term.

Most pros win far more money playing home cash games than tournament poker. Tournament poker is more about fame than cash for pros.

 

[manly]

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: Dunbar
I guess we're in agreement on some points, but I still don't agree with the characterization that it isn't "that hard" to play tournament poker and have a reasonable chance of winning. I think it is incredibly tough and challenging, and the fact that amateurs win them should surprise noone. Just the simple fact of the ratio of amateurs to pros (Probably 100 to 1 or more) explains that outcome. It's like saying somebody who buys a lottery ticket has a chance to win, sure but what are the odds of winning? When you say that Phil Ivy 9 times more likely to win you realize that is a enormous advantage in gambling? If you play blackjack correctly the house has a 1% advantage, Phil Ivey has a 900% advantage over the amateurs (using your example)!

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.

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.

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.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Naustica
Most pros win far more money playing home cash games than tournament poker. Tournament poker is more about endorsements than cash for pros.

Fixed.


And the answer about Scotty is that he tilted and blew up. Neither video in the OP showed it that I saw, and I can't remember the exact details off the top of my head, but he had made a good play the hand before but hit bad luck and lost a big chunk of his stack, prompting him to go all-in on the draw the next hand even though his opponent was clearly holding the goods. Hey, it happens even to the best of them.

 

[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.

 

[crt1530]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Naustica
Most pros win far more money playing home cash games than tournament poker. Tournament poker is more about endorsements than cash for pros.

Fixed.


And the answer about Scotty is that he tilted and blew up. Neither video in the OP showed it that I saw, and I can't remember the exact details off the top of my head, but he had made a good play the hand before but hit bad luck and lost a big chunk of his stack, prompting him to go all-in on the draw the next hand even though his opponent was clearly holding the goods. Hey, it happens even to the best of them.

Tuan Lam has the button in seat 1, Scotty Nguyen raises from the small blind to 530,000, and Philip Hilm calls from the big blind. The flop comes Qc6h5d, Nguyen bets 600,000, and Hilm calls. There is now 2.36 million in the pot. The turn card is the Kd, Nguyen checks, Hilm bets 1.2 million, Nguyen moves all in, and Hilm immediately calls with 5c5s for a set of fives. Nguyen shows AhQd for a pair of queens, and he's drawing dead. (The meaningless river card is the 4h.) The crowd goes silent as the chip stacks are counted down to see how many chips Scotty Nguyen has left. Philip Hilm has exactly 6.845 million. Scotty Nguyen has about 9.195 million. Hilm doubles up to about 16.05 million in chips. Nguyen is knocked all the way down to about 2.35 million.