Printable View
I'd set the line high that Qui Nguyen guy loses half or more of the million he earned so far (after taxes portion) before October 30th.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5lFyKl12wE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnG6-YWHcT8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu379pHjL8M
They have more of these up under the Pokernews Channel.
Yeah, Qui Nquyen is definitely going to shoot off a good portion of that gambling.
I wonder if being a degen gambler actually helped him get this far in the Main. He might have been fearless at the table, and ran over opponents who were terrified about busting.
Looking at that November Nine picture, JohnnyBax is a lot shorter than I thought he was. Some of the other dudes look almost a foot taller than him.
I agree that this final table is a refreshing break from the recent ones dominated by hotshot twentysomethings.
The OLDEST person to win the Main since 2008 was Martin Jacobsen, who was 27.
This time, the YOUNGEST person at the table is 27, and 6 of the 9 are 34 or older.
rooting twice as hard for Nguyen now.
I can only hope he shoots off his whole million before the final table and has to move up to actually get any further money.
Would make a nice storyline for headsup vs JohnnyBax.
Edit: Who am I kidding JohnnyBax would probably pay him off for the bracelet. I hope he busts 9th.
His opponent at no point 3 betted him from his own description of how the hand played out.Quote:
Originally Posted by MumblesBadly
Well, differences of opinions is certaintly why poker is such an interesting, and hotly debated, topic. And thank you for taking the time to thoughtfully reply.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Guy
I'm not gonna argue with you about this because I know how you live for it but where the fuck are you getting your info because I read the article?
1) Where the fuck does it say he's a "3 better"? Seriously, where? It says he flatted.
2) Exactly. He gives no info about his opponent other than calling him a "kid". Geez, I wonder why? Probably so the reader can make our own assumptions to make his fold seem semi-plausible. See, I'm capable of making unfounded assumptions too.
You make it sound like he purposefully misrepresented the profile of his opponent to rationalize his fold. I can see a weekend/rec player doing this, but not a tourney pro with $2.8 million in live cash tourney winnings. So, to me, the "kid" most likely indicates a younger, more aggressive/Internet player, but not necessarily a donkey who would try to bluff giving the orig aggressor 4-1 to call his all-in river raise..
3) You're giving waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much credit for the ME providing great play when the opposite is actually true, especially early which this is, IMO. There's a reason Druff doesn't sell parts of his ME.
Not great play, but nittier play early on. Druff himself mentioned how the rec players seemed more careful with their chips than what was the usual play style at the ME in years past.
4) Okay, I might be a little off-base with the "nut flush" although I still thinks it's a good possibility, & he had 9's full & thought he was slow-playing the turn. Both hands are waaaaaaaaaaaay, waaaaaaaaay, waaaaaaaay more likely than specifically Q-10s IMO.
Before the hand played out, I agree with your "wa...ay" modifiers. But not afterward. Especially with the paired board, the pot odds Bowker was given, it being the ME, and that coming-over-the-top all-in by the previously passive-in-the-hand player.
5) Whatever. Don't see how this is even relevant & goes back to # 2).
You mentioned a donkey player. I came up with an example of who I would likely see as making a donkey all-in play holding the nut flush: a much older, possibly frustrated, male player who is envious of the success of much younger players like Bowker.
6) lol. Okay, I got a chuckle.
The point of my original post that you replied to was that you admonished Druff by asking if he even read the article:
http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news...-in-main-event
when there's absolutely nothing in it, including the betting patterns that you point out, that just SCREAMS Q-10s IMO. It just doesn't in my mind.
Why he suddenly put some 3 bet reference in it is beyond me. There was never any 3 bet, from anybody, according to his own description of the hand.Quote:
According to Bowker, he opened with pocket sevens from early position and everything that happened next made a straight flush a very real possibility.
“The next player flatted; the kid who I ended up folding to flatted,” Bowker told Card Player. “The big blind flatted. The flop came KSpade Suit 9Spade Suit 7. I bet 5,000. Fold. Kid in the middle calls. The big blind folds. The turn was another seven.”
Bowker decided not to slow-play his quads. He bet 11,000. The bet was called.
The dealer burned and put the JSpade Suit on the felt.
“I bet 40,000,” Bowker said, “which was pot because I felt like he had the nut flush draw and got there on the river. And then he moved all in for 98,000 in total.”
No one is saying he 3-bet. What is being said is that he was a habitual 3-bettor, but he chose not to 3-bet in this hand. It matters because then we can say that he likely doesn't have KK or AQs type of hands in his range. Without that piece of information you can never deduce his likely holdings OTR to 99 or QTs. And only thing that supports the fold OTR is still a live read that his opponent made his hand on the river.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Guy
You need to be more than 90% sure that the river card made his opponents hand, if you are 100% sure that you can deduce his range to just 99 and QTs. I wasn't at the table but i'm not exactly loving the margin of error of the play. It might have been correct but it very rarely is.