Idiots at WSOP final table (spoiler only open if already watched)

Watching this WSOP main event final table made me SICK to my stomach. WTF is up with idiots going all in with no pair on the board, no streight posibility, no flush posibility, some not even with ace high. David Philps going all in w 10 high with jack on the board... evene if he hits his 10 luckly not big chance he loses to jack.

The other guy going all in after not having anything on the river when clearly the other guy had a good hand based on his betting.

Discuss..

I thought the same thing at first but they had probably been playing for 10-12 hours at that stage, the mind does funny things at that point i reckon. None of them are donks thats for sure, they didnt get that far playing like idiots.

No, they can't make it that far without being good poker players. But I didn't agree with so many of them risking all of their chips on a bluff. They could have easily folded, and settled for a bit shorter stack, but they were still fine. Maybe they just didn't want to have to try and battle up from short stack.

they go all in because people play really tight towards the end its alot of money and i doubt you would risk it on an all in..right?

Hre is the deal the only idiot were the guys that went out early, once the last two americans went down to the foreign guys they were just fed up, the sad thing is the bearded had called the all before he would of doubled up in all likelihood. What appeared to happen was that the two americans got the right read on the wrong player they thought the danish guy was bullying when it was the Ruskie. Honestly as long as you made it to the top five the way they shifted the money this year its all good, I probably would of got impatient and ready to RAGE after I knew I had banked three million dollars.

I disagree you can make it that far if you are a poor poker player as long as you understand poker, you get lucky for all your chips being behind three times and boom you have a huge stack and can ride it to the final hundred, this was a better then average final table, the fact you got a guy there that has never won his own home game suggests that it doesnt take much but a shitload of luck in a tourney that size.

It's called aggression folks, aggressive bluffs like the 10 high one can sometimes work in situations...it's not that he's a bad player, just picked the wrong spot imo

1/ Your spelling sucks
2/ They had been playing for 53 mins before a flop was seen as all were folding to any raise.
3/ In 7 hrs of play only 89 hands had been played.
4/ The hand your talking about is not a bet on what he has, rather a bet on what he thinks his opponent doesn't have
5/ The inability of a Phillips to reconize that Eastgate plays any 2 paint or pkt pairs (obviously) and check raises when he hits.
6/ If you think you could do better, I'll stake you next year for 30%, if you don't cash, I want double my money back.

finally a voice of reason...aint all about AK preflop ALLIN SHOVE EVERY TIME FOLKS!!!

FYP

Unless it's a freeroll,,,,

like i said in a previous post, i will take the one-out-bad-beat 6 on the river for a 3$ million payday any day of the week...

and i bet you will find my man YLON on an island with a corona in his hand and a hot babe in his arms right about now....
and wont even be thinking about that A 10 oooopsy....

siiiiiighhh

every time i see a complaint like this, i wonder if anyone has ever heard of the concept of a "bluff" in their lives. successful bluffing can be an important part of a player's game, but in televised poker we only rarely see the successful bluffs, because when they work, it doesn't make for a big all-in pot. it's only when the guy gets caught that it turns into a bust-out hand that they must show.

do people honestly not understand that concept? it's the same with 3betting light. the times brandon cantu (an example from before the final table) 3bet preflop with garbage and it worked, they're not going to show those hands, because it's fold-and-take-it poker. the sample is huuugely skewed for us to see the times they get caught. and then armchair geniuses get to make comments which basically amount to "LOL OMG BLUFFING IS DUMB BECAUSE IT DIDN'T WORK"

yes, there were some imo terrible bluffs, but that's due to ranges, hand-reading, what they were representing, so on. breaking it down to "wow, what an idiot for going all-in with no pair, no draw" makes you sound like you don't know what you're talking about

I understand the point of bluffing ...i might be an idiot or something but i never bluff unless i have atleast some outs... I need to have atleast one pair on the board or streight, flush

yeah..some person who will remain nameless (yet calls allins with Q10 and 9 10 for 80% or 100% of their stack) mentioned today in the fulltilt FREEROLL, of all places that what an "IDIOT" that russian was for bluffing off his stack HU...only thing i could do was laugh...like is mentioned earlier..no concept of "PLAYING" poker..just open shoving AK AQ, callin allins with sooted trash...etc. etc.

most of the time i don't bluff without outs either, but if you're confident enough in your read, it can be the best play to bluff with air. just because you get caught and don't have any outs doesn't automatically mean your bluff was a bad play. you may have just ran into a very small, unlikely % of their range that could call you given the way the hand played out

Yeah, the television coverage and editing can obviously vastly change the impression you get of the play. In no way did you get the feel from the WSOP ESPN broadcast that there was very tight play throughout many hours, or given any idea at all how long they had played.

It seemed that they were pushing the envelope from beginning to end

For sure, I felt ESPN did an injustice making this only 2 hours...I felt it should have been rightly covered in at least 3 hrs

two hours was definetly not enough.............need more norman chad. most of you bring up solid points when the bluff works its not great television, only when it fails is it television worthy.

SOme of you guys complain too much about bad play and some of the stuff on the Final Table really wasnt that bad compared to some of the play I see in earlier stages of tourneys by members here............ffs

I bet some of the ones complaining about the bad bluffs have no clue as to how to play a final table.............

David Phillips? Who is that?

LOL! I MADE JOKE!

Dont think u can call them donks. They did make through over 6500 people! At that point when the blinds are huge and u already have a million in your pocket, anything can happen. Strange plays for sure. I agree there but not at all donks.

Aaahhh, freeroll experts. Bless their little cotton socks.

Something else for people to keep in mind too. Heads-up play between Eastgate and Demidov went for something like 105 hands and four hours. What did ESPN show, two of them in less than 10 minutes?

Also, ace-high isn't necessarily a pure bluff when you're heads up. It's a winning hand a lot more often than people think. In fact, if you play 100+ hands of heads up against the same opponent, who's known to be very aggressive, without ever betting light on a river then you've more than likely got yourself a leak in your game.

SIDE NOTE:

Guess this kinda proves ESPN's point, huh - four months later but everybody still tuned in and gets excited as hell about the final table.

I was kinda dissapointed in the way Philips let himself get pushed around. especially when Demidov had AQ suited and ran Philips down postflop. Philis should have shoved in Demidov's face that AK, preflop.

Easy to say when you can see their hole cards. He had nuthin and wasn't about to go out early when he had been the chip leader for over 3 months. He was a bit steamed but got right with the big suckout AQ vs QQ

Well he did have lady luck on his side for most times, he would hit his cards most of the time.

yea, but I'd have shoved AK to a reraise. He could have afforded it. Philips allowed himself to get pushed around, he made himself look weak.

LMAO...

There is something I am curious about. As previously mentioned we did not see nearly enough of the final table. What I want to know is why no one gave Eastgate any credit for ever having a hand? Everytime it went to a showdown he had it. Was he playing very aggressively on other hands? Did he get caught bluffing several times during hands we didn't see? I swear the way he was having chips thrown at him it was like a replay of the way Raymer won his main event.

i'm sure he was playing quite aggressively on the other hands. but when a player raises preflop and bets flop and takes it down, they're of course not going to show those hands, because they're not exciting. for all we know, eastgate did this several times with little resistance. he's known as a pretty aggressive player. they just picked bad times to play back at him

I was kind of disappointed when I watched the Final Table... they hyped it up like there was no tomorrow...

My Money was on Ivan "The Russian"... but he came in second place...

they all played like donkeys... with their power stack bluffs... it was pretty sick to watch people go all in with nothing... not even a drawing hand... Guess they were all trying to bluff big like Moneymaker did...

but my reasoning behind this, is that they might have been pretty tired by now... and just wanted the whole thing over with... besides, am sure they were all pretty happy with the winnings... they were all multi-millioners... so I guess that soften the blow of loosing...

I think it might've been Hellmuth or Negreanu who said in the final table ESPN preview that this would be the most sophisticated play we've seen at that stage because the players had months to prepare. Um...? That's not what I was thinking, but I dunno much.

It did seem to me that some of the players were mentally exhausted and as others have said were probably moving in just at the wrong times.

That being said, Eastgate played some amazing poker!

i'm just glad that douche, jerry yang wasn't at the table. or anyone like him. and is it just me or is everyone getting sick of the world series of pokers feel good stories? seriously! cinderella isn't cinderella anymore if there are a thousand other cinderellas every year. i'm sick of watching poker and getting it confused with full house.

First off, they didn't play like donkeys, they played like 9 guys who beat out 6000+ to make the final table of one of the greatest poker tournaments in the world. What part of playing your opponents and not your cards, do people not understand. Yes, sometimes you're gonna get caught, and it can cost you your tournament, but thats poker. The combination of televised poker and lack of understanding is why there are so many donks in poker. Going all in pf when there are 3000 people left in the tournament and when there are only 3 left is waaaaaaay different. How often in live play do you see half the table go all-in pf??? You can call the final 9 whatever you want but they are definately not donkeys!

The way I see it was:

The blinds were getting high and no one had a huge chip advantage like Gold or Yang like in past years. Most of the players held out for good cards as long as they could, made some bad moves, or both, but they had to take their chances. I'd like to know how many hands they actually played heads-up, but I would have to think by the way it ended I'd have to believe they knew they had little time to wait for better hands than they called with. Maybe I'm wrong.