watching main event final table. . .

i already know what the results of the main even were for this year, but i'm watching the final table on espn right now and a few thoughts crossed my mind. . . just wondering if anyone else has any other random thoughts about this year's main event or other tournaments?

after seeing the way allen cunningham played, i'm even more disappointed that he didn't win it after making it that far. he's a respectable guy and a consummate pro, and he made some really great lay downs that an ammateur would probably have played. in my opinion, he played the best game out of the final nine players.

what do you guys think about jamie gold as the winner? i'm fairly indifferent, but i think its also fair to say that i can't remember seeing someone get such a lucky run of cards. i'm not trying to take anything away from him (there were actually a few aspects of his style that i really liked), but there's no way he had the poise to win the tournament if he experienced a cold run of cards for any length of time.

and i can't help but think that i had hoped to see more of my favorite pros make it deeper than they did, but the sheer number of the field is unreal these days, and chance plays such a strong part in winning - as is evident by who won it and how.

Jamie Gold definitely kept getting lucky as hell. Getting dealt great cards is one thing, but Jamie Gold was fortunate enough to get dealt great cards at great times, which is the ultimate in being lucky in poker. Case in point, when Allen Cunningham makes trip 9s, Jamie makes trip 9s with a better kicker. Twice he was dealt QQ when another player was dealt JJ and they got it all-in before the flop. Basically he made a whole crapload of his chips off of situations that were tailor-made for anyone to profit. A deaf, blind, dumb guy gets paid off on these hands just the same.

However, Gold did have a knack for getting the desired reaction out of an opponent, whether it be a fold when he had nothing or a call when he had the nuts. You might have noticed, though, that this never worked on Allen Cunningham, which is one of many reasons I agree that Allen Cunningham played the best and was most deserving. Yes, Wassicka (I think it was) bluffed Cunningham out of a hand when Allen had TT, but I can't blame him for when there were 3 hearts, two aces, and a jack on the board, and Wassicka re-raised Cunningham's raise all-in. It was just an incredibly ballsy, well-timed play by Wassicka. This was one of the few times you'll see Cunningham make a bad read. He really is a great player, and I was rooting for him to take it home for the pros.

combuboom said:

However, Gold did have a knack for getting the desired reaction out of an opponent, whether it be a fold when he had nothing or a call when he had the nuts.

Click to expand...

A good example of this was the bluff that he succeeded with on Prahlad Friedman. Prahlad called his bluff EXACTLY (same 750K bet on the river and K high for a hand) but Gold kept talking and talking and Friedman eventually folded his pocket 7's. Having said that, his talking (as Norman Chad said on the recast) bordered on unethical. He actually told an opponent who he regularly played with in a California casino that he had "top, top" when he put out a big reraise. (I believe) When the guy called, he showed him top pair, top kicker and showed some disappointment that he called. That bothered me quite a bit.

I think him winning the wsop is just going to convince more people that they can win by talking. I can't stand that now but I think it's going to get worse over the next few months....

Well in 50 years i NEVER saw anyone get the Good run of cards like Jamie Gold, He was UN-Stopable, plain & simple, from what i saw, and ive been watching every Tuesday night, he got lucky when he needed to, The truth is ANYBODY can win it if you get a good run of cards and luck to go with them, and everybody who has won it in the last few years has got lucky at some point, im not taking away anything from Jamie, BUT in the long run he will be a loser just like Moneymaker, Moneymaker has done Nothing since he won, 1 Tournament does not make you a pro, gl to jamie, but i think hes better off sticking to his TV producer job or whatever he does in TV, he also did things that were not allowed, like showing his Jack at the final table before the other guy made his mind up on what to do, Showing your cards is a No No, but the other player didnt call the floor on it, So its Simple, Without Luck and Good cards the chances of winning the WSOP are a shot in the dark.. buck:joyman:

Jamie Gold is, hands down, the luckiest poker player ever to play the WSOP. He hit nearly every flop, even with crap hands. I was blown away when he got the straight flush. If I had the hands and luck that he had, I would have won the WSOP too. Jamie Gold is the new Moneymaker.

yep, gold was one lucky guy. when he showed his jack at the final table, that was crazy but his opponent could have called the floor. it ended up working in gold's favor pretty well - but if his opponent had read caro's book of tells, he would have known that gold was weak lol. . .

i do agree though, that gold had a real knack for talking his opponents into making the decision that he wanted them to make. but he had so many straights (many on the flop) that it would have been tough to read him. anyway, it was good to see a pro make a few million. i would love if it got back to the days when we could watch phil ivey, phil hellmuth and other pros at the final table against eachother. . .

I agree, Alur, as far as wanting to see the big pros play at a final table against one another. I'd like to see more "Legends of Poker" type tournaments where they select several pros to participate by invite. I much more enjoy watching the pros go at it than watching amateurs get lucky.

I agree with most of the posts so far, but I would like to mention one thing. The TV broadcast is highly edited (it has to be because of time). Reducing 12-16 hours of play into 1 or 2 hours. You can't really tell how they played or how lucky any individual player was over the long run. My feeling on this is the same has what Raymer said last year. Whoever wins will be very good AND very lucky. Against over 8000 players anyone that wins will be both.

Also everything could have been different if Cunningham had called Gold's reraise all-in at the end of the first hour of broadcast. Cunningham would have hit his straight which would have made a big swing in chips and from there who knows. So you can certainly make the agrument that Gold's reraise was a brilliant play that probably ended up winning the tourney for him. A lot of players might have slow played there and let Cunningham hit his straight which would have been a disaster.

So, although I agree he good good cards and got very lucky at times, he also played well. I've played a lot of MTT (none with 8000 players though) and one thing I know, you cannot win a MTT without getting lucky a few times.

mrsnake3695 said:

you cannot win a MTT without getting lucky a few times.

Click to expand...

true indeed

mrsnake3695 said:

I agree with most of the posts so far, but I would like to mention one thing. The TV broadcast is highly edited (it has to be because of time). Reducing 12-16 hours of play into 1 or 2 hours. You can't really tell how they played or how lucky any individual player was over the long run. My feeling on this is the same has what Raymer said last year. Whoever wins will be very good AND very lucky. Against over 8000 players anyone that wins will be both.

Also everything could have been different if Cunningham had called Gold's reraise all-in at the end of the first hour of broadcast. Cunningham would have hit his straight which would have made a big swing in chips and from there who knows. So you can certainly make the agrument that Gold's reraise was a brilliant play that probably ended up winning the tourney for him. A lot of players might have slow played there and let Cunningham hit his straight which would have been a disaster.

So, although I agree he good good cards and got very lucky at times, he also played well. I've played a lot of MTT (none with 8000 players though) and one thing I know, you cannot win a MTT without getting lucky a few times.

Click to expand...

You need more than a few times to get lucky to win, you need to win dozens of races, and Jamie did that, so did Rahmer & Moneymaker,lol, its like a $ 10,000 freeroll,, only you put the money up,,lol,lol,, buck:joyman:

my obervations...

i actually was unable to watch the main event for the last few weeks, not because i had something else to do, but because i was unable to stomach jamie gold. something about him just annoyed the heck out of me, and just sitting on my couch watching it, i wanted to punch him in the face, so i'm glad i wasn't there as i probably would have been arrested. It wasn't so much that he was such a luck sack, it was his personallity and they way he carried himself. i just can't stand the guy. i don't believe i'll ever be able to watch much of this year's main event. i am looking forward to watching many of the other events though.

one more observation, did anyone else notice how they mentioned, and ultimatly glossed over, the fact that there were too many chips at the final table? They just passingly mentioned that some huge mistake had been made (2 million chips, that's like 200 entries. i can't help but wonder in who's favor this error was made...) as far as i'm concerned, this is like scoring 5 runs on a grad slam at the world series (of baseball) and then later suggesting it was no big deal.

-n

nateofdeath said:

my obervations...

i actually was unable to watch the main event for the last few weeks, not because i had something else to do, but because i was unable to stomach jamie gold. something about him just annoyed the heck out of me, and just sitting on my couch watching it, i wanted to punch him in the face, so i'm glad i wasn't there as i probably would have been arrested. It wasn't so much that he was such a luck sack, it was his personallity and they way he carried himself. i just can't stand the guy. i don't believe i'll ever be able to watch much of this year's main event. i am looking forward to watching many of the other events though.

one more observation, did anyone else notice how they mentioned, and ultimatly glossed over, the fact that there were too many chips at the final table? They just passingly mentioned that some huge mistake had been made (2 million chips, that's like 200 entries. i can't help but wonder in who's favor this error was made...) as far as i'm concerned, this is like scoring 5 runs on a grad slam at the world series (of baseball) and then later suggesting it was no big deal.

-n

Click to expand...

Ya they slid rite by the count chip, it was so fast if you blinked you missed it,, i also didnt like the way Jamie acted at the table, he needs a knock in the head to get him down to size,, he acted Worse than Phil Helmouth, and that takes some doing to go that low>>> buck:joyman:

Jamie Gold: The guy's an ass and the run of cards he got was unreal. Even my cousin, who never watched poker before last night, was saying, "I hate that guy!" by the end of the episode she watched.

He's not nearly as good a representative for poker as Joe Hachem proved himself to be.

medeiros13 said:

Having said that, his talking (as Norman Chad said on the recast) bordered on unethical. He actually told an opponent who he regularly played with in a California casino that he had "top, top" when he put out a big reraise. (I believe) When the guy called, he showed him top pair, top kicker and showed some disappointment that he called. That bothered me quite a bit.

Click to expand...

However, it should be noted, and Norman Chad clarified this in the later episode, that the tournament director notified Lon and Chad that it was in fact okay for the players to make statements like Jamie was doing as long as the hand was only heads up. While telling your opponent what your hand is would normally be considered bad ettiquette and unethical, house rules still win out. Just like in the National Heads Up tournament where the players are allowed to expose their cards to get a read on their opponent.

And let's be realistic, Jamie wasn't always telling the truth either. He was lying and bluffing to get people to do things. So the case about telling a guy from his card room in CA may have, in fact, been a ploy to get the guy to call (then feign disappointment afterward to hold that I told you so image for back home). We don't know how Jamie plays back home, and Jamie's statements may have been exactly what this guy needed to hear to make the call.

While I agree with a lot of what was said about Jamie, I most agree with MrSnake. This was two hours of TV (minus commercials, so about 85 - 90 minutes of broadcast play time) pushed from the perspective of the producers that are not there to paint a realistic picture. They're there to produce a show that makes ratings. So yes, Jamie got a lot of great starting hands, he flopped a bunch of great hands, and he sucked out some too. But don't let luck diminish the fact that he did play solid poker (from what we were shown). He also pulled off some great bluffs, talked his opponents into calling when they shouldn't have, and played great big stack poker (which is not simple just because you have a lot of chips). He was very lucky, but he is far from being a donk.

I pretty much agree with everyone else. Gold had that cold deck magic going for him -- beyond belief. His talking was indeed irritating -- trying to act like a friendly guy when he was just looking to shoot any angle he could.

buckster436 said:

You need more than a few times to get lucky to win, you need to win dozens of races, and Jamie did that, so did Rahmer & Moneymaker,lol, its like a $ 10,000 freeroll,, only you put the money up,,lol,lol,, buck:joyman:

Click to expand...

At least Greg Raymer made it far in the very next WSOP after he won it the year before. Moneymaker hasn't even gotten close t winning another major tournament since his WSOP win.

t1riel said:

At least Greg Raymer made it far in the very next WSOP after he won it the year before. Moneymaker hasn't even gotten close t winning another major tournament since his WSOP win.

Click to expand...

I meant to say Raymer & Hatchem, they both made it quite deep the following year,, i think Moneymaker went out the 1st. day the 2nd. year he played,,, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> buck:joyman:

With regards to the chip count being massively wrong, you might want to look at mischmans excellent thread named, WSOP ME Chip Counts Wrong.
As for the guy that won it, how many hours did he play for to win it?
How many hours have we seen televised of him?
Give the guy a break, he lasted through day 1, 2, 3, etc, did what he had to do and took home the big prize.
You can grind it out for days in an event like this ( no small feat ) before you start seeing the cards go your way.
Also I doubt very much that if he sat there like a sack of chit with a permanent grimace on his face ( though a sack of chit could make this happen ) and was silent throughout you guys would of liked him any better.
As for Moneymaker, he single handedly made the WSOP ME what it is today, be that a good thing or a bad thing.
Try to except the WSOP ME for what it is, and if you want to just see the big names all the time, there are plenty of options available.

This year's WSOP Winner is a DISGRACE.

Honestly, Jamie Gold is basically what you get when Chan takes a shit; his personality is 100% douche, while as far as poker goes... I'd give him maybe 5% skill, 95% luck. Honestly, I finally registered here to say this. I didn't like that the last three champs were all fairly lackluster as far as skill goes, but at least they DID have skill. Gold got lucky AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN, all the way up to the end. He played absolute SHIT poker... honeslty, who the hell stays on the hands he does (calling an all-in with A-7? and then pulling a straight out of your ass to win?).

BUT the thing that really made me mad was how much of a douche he was... every hand I felt like stabbing the pen I was doing my homework with through the guys face.

I'd prefer watching Phil Helmuth than this guy... with Helmuth, you get an Ego with skill to back it up. With Gold, you get a steaming pile of shit with luck.

Thanks, now you can continue your homework without fear of injury.

Jack Daniels said:

While I agree with a lot of what was said about Jamie, I most agree with MrSnake. This was two hours of TV (minus commercials, so about 85 - 90 minutes of broadcast play time) pushed from the perspective of the producers that are not there to paint a realistic picture. They're there to produce a show that makes ratings. So yes, Jamie got a lot of great starting hands, he flopped a bunch of great hands, and he sucked out some too. But don't let luck diminish the fact that he did play solid poker (from what we were shown). He also pulled off some great bluffs, talked his opponents into calling when they shouldn't have, and played great big stack poker (which is not simple just because you have a lot of chips). He was very lucky, but he is far from being a donk.

Click to expand...

personally i'm not saying he's a donk. clearly you need more then luck to win such a tournament, though you certainly need luck too. what i'm saying is, the guy's personality made me nauseous, and i wanted to break his nose. for me, it was like watching the Chicago Bears win. i physically couldn't bring myself to watch it. i'm not saying he's a bad poker player. i'm just saying he's an ass hole.

-n

True to the point that.......Everybody is somebodies ass hole.

zinzan1000 said:

With regards to the chip count being massively wrong, you might want to look at mischmans excellent thread named, WSOP ME Chip Counts Wrong.

Click to expand...

This is the thread that Zinzan meant, I think.

zinzan1000 said:

As for the guy that won it, how many hours did he play for to win it?
How many hours have we seen televised of him?
Give the guy a break, he lasted through day 1, 2, 3, etc, did what he had to do and took home the big prize.
You can grind it out for days in an event like this ( no small feat ) before you start seeing the cards go your way.
Also I doubt very much that if he sat there like a sack of chit with a permanent grimace on his face ( though a sack of chit could make this happen ) and was silent throughout you guys would of liked him any better.

Click to expand...

I completely agree here. Until ESPN chooses to rerun the full live broadcast of the final table, you don't really know how Jamie Gold played. All we know is what we were shown, to make for good TV. So unless you were there or you watched the live final table, it is just speculation. And the harsh criticism more than likely stems from, I'm guessing, the stuff that happened after he won.

Locke said:

...et al...

Click to expand...

Quite the vivid opinion. Sorry to see of all of topics available, that this is what made you feel like you just had to register. Take a look around the site, though. There is a lot of great info here.

Locke said:

Gold got lucky AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN, all the way up to the end.

Click to expand...

Show me a main event winner in the last 5 years that didn't.

Locke said:

I'd prefer watching Phil Helmuth than this guy... with Helmuth, you get an Ego with skill to back it up. With Gold, you get a steaming pile of shit with luck.

Click to expand...

So when a pro wins and bitches and moans and cries like a baby about donks, it's okay because he's a pro. But when an amateur wins, and outright beats the crap out of his opponents and he is shown on a TV show partially indicating things that have gone on for 14 hours, well then he's just a douche bag? Guess we have more homework to do. (Lest we not forget that Gold was the chip leader since day four and never once gave it up from that point on - hmm sounds like shitty play to me.)

And the sad part about this is that I'm not even a fan of Jamie Gold. But simple characterizations and suppositions based on seriously limited knowledge is just plain silly. Have your opinion, but take a pill with it.

Nate, my original reply wasn't aimed at you, so hopefully you didn't read it that way.

nateofdeath said:

for me, it was like watching the Chicago Bears win. i physically couldn't bring myself to watch it.

Click to expand...

Doh!!! Cheesehead. Okay, that one was aimed at you, but only in good fun.

Yes that was the thread JD thanks, I myself have not seen much footage but like you, I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to high achievers.