WCOOP Railbirds
Anybody watching the WCOOP main event? Thought I would open up a thread for discussions (good luck trying to get a word in in the chat box) and/or "I'm currently watching table X" posts.
I'm curently watching Table #37, starring Phil Hellmuth.
Here's a list I copied from RGP with the PokerStars handles of some famous players. I have no idea about the validity of these myself, but here you go anyway:
Daniel Negreanu - doublesuited
Tom McEvoy - Tom McEvoy
Paul Wolfe - DOUBLEDUCE
Minneapolis Jim Meehan - actiondonkey
Chris Moneymaker - Money800
Pete Giordano - TheBeat
Dutch Boyd - KidDutch
Phil Hellmuth - #1_Lucky_One
Mark Seif - MarktheShark
Mike Matusow - MrPokeJoke
John Juanda - LuckBox
Tony Ma - Tigerma
Erick Lindgren - EDOGN
Josh Arieh - Razorbax
Wiliam Chen - wchen
Joseph Cordi - DeOhGee
Layne Flack - reload this
Cory Saunders - texdaddy
Spake, Tim - Slambam2
John Juanda - LuckBox
Sam Grizzle - 4KingAceHole
Prahlad Friedman - Prefontaine
Art Blanda - nibluck
Paul Phillips - extempore
ScottyZ - ScottyZ
I'm curently watching Table #37, starring Phil Hellmuth.
Here's a list I copied from RGP with the PokerStars handles of some famous players. I have no idea about the validity of these myself, but here you go anyway:
Daniel Negreanu - doublesuited
Tom McEvoy - Tom McEvoy
Paul Wolfe - DOUBLEDUCE
Minneapolis Jim Meehan - actiondonkey
Chris Moneymaker - Money800
Pete Giordano - TheBeat
Dutch Boyd - KidDutch
Phil Hellmuth - #1_Lucky_One
Mark Seif - MarktheShark
Mike Matusow - MrPokeJoke
John Juanda - LuckBox
Tony Ma - Tigerma
Erick Lindgren - EDOGN
Josh Arieh - Razorbax
Wiliam Chen - wchen
Joseph Cordi - DeOhGee
Layne Flack - reload this
Cory Saunders - texdaddy
Spake, Tim - Slambam2
John Juanda - LuckBox
Sam Grizzle - 4KingAceHole
Prahlad Friedman - Prefontaine
Art Blanda - nibluck
Paul Phillips - extempore
ScottyZ - ScottyZ
Comments
Enough said about that.
I do, however, think it's very cool that we're able to watch Phil, Daniel, Layne, and hell why not, Annie, in real time, and every now and then they'll respond to an occasional innane comment from the rail.
Regards,
all_aces
that way you could avoid the insanity of the railbirds.
i'm watching (not talking) hellmuth's table and they're just going nuts.
My guess is that Phil H loves the attention.
ScottyZ
Just *watching*, I got so annoyed with the Observer Chat that I turned it off myself. Not more than a minute after that:
FossilMan: to my well-wishers, ty; observer chat is off now, too much to follow
:cool:
ScottyZ
it's actually fun watching this poker, i'm actually really enjoying predicting the cards people are playing ... i'm actually hitting them dead on a bit.
chugs
Wow did my mouth drop!
he pushed all-in over top of another player after the turn.
other player though for almost his entire time, and called him with AA
and the J came out on the river and mr. fossilman goes home.
I have no one to cheer for now lol
the table with vandiesel are all trying to figure out who he is ... some think it is Antonio Estafandi (sp)
now i can't even connect to pokerstars ... the railbirds crashed the server ;0
Kaput.
Is Antonio 'The Magician' from Toronto?
Regards,
all_aces
I read on rgp that the chipleader at one point had a chance to make a deal, refused to and ended up 4th... ouch.
Ragde and mr. steal decided to chop according to their counts (they were pretty much even) immediately upon it going heads-up. Not sure who ended up winning the bracelet (they decided to not leave any prize money to play for).
Yes, the chip leader did not want to make a deal when it was down to 4. At this point, the chip leader had the opponents *combined* outchipped. IMO, it would have been a bad idea for the chip leader to make a deal here. Unless the chip leader felt he was well outclassed skill-wise, I think it would be better to play on, possibly allowing either one of the shorter stacks to bust out, or the chip leader to build up his chips even further (or both).
During the discussion of the 4 way deal, all 4 players seemed to be at least somewhat open to considering a standard chip count deal, and then one of the short stacks suggested an even split (!) of a good portion of the money, and paying the rest to first place. The top two stacks (including the huge chip leader) didn't seem to like this deal. This proposal seemed to sour the chip leader on the entire deal-making process, so at that point, he said "let's play" and they got back to it.
I think the chip leader was perfectly correct to reject any kind of deal when it was 4 handed, and I probably would have done the same. Passing on the "even split and play for the rest" proposal itself was an absolute no-brainer.
ScottyZ
The deal was that half the prize pot be evenly split and that they just play for the rest using the same disribution. He (or she) was offering to flatten the payout schedule, but have them keep playing to determine who won which spots.
i have a feeling though that the table didn't actually comprehend his offer.
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
From what I've read about it, at one point Sealand had the entire table severly outstacked to the point where he could have delt for very close to 1st place money..
One thing's for sure.. When you have a stack lead like that and you don't want to deal, you may wanna consider just 'sitting out', only playing the best of the best and letting the blinds eat up the little guys.. No need to be the table sheriff..
I suppose I didn't comprehend the deal either.
Even as you described it, I think it's still a bad deal from the chip leader's point of view IMO. Flattening out the payout schedule is the last thing a (huge) chip leader would want.
While I gather that (it's just the general idea I've heard, but I'm not too sure why it's so... I believe this is discussed a bit in TPFAP) is that the chip leaders should give up a little bit of equity to the short stacks; the proposed deal (either interpretation) still seemed to me to take too much away from the chip leader and give too much to the short stacks. Must have just been a coincidence that it was suggested by a short stack (and subsequently rejected by a big stack).
ScottyZ
Also did anyone see the demise of Vandiesel, the guy from Toronto? Now I know I wasn't at the final table and chances are hes better than me. But at a point he was a commanding chip leader... and he proceeded to make some hoooooorrrrid plays.... like super amateur plays... He, like seabird was way too involved as chip leader and it ended up biting him in the ass...
when they came to the final table with 8 ... he asked right off if people were interested in a deal. sealand (the guy busting out 4th) was the first and only to say no deals.
i would like to know who Vandiesel is ... he played real agressive. he was constantly stealing blinds and beating up the table when it was down to about 10-20 players left. problem was once he lost the chip lead he simply had no clue what to do, his mojo was gone.
chugs
Agreed. He made quite a few plays that, had I been some kind of a cartoon character (or possibly a Metal Gear Solid bad guy), would have caused a question mark to appear over my head.
It's a widespread misconception that the chip leader (particularly one with a huge lead) should go well out of his way to eliminate players, or generally bully the table. Sure there are ways you can use the chip stack situation to your advantage (e.g. take more shots than usual at the 2nd shortest stack if he appears to be playing extra conservatively, trying to wait out the shortest stack). However, these kinds of good plays should generally still be made on their own merits, backed up by (not just because of) the fact that you have the cushion of the big stack in case something goes wrong.
The chip leader really needs to be in tune with the table dynamics. If the short stacks are seeming desperately aggressive, the chip leader can afford to sit back and wait for someone to get picked off. If everyone seems to be in survival/ladder-up mode, the chip leader can bring out the big guns and start picking up the blinds more often than usual. In either case, the chip leader should feel no sense of urgency, nor (as BBC Z mentioned) feel any need to be the one who is trying to make fancy pick-off plays himself.
The main idea (right out of TPFAP) is that a *huge* stack doesn't really gain so much from a short stack player being busted that he is justified in taking unnecessary risks (or worse yet, making loose -EV plays) himself in order to bust players. A huge stack is worth protecting too.
Speaking of wild play with the large stack, Ragde was the big chip leader when it went 3-way, and proceeded to move all-in (though, having each player well covered about 3-1 or 4-1 in chips) pre-flop about 80%+ of the time, including one called hand of J7o. (IIRC, he was called by KJo and they split the pot playing the J-high straight on board after actually spiking the 7 on the flop.) It's a nice strategy to use if you're trying to double up one of the short stacks.
ScottyZ
I distinctly remember that during the *first* deal someone suggested the even split of a large part of the pool, and somehow (I thought it was winner take all) playing for the rest. I remember this one clearly because I remember thinking how outrageous it was to suggest flattening the payouts so severely with one player on a gigantic stack.
And yes, I remember the 2nd deal falling through because Seabird seemed to want a standard chip count deal, or no deal at all, and another player (or players) suggesting they leave some to play for.
I was actually a little surprised that the 2nd deal (when they were about even stacks) fell apart, because it seemed to me like all 4 players were okay with a pure chip count deal during at least some point in that deal-making discussion.
ScottyZ
Just a guess based on the PokerStars handle: Van Nguyen?
I noticed his name on the Canadian WSOP money finishers thread. Is he from Toronto?
ScottyZ