|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 11/22/2008 12:49:28 AM PACIFIC |
 Brunson @ WSOP 2003, Ron, 13. Jul 2003 22:49 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Can someone please explain to me how Doyle has the nerve to say that Varchoni (I don't know how to spell his name) should not have won the 2002 WSOP b/c he is an amateur, yet Doyle's last hand in this year's tournament was a terrible play (I thought). The initial raise w/ (K9 suited) I have no problem w/ but when someone went over the top of his raise, if he's so good, then why didn't he lay it down. He had to know it was a total move or a monster hand...it was AK suited. --Thanks for your opinion | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Brunson @ WSOP 2003, 4 POKER, 14. Jul 2003 00:06 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Personally?.........I think Robert V made some pretty bonehead moves in the WSOP of 2002, whether he won it or not. I think I recall a raise made by him with Q-10, and then Phil Helmuth came over the top of his raise with A-K and now RV decides to push all-in? If he had the right "read" on PH, he would not have moved all-in with Q-10. Obviously he had no read at all, he just got hit with the deck while holding much inferior holdings to his opponents. Does that mean he's a bad player? I just think that RV's experience at that time was not long enough to allow him to really have the correct reads on his opponents and some of the hands that he chose to play and/or move all in with were questionable to say the least. But no matter what, the results you show from winning a first time tournament can be based on a short term result and I honestly think this was the case for Robert V. Perhaps Doyle Brunson should not have expressed his feelings so openly, but I still think his statement was correct....nice or not, I think he was saying that because alot of RV's play was amateur.....and that's fair to say because he is an amateur. Maybe he has improved since the 2002 event but at that time he was not favored to beat out some of the best known NL holdem players, Phil Helmuth included. Maybe the move that DB made was based on the fact that he has a ton of experience in all forms of poker and when you have a really strong read and can outplay your opponents (like he can), you can play more hands because of it with greater ease. I'm not taking anything away from RV, but I wouldn't even put him in the same league as Doyle Brunson........not yet anyway!......Time will tell. 4 POKER | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Brunson @ WSOP 2003, Mike812, 14. Jul 2003 11:21 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I am sorry but I can not stand watching Robert V. playing. He might have won the 2002 WSOP, but just think of it like this. If you are at WSOP, and you make the final table. Would you want to lose to Robert V? He barely has enough eye-hand coordination to pick up the cards or make bets with his chips. I just personally can not stand the guy Mike www.pokeranon.com | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Brunson @ WSOP 2003, Kid, 14. Jul 2003 00:45 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Hey guys, Here's my take on the whole situation. Robert Varkoni was extremely lucky to win last year and I think we can all agree that his luck was more than what is needed to typically win a tournament. As far as the play that Doyle made, I think it was ridiculous. I agree that the raise was fine, but calling all in. I think anytime you put all your chips at risk in a tournament, even when you are a decent favorite, it is a questionable play. Calling off all of your chips is not how you win no limit tournaments. For whatever reason, Doyle made this play with what seemed to me like he didn't care much. He said something like, "It's about time I got out of here anyway." I believe he meant that. Apparently, he decided to give up and stick his chips in. Now, Doyle could probably make me look like a chump in no limit play, but the way he went out was absolutely pathetic. KID | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Helmuth @ WSOP 2002, PokerDude, 14. Jul 2003 01:59 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| the worst move I saw at the 2002 WSOP, was Helmuth trying to weasel the spotlight away from the champion at the end. mean? yes. true? I believe so. Good luck to all today, may you make more than the rake. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Helmuth @ WSOP 2002, Guru, 14. Jul 2003 10:10 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| PokerDude, I totally agree, but it's not just the WSOP. Phil tries to steal the spotlight at every tournament. Whether he made the final table or not, he seems to have a radar for where the cameras and announcers are and makes sure that he gets all the airtime possible. At the WPT this year, you'd see other top players in the audience watching the final table and occasionally talking with the participants a little, but keeping a low profile and letting the spotlight go to the guys that deserved it. Where's Phil? Wherever the camera is. I will give him a little credit for admitting that he acts like a brat a lot on the first day of the WSOP. It seems to me that over the last couple of months that he has realized how his attitude can hurt him and he seems to be trying to change a little, probably to help book sales, but we'll see. I also loved the exchange between Varkoni and Doyle when Varkoni asked if Phil Hellmuth was as good as he thought he was and Doyle responded no, but he's getting there. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Helmuth @ WSOP 2002, flintsword, 15. Jul 2003 06:54 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Ok, I know that Phil is not every player's fav idol, but let's look at this from another angle. Phil early on made a stupid comment about shaving his head if Robert won. The whole gallery heard it and from that point on, as Robert built up his stack, the rail became a Barber's Convention. In the long term, I hear you PokerDude, he got the spotlight. He also lost his hair in the short term, which made a lot of people happy. The best comment I heard from one wag that "If Robert wins, and we have to shave Phil's head, we'll have to bring out the John Deere if you consider the size of his Phil's head." Not nice but Phil is pretty famous for his poker, ... and his ego the size of Jupiter. This year I saw Phil Helmuth play a few times at the WSOP 2003, and his behaviour at the table was super, even in one instance where he played down to his last chip at the final table. flintsword | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Helmuth @ WSOP 2002, PokerDude, 17. Jul 2003 00:04 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Good point about the gallery. Officially Licensed Dude | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Helmuth @ WSOP 2002, PairTheBoard, 17. Jul 2003 01:42 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| The way I saw it, it wasn't even Phil's idea. It was Gabe Kaplan who came up with it. Gabe was the instigator of the whole thing and there wasn't much Phil could do but go along to be a sport about it. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Brunson @ WSOP 2003, Big_Slick, 14. Jul 2003 08:57 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| What I found interesting was what Brunson said about his play. He stated that after Super System came out, everyone knew how he played poker. Thus, he commented on how he had to change his game. I can understand making some small changes here and there but you still have to start with good cards, you still have to read your opponents and you still have mix things up with the occasional bluff, etc. There is no substitute for good poker. I dunno... if changing his game means going all-in with K-9, maybe he should go back to his "old way". | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Brunson @ WSOP 2003, mkpoker, 14. Jul 2003 10:27 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Personally, I'm sick to death of all the pros whining about losing to Varkoni (and Moneymaker, for that matter). Hello, Doyle: *That's the kind of game poker is!* Look, if the 10,000th best chess player in the world played Gary Kasparov 100 times, the amateur would *never* win (and would be lucky to draw a few games). But when the 10,000th best poker player plays a world champion, he's got a shot. To me, that's inspiring. It means that anyone with a solid knowledge of the game has a legit chance in the big dance. And if the poker pros can't handle that, they should quit the game and go after Kasparov. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Brunson @ WSOP 2003, beigs, 14. Jul 2003 10:58 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Agreed. Aren't the pros supposed to be thrilled that guys like Varkony and Moneymaker (and me for that matter) are playing? It's just more money for them to win. on 14. Jul 2003 10:27 mkpoker wrote: > Personally, I'm sick to death of all the pros whining about losing to Varkoni (and > Moneymaker, for that matter). Hello, Doyle: *That's the kind of game poker is!* > > Look, if the 10,000th best chess player in the world played Gary Kasparov 100 times, > the amateur would *never* win (and would be lucky to draw a few games). But when the > 10,000th best poker player plays a world champion, he's got a shot. > > To me, that's inspiring. It means that anyone with a solid knowledge of the game > has a legit chance in the big dance. And if the poker pros can't handle that, they > should quit the game and go after Kasparov. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Brunson @ WSOP 2003, Risky Business, 14. Jul 2003 11:32 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| They are always thrilled until "those guys" are at the final table, and the pros are in the booth trying to maintain their stud images. JHT said it best when she said "the cards laughed at me all day......" That was to the point and accurate. No excuses. Much respect. on 14. Jul 2003 10:58 beigs wrote: > > Agreed. Aren't the pros supposed to be thrilled that guys like Varkony and Moneymaker > (and me for that matter) are playing? It's just more money for them to win. > > on 14. Jul 2003 10:27 mkpoker wrote: > > Personally, I'm sick to death of all the pros whining about losing to Varkoni (and > > Moneymaker, for that matter). Hello, Doyle: *That's the kind of game poker is!* > > > > Look, if the 10,000th best chess player in the world played Gary Kasparov 100 times, > > the amateur would *never* win (and would be lucky to draw a few games). But when the > > > 10,000th best poker player plays a world champion, he's got a shot. > > > > To me, that's inspiring. It means that anyone with a solid knowledge of the game > > has a legit chance in the big dance. And if the poker pros can't handle that, they > > should quit the game and go after Kasparov. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Brunson @ WSOP 2003, 4 POKER, 17. Jul 2003 00:31 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Hey beigs, Here's my thought on the matter....I'm not a tournament player so I as a pro ring game player could care less who wins but I will say this, I definitely think that when a recreational type of player wins the "big one" that *that* alone could only be a good thing for all of the poker world. If anyone were to feel inspired by witnessing somebody elses good fortune, that would only *add* to the poker scene as more and more people would be eager to play themselves. That's MO. Unfortunately, there are some pro tournament players who have really big ego's, and express their own opinions in a way that shouldn't be done.... But as far as Doyle Brunson making those comments? I don't think he could care less what anybody thought of it....he wasn't whining, those were just his opinions....the guys a friggin millionaire, many times over, just from playing poker. I guess he really should be thankful, but whatever. But for most pro tournament players, they would welcome anyone who took an interest in the game because they know, that is what keeps poker alive and kicking.....the *volume* of players who play....not the calibar of players who play. 4 POKER | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Brunson @ WSOP 2003, stdioh, 14. Jul 2003 11:03 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Because Doyle didn't care about the WSOP. For him, $10,000 is a big blind. I agree that he played the hand like ass though. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Brunson @ WSOP 2003, Asher, 14. Jul 2003 12:34 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Obviously Brunson can still compete with the best, as evidenced by his braclet win this year. I dont think he cares about winning the big one again. I think he just enters the main event because hes a legend, and wants to show the young guys a good time. Amarillo Slim plays in the main event every year. Its Doyles way of giving something back to poker. You think Doyle didnt know he was beat with the K9? Of course he did. He didnt care. Same reason he came in for a raise with T2o, and then checked it down after he hit a ten... he wasnt playing to win chips, he was playing to entertain his audience. Thanks for the good times Doyle, your the best. Asher. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Brunson @ WSOP 2003, Risky Business, 14. Jul 2003 13:02 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Do past winners get a free nod into the tournament? A random thought. on 14. Jul 2003 12:34 Asher wrote: > Obviously Brunson can still compete with the best, as evidenced by his braclet win this > year. I dont think he cares about winning the big one again. I think he just enters the > main event because hes a legend, and wants to show the young guys a good time. Amarillo > Slim plays in the main event every year. Its Doyles way of giving something back to > poker. You think Doyle didnt know he was beat with the K9? Of course he did. He didnt > care. Same reason he came in for a raise with T2o, and then checked it down after he hit > a ten... he wasnt playing to win chips, he was playing to entertain his audience. Thanks > for the good times Doyle, your the best. Asher. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Brunson @ WSOP 2003, stdioh, 14. Jul 2003 13:45 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| It wouldn't surprise me if Binions was buying Brunson into the big one just so that he would add a little advertising value for them. Or it could just be that when he won the thing he resolved to keep playing it every year for the rest of his life and has lost the spark of fun for playing it, but still wants to stick to his guns and play. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Brunson @ WSOP 2003, Risky Business, 14. Jul 2003 13:49 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| These days, it could have been Binions, or ESPN, or ......... on 14. Jul 2003 13:45 stdioh wrote: > It wouldn't surprise me if Binions was buying Brunson into the big one just so that he would > add a little advertising value for them. > > Or it could just be that when he won the thing he resolved to keep playing it every year for > the rest of his life and has lost the spark of fun for playing it, but still wants to stick to > his guns and play. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Brunson @ WSOP 2003, noiseboy, 14. Jul 2003 15:35 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I found it somewhat comical since Doyle had just busted out BEFORE Robert V. After looking over the final table of the 2002 WSOP, I have to say that Robert V's play was pretty good. For one thing I think all the other players at the table underestimated him, especially John Shipley. I think Robert V was putting out some fake tells on purpose. For instance, twice he put his hand to cover his mouth when he was on a big hand, which some might interpret as a tell that he was bluffing. Both times he got called for huge sums of money. Anyway, later when he WAS trying to run a bluff against Gardner, he made the same hand motion and Gardner ended up folding the better hand. I think he was aware that he made that particular jesture on the previous monster hands, then used it to induce a fold when he wanted to steal a pot. I'm not saying that Robert V. is the best in the world, but he's a lot damn better than people give him credit for. Sometimes he'll make moves at a pot with weak hands, and sometimes (as he did against Phil H) he gets lucky when he gets caught and lays beats on people. But for someone who just busted out going all-in with K9 to criticize his play seems funny. BTW, don't think I don't have the greatest respect for Doyle, it's just that in this case I thought his comments were lame. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Brunson @ WSOP 2003, SendMoney, 14. Jul 2003 15:42 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Doyle Brunson busted out of the 2003 WSOP with K9s and he busted out of the $25,000 buy-in Bellagio Championship with Q8o. I'm not sure what his stack size was relative to the blind levels but I hope he was getting really short stacked to bust out with such dog hands. It could be tough to play when you write the universally known poker book and then have to adjust your game to the fact that everyone knows your gameplan. Although a smart player can adjust his play you can only vary your game plan so much from what you really believe in as a player. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| POKER FORUM HOME | POKER FORUM | LINK TO US | ARCHIVE | ONLINE POKER | Copyright 2002, United Poker Forum |
|
Getting Started |
UPF Tournaments |
Poker News, Views, Rules |
Poker Strategy & Psychology |
Money and Bankroll Poker Bonuses & Promotions | World Series of Poker (WSOP) | Play Online Poker | Poker Odds & Statistics | Tournament Poker | Poker Books, Videos & Learning Tools Looking for a Poker Game | Poker Bad Beats | Not Quite Poker | Quizzes and Polls | Forum Suggestions & Bugs |
|
|
|
|
Interesting Links: Online Poker | Free Poker Games | United Poker Network |
|