Bigkspec

They're certainly valid questions, but I think only you can be the judge of a couple of them. If you find yourself exhausted or losing focus after a couple hours, then you probably will need to get in a marathon session to see what you're capable of. A lot of people in the WSOP give their money away on day 2-3 when they're just sick and tired of playing poker and are willing to get in with the worst of it.Unfortunately, I don't think there's really much for you to practice with online or in small casino tournaments. The structures are just too fast. My local casino has a $165 buy-in and the

Matusow is part of team Full Tilt. Is he even allowed to play on other sites under his contract?Gus Hansen is not broke. Daniel's brog will attest to that. The rumors came from a poker "tabloid." He didn't play many events in the World Series because of business obligations in Europe. It had nothing to do with his bankroll. Daniel even said he did quite well in the Big Game when he came back.

Now, if none of the cards were revealed, could the argument be made that the player who threw in his cards just mucked them? The cards on the floor could be picked up, shuffled, and put back in play with the three remaining players finishing the hand with their original cards. Again, I don't know if I'm right, but is this a viable option here if no one sees any of the other cards?I agree that if the cards were revealed during the slip, then the hand would need to be redealt from scratch.

First, the 88 hand vs Brenes. Moneymaker had substantially more chips, so he was just trying to push his weight around as a chip leader. There's nothing wrong with that. Even if he lost the hand, he would have been fine. Second, the Ivey hand. Again, Moneymaker was a big chip leader at the table. Even if he loses that, he's got over $1 million heading to the final table. Furthermore, I'd be really impresssed if any of you can get away from AQ when two Q's flop without a straight or flush hitting.Point being: Yes, MM got lucky, but his tournament life was never on the line when he was a dog.

Comments that cite Greg Raymer as incredibly lucky last year don't consider the whole picture. Raymer built up his chips with a aggressive and fearless style. ESPN shows about 10% of the hands--it's not good for ratings to show Raymer raise, fold, fold, fold. But it is good for ratings to see showdowns and suckouts. Let's not base judgment on seeing so few hands and missing the ones in between that set up those situations. Raymer increased his chip stack from 5 to 8 million when there were 10 players remaining. That's the edge that gave him the dominant lead at the final table. That's not suck

There were a lot of pros that year, but I think the question is a little off. The better one is "How many of those players were pros before they made that final table?"The final table of the WSOP ME has a tendency to make players professionals even if they weren't before (Moneymaker, David Williams, Raymer, etc.) But I agree, it was a hell of a final table. There are many trip reports online--I believe www.tiltboys.com (Gordon's website) has one. Unfortunately, very few go to #11 to include Negreanu.

If you have ever wandered to the 2+2 forums and read Greg Raymer's posts, you'd know the answer to some of these questions and the legitimacy of some assertions being made.First, PokerStars pays for some of Moneymaker's buy-ins as a promotional gimic. Raymer said that Stars gave him an allowance for tournaments as a publicity stunt--I think it was near $100,000. That way, Raymer could promote the Stars logo on televised events. He said that Stars offered to pick up the entire tab on the Heads-up Championship on NBC because they allowed logos to be aired. I'm sure Moneymaker is on a similar pol

Yes, I've been playing Pacific Poker for 7 months and it's been very profitable. After the time it took to get used to online play and adjust to my limit, I've done very well.I think there are three reasons Pacific is easier than others and it all involves keeping good players out.1) Due to the excess disconnections, many good players have left, leaving a lot of fish.2) The one-table rule makes many good players who believe multi-tabling is more profitable leave. 3) The lower limits (especially with SnGs)--it's hard to find a game above $30--keeps good playesr out.

Checkraise makes an argument about how this forum has degenerated into petty name-calling and everyone just goes and proves his point correct! The comments that mock him as God and his capitalization are ridiculous as well. He's making a suggestion about how people could conduct themselves in this forum. He's not censoring you or inhibiting your right to speak. If you're going to criticize him for saying something, then you've fallen victim to your own hypocrisy by trying to censor someone else.I started reading the twoplustwo forum yesterday and highly recommend for those of you looking for m

Sklansky's argument is that skill isn't necessary equated with winning in NL HU situations with high blinds. I think a lot of us have seen this at the late stages of a tournament with high blinds--skill sometimes takes a backseat to luck. Sklansky's argument was that by moving in every hand with high blinds, he could either 1) Take highly valued blinds and grind Ivey down or 2) Get called and not really be that much of a dog--outside of high pocket pairs, most hands aren't better than 2-1 against even the worst hands. Based on Sklansky's post, he's not choosing all hands like 2-7 to go all-in

It's interesting that the posts criticizing Sklansky are mostly one liners and challenges to him, but the posts defending him have long, thought out rationale.Sklansky's life probably revolves around poker--he's an author, a teacher, and a player. And he's done well enough over the past to be respected. When people challenge his credibility in any of the above categories, he has the right to respond. If I called any of you terrible poker players, I'd bet you'd respond with threats and name-calling (As much of this forum is nowadays--just look at anything involving Smash). The fact that Sklans

Moneymaker did get lucky, but I don't think you can criticize his play for it.A-7s vs. A-8Chances are, if the cards were dealt the other way around (Eli getting the A-7s and Moneymaker getting the A-8 ), they both would have gone all-in. It's not like he was outplayed on the hand and then got lucky.

Yes, it's true that Phil lays down a lot of winners. But realistically, I have never seen anyone on air take so many bad beats. The reason he's willing to lay down Queens to worse hands probably has something to do with his history of getting busted at major events. In the 2003 WSOP, he lost to Lester's J-J with Q-Q when Lester rivered a J. Even against Totos Leonidas, he went all in with the best hand, with Leonidas hitting one of only a handful out of outs to get busted there (I recall Phil having Top Pair with Leonidas at Middle Pair). At this year's smaller WSOP event, he lost when Griffin

It's really unfortunate that there's so much insulting on this forum nowadays.If you have nothing constructive to say, just don't say anything at all. AceofSpades probably should have spell-checked and corrected his grammar, but there's really no need to go bashing him for it. At least offer something constructive in your post.It's a shame how many threads have degenerated from their topic into insulting contests.AceofSpades, if you're thinking of playing poker for money, I say go for it. As long as you're able to control your bankroll, you should be fine. You're still young, so just play with

3-5 Spades