Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[PokerFan 0]

i understand what you mean by gold thinking he outplayed cunningham but pokerfan are you kdding about cunningham not outplaying him? i havent seen it in about a year so some of my memory on some hands arent as good but i do remember at the time that he outplayed him. I remember one hand where cunningham flopped top pair (i think he had an ace) and gold had flopped a set or something and cunningham lost almost nothing, and considering how gold was playing almost anyone (including you pokerfan) would have pushed that top pair to the max and probably would've gone broke, but cunningham lost only a few chips. there was also a time when i think both gold and cunningham flopped three of a kind 9's but cunningham didnt go broke. Another time cunningham called him down with just ace high and was correct in doing so. you have to remember most people would be pushing any pair because gold was playing so aggressive yet allen didnt when he was beat, and thats not because he was afraid because cunningham did call him down with ace high and won!!! how could you say that cunningham didnt outplay gold?

The easy answer is who finshied 1st and who finished 4th?....AC played so passive that he had no chance to win, even against novice players.

[Veener Schnitz 0]

This thread is still alive? Weeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[HangukMiguk 8]

The easy answer is who finshied 1st and who finished 4th?....AC played so passive that he had no chance to win, even against novice players.

allan may have played passive, but it was warranted. first he had a lagtard like jamie gold to his left who played pretty much every pot, and could bust allan. plus, he hardly got cards, and what cards he had, he was coolered. he played pretty much every hand as good as anyone could play them (barring the QJ hand where he doubled up binger for a second time).

[SpiderGuard 0]

atleast he isnt as bad as the guy who checked the straight flush on the river deep in the Main Event and said i was hoping you would bet......

When Gus Hansen checked quads on the river against Daniel it was the greatest play in the history of ever. I know Gus's play worked and Jamie's didn't, but it's not as if checking the nuts on the river is a mortal sin that only donkeys would do. If Daniel makes a disgustingly good read and checks that river, Gus looks like a donk too.

[Lavitz 0]

Lol @ Jamie Gold being better then 99.9% of posters here.

[daniel mahan 0]

When Gus Hansen checked quads on the river against Daniel it was the greatest play in the history of ever. I know Gus's play worked and Jamie's didn't, but it's not as if checking the nuts on the river is a mortal sin that only donkeys would do. If Daniel makes a disgustingly good read and checks that river, Gus looks like a donk too.

2 very very different situations..... gus has played daniel 11 brizillion times..... gus is a pro.... ones a tourney ones a cash game..... not even close to comparing jamie gold to gus hansens play that is sooo not the same

[roadhawg 0]

The easy answer is who finshied 1st and who finished 4th?....AC played so passive that he had no chance to win, even against novice players.

are you being serious? did you already realize that you were wrong but still want to make it seem like you are correct. You are saying that because Allen finished 4th and Gold finished 1st that gold outplayed him? I dont know if you already know this but because you finish higher then someone doesnt mean you outplayed them. let me ask you this question, when gold eliminated Allen he made a weak call with KJ preflop. i would've made the call if i were gold and i had put allen on a smaller pair because it would be a coin flip and i could eliminate a tough person. But i would've made it because i know i can't outplay cunningham and this may be my best chance. BUT Gold felt he was outplaying cunningham so then why would he make the weak call? if you can outplay somebody there are times when you can just wait for a better spot.

[roadhawg 0]

oh yeah and how i feel about gus and jaime checking the river with the nuts, every situation is different (cause of the game, players, past history, etc) it is too hard to compare these. But what i see a lot of people doing is being results oriented which is not the way to be. i dont remember the gold play but maybe he should've bet and maybe he shouldn't have but look at the situation instead of the result. just because you get lucky and win when you donk off your chips with an underpair against top set doesnt make it the "correct" play.

[Vick12 0]

Lol @ Jamie Gold being better then 99.9% of posters here.

Am I actually responding here again....OK...I'll make it a simple for everyone. How do we judge how good a player is? I think a universal way that MOST long time poker players judge who is the best is by looking at their bankroll. This doesn't mean I personally judge it that way....just saying how OTHERS keep score. With few exceptions, the players with bigger bankroll and play higher levels ARE THE BEST PLAYERS.So....judging by this, Jamie has a 12 MILLLLION dollar roll. Or even at 6 Million after the lawsuit....or even 1 Million after taxes and maybe losing some...HE STILL HAS A BIGGER BANKROLL THAN 99.9% OF FCP!!!!Now...if u don't want to judge it that way....fine I can grant you that. Let's then judge it on...Who in FCP land has even DONE WELL in a 10K buy in event? Not talking about who ACTUALLY HAS A WSOP BRACELET, but who has DONE WELL in a 10k event....AGAIN....HE'S BETTER THAN 99.9% OF FCP!!!!!!!!!!/end argument

[donk4life 34]

Am I actually responding here again....OK...I'll make it a simple for everyone. How do we judge how good a player is? I think a universal way that MOST long time poker players judge who is the best is by looking at their bankroll. This doesn't mean I personally judge it that way....just saying how OTHERS keep score. With few exceptions, the players with bigger bankroll and play higher levels ARE THE BEST PLAYERS.So....judging by this, Jamie has a 12 MILLLLION dollar roll. Or even at 6 Million after the lawsuit....or even 1 Million after taxes and maybe losing some...HE STILL HAS A BIGGER BANKROLL THAN 99.9% OF FCP!!!!Now...if u don't want to judge it that way....fine I can grant you that. Let's then judge it on...Who in FCP land has even DONE WELL in a 10K buy in event? Not talking about who ACTUALLY HAS A WSOP BRACELET, but who has DONE WELL in a 10k event....AGAIN....HE'S BETTER THAN 99.9% OF FCP!!!!!!!!!!/end argument

I won a dollar tourney once

[roadhawg 0]

i agree with you vick12 about gold being better then most people on FCP (except me ) but i dont agree with the way you are reasoning it out. just cause he has won more money doesnt make him better then someone who hasnt won as much. and i do feel that there are many great players out there that haven't yet had a chance to win an event yet but that doesnt make them worse then someone who has. i know this might seem confusing but i hope you get it