Balloon guy 158 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Just at the FT..who relied more on luck than on skill?Please defend your choice. Link to post Share on other sites
mrpaddyx 13 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Pre or Post hole camera? Its very difficult to judge winners that you couldn't see their hole cards as that one time they got lucky when the card came downs may have been after hours of patient play! For what its worth I though Jerry Yang was very fortunate with card he got dealt at his Final Table.edit i didn't seem the poll bit, now what i wrote looks foolish Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted November 11, 2009 Author Share Posted November 11, 2009 We can only judge from what we know.Gold was a solid luckbox all the way to the FT, but I don't remember how oftern he got it all in way behind like Cada did.Yang was annoying, but he was ahead a lot of AIPFRaymer played really well, I always thought he was the best player to win the ME in this decade Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Cada is definitely one of the better players on the list....but he gets my vote for final table luckboxing.He won 80/20s against twice (both times to stay alive!), then won a massive race by hitting a king on the river. He also did not play that great in sinking down to 2mil. I did not like his all in call with AJ against the AK of Shulman. Shulman is never behind AJ there considering his tight play.If I was ranking them luckiest to skilliest:1) Cada2) Yang3) Eastgate4) Gold5) Raymer6) HachemHachem and Raymer both played great final tables particularly Hachem. I think people forget how lucky Eastgate ran last year. The guy was flopping sets left and right. But he was rarely in behind so he has to be ahead of Yang and Cada. Gold basically played ABC poker and the cards stayed hot. His dumbest move was getting it in with KJ against Cunningham's 1010 which is not so horrific. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted November 11, 2009 Author Share Posted November 11, 2009 Cada is definitely one of the better players on the list....but he gets my vote for final table luckboxing.He won 80/20s against twice (both times to stay alive!), then won a massive race by hitting a king on the river. He also did not play that great in sinking down to 2mil. I did not like his all in call with AJ against the AK of Shulman. Shulman is never behind AJ there considering his tight play.If I was ranking them luckiest to skilliest:1) Cada2) Yang3) Eastgate4) Gold5) Raymer6) HachemHachem and Raymer both played great final tables particularly Hachem. I think people forget how lucky Eastgate ran last year. The guy was flopping sets left and right. But he was rarely in behind so he has to be ahead of Yang and Cada. Gold basically played ABC poker and the cards stayed hot. His dumbest move was getting it in with KJ against Cunningham's 1010 which is not so horrific. Cunningham could have folded Link to post Share on other sites
Pivvy2001 0 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Cunningham could have foldedthat will never get oldI voted Cada because he frequently was getting it in either marginal or way behind whereas some of the other players' "luck" came in less traditional ways (i.e. Gold got hit in the face with the deck, which obviously signals luck, but he was not coming from behind repeatedly). Link to post Share on other sites
delved 0 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 The fact of the matter is Cada was only behind twice, and those were at all-ins. He got a bit risky with the pocket pairs and obviously he didn't want some to call. At least Cada has the skill. Yang virtually had none and was playing the cards he got, like Moon. Eastgate did run well but he also played well too and his finish this year showed that. Gold's strategy may be hated by many but he did play basic poker with his own unique touch. I have to rank Raymer ahead of Hachem persistently on the fact he played very well throughout the tournament and had to face adversity when playing against Matusow. The Mouth was impolite towards him the entire tournament ever since he started playing against him if you don't remember. Hachem did play well and make great laydowns but Raymer's finish in 2005 shows he wasn't lucky, he was good. 1) Yang2) Cada3) Eastgate4) Gold5) Hachem6) Raymer Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 The fact of the matter is Cada was only behind twiceonly? he was WAY behind twice. thats a lot at one final table.... Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted November 11, 2009 Author Share Posted November 11, 2009 only? he was WAY behind twice. thats a lot at one final table....And his shoves were really bad, trying to push a 3 bet off his hand etc. Link to post Share on other sites
delved 0 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 You have to get lucky to win. If anything Moneymaker's a bigger luckbox than all. His 'Straight From the Pros' segment from the FT, he played terribly against Chan, read him completely wrong, yet pushed his chips in the middle anyways. I don't even get why ESPN showed that hand. He also sucked out on Ivey and was making erratic plays at the FT, but ended up making it all right. Yes, I believe Cada got lucky, and I do believe Saout should have the title, but that's poker, and it happens. Besides those two plays, Cada was completely consistent from the ESPN coverage making disciplined laydowns and great reads (J9 v 87 HU?) So I'm behind him. I shouldn't have ranked him 2nd to be honest. Link to post Share on other sites
Mercury69 3 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 I voted Yang, although Cada is close.Both were/are donks with huge chipstacks and could afford to lose a few a still have the chip lead. Both ran hot and lucky, but I think Yang was luckier, partly because of the cards he kept getting. Being ahead AIPF is al very well and good, but you have to get hit hard by the deck in order to be there. So Cada got in as a 4:1 dog twice...Hell, I've lost as a 4:1 fav two hands in a row often enough to know anything can happen. And I partly disagree with Canebrain about two times behind being a lot, but only because of how many other people were getting it in behind and sucking out. It's just the way the cards fell. Link to post Share on other sites
MaxStPolish 4 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 His 'Straight From the Pros' segment from the FT, he played terribly against Chan, read him completely wrong, yet pushed his chips in the middle anyways.Bad post.Uh, he really didn't play the hand wrong at all. He simply didn't think Chan would call his shove with a non-nut flush draw (no pair). If I'm Moneymaker in that situation and Chan makes that call, the second he says call I'm CERTAIN he's got my A outkicked, AT MINIMUM, and that I am drawing for one of a bunch of outs here.If anything his only bad play was shoving there, but since he's clearly inferior to Chan, I like having a very strong holding and making the pro make the decision for all his chips AND knowing you are still drawing live no matter what he might call with. Link to post Share on other sites
Ship_itt 0 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Just at the FT..who relied more on luck than on skill?Please defend your choice.this question, and the one in the title are two TOTALLY different questions.. Link to post Share on other sites
Pivvy2001 0 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 this question, and the one in the title are two TOTALLY different questions..I am going to go ahead and disagreethe premise is the same, although I get that you are insinuating a semantic difference because one question involved getting lucky and the other stated "relied" on luckreally the answer would not change though to either question Link to post Share on other sites
Pivvy2001 0 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 only? he was WAY behind twice. thats a lot at one final table....and those are only the hands he was way behindhis play with 4s against Ivey wasn't great (not a disaster because of his stack, but not great) and there were several other hands where he was playing from behind Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 I voted Yang, although Cada is close.Both were/are donks with huge chipstacks and could afford to lose a few a still have the chip lead. Both ran hot and lucky, but I think Yang was luckier, partly because of the cards he kept getting. Being ahead AIPF is al very well and good, but you have to get hit hard by the deck in order to be there. So Cada got in as a 4:1 dog twice...Hell, I've lost as a 4:1 fav two hands in a row often enough to know anything can happen. And I partly disagree with Canebrain about two times behind being a lot, but only because of how many other people were getting it in behind and sucking out. It's just the way the cards fell.yes it was almost like watching internet poker :)may the best hand never win. Still, I bet the list of people who won with pair against bigger pair aipf twice at one major final table is microscopic. Link to post Share on other sites
MaxStPolish 4 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 yes it was almost like watching internet poker :)may the best hand never win. Still, I bet the list of people who won with pair against bigger pair aipf twice at one major final table is microscopic.I bet it's 4%. Link to post Share on other sites
HighwayStar 8 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 I'm not 100% sure on stack sizes at the FT but I think Cada only real misplay was calling with the AJ when he was reshoved by Shulman.True, he was extremely lucky and is probably the luckiest main event winner for as long as I can remember but he's definitely a decent player. I think Eastgate is *probably* better although I really haven't seen enough of either. Link to post Share on other sites
Mercury69 3 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 yes it was almost like watching internet poker :)may the best hand never win. Still, I bet the list of people who won with pair against bigger pair aipf twice at one major final table is microscopic. Yeah, you might be right. Not so sure about the "major" FT, but certainly the WSOP ME in all it's years. If only there was a WSOP ME FT hand history available and someone willing to crunch the numbers. I'm curious now. Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 I bet it's 4%. damn it. Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 I'm not 100% sure on stack sizes at the FT but I think Cada only real misplay was calling with the AJ when he was reshoved by Shulman.True, he was extremely lucky and is probably the luckiest main event winner for as long as I can remember but he's definitely a decent player. I think Eastgate is *probably* better although I really haven't seen enough of either.Since I have been ragging on Cada I will agree. I thought the AJ hand was bad. But the other hands he just kept running pairs into bigger pairs. Maybe not perfect play, of course, but nothing horrifying. I am only commenting on the fact that the kept winning from behind.....I think Cada's track record shows he is a very good player overall. He just ran like a god at the ME final table and that's ok. I wish that I could run like god onetime in a sunday major. Link to post Share on other sites
Ship_itt 0 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 I am going to go ahead and disagreethe premise is the same, although I get that you are insinuating a semantic difference because one question involved getting lucky and the other stated "relied" on luckreally the answer would not change though to either questionCada is a MUCH better player than Jerry Yang or Jamie Gold. I believe it is possible Cada "had the better luckbox at the FT" than either of the other two..but to say he relied on it more, or that he needed the luck more than the other two, is obviously a different question. I do not think he needed to rely on luck nearly as much as yang or gold, but i think he did have more luck. Link to post Share on other sites
Ship_itt 0 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 if Ivey ran like a complete god and had aces vs kings every other hand, and won, would you say he was the biggest luckbox ever at the FT? absolutely. But to say he RELIED on luck more than any of the previous winner would be an absurd comment imo. I hope you get the point im trying to make Link to post Share on other sites
Boners_Galore 0 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Def. Cada. Getting it in twice with pair over pair and both times hitting it straight out in the window was something else. The one against Shulman was huge because according to his wise and all knowing poker coach, Shulman's plan was to play tight til it got down to 4 players. Cada's luckbox hit on the flop changed all that and was really the turning point. That sealed my vote. I am pretty sure that Schulman with a decent stack could have made an impact. Cada definitely the luckiest in my opinion. Eastgate, Yang, and Gold ran great and were lucky as you have to be to win such a tournament. But I think there is a big difference between running well and repeatedly coming from behind. That's why Cada was my pick. Link to post Share on other sites
Pot Odds RAC 23 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 What if we ignore luck for a moment and rank on each player's skill?I think I'd make two groups.Has better than average skill:EastgateRaymerCadaHachemHas lower than average skill:GoldYang Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now