heads up 2004 main event.

[obrien64 0]

I watched it with Raymers commentary the other day, and the way Willams lost really left me scratching my head. Raymer bet preflop like he had a pocket pair, or A X. He kept betting. Williams kept calling with his pair of 4's. Now if i remember right (and i hope that i do, because i just watched it the other night) Williams never re raised. He called everything to the river, meanwhile things would have been going off in my head that something was wrong. I am not a pro poker player, and did have the advantage of seeing what they had, but with the quickness Williams made a lot of his calls with does anyone else think he got a terrible, terrible read on Raymer? I mean one time Raymer hadnt even gotten all his chips in and Williams was stacking his up for the call. Im sure this has been debated many times already but i wasnt around for it so i figured i would see what everyone else thought, or thought 7 months ago.

[reedmcneal 0]

I'm completely puzzled by his play here too. After seeing how Raymer bet each successive street, that preflop raise would have given me enough information to fold. I just can't see going all-in with a pair of 4s.

[dEv~ 19]

Here's my good for nothing opinion. During the WSOP 04 Raymer wasn't a pro poker player...he was a casual player with a real job. But he still had 50x the experience of David Williams. Williams played awesome in that tournament but Raymer was just too much for him. Williams was no where near the level of player he is today and I think he learned alot after that final table. Williams got outplayed in the final hand and I don't think you would see him perform like that in a pressure situation too often anymore.

[MasterRich 0]

yes he did play it really badly, but at that point david williams needed to double up, i think it was twice to have a chance, and they were playing something like 10 hours a day for 7 days or something, ill give him the benefit of the doubt he came in 2nd place out of over 2600 people and took home 3.5 million...he did get extremly lucky over the course of the torney that was shown on tv, and played in a lot of debatable hands, but you dont come in 2nd by getting lucky every time you play.....he is an amazing player who was more then happy as any of us would be to win 3.5 million.....but he did lose with a full house,....

[edub10304 0]

I think David was just happy to get to that point. He came a long way in the last 2 days and was probably thrilled to get the 3.5mil. He has come along pretty well since.Dont think anyone was stopping Greg that year.edub

[dpianomn 0]

Williams kept calling with his pair of 4's. Now if i remember right (and i hope that i do, because i just watched it the other night) Williams never re raised. He called everything to the river...

i believe williams declared all-in on the river and raymer called with his boat. i'm almost certain. (i've been wrong twice before) :wink:

[edub10304 0]

raymer bet all in and David callededub

[nameas96 0]

Raymer did not re-raise pre-flop, he just called. And in the commentary he even said he often raises in that situation but that time chose just to call, so Williams probably couldn't put him on a pocker pair or even Ax, and what is he calling and then playing that aggressively with, a 5? a 2? Not to mention Raymer admitted he was playing highly aggressive, so Williams probably thought he was on a stone cold bluff. I think his choice to just call on the turn rather than re-raise despite being soooo committed to the pot shows this more than anything else.

[DCWildcat 0]

Williams kept calling with his pair of 4's. Now if i remember right (and i hope that i do, because i just watched it the other night) Williams never re raised. He called everything to the river...

i believe williams declared all-in on the river and raymer called with his boat. i'm almost certain. (i've been wrong twice before) :wink:

Nope, sorry 8) Raymer looked at the dealer, kind of shrugged, and said "all in." Williams, who knew he was beat but pot-committed, threw up his arms in a reluctant call.The quick calls are Williams' specialty. He was (and still is) a very novice player; Raymer was beating the 300/600 at Foxwoods for a long time before the tournament. He amassed such a huge chip stack that there was just no chance for anyone to take him down after a while.

[nameas96 0]

O, and in regards to Williams just happy to get there, I remember reading in Cardplayer about how much he just wanted to win and how he would give up the money to be champion or something along those lines. And seeing from his interviews during the WPT Borgata him saying how disappointed he was to get so close to winning the WSOP and not actually doing it. Not to mention that once heads up there was still 1.5 million on the line, and I don't think any poker player who could put himself in that position would be careless enough to not care about 1.5 million and being WSOP champion and just kind of heave his chips in the middle because hey, he already had 3.5 million.

[Garn 0]

I think that he thought his pair was good and put Raymer on high cards. Then after the turn he was potcommited so he didn;t have much of a choice

[alf13 0]

I think that he thought his pair was good and put Raymer on high cards. Then after the turn he was potcommited so he didn;t have much of a choice

NO "F'N" WAY.Nothing in Raymers playing patterns suggest that he would bluff at a pot 4 times....every time....pumping more money into the pot to the point where he puts it allin.It was a badly played hand by Williams....he called off his whole stack.The way the hand was going...Rayner had to have "something"....and ANYTHING would have beaten Williams 4's....I think the flop came 452....If Raymer had a 5...Williams was beat...the turn came 2....if raymer had a deuce...he now had trips...the river came 2....So williams at the very least had to put him on a five or a 4......What can he beat? The answer is a pair of 3's and a bluff....that's it. Bad play.

[augmented 0]

big ****ing deal, he made a misread. i read the article where he discussed the hand. he played it fine preflop, and on the flop, he figured he had the best hand, which is reasonable. he called a raise, which isn't so bad. on the turn, when he called 2.5 million, he committed himself to the hand. maybe he should have folded on the turn, but like he said, he really wasn't interested in fighting back from like a 5 to 1 chip deficit. either he was bluffing or he wasn't. williams decided to go for it. its not even that bad a play, street by street.

[SapphireTiger 0]

big censored deal, he made a misread. i read the article where he discussed the hand. he played it fine preflop, and on the flop, he figured he had the best hand, which is reasonable. he called a raise, which isn't so bad. on the turn, when he called 2.5 million, he committed himself to the hand. maybe he should have folded on the turn, but like he said, he really wasn't interested in fighting back from like a 5 to 1 chip deficit. either he was bluffing or he wasn't. williams decided to go for it. its not even that bad a play, street by street.

it's a big fucking 2.5 million deal.

[wolfpacker 0]

- 2 or 3 items I want to address, some have been covered already, others have not . . .1) Raymer was easily one of the most aggressive players in the tournament, and of the final two tables, was probably the 2nd most aggressive player behind Arieh. Now saying that, it's awfully hard for Williams to put Raymer on a PP when he DOES NOT RAISE pre-flop.2) Raymers bet on the flop looks awfully suspicious w/ a 542 board. Williams read at that point just didn't buy the bet, so he called, I can't say I fault him for that.3) Raymer is absolutely a player who would bluff at a pot more than once, one of the main reasons ESPN showed Raymer vs. Murphy early in the tournament was to show how aggressive both players were. Raymer bluffed at the pot, Murphy raised, Raymer re-raised, and then Murphy re-raised all in, both were either (Raymer) bluffing or (Murphy) semi- bluffing. They also showed Raymer's semi-bluff all-in vs. Matasow. From all I've read and heard, Raymer was the type of player who got paid off for his good hands by how much he bluffed. 4) Williams saw the bet on the turn as another bluff, he trusted his read and called instantly, like he always does. Should he have thought about a 2.5 million dollar bet a little longer, probably, but Williams had already put Raymer on a hand and he was trusting his read.5) The river is the only place I question Williams play. Having an 8-1 chip dis-advantage is hard, but having no chips at all is a lot harder. While Raymer is the type of player capable of bluffing for a 3rd time, any all-in should ring some bell in Williams mind, as at best he probably splits the pot there unless Raymer is on an A high, however as per-usual Williams went with the read he had all along (and the pot commitment at this point) and called, and finished 2nd. - Lastly, I just find it odd how most say Williams made a mistake when he did what so many others had done before, thought Raymer was bluffing and paid off another one of his monster hands. Does David regret the play, well of course, but I just believe that rather than Williams making a bad play it was a case of Raymer making a good play, just my two cents . . .

[LAPoker 0]

On the river you would have folded? I believe that Williams did have a boat. I don't usually fold boats heads up, especially when my read put him on two big cards, or maybe even one. I think that I would have not bothered calling the first reraise, and waited for a spot where I wasn't as murky as to where I stood. That being said, once I put him on AX, I probably would have called it down, and gladly pushed my chips in on the river with my boat. I really just didn't understand why he called the bet on the turn myself. As Raymer said they had relatively deep stacks, so what exactly is the rush for.

[Guest XXEddie]

On the river you would have folded? I believe that Williams did have a boat. I don't usually fold boats heads up, especially when my read put him on two big cards, or maybe even one. I think that I would have not bothered calling the first reraise, and waited for a spot where I wasn't as murky as to where I stood. That being said, once I put him on AX, I probably would have called it down, and gladly pushed my chips in on the river with my boat. I really just didn't understand why he called the bet on the turn myself. As Raymer said they had relatively deep stacks, so what exactly is the rush for.

you have to fold the river, the onyl thing you can beat isA3(str8)33(lower boat)or bluffand some of you need to pay more attention, I saw way to many people saying he shoulda folded because Raymer bet/raise PF, on the flop, on the turn and riverhe never raised PF, and Raymer never really slowplayed a hand besides the flush against Marcel Luske

[dms26 3]

On the river you would have folded? I believe that Williams did have a boat. I don't usually fold boats heads up, especially when my read put him on two big cards, or maybe even one. I think that I would have not bothered calling the first reraise, and waited for a spot where I wasn't as murky as to where I stood. That being said, once I put him on AX, I probably would have called it down, and gladly pushed my chips in on the river with my boat. I really just didn't understand why he called the bet on the turn myself. As Raymer said they had relatively deep stacks, so what exactly is the rush for.

you have to fold the river, the onyl thing you can beat isA3(str8)33(lower boat)or bluffand some of you need to pay more attention, I saw way to many people saying he shoulda folded because Raymer bet/raise PF, on the flop, on the turn and riverhe never raised PF, and Raymer never really slowplayed a hand besides the flush against Marcel Luske

He couldn't fold the river by that point, there was way too much of his stack in the pot. He definately made some mistakes during that hand but calling on the river wasn't one of them.I think he would admit (and probably has) that he was very inexperienced during the WSOP.

[walktheplank69 0]

Two Quick Things...1. On a couple of occassions Williams seemed to have that "If you got me you got me" look when he was putting his chips in, but I can't praise the improvement he's made in the following year enough. 2. Raymer didn't like the way he played the hand when he was interviewded afterwards... In fact, he was VERY critical of himself, but I never heard his explination why...

[petema33 0]

Williams kept calling with his pair of 4's. Now if i remember right (and i hope that i do, because i just watched it the other night) Williams never re raised. He called everything to the river...

i believe williams declared all-in on the river and raymer called with his boat. i'm almost certain. (i've been wrong twice before) :wink:

Nope, sorry 8) Raymer looked at the dealer, kind of shrugged, and said "all in." Williams, who knew he was beat but pot-committed, threw up his arms in a reluctant call.The quick calls are Williams' specialty. He was (and still is) a very novice player; Raymer was beating the 300/600 at Foxwoods for a long time before the tournament. He amassed such a huge chip stack that there was just no chance for anyone to take him down after a while.

If you think Williams is a novice player, you need to seriously re-think your assessment of poker players. Not only did he finish 2nd in the WSOP and won 3.5 miliion, I believe he has also made 2 or 3 WPT final tables, and has probably made over $5 million in his short poker career. When you make $5 million playing poker, let me know. Until then, don't criticize him. He would crush you heads up.

[cashinnow 0]

Maybe he just wasn't thinking as all of you are. He had a full house and figured it was good. It was heads up no raise pre-flop and he caught a piece of the flop. He may have not even put Greg on anything and was just acting on his own hand. After all it was day 7 of the biggest poker event ever and he was still an amature level player. I would think that the pressure on both of them had them thinking a bit differently than if they were in the local 1-2 NL game. No matter what I would take either of their winnings and the experience of playing at the final table.

[PT0077 0]

Couple things to add. Raymer semi-bluffed alot, what's not to put Raymer on anything with a 3 suited. Hell, he could have had the Krabler suited and making a semi-bluff. On the other hand, David may have thought he had the best hand, but he also had at least 9 outs to improve. Any Ace, 3 or 4, and he has the best hand. With Raymer's non-reraise pre-flop Williams has to be thinking that his Ace outs are good. Also, if a 3 comes, it will pair Raymer's 3 (assuming you have him on a semi-bluff), but give Williams the straight. The river of course, he fills up, and if he still has him on the semi-bluff or a KQ type hand, then his boat is good.This is just my two cents, I haven't heard his explanation, but that would have been my thinking for the way he played it. It would be hard to get away from the A4 when playing that type of player.

[SabaAba 0]

O, and in regards to Williams just happy to get there, I remember reading in Cardplayer about how much he just wanted to win and how he would give up the money to be champion or something along those lines. And seeing from his interviews during the WPT Borgata him saying how disappointed he was to get so close to winning the WSOP and not actually doing it. Not to mention that once heads up there was still 1.5 million on the line, and I don't think any poker player who could put himself in that position would be careless enough to not care about 1.5 million and being WSOP champion and just kind of heave his chips in the middle because hey, he already had 3.5 million.

BullCrap. If you ask any poker player (maybe the pros are exceptions) at the beginning of the WSOP this year. "Would you rather win and get nothing or come 2nd and get $5million?" I would bet the farm that more than 99% of the people would say come 2nd. I would bet that Willams is no different to any of us who $3.5 million is life changing. Now if he was a millionaire, then maybe it doesn't matter to him, but from the ESPN story, I could tell that he could use the 3.5Million. I mean look at him now, he is playing in all the tournaments, and will probably not need to ever work again. I want one person here to be honest and tell me they would rather win the WSOP main event and get no money than come 2nd and get 2nd place money. One person!!

[LAPoker 0]

On the river you would have folded?  I believe that Williams did have a boat.  I don't usually fold boats heads up, especially when my read put him on two big cards, or maybe even one.  I think that I would have not bothered calling the first reraise, and waited for a spot where I wasn't as murky as to where I stood.  That being said, once I put him on AX, I probably would have called it down, and gladly pushed my chips in on the river with my boat.  I really just didn't understand why he called the bet on the turn myself.  As Raymer said they had relatively deep stacks, so what exactly is the rush for.

you have to fold the river, the onyl thing you can beat isA3(str8)33(lower boat)or bluffand some of you need to pay more attention, I saw way to many people saying he shoulda folded because Raymer bet/raise PF, on the flop, on the turn and riverhe never raised PF, and Raymer never really slowplayed a hand besides the flush against Marcel Luske

I disagree he should have folded on the turn at the latest, but once he calls the turn bet he is commited on the river. Although the way that Raymer says allin would have had me running for the hills. My point is that I don't quite understand why he decided to mary himself to that hand. He could have sat back and waited for a better opportunity to double up, but again once he calls the turn he is done.

[Kendren 1]

Think of it this way.Flop was 2 5 4... Williams bets, thinking he has the best hand. Raymer raises, and David calls, still thinking he has the best hand.Turn 2... how could that have helped Raymer if David had the best hand at the flop? It couldn't have, unless Raymer had a 2, which David couldn't think he had.River 2... again, how could that have helped Raymer if Willams had the best hand on the flop? It couldn't have. If Williams believed he was ahead on the flop, there's nothing on the board to indicate he's beat. I really don't fault David's play if he thought he was ahead on the flop.