michael gracz making sick calls!

[Perry 0]

Anyone know how that Sexton kid got so shortstacked? They showed the one hand where he doubled up to a very decent stack with his boat aginst Machina's 85o bluff and then the next time you see him he is all in preflop with K9 with no chips.

For some reason, ESPN decided not to show one of the biggest pots of the tourney. Other than my elimination pot (the biggest pot) and Cindy's elimination (the second largest), this was the biggest and it was while we were still 5 handed.I raised on the button with TT. Paul called in the BB with AA. The flop came QT2. Paul checked, I bet, he pushed all in and I insta-called.Before you fault Paul for slowplaying preflop, I don't think it was a bad play... he simply got unlucky. And, it's unlikely had he reraised preflop that the outcome would have been any different. If he reraised, I probably push all in. If he just pushed all in, I probably call, but I'd have had to think for a while... it certainly wouldn't have been an instant call... He had been playing very addressively and given I was raising from the button, he should be playing back at me with a wide range of hands. I would be expecting him to not value my raise highly, and consequently, I would not value his reraise as high as if I raised from early position at a full table.Anyhow, that pot vaulted me into the chip lead, and also crippled Paul.It's unfortunate that ESPN chose not to show that hand.Perry

[richgambler 0]

I agree Seidel played near perfectly to win this, but....as he has said in the past "....with those cards, it would have been embarassing not to win."

[alf13 0]

I agree Seidel played near perfectly to win this, but....as he has said in the past "....with those cards, it would have been embarassing not to win."

They showed TWO hands....go read the transcript...and tell me that he had Aces and Kings in all of those hands he was raising and then check raising the flop in....

[MasterLJ 0]

Watched that episode last night and was thinking the same thing, is he that good, or that bad? Couldn't really tell from the show because they don't show hands where he put anything down (at least, I didn't see any... I started watching a little late). I think the A10 call was sweet but relatively easy. Board was something like 2 7 8 then 7 when the all in happened. Gracz raises pre flop, gets called. The board comes down and both check. The turn comes and dude is all in... just stupid. Had he been better than A10 pre flop, he would have re-raised more than likely. Had he had the 7, he would have bet the flop since the pot was raised.

[rok300 0]

Watched that episode last night and was thinking the same thing, is he that good, or that bad? Couldn't really tell from the show because they don't show hands where he put anything down (at least, I didn't see any... I started watching a little late). I think the A10 call was sweet but relatively easy. Board was something like 2 7 8 then 7 when the all in happened. Gracz raises pre flop, gets called. The board comes down and both check. The turn comes and dude is all in... just stupid. Had he been better than A10 pre flop, he would have re-raised more than likely. Had he had the 7, he would have bet the flop since the pot was raised.

That's not how it happened. KJ raised before the flop and Gracz called with A10 in the BB. The KJ had position on him throughout the rest of the hand. It seems that Gracz figured that if the other guy had a pair, he'd have bet on the flop or check and make a value bet when a brick comes off on the turn. All-in is not a value bet. Also, if he had a big ace he'd be content to check it down with p0sition and turn it over after that flop and turn. However, when the KJ guy makes a move all-in that just sends out warning bells to Gracz that "I don't have a hand I can showdown to you" and Gracz made a very good call.

[alf13 0]

I can't figure that AT hand out...but it sure was a ballsy call.....He had contributed 25k to the pot....and he called 150k more with Ace high on the turn....The guy could have easily had AJ or AQ...and made the same move..

[MasterLJ 0]

I can't figure that AT hand out...but it sure was a ballsy call.....He had contributed 25k to the pot....and he called 150k more with Ace high on the turn....The guy could have easily had AJ or AQ...and made the same move..

What's the likelyhood that he had AQ and/or AJ and didn't re-raise p/f? I think it's small, and I think Gracz certainly had a better read on the situation than I did from watching that.On top of that, most people would bet out with AQ or if they had the 7 on that ragged flop. You know that pp 9 or higher would almost certailny re-raise pre flop. The all in just didn't make sense, and when it doesn't make sense it's usually a terrible play or a bluff. At that level, I'd call it a bluff.There's some bluffs where you could even tell your opponent you are bluffing and they still can't call. That all in move would have worked had Gracz been holding KQ, QJ or less.

[alf13 0]

I can't figure that AT hand out...but it sure was a ballsy call.....He had contributed 25k to the pot....and he called 150k more with Ace high on the turn....The guy could have easily had AJ or AQ...and made the same move..

What's the likelyhood that he had AQ and/or AJ and didn't re-raise p/f? I think it's small, and I think Gracz certainly had a better read on the situation than I did from watching that.On top of that, most people would bet out with AQ or if they had the 7 on that ragged flop. You know that pp 9 or higher would almost certailny re-raise pre flop. The all in just didn't make sense, and when it doesn't make sense it's usually a terrible play or a bluff. At that level, I'd call it a bluff.There's some bluffs where you could even tell your opponent you are bluffing and they still can't call. That all in move would have worked had Gracz been holding KQ, QJ or less.

He couldn't re-raise preflop....he raised....gracz called....like I said...he could have easily had AJ, or AQ.

[pogiolithis 0]

from what I saw it looked like a pretty easy call, same with the pocket 2's. I would have made the same calls. Both hands were a little too aggresive and didn't smell right. Not sure if you play a lot B&M (alf13 - no disrespect if you do) but, it seems like the more you do the easier those calls are to make.I was more impressed with the 78s re-reaise on David Pham - that was nice. But also too there is a lot of editing so there are reasons some players do things that we don't understand.

[alf13 0]

from what I saw it looked like a pretty easy call, same with the pocket 2's. I would have made the same calls. Both hands were a little too aggresive and didn't smell right. Not sure if you play a lot B&M (alf13 - no disrespect if you do) but, it seems like the more you do the easier those calls are to make.I was more impressed with the 78s re-reaise on David Pham - that was nice. But also too there is a lot of editing so there are reasons some players do things that we don't understand.

I play ALOT of live poker...in fact.....more live then online....and I have made calls that some people can deem...."sick"....and "oh my, that guy is a stud."....But this was a WSOP event with a bracelet on the line....and his read had to be pretty damn good to call in that spot with AT....BTW...sometimes I have read somebody for real strength while I hold the nuts...and I make a wild play at the pot knowing I am likely to get called....That happens too.

[Guest]

Schreiger (sp) made a post a while back (can't remember for the life of me, might've been pocket 5's)...anyways he said something to the effect that he was stunned Gracz called. But he also said that Gracz loves to make the "big call" it worked out fantastically for him, but he mentioned he loves to bluff, and Law trapped him perfectly twice, and Gracz weaseled out both times. That has to be maddening, we go bonkers if that happens in a SNG. I probably would've gotten 30 minutes worth of penalties for all the f bombs I would've been launching at that guy.

[pogiolithis 0]

I too play alot of live poker. I thought it was a retarded play. It made no sense. Didn't he also blow Gracz a kiss when he raised pre-flop? Sending the ego-based message "I'm a great poker player call my raise and I'll show you." Or maybe they have some relationship of the table that I don't know about. Again ESPN editing you really never know.

[alf13 0]

I too play alot of live poker. I thought it was a retarded play. It made no sense. Didn't he also blow Gracz a kiss when he raised pre-flop? Sending the ego-based message "I'm a great poker player call my raise and I'll show you." Or maybe they have some relationship of the table that I don't know about. Again ESPN editing you really never know.

Shane said that the kiss was spliced from another hand....where he re-raised CT. Law...and they put it in that hand.....shady espn crap.....

[pogiolithis 0]

I remember when ESPN used to be about sports. The more I watch the more I hate it.

[murphy77 0]

I felt kinda bad for Machina, from what I saw he went into the final table with a ton of chips (and the chip lead), just to lose it all to Cyndie Violette in multiple suckouts/coinflips.

[Perry 0]

I felt kinda bad for Machina, from what I saw he went into the final table with a ton of chips (and the chip lead),  just to lose it all to Cyndie Violette in multiple suckouts/coinflips.

Morgan played very tight during the final table. He then lost most of his chips on an ill-timed bluff vs Paul. The hands against Cindy were bad luck, but the damage had already been done.The problem with ESPN's coverage is that they only show VERY few hands from the final table. Trying to condense 9 hours (or in some cases 12+ hours) of action into a 1 hour show (with probably only 30 minutes or less of poker) leads to some very misleading shows.Perry

[richgambler 0]

They showed TWO hands....go read the transcript...and tell me that he had Aces and Kings in all of those hands he was raising and then check raising the flop in....

No...in most of the hands I saw(I know thats not the whole story) Seidel had great cards...Im not saying he didnt play great...... I'm just saying he got hit with the deck....to quote Seinfeld....."not that theres anything wrong with that" 8)

[richgambler 0]

Morgan played very tight during the final table.   He then lost most of his chips on an ill-timed bluff vs Paul.  The hands against Cindy were bad luck, but the damage had already been done.The problem with ESPN's coverage is that they only show VERY few hands from the final table.  Trying to condense 9 hours (or in some cases 12+ hours) of action into a 1 hour show (with probably only 30 minutes or less of poker) leads to some very misleading shows.Perry

I couldnt agree more Perry...ESPNs coverage is poor at bestP.S. I was standing by your table at the WSOP this year during the NLHE w/rebuys 1k event(#37)---i got knocked out rather quickly, even after a handful of rebuys--- when you shouted to Phil Gordon: "Hey, Phil Gordon, Celebrity Poker sucks!!"....I started LMAO....just wondering if you were buddies, or if you just didnt like him or something.

[the red bull 0]

I felt kinda bad for Machina, from what I saw he went into the final table with a ton of chips (and the chip lead),  just to lose it all to Cyndie Violette in multiple suckouts/coinflips.

Morgan played very tight during the final table. He then lost most of his chips on an ill-timed bluff vs Paul. The hands against Cindy were bad luck, but the damage had already been done.The problem with ESPN's coverage is that they only show VERY few hands from the final table. Trying to condense 9 hours (or in some cases 12+ hours) of action into a 1 hour show (with probably only 30 minutes or less of poker) leads to some very misleading shows.Perry

Perry....You came off as quite an oddball last night! :-)

[PMJackson21 0]

Morgan played very tight during the final table.   He then lost most of his chips on an ill-timed bluff vs Paul.  The hands against Cindy were bad luck, but the damage had already been done.The problem with ESPN's coverage is that they only show VERY few hands from the final table.  Trying to condense 9 hours (or in some cases 12+ hours) of action into a 1 hour show (with probably only 30 minutes or less of poker) leads to some very misleading shows.Perry

I couldnt agree more Perry...ESPNs coverage is poor at bestP.S. I was standing by your table at the WSOP this year during the NLHE w/rebuys 1k event(#37)---i got knocked out rather quickly, even after a handful of rebuys--- when you shouted to Phil Gordon: "Hey, Phil Gordon, Celebrity Poker sucks!!"....I started LMAO....just wondering if you were buddies, or if you just didnt like him or something.

http://tiltboys.com/Old friends...Then again, that doesn't mean Perry likes him I suppose. :-)Patrick

[PMJackson21 0]

I felt kinda bad for Machina, from what I saw he went into the final table with a ton of chips (and the chip lead),  just to lose it all to Cyndie Violette in multiple suckouts/coinflips.

Morgan played very tight during the final table. He then lost most of his chips on an ill-timed bluff vs Paul. The hands against Cindy were bad luck, but the damage had already been done.The problem with ESPN's coverage is that they only show VERY few hands from the final table. Trying to condense 9 hours (or in some cases 12+ hours) of action into a 1 hour show (with probably only 30 minutes or less of poker) leads to some very misleading shows.Perry

Perry....You came off as quite an oddball last night! :-)

Ha, funny - that's exactly how I pictured Perry would be so I was LMAO. Anyone who has read his posts on RGP in the past, read the tiltboys stuff, or played with him on FTP, knows he is a lot of fun.Patrick

[alf13 0]

They showed TWO hands....go read the transcript...and tell me that he had Aces and Kings in all of those hands he was raising and then check raising the flop in....

No...in most of the hands I saw(I know thats not the whole story) Seidel had great cards...Im not saying he didnt play great...... I'm just saying he got hit with the deck....to quote Seinfeld....."not that theres anything wrong with that" 8)

What does "most" mean?If it's what ESPN showed...then that was bout 4 hands.....To give you some scale....he played more than 50 hands HU vs. Violette.

[SOWhatKid 0]

i'd say Ivey had the best performance in the PL Omaha Event he won like 70% of the hands which is just ridiculous he basically ran over the table

[typesick 0]

I don't feel badly for Morgan. That 8/5 bluff was HORRENDOUS...

[WonderfulSplash 0]

To give you some scale....he played more than 50 hands HU vs. Violette.

And won a rediculously high percantage of those hands. He was outplaying her, then got lucky at the end. Thats tournament poker.