Daniel, Please Set Bill Simmons (sports Guy) Straight

[archie 0]

Not sure if this is the right forum for this but here goes.I'm an avid reader of the Sports Guy, and I know Daniel is too (he has stated that his writing is influenced by the Sports Guys style).Here's the Sports Guy's recap of his 2 hour experience at the Main Event:Sports Guy's WSOP DisappointmentI love reading this guys work, he's good for several laugh out loud moments on a weekly basis, and he's spot on when it comes to presenting a fan's view of professional sports.However, after reading this article, I find myself shaking my head.Now he was obviously very disappointed...and he makes the same point many have been making the last few years: the field has gotten so big and the skill level so bad that the Main Event has become a crapshoot...Ok fine, got it.However, he then proceeds to tell the tale of how he called a maniac's preflop raise with K10(?!) suited, hit his two pair on the flop and PUSHED....in the 2nd hour. Now his read on the guy was right, he only had top pair but why raise a guy from 1200 all the way to 10K at that point? Isn't calling maniacs with easily outkicked hands and then putting your entire tournament at risk so early exactly the kind of wild play he was complaining about in the article?He wound up getting his 2 pair counterfeited by running queens, and he was outkicked and busted out VERY early. I think he might have avoided elimination by playing the hand differently.Thoughts?

[Norhas99 0]

Ummm, yes.

[TheCorporation3 0]

Well, I didnt see or read the conversation with Bill Simmons but you're absolutely right. Part of your edge when playing with maniacs is playing far superior hands and having THEM dominated. I take it the maniac had KJ or AK, seeing how the maniac flopped top pair and counterfeited Simmons two pair by running Q's. This shows that he (Simmons) was in bad shape preflop and althought he did read him correct post flop, it was basically him giving away the little edge he had by playing a dominated hand like K10. He was asking for trouble and that is what he got. When a K10 loses to AK or KJ it isnt really so much of a bad beat because he was behind to begin with, but when the money got in it is true that he was a big favorite... Bill Simmons, like you said, shouldn't have gotten involved to begin with. You want to have the superior starting hands so that the maniacs have to outdraw on you, not the other way around. Seems like Bill was the maniac on that hand.

[coldnuts 0]

Well, I didnt see or read the conversation with Bill Simmons but you're absolutely right. Part of your edge when playing with maniacs is playing far superior hands and having THEM dominated. I take it the maniac had KJ or AK, seeing how the maniac flopped top pair and counterfeited Simmons two pair by running Q's. This shows that he (Simmons) was in bad shape preflop and althought he did read him correct post flop, it was basically him giving away the little edge he had by playing a dominated hand like K10. He was asking for trouble and that is what he got. When a K10 loses to AK or KJ it isnt really so much of a bad beat because he was behind to begin with, but when the money got in it is true that he was a big favorite... Bill Simmons, like you said, shouldn't have gotten involved to begin with. You want to have the superior starting hands so that the maniacs have to outdraw on you, not the other way around. Seems like Bill was the maniac on that hand.

How exactly is Bill being a maniac? By getting all his money in as a 5.5 to 1 favourite??

[DanielNegreanu 141]

Actually your theory is kinda wrong. First of all, Bill e-mailed me the story before he wrote the e-mail. He's aparrently as much a fan as I am. He might not be the greatest player out there, but his sentiments make some sense. Now, calling maniacs with lesser holdings actually makes MORE sense than calling tighter players with hands like K-10. The key thing to remember, though, isn't the pre-flop play, it's the horrendous call of all the chips with... a pair???? after the flop. Bill did come off a little whiny in his article, I thought, but he is absolutely right when he says that this tournament isn't a good barometer of skill level due to the high percentage of novice players in the event. The money's good, but the play is just awful for the most part.

[CrazyJoe 0]

Actually your theory is kinda wrong. First of all, Bill e-mailed me the story before he wrote the e-mail. He's aparrently as much a fan as I am. He might not be the greatest player out there, but his sentiments make some sense. Now, calling maniacs with lesser holdings actually makes MORE sense than calling tighter players with hands like K-10. The key thing to remember, though, isn't the pre-flop play, it's the horrendous call of all the chips with... a pair???? after the flop. Bill did come off a little whiny in his article, I thought, but he is absolutely right when he says that this tournament isn't a good barometer of skill level due to the high percentage of novice players in the event. The money's good, but the play is just awful for the most part.

Isn't this just a 'new' measure of skill or a measure of a new skill, at least in these big WSOP events. Hellmuth's results have shown he is excellent at playing against bad players, your strategy early in the main event proved to be very effective against weak player. The skill of playing against good players has it's place as does skill playing against bad players. The Wsop has just fallen into the latter category over the last 3 years, it's a different skill-set some players haven't adapted as well as others.

[nutzbuster 7]

I thought, but he is absolutely right when he says that this tournament isn't a good barometer of skill level due to the high percentage of novice players in the event. The money's good, but the play is just awful for the most part.

Ditto. There were terrible players at my table. The worst when a clueless guy from Paris calls my 8000 all in with 7-6 off post flop.I had Queens and a 10-8-6 rainbow board.He luck boxes two pair.In sane.Great experience though.

[myenemy 0]

First, you are obviously missing the point of the story. It wasn't about the details, they are merely a way of illustrating an example. It was more about the fact that skill, as a factor in determining a champion, is not what it used to be. Its irrelevant that "he was dominated preflop". Second, I guess that whoever thinks that he shouldn't have played the hand agrees with Hellmuth that if it weren't for luck you'd win everyone. I think most DN's would tell you that post flop play is where the real skill of NLH lies. Thats why he'll raise with a 64s. Do you watch HSP? The evidence of pros' belief that post flop play is king, is most prevelant. In one episode you'll find preflop raises and/or calls with 64s, 95s, JTo, 78o, etc. Anyway...my two cents.

[nutzbuster 7]

C'est la Vie!wee wee.

[coldnuts 0]

First, you are obviously missing the point of the story. It wasn't about the details, they are merely a way of illustrating an example. It was more about the fact that skill, as a factor in determining a champion, is not what it used to be. Its irrelevant that "he was dominated preflop". Second, I guess that whoever thinks that he shouldn't have played the hand agrees with Hellmuth that if it weren't for luck you'd win everyone. I think most DN's would tell you that post flop play is where the real skill of NLH lies. Thats why he'll raise with a 64s. Do you watch HSP? The evidence of pros' belief that post flop play is king, is most prevelant. In one episode you'll find preflop raises and/or calls with 64s, 95s, JTo, 78o, etc. Anyway...my two cents.

Yes, post flop play is important... when you're playing deep stack poker (i.e. cash games)Except for the very early stages of a tournament, you'll never have enough room to maneuver to warrant raising or calling raises with tricky hands like 64s or 95s.

[archie 0]

Actually your theory is kinda wrong. First of all, Bill e-mailed me the story before he wrote the e-mail. He's aparrently as much a fan as I am. He might not be the greatest player out there, but his sentiments make some sense. Now, calling maniacs with lesser holdings actually makes MORE sense than calling tighter players with hands like K-10. The key thing to remember, though, isn't the pre-flop play, it's the horrendous call of all the chips with... a pair???? after the flop. Bill did come off a little whiny in his article, I thought, but he is absolutely right when he says that this tournament isn't a good barometer of skill level due to the high percentage of novice players in the event. The money's good, but the play is just awful for the most part.

Daniel,Thanks for the response! Hope San Diego is treating you well...my folks live there and they love it! Great place for golf, I know you'll love it.I love the Sports Guy's column and I was rooting for him to do well. But then he published what was essentially a bad beat story. As if we all hadn't heard a million of those before :-) I agreed in my post that his read was right and he got his money in with the best hand. The other guy was terrible calling with just top pair. I just thought that given how early it was he could have found a better spot for it.It did bother me that he put it all out there so early, but I know you're an advocate of building a stack early while there is still dead money out there and that's exactly what the Sports Guy tried to do...just didn't work out. Thanks for the tip on dealing with maniacs...going back over some hands in my mind it's always when I hold premium hands that they give me so much trouble. Thanks for setting ME straight :-) Tell the sports guy it's nothing personal :-)

[archie 0]

First, you are obviously missing the point of the story. It wasn't about the details, they are merely a way of illustrating an example. It was more about the fact that skill, as a factor in determining a champion, is not what it used to be. Its irrelevant that "he was dominated preflop". Second, I guess that whoever thinks that he shouldn't have played the hand agrees with Hellmuth that if it weren't for luck you'd win everyone. I think most DN's would tell you that post flop play is where the real skill of NLH lies. Thats why he'll raise with a 64s. Do you watch HSP? The evidence of pros' belief that post flop play is king, is most prevelant. In one episode you'll find preflop raises and/or calls with 64s, 95s, JTo, 78o, etc. Anyway...my two cents.

I understood the point of the story...the skill level has gotten so bad it's become a crapshoot. Bad players are sucking out and there's no room for skilled play. I said so in my post.I love High Stakes Poker, watch it every week. I think you'd agree with me though that very few people outside of pros like Daniel and company can play those types of hands (64s) post flop with any kind of success. They are experts at reading and knowing where they are in a hand. The rest of us aren't :-)I give the Sports Guy credit, he obviously knew where he was in the hand, and got his money in with the best of it (and said so in my post). I just felt that given how early it was, he could have found a better spot for it.Anyway, those were my feelings when I read the article. Since then many have chimed in, including Daniel, and I can certainly see their points of view.If his hand had held up and he'd gone deep I'm sure we would have read a very different article. It was just a little too much on the bitter side for me. After spending a month keeping up with the WSOP over the net, I'd already read my fill of 'woe is me, these people are terrible' stories. Phil Gordon even brought in his childhood memory of a dead puppy into the mix. Ouch.But you know, I should have known better. The Sports Guys emotions run high, it's what makes his articles so fun to read. When he's riding high with his Pats or Sox, he's on top of the world. When they tank, it's like reading an obituary (but no less fun to read). His WSOP article wouldn't be any different.

[DanielNegreanu 141]

Isn't this just a 'new' measure of skill or a measure of a new skill, at least in these big WSOP events. Hellmuth's results have shown he is excellent at playing against bad players, your strategy early in the main event proved to be very effective against weak player. The skill of playing against good players has it's place as does skill playing against bad players. The Wsop has just fallen into the latter category over the last 3 years, it's a different skill-set some players haven't adapted as well as others.

You are missing one key factor. Many rookie players will NEVER face off against a table with top pros at it during the entire tournament. For example, you could have a 20 handed table, where everyone is playing poker for the very first time. One of those players will end up with a lot of chips, and it will have little to do with being one of the best players in the tournament.