Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Klopzi He chose when to go all-in and when not to, and he made the right choices. |
Not that I want to get embroiled in a MoneyMaker argument, because his performance since the WSOP pretty much speaks for itself, but this sentence above is just plain misleading and also kinda ignorant.
The nature of the game is such that you don't always have to be great to win, and obviously, when someone with a strong hand is raising to push you out, and you stay in and suck out, you get inflated chip stacks = MoneyFaker.
But when you say he made "the right choices", you're only saying that because he won them, in 20-20 hindsight. Technically, any winning long-term strategy will advise AGAINST pushing all in with few outs, and you can't justify his expertise or decision-making just because he won. It's like saying, "My chip stack is bigger, so I'm better".
Anyone can gain a solid understanding of the game in a few months playing online and reading a few books, and anyone with or without that knowledge can win any game! It's just the way poker is.
All I'm saying is that MM's performance and play is less than optimal for the long run, which is actually the point of playing "good" poker.
Aiiight?
And just for the record, we can add Aaron Kanter from WSOP 2005 to that list of MoneyFakers.
...