Kanter Vs Raymer (WSOP2005)

Dub13

I have been watching the WSOP this week on TV and this hand stick's out a mile.All the questions...I think if Raymer had of won this hand we could have had a back to back winner of the main event,as he was playing some very good poker and had a good stack.Some great dissuasion's of this hand on various sites so I thought a thread here would be interesting.


The Hand
Ayhan Alsancak has the button in seat 5, Raymer raises, and Kanter calls. The flop comes 6c-5d-3h, and there's a bet and a call. The turn card is the 7h, Kanter bets $600,000, and the two players are quickly all in. Raymer shows pocket kings (Kd-Kh), and Kanter has Qh-Jh. Kanter has a flush draw, and needs to catch a heart to win the pot. The river card is the 2h, and Kanter makes his flush to double up through Greg Raymer.

ps: this hand did not knock Raymer out,but it did alot of damage.

The C Kid

Kanter is a donkey, there is very little left to say about the hand.

Thank God neither himself or Danneman won it. Or that Tiffany one also.

ntlbell

Seen this a few weeks ago.

I can't understand how there's so much talk about it, there's nothing really to talk about, raymer played the hand well kanter's a fu*cking idiot and that's all there is to it really.


Andy's push with A2 against Ivey's steal, his push with 10 10 on a K high board against raymer and his call with KJ against barch's JJ I think would be more interesting for discussion I'd love to hear from andy on what he was thinking too pitty he doesn't frequent boards.

Amaru

Does anybody know what day this was on? I want to take a look at the hand because i can't see what the fuss is about.

The C Kid

Day Six, July 14th

ntlbell

Amaru wrote:

Does anybody know what day this was on? I want to take a look at the hand because i can't see what the fuss is about.

The fuss is the idiot tried to give all his chips to raymer on a flush draw and instead crimpling the guy (who i thinking anyway) who would of went on to do win back to back main events

Dub13

I taught the same on-till I read this...I still think it was a crazy call but this post (pinched from another site) puts abit more prospective on the call.



****
It wasn't that bad a play. It looks foolish because we knew Raymer had Kings.

But think about it from Kanter's perspective. When someone, especially someone who's as aggressive as Greg Raymer, comes into a pot raising, they usually have either high cards or a good pocket pair. Based on card frequency alone, it's more likely that they have unpaired high cards like A/K than a monster pair like Aces, Kings, or Queens.

So Kanter put him on A/K from the start, I'll bet, and therefore deduced that the flop, which had all low cards, completely missed him. So he just called Raymer's "continuation bet" — not knowing of course that it wasn't a continuation bet at all — in the hopes of taking it away from him on the turn.

Fourth street gives Kanter a flush draw. At that point, a raise is an even better move, since it's now a semi-bluff instead of a naked stone-cold bluff. His heart draw is almost certainly live, and even pairing up will probably win: if Raymer had A/K, A/Q, A/J, K/Q, J/J, 9/9, or a whole host of other hands, then hitting one or either of his hole cards would be a winner.

So at best, Kanter has 15 outs, for about a 1 in 3 chance to win. At the absolute worst, he could have pocket Aces, Kings, or Queens, giving him a nine-out draw (eight if Raymer held a heart) for roughly 1 in 5 to win. And some percentage of the time, Raymer will fold. Without getting too deep into the math, Kanter had to figure he was winning that pot — either by bluffing out or sucking out — a large majority of the time. Though it sucks that he won after such an awful misread with the worst hand, it wasn't a terrible play.

His only mistake might have been the size of his raise; if it were too big, he would have left himself in a position where if Raymer went all-in, he would be pot-committed with the weakest possible chance to win — which is exactly what happened. But I don't remember offhand the size of the bets, relative to the stacks.

Amaru

The fuss is the idiot tried to give all his chips to raymer on a flush draw and instead crimpling the guy (who i thinking anyway) who would of went on to do win back to back main events

Obviously thats what all the fuss is about, but how is idiots drawing out on world champions at the wsop suddenly cause for discussion?

EDIT: Just seen above....

ntlbell

Amaru wrote:

Does anybody know what day this was on? I want to take a look at the hand because i can't see what the fuss is about.

It's ESPN Episode 29 if you get them from your cousin

ntlbell

Amaru wrote:

Obviously thats what all the fuss is about, but how is idiots drawing out on world champions at the wsop suddenly cause for discussion?

It's more to do with the stage of the tournament, the chip counts, the fact it was raymer, the fact he was in a position to do back to back's I'm not sure, I can't really understand the fuss myself.

The C Kid

It's not just this hand though with Kanter. Ok the guy won his seat playing online but some of his plays defied any basic poker knowledge.

I mean he just sucked out so many people it was horrible.

I think Mike Matusow eloquently summed up (not words you'd expect to hear) the hand best.

He said he felt real bad for Greg as he lost to an idiot. The interviewer said "Well Kanter had committed alot of chips", to which Mike replied "Well how about he folds his hand after the flop when he has no pair or no draws"

ntlbell

The C Kid wrote:

He said he felt real bad for Greg as he lost to an idiot. The interviewer said "Well Kanter had committed alot of chips", to which Mike replied "Well how about he folds his hand after the flop when he has no pair or now draws"

To be fair I've seen mike make alot worse plays, maybe he should take a bit of his own advice.

But kanter was an idiot.

Fatboydim

What was so bad about Dannerman's play... He seemed on the whole fairly tight from the coverage. Sure he made a bad play against Andy Black with the A6 when Andy had tens but again if he put such an aggresive player on overcards he had to bet heavy. Andy was unlucky... But Dannerman's play wasn't awful. As he was first to act. Calling with A6 is another matter.

But watching the coverage... and it is highly edited of course... It seemed as though Andy Black pissed his chips away. The KJ against JJ for all the chips was a real WTF moment? By far the worst play of the tournament. As surely it's a cardinal rule at a final table not to get involved with a fellow big stack unless you are sure you are ahead.

Hachem on the other hand deserved his win coming from so far behind.

Amaru

Dub13 wrote:

So at best, Kanter has 15 outs, for about a 1 in 3 chance to win. At the absolute worst, he could have pocket Aces, Kings, or Queens, giving him a nine-out draw (eight if Raymer held a heart) for roughly 1 in 5 to win. And some percentage of the time, Raymer will fold. Without getting too deep into the math, Kanter had to figure he was winning that pot — either by bluffing out or sucking out — a large majority of the time. Though it sucks that he won after such an awful misread with the worst hand, it wasn't a terrible play.

I just watched the hand, and i think its a horrible, unjustifiable call. If he'd been the one all in, then fine, he's trying to push Raymer off the hand, but as it stands, he had no business calling the all in. As you said, he's committing all his chips with only a 1 in 3 chance at best! No matter what hand he thought raymer had, we had to believe he was behind, either by small margin or a big one.

Ste05

I think the fuss is all about all the suck outs and bad plays they showed him making in the series, he really looked like a donkey.

One thing that I'd love to know was what Andy Black had in that hand when we only saw his A, and he called your man's all in on the river when the other guy had trip K's I think, really damaged him, couldn't see how he could have called it without the AK there. Anyone know or talked to him about it????

EDIT: Just watched it again on Sky+
It was the hand with Kanter when
Pre-Flop Andy raised to 550k (blinds 80k-160k) we only saw the A, Kanter re-raised another 1m with KK, Andy called.
Flop comes 53K, Andy bets 1m, Canter re-raises 4m, Andy calls.
Turn is 3, Kanter checks, Andy asks him how much he has left, then checks behind him.
River 8 - Kanter bets 2m, Andy calls, (looking at it again he had to call, the pot was about 15m at this stage) but I'd love to know what his other hole card was.

Ste05

Fatboydim wrote:

Hachem on the other hand deserved his win coming from so far behind.

And he was All-In on the bubble remember - thought he played well

The C Kid

I thought it was Black's ability to make moves like the KJ one that showed him to be the best player at that final table.

Think the hand was debated on here before and I'm not so sure I'd be calling with JJ if I was in his opponents position.

Lafortezza

Dub13 wrote:

It wasn't that bad a play. It looks foolish because we knew Raymer had Kings.

But think about it from Kanter's perspective. When someone, especially someone who's as aggressive as Greg Raymer, comes into a pot raising, they usually have either high cards or a good pocket pair. Based on card frequency alone, it's more likely that they have unpaired high cards like A/K than a monster pair like Aces, Kings, or Queens.

So Kanter put him on A/K from the start, I'll bet, and therefore deduced that the flop, which had all low cards, completely missed him. So he just called Raymer's "continuation bet" — not knowing of course that it wasn't a continuation bet at all — in the hopes of taking it away from him on the turn.

Fourth street gives Kanter a flush draw. At that point, a raise is an even better move, since it's now a semi-bluff instead of a naked stone-cold bluff. His heart draw is almost certainly live, and even pairing up will probably win: if Raymer had A/K, A/Q, A/J, K/Q, J/J, 9/9, or a whole host of other hands, then hitting one or either of his hole cards would be a winner.

So at best, Kanter has 15 outs, for about a 1 in 3 chance to win. At the absolute worst, he could have pocket Aces, Kings, or Queens, giving him a nine-out draw (eight if Raymer held a heart) for roughly 1 in 5 to win. And some percentage of the time, Raymer will fold. Without getting too deep into the math, Kanter had to figure he was winning that pot — either by bluffing out or sucking out — a large majority of the time. Though it sucks that he won after such an awful misread with the worst hand, it wasn't a terrible play.

His only mistake might have been the size of his raise; if it were too big, he would have left himself in a position where if Raymer went all-in, he would be pot-committed with the weakest possible chance to win — which is exactly what happened. But I don't remember offhand the size of the bets, relative to the stacks.

This is all well and good but I'd put the chances that the above was going through Kanter's mind at very very slim.

Fatboydim wrote:

Sure he made a bad play against Andy Black with the A6 when Andy had tens but again if he put such an aggresive player on overcards he had to bet heavy. Andy was unlucky... But Dannerman's play wasn't awful. As he was first to act. Calling with A6 is another matter.

The only reason that this was a bad play is that Danneman has about the worst poker face imaginable. Andy had top pair with T9 on a Txx board, hardly the strongest of hands. But he had a good long look at Danneman who was obviously ****ting himself.
If you compare it to the hand where Hachem has the nut flush draw with and over card and Danneman has top set. Danneman basically grinned like a goon and speechplayed Hachem into folding. Hachem even asked him "Did you hit your set?"

Fatboydim

The C Kid wrote:

I thought it was Black's ability to make moves like the KJ one that showed him to be the best player at that final table.

For me it was the point at which he lost the tournament... That move was fine against a shortstack... But not against Barch [It was Barch wasn't it?] Who was second in chips. I can find reasons for jusifying it... As you say with JJ it's tough to call... But of course Andy didn't know what he had... and I suspect if he did he wouldn't have made that play. And if it was Andy with the Jacks making the call we'd say what a brilliant call. - But that's poker. If it works out you're a genius if it doesn't you look like the rear end of an ass.

The TV coverage was also very poor this year and really they just told the stories they wanted to tell. So we never got to see the great plays that Andy made.

In the end if I can be a tenth as good as Andy Black I'd be happy.

Fatboydim

lafortezza wrote:

The only reason that this was a bad play is that Danneman has about the worst poker face imaginable. Andy had top pair with T9 on a Txx board, hardly the strongest of hands. But he had a good long look at Danneman who was obviously ****ting himself.
If you compare it to the hand where Hachem has the nut flush draw with and over card and Danneman has top set. Danneman basically grinned like a goon and speechplayed Hachem into folding. Hachem even asked him "Did you hit your set?"

If Andy had had AK or AQ in that position and called him - What then? Sure the guy is a bit of a bufoon... and he got lucky several times but who didn't?
But after all if it wasn't for luck Phil Hellmuth would win every one :-)

NickyOD

This calling with nothing and raising the turn to represent a monster play was paying off for Kanter throughout the tournament. He kept it up right 'til the end and got Hachem to fold the best hand when he had an inside straghit draw (and river cam showed he would have hit the guyshot!)

Kanter was a lucky bitch! His play with the K-5 against Barch with the re-re-re-re-re raise showed what a complete fuktard he was.

Amaru

There's a big difference between that and this. What you described is a valid play, as you're the raiser, but here he's the caller. He actually called off his whole stack with a draw and (he thought) 2 live overcards. I can't believe i didn't pay more attention to this hand when i was watching it. How he made it that far in the main event is beyond me...

NickyOD

Amaru wrote:

There's a big difference between that and this. What you described is a valid play, as you're the raiser, but here he's the caller. He actually called off his whole stack with a draw and (he thought) 2 live overcards. I can't believe i didn't pay more attention to this hand when i was watching it. How he made it that far in the main event is beyond me...

I think he may have priced him self into calling after Raymer pushed. I don't think he had much left.

Shortstack

Andy's play with the KJ certainly wasn't the beginning of his downfall. That was on the penultimate day and he recovered to have a monster chip lead with 6 players left.

The two hands that killed him were the one against Kanter and the one against Dannenman.

The Barch hand was a great play and Barch acted out of character making that call. He was probably the only player on the table that was capable of making that laydown and he very nearly did. Andy knew this.

The Kanter hand Andy had AA, there was too much money in the middle for him to fold the river as Kanter could have been at it but he knew that he most likely had a King. A lesser player than Andy would have lost more chips playing AA more aggressively after the flop. There is no way Andy had AK there, if he did more chips would have been in the middle.

The hand against Dannenman was just more proof that Andy was playing for first place only. He knew he was ahead.

Dannenman will get more results because his personality is one of 'No Fear'. This type of player will either gather loads of chips or bust early. He was 5th in the Tournament of champions also in a stronger quality field than the WSOP.

Kanter is a donkey and made a lot of bad plays that got lucky. At least Dannenman had the best hand most of the time he committed his chips. In fact the hand against Andy was one of very few he got lucky in.

Amaru

I think he may have priced him self into calling after Raymer pushed. I don't think he had much left

I can't say for sure because i only watched that sole play last night, but if people say Raymer had a solid amount of chips in front of him, and this play left him crippled, then I just concluded that Kanter also then had a lot of chips left in front. Anybody know the chip counts roughly?

TacT

Amaru wrote:

I can't say for sure because i only watched that sole play last night, but if people say Raymer had a solid amount of chips in front of him, and this play left him crippled, then I just concluded that Kanter also then had a lot of chips left in front. Anybody know the chip counts roughly?

Raymer 3.8, Kanter somewhere around 3.4

Hitman Actual

Shortstack wrote:

Andy's play with the KJ certainly wasn't the beginning of his downfall. That was on the penultimate day and he recovered to have a monster chip lead with 6 players left.

The two hands that killed him were the one against Kanter and the one against Dannenman.

The Barch hand was a great play and Barch acted out of character making that call. He was probably the only player on the table that was capable of making that laydown and he very nearly did. Andy knew this.

I was thinking that was the second last day, not the final table. Didn't you interview Andy afterwards, and he said he was going to fold, but then started to think what Barch had, eventually putting him on tens. He felt that if he had tens, then there was little chance of Barch calling, and if he did, he was only a slight dog. Also, wasn't that the bubble position for the final table? If so, it makes it an even better call by Barch.

Shortstack wrote:

The Kanter hand Andy had AA, there was too much money in the middle for him to fold the river as Kanter could have been at it but he knew that he most likely had a King. A lesser player than Andy would have lost more chips playing AA more aggressively after the flop. There is no way Andy had AK there, if he did more chips would have been in the middle.

I've always wondered what the other card was, but thinking about it, it makes sense that it was another Ace. There was a bit of debate about this on 2+2 afterwards; maybe someone should tell them what his hand actually was! (Although some of the players over there did put him on AA).

Regarding Dannenman, he didn't seem to play too bad at all. His friends were quoted as saying that he was the fish in their game, and he seemed delighted just to be at that stage of the main event. He never came across as arrogant, or acted like he was a brilliant player, and I liked him for that.

Kanter, on the other hand, comes across as an arrogant f**ker, and now has delusions of grandeur. His play definately didn't back that up, and if I remember correctly he made lots of really stupid plays. I followed the last three days in full on the various forums, and his name stuck with me because he seemed to be mentioned several times as getting out of trouble.

Fatboydim

Shortstack wrote:

Andy's play with the KJ certainly wasn't the beginning of his downfall. That was on the penultimate day and he recovered to have a monster chip lead with 6 players left.

I'm obviously miss-remembering this... But if I do recall correctly then I think they were even closer in chips. It stood out to me as I still believe it was a play that cost him impetus at that time. Though of course had Barch folded... Different story. Fact is how can I criticise anything Andy did... He was brilliant... And I would like to have seen more of the hands that brought him into the monster chip lead. ESPN weren't interested in him though.

Dub13

anybody no off hand Kanter and Raymer chip counts before this hand....?

bohsman

Dub13 wrote:

anybody no off hand Kanter and Raymer chip counts before this hand....?

see post 26.

Having heard Andys reasoning behind most of the bigger hands I believe he played perfectly right up to the when he got crippled after making a great call against Danneman, a couple of hands later he pushed with Ace rag and doubled up, I think he tilted a bit and started playing over aggressively - he didnt need to push with the TT against the one player at the table likely to call with AK.

The KJ against Tex Barch was genius. a) it was the final table bubble giving him massive folding equity and b) He put him on TT and was willing to take a 50 50 to knock him out before the final table as he felt he was the best player at the table

karlh

anyone else think andy was goaded into moving in the KJ hand by mike matusow?

i think he was overly concerned with table image and after his big move on ivey with a2 earlier he wanted to push it.

bohsman

karlh wrote:

anyone else think andy was goaded into moving in the KJ hand by mike matusow?

i think he was overly concerned with table image and after his big move on ivey with a2 earlier he wanted to push it.

The A2 was two days+ earlier

karlh

i know it was earlier, i mean that his move with a2 established his table image then and he was desperate to make a similar move to set the tone on the the final table. i think mike m tipped him over the edge in his decision to make the move then.

even to a beginner, AB couldn't have a big pair.

Fatboydim

karlh wrote:

he was desperate to make a similar move to set the tone on the the final table. i think mike m tipped him over the edge in his decision to make the move then.

even to a beginner, AB couldn't have a big pair.

Think you could be right there.

He put him on TT and was willing to take a 50 50 to knock him out before the final table as he felt he was the best player at the table

Then he got a bad read ... He had JJ

Bold play... yes. But I think the phrase Better opportunities applies here. Even if he only had 22 AB still had to hit. And given the reasoning... wouldn't it also be foolish to double up the most dangerous player? And if Andy was in Barch's shoes... [Even with 10 10] He would have called. So if Andy felt he was the best player... felt he was behind.. knew he'd get the call... Maybe it's what Karl said... The Mouth somehow influenced the call....

At the end of the day it makes me feel better as these are the kind of stupid things I do - Andy's human after all.

Ardent

Kanter is a donkey. What did he think Raymer was representing with a 600k raise? To get himself into that position - risking his big stack and tournament on a long shot flush draw, to be still in the hand to see the turn - alone shows how poor a player he is. The suckout king strikes again.

Even on the final table he was it - Barch gets his AQ all in against Kanters A7 and Kanter hits a full house! When Hachem finally knocked him out, Kanter's assessment was "I probably deserved that". Damn right.

Hitman Actual

bohsman wrote:

The A2 was two days+ earlier

I thought that was the same day as the KJ hand, when they were down to three tables.

bohsman

lenny_leonard wrote:

I thought that was the same day as the KJ hand, when they were down to three tables.

No, the hand with Tex Barch was with 10 players left in Binions, the A2 against Ivey was with about 5 tables left in the Rio