Jamie Gold WSOP 2007 Champion

jem

ionapaul wrote:

I also hope they really up the buy-in for this event and somehow get the numbers running down, way down, so its less of a horrific slog.

40K??/ 50K

Goodluck2me

how many guys from here are playing if its 40K?

slegs

goodluck2me wrote:

how many guys from here are playing if its 40K?

Im in!!



Oh sorry, thats 40k...thought u said 40$...back to the 8 o clock tourney on Paddy Power

nicnicnic

I watched the final table until the dinner break and have to say overall i was impressed with the standard of play and thought it was far superior then last years.

cunningham had a set game plan and it was great to see him changing gears after about four hours. the guy that came second played impressively and as for gold, well the guy knocked out about 30 of the last 50 runners and decimated the final table. The biggest hand i saw was the QQ JJ against Lee and while the hand itself is nothing special in the previous play gold had limped re raised lee about six times, don't know what lee was putting down but it was these plays that got him to push from second in chips with JJ

corblimey

jem wrote:

I agree.
never having all ur chips at stake after day 1 is good play, taking out all bar 1 of those at the final table is good play, winning 12mil is great play .

Looking at the hands with which Gold took out the other players, he was pretty lucky in 5 of 7 when the board hit and he was always behind, albeit not by much:

22 vs AK 2 on the flop
KJ vs 44 J on the flop
KJ vs TT K on the flop
34 (!) vs AT T56 on the flop and 7 on the turn
Q9 vs TT Q on the flop

And they're just the hands we saw. I found him a very passive player, limping on the button etc even with the huge stack, and apparently this was how he was running throughout the tourney. Dev is right, he's the guy who won the lotto.

Ste05

But you need to look at when the money went into the middle...

22 vs AK 2 on the flop - a 50:50 (I presume it went in PF - don't remember this one)
KJ vs 44 J on the flop - a 50:50
KJ vs TT K on the flop - money went in after the flop (I think - but not sure ) but either way it's a 50:50
34 (!) vs AT T56 on the flop and 7 on the turn - money in with OESD
Q9 vs TT Q on the flop - money in on flop

So if you look at it the money went in when he was ahead or an even money shot nearly always, and none of these hands (Bar the AC hand) would have damaged his tournament chances... I thought he played excellently,

cooker3

Overall I pretty much watched it all and thought it good entertainment, compare it to Irish open final table and it was far superior to watch.

Gold deserved to win it and he used his big stack well, overall play was fine although some dodgy calls most noticably an all-in been called by A9 and even Cunningham made a dodgy call with QJ against a player all in.

Also successful night for me taking down 4 man stt against others in antes up chat room, that was best part

Hectorjelly

I watched the last few hours of the final table, gold played pretty badly

Ste05

Hectorjelly wrote:

I watched the last few hours of the final table, gold played pretty badly

I watched nearly all of it, and I disagree. He didn't play anything near perfect Poker, but he was relentless, and continued hammering the table, although I was watching the last 2 hours or so in work with no sound, so he might have been getting tired, or whatever, but certainly early in the final table he played some nice stuff. One play that sticks to mind was a Squeeze play against Richard Lee and Cunningham from his BB, I'm looking forward to seeing what he had when he was making some of his moves...

Hectorjelly

205. Jamie Gold calls from under the gun, Allen Cunningham limps in from the small blind and Michael Binger raises to $1,200,000 from the big blind. Jamie Gold calls and Cunningham folds. The flop comes Qdiamond6spade5heart and both players check. The turn is the 10diamond and Binger bets $1,500,000. Gold calls and the river is the 9spade. Binger checks and Gold bets $4,000,000. Binger folds and Gold shows 6heart4spade as he rakes the pot.

208. Michael Binger raises to $1,100,000 from the cutoff, Jamie Gold calls from the button and Allen Cunningham moves all in for $6,500,000 from the big blind. Binger folds an Gold makes the call. Cunningham shows 10club10diamond and Gold turns over KdiamondJdiamond. The board comes AspadeKspade8heart7club3spade and Allen Cunningham has been eliminated in 4th place.

200. Jamie Gold calls from the button (this is 4 handed)

229. Gold limps from the button and Wasicka limps from the small blind. Michael Binger raises to $1,500,000 from the big blind. Both Gold and Wasicka call and the flop comes 10club6spade5spade. Wasicka checks, Binger bets $3,500,000 and Gold moves all in. Wasicka folds and Binger calls. Binger shows Aheart10heart and Gold turns over 4spade3club for an open ended straight draw. The turn is the 7club and Gold makes a straight. The river is the Qspade and Michael Binger is eliminated in 3rd place.

232. Wasicka gets a walk on his big blind. (heads up)

each one of these hands was played awfully. Maybe he was playing well before I got there (I doubt it). He cold called something like 1/10 of bingers stack with 34o!

NickyOD

****ing Luckbox!!!!!

staringelf

a deserved winner. played his big stack perfectly at the FT. sure he was involved in a couple of all in coin flips (the one against cunningham being the most memorable) but for the most part he was playing perfect small-ball poker and gradually adding further to his moster stack. i think johnny chan helped him a lot - i'd say he calmed him down big time after cunningham called with A high. he's not a total luckbox - you do not luckbox your way to 12 million in a field of nearly 9,000 players. you luckbox and play brilliant poker - big difference.

Hitman Actual

staringelf wrote:

you... play brilliant poker.

People are going to have to stop associating the words "brilliant poker" with Jamie Gold. It would be interesting to see how he got his monster stack in the first place, but there is nothing in that FT that indicates brilliance.

Hectorjelly

staringelf wrote:

a deserved winner. played his big stack perfectly at the FT. sure he was involved in a couple of all in coin flips (the one against cunningham being the most memorable) but for the most part he was playing perfect small-ball poker and gradually adding further to his moster stack. i think johnny chan helped him a lot - i'd say he calmed him down big time after cunningham called with A high. he's not a total luckbox - you do not luckbox your way to 12 million in a field of nearly 9,000 players. you luckbox and play brilliant poker - big difference.

have you ever played poker before?

Doc Farrell

What's with all the anger HJ? How does it benefit your life to communicate to strangers in this way. A revolution of thought fired by the only thing that matters, compassion. Give it a go.

I'm off to play chess, drink erdingers and smoke cubans paid for by taxi drivers. If you will excuse me.

Hectorjelly

Doc Farrell wrote:

What's with all the anger HJ? How does it benefit your life to communicate to strangers in this way. A revolution of thought fired by the only thing that matters, compassion. Give it a go.

I'm off to play chess, drink erdingers and smoke cubans paid for by taxi drivers. If you will excuse me.

Just an honest question, I posted several hands where gold played badly, yet he claims he played his big stack perfectly. This to me suggests that staringelf might not have ever played poker before.

If you honestly think compassion is the only thing that matters then perhaps you should give those cubans back to the taxi drivers.

staringelf

Hectorjelly wrote:

Just an honest question, I posted several hands where gold played badly, yet he claims he played his big stack perfectly. This to me suggests that staringelf might not have ever played poker before.

If you honestly think compassion is the only thing that matters then perhaps you should give those cubans back to the taxi drivers.

first of all that's a cheap insult but no more than i expected from one of the few posters on this forum who i have little respect for.
to answer your question, even though i shouldn't dignify it with a response, yes i do, and have been playing professionally and very successfully for almost 2 years now.

i watched the entire final table (bar the first hour or so) and it was all the in-between preflop and cont bet unexciting post flop hands that impressed me most about gold - that's how he kept adding to his stack and that's how he dominated the table. he knew everybody was afraid of going bust against him and he exploited that fear perfectly. i don't agree with any of the hands you posted that they were played badly - most were simply bullying moves that he would be expected to make as chip leader, and few (if any) were made with no outs or where he was more than a 60% dog.

i think he easily deserved to win and i don't know what your hostility towards him is rooted in but in any case i think its pretty sad.

Sangre

Hectorjelly wrote:

Just an honest question, I posted several hands where gold played badly, yet he claims he played his big stack perfectly. This to me suggests that staringelf might not have ever played poker before.

If you honestly think compassion is the only thing that matters then perhaps you should give those cubans back to the taxi drivers.

It wasn't an honest question. It was a snarky snipe at staringelf for disagreeing with you. Something thats becoming all too typical of you.

Hectorjelly

staringelf wrote:

i watched the entire final table (bar the first hour or so) and it was all the in-between preflop and cont bet unexciting post flop hands that impressed me most about gold - that's how he kept adding to his stack and that's how he dominated the table. he knew everybody was afraid of going bust against him and he exploited that fear perfectly. i don't agree with any of the hands you posted that they were played badly - most were simply bullying moves that he would be expected to make as chip leader, and few (if any) were made with no outs or where he was more than a 60% dog.

i think he easily deserved to win and i don't know what your hostility towards him is rooted in but in any case i think its pretty sad.

I only watched the last two or three hours of the event. During that time I saw Gold make countless beginners plays. Can you really defend calling a raise with 34o? Its not like they were deep or anything. He made other similar plays like that, I find it hard to believe that anyone would defend plays like that, I was there with several good players and they were similarly dissapointed with Gold play. No good player in the world is ever cold calling 1/10 of someones stack with 34o. Ever. It just doesnt happen.

Again I only saw the last few hours, I dont know how he was playing for the rest of the tournament, and I dont have anything against him. He is just a inexperienced player who showed his inexperience on several occasions. In fact given that he should be applauded for doing so well. But its easy to get carried away, anyone can win a single tournament. The world needs a new Hal Fowler!

staringelf

Hectorjelly wrote:

I only watched the last two or three hours of the event. During that time I saw Gold make countless beginners plays. Can you really defend calling a raise with 34o? Its not like they were deep or anything. He made other similar plays like that, I find it hard to believe that anyone would defend plays like that, I was there with several good players and they were similarly dissapointed with Gold play. No good player in the world is ever cold calling 1/10 of someones stack with 34o. Ever. It just doesnt happen.

Again I only saw the last few hours, I dont know how he was playing for the rest of the tournament, and I dont have anything against him. He is just a inexperienced player who showed his inexperience on several occasions. In fact given that he should be applauded for doing so well. But its easy to get carried away, anyone can win a single tournament. The world needs a new Hal Fowler!

the 34o hand is the only hand that is marginal for me. even so, there is method in his madness. first of all it is ONLY 1/10th of his stack - for a chance to bust him if it comes low cards i don't mind the call so much. binger can easily get away post flop if he has only invested 1/10th of his chips - and when the chip leader cold calls you oop like that and you hold AT its gonna scare the crap outta you. if no A or T hits then what do you do? a little loose perhaps but a liberty you can take to try and get it heads up when you have that many chips. the push post flop isn't so bad either for a few reasons:

1. wasicka will be very reluctant to call so there's all his dead money in there (wasicka even folded an OESFD - that's how powerful gold's play looked.

2. he still is a comfortable chip leader if binger calls and wins and can then revert back to smallball chip building with both players then relatively comfortable and unwilling to risk going out in 3rd with about a 2million difference in prize money.

3. if he calls and wins he is a HUUUGE chip leader and will probably win the whole thing unless he self destructs

4. he has 8 outs with 2 cards to come which is about 32% - that's not as bad as it first seems when you consider he will likely win at least 3 times in 10

5. there was a small chance binger would fold - probably not much granted but i'd say about a 10% chance.

all things considered the play isn't all that bad.
and that apparently was the worst of his so called "bad plays"?

Doc Farrell

Hectorjelly wrote:

I only watched the last two or three hours of the event. During that time I saw Gold make countless beginners plays. Can you really defend calling a raise with 34o? Its not like they were deep or anything. He made other similar plays like that, I find it hard to believe that anyone would defend plays like that, I was there with several good players and they were similarly dissapointed with Gold play. No good player in the world is ever cold calling 1/10 of someones stack with 34o. Ever. It just doesnt happen.

Again I only saw the last few hours, I dont know how he was playing for the rest of the tournament, and I dont have anything against him. He is just a inexperienced player who showed his inexperience on several occasions. In fact given that he should be applauded for doing so well. But its easy to get carried away, anyone can win a single tournament. The world needs a new Hal Fowler!

In fairness I've no idea who Hal fowler is but I have to agree, although I'm too drunk to look it up.

I've met HJ and he's a lovely guy with a beautiful girlfriend. not that beauty is everything, she could be mean.

all i'm suggesting is that with so many intelligent posters it's plus ivy, sorry i mean +EV to simply be nice.

as for giving the cubans back, sadly they are gone, up in smoke ifyou will, also, the lads who paid for them know that is how I spend their money and are happy that it ends in a disreputable home. it would be against the ethos of the game if i didn't piss my winnings away. i shudder to think of the long term consequences. that's a bastardo of a word to type when you're hammered btw. consequences!

i'm trying to think of a clever way to end this post but instead I'll just say the two words that any intelligent/powerful man needs to learn if he wishes to find happiness in this world. be kind.

(this touchy-feely post doesn't mean I won't scalp ur ass If u sit across the baize from me!)

connie147

I didnt watch any of the final but from following the whole tournament nightly on antes-up and cardplayer,theres no doubt a lot of Golds plays were questionable.He definately got his share of luck but nobodys gonna win that tourney without it. I dont agree that the 3-4o was his worst play though, for me it has to be his call against Cunningham with the K-J. Now,Gold must know that Cunningham is his biggest danger,and to call his reraise all-in for over 6,000,000(that would see cunningham with 14,000,000 if he wins the pot) with a hand that could very well be dominated and is almost guaranteed to be behind was a silly call(the end result does not justify it).
Still, good luck to him,I hope he proves as popular as Hachem and Raymer.

staringelf

connie147 wrote:

I didnt watch any of the final but from following the whole tournament nightly on antes-up and cardplayer,theres no doubt a lot of Golds plays were questionable.He definately got his share of luck but nobodys gonna win that tourney without it. I dont agree that the 3-4o was his worst play though, for me it has to be his call against Cunningham with the K-J. Now,Gold must know that Cunningham is his biggest danger,and to call his reraise all-in for over 6,000,000(that would see cunningham with 14,000,000 if he wins the pot) with a hand that could very well be dominated and is almost guaranteed to be behind was a silly call(the end result does not justify it).
Still, good luck to him,I hope he proves as popular as Hachem and Raymer.

i actually thought the KJ call was excellent. here's why:
when i was watching it i put cunningham on 88-TT - i don't think he'd play JJ-AA this way without trying to get value. the all in looked like he wanted to take it down right there. he MAY have had AK/AQ but to me it felt like he had tens or nines and that's exactly what he had. if gold read him for that he was right to take a flip. the chance to eliminate his biggest rival (even though he had the least amount of chips) was too great to pass up. even if he called and lost cunningham was still by no means a huge threat - he would only have gone up to a stack size just greater than the other 2 - gold would still have had a commanding chip lead. i thought the call was spot on for that reason. he went with his read and he was right.


EDIT: if you want to talk about the worst play at the final table for any particular hand it was the one where cunningham called michael bingers all in with QJ preflop when he absolutely wasn't anywhere near pot commited. binger had AQ and it held up to win. if that was gold we'd never hear the end of it.

i still wish cunningham had won it though...

Hitman Actual

staringelf wrote:

i actually thought the KJ call was excellent. here's why:
when i was watching it i put cunningham on 88-TT - i don't think he'd play JJ-AA this way without trying to get value. the all in looked like he wanted to take it down right there. he MAY have had AK/AQ but to me it felt like he had tens or nines and that's exactly what he had. if gold read him for that he was right to take a flip. the chance to eliminate his biggest rival (even though he had the least amount of chips) was too great to pass up. even if he called and lost cunningham was still by no means a huge threat - he would only have gone up to a stack size just greater than the other 2 - gold would still have had a commanding chip lead. i thought the call was spot on for that reason. he went with his read and he was right.


EDIT: if you want to talk about the worst play at the final table for any particular hand it was the one where cunningham called michael bingers all in with QJ preflop when he absolutely wasn't anywhere near pot commited. binger had AQ and it held up to win. if that was gold we'd never hear the end of it.

i still wish cunningham had won it though...

I cant believe anyone is defending the KJo call (from the SB, I think), it's terrible.

Honestly, read through the Cardplayer live updates, and come back and say that Gold played technically good poker at the FT. I agree that he deserved to win, but that's only because nobody had the balls to stand up to him.

This is nothing to do with whether you like Gold or not. Someone who wins $12 million will automatically be hated anyway by a lot of people, but in fairness to Gold he's coming across very well since he won the thing. But he was lucky that he never ran into a situation where he could have lost a lot of chips (i.e. big hand against big hand), because if anyone got level with him I think he would have been in big trouble.

Hectorjelly

The Kjo play wasnt that bad, the call at the end was ok. Im not sure of the exact chip counts but given he had 2 live cards he almost certainly had the odds. However it was entirely typical of his loose passive play. The call of the first raise is a little dodgy, id much prefer a raise or a fold. Putting cunningham solely on 99 - TT is wishfull thinking, he would play AQ/J/K or JJ exactly the same way. (And probably AA KK QQ as well since he was likely to get callled).

The 34 hand is absolutely terrible. Its hugely - EV to get in a pot with those cards with those stacks, theres just no way around that. And similarly when the flop comes up, its again hugely - EV to get all in with a 4 hi straight draw. He had almost no folding equity in that spot, and will lose the pot 2/3 of the time. I can work out the EV calculations if you want but the other two players need to fold a lot more than 10% of the time. The flop is so draw heavy that no sensible player is folding top pair/overpair. Any time you get it in with a mediocre draw and no folding equity you have been playing bad. Anytime you call a raise with 34o and no room to manuevre on the flop you are playing like a total fish.

I dont think there can be any worthwhile discusion on this topic as someone who thinks the 34o hand is ok isnt capable of unbiased analysis in my opinion.

Wasickas fold was bad as well.

califano

off topic
I cant find the 'world cup madness' prop bet thread.

Did Hectorjelly race against Bohsman around Merrion Square yet and if so what was the result?.

ianmc38

connie147 wrote:

I dont agree that the 3-4o was his worst play though, for me it has to be his call against Cunningham with the K-J. Now,Gold must know that Cunningham is his biggest danger,and to call his reraise all-in for over 6,000,000

That's exactly why he called I reckon. I think calling there is fine.