Katie:

This will sound like "old news" to several of you I'm sure, but I just heard something incredible about Vanessa Selbst. Adam Schwartz and Mike Johnson are talking about this on episode 167 of the 2+2 Pokercast. Vanessa was in another big buy-in tournament where she "got caught" running a bluff with 8-4 against pocket Aces and she was unable to get her opponent to lay them down. All the money went in and it looked like curtains for Vanessa - until she sucked out an 8-high straight! Mike and Adam didn't say whether Vanessa went on to win the tournament, but this is (yet another) big money tournament where Vanessa is terrorizing the field. (I'm not sure about this, but it sounded like this might be a WPT event. I wonder what the field size is/was for that tournament and whether Vanessa won it?)

Vanessa is dangerous once she gets chips. (Heck, she's "dangerous" even when she has the same number of chips as everyone else! She's definitely not afraid to rattle an opponent's cage.) My understanding is that there are lots of fish (and bad players) on Day 1 of the WSOP Main Event. If Vanessa gets some early double ups off some of these "fish" - especially fish who don't realize who they're up against - I think she could be a real force for the final table. (It will be really interesting seeing what the betting line is on Vanessa when that betting outfit over in the UK starts taking WSOP action ...)

I really believe Vanessa could be the first woman to pull it off.

Former DJ

Of course I agree that she def could, but saying it is likely to happen is another thing entirely-- it is just that skills are far from enough to make a super deep run, just like in any large-field MTT.

I saw her tweet about that hand the other day. She certainly has a lot of skill and courage, but 5 betting 84 suited is the kind of move that is going to get her into trouble way more often than it's going to double her up.

I remember she had a similar hand in the WSOP one year, something like 42 or 52 and made a big 4 bet or 5 bet. It's a great move if you pull it off, but if you run into AA or KK, they're just not going to lay it down.

Given the field size, it is far from inevitable that any one person will take down the event. In Vanessa's case, I will say that it is close to inevitable that she will win some bracelets, but hard to predict any one event.

Shauna

Shauna:

Objectively, you are right: Playing (and 5-betting) hands like 8-4 - suited or unsuited - is very risky. Most players who try to do that are running a high risk of failure. The courage it takes to make a move like that is certainly not for mere mortals - like me.

But think for a moment what a move like that does to your opponents. It's the kind of move (when it works) that causes opponents to "Number 2" in their pants. (I'm trying not to be vulgar here. Ha! Ha!) Dan Harrington makes the point that it only takes one successful move like that to seriously tilt your opponents.

That's why I think Vanessa is different - she is kind of like the female equivalent of Tom Dwan. She's fearless. She makes the kind of plays that cause other players to cringe. There aren't that many players who have the ability to strike fear into the hearts (and minds) of their opponents. (The late Stu Ungar was said to have this uncanny ability.)

Sure, Vanessa was "lucky" on that particular hand - anytime you crack Aces you are lucky - but players who make you cringe tend to get "lucky" from time to time. It's odd, but sometimes I sense that the poker Gods tend to reward the bold.

This is why I think Vanessa could be the one. She knows how to make her opponents nervous. That ability is very valuable at the poker table. And you are right about something else: Vanessa is going to win some bracelets. It's just a question of which ones and how many.

Former DJ

I agree that when you get caught doing something like this it is no fun and can be frustrating.

At the same time however, the top pros are at the top for a reason. And timing has a lot to do with it. We hear about the times that it doesn't work, but we don't hear about all the times that it does. Obviously, no poker player is infallible in their timing or reads, and so sometimes it backfires. But having the sense and understanding of game flow and the meta aspects of the table to be able to 5bet super light in a specific situation is far more an important skill set to have and greatly outweighs the inevitability of occasionally being caught with your hand in the cookie jar and loosing with a sub par holding.

This skill is one that takes a lot of experience to hone.
I am hopeful someday that I too, will be capable of 4bet and 5bet shoving with hands like 84s and J2

I say Live Boeree, just watched some EPT-episodes of her and she played pretty solid.

My pick would be Vanessa Selbst and that would fit with the "woman" in quotes part. Although I really respect her game I think she is a horrible person with a terrible attitude and it would make me sad to see her win.

But the girl can play some tournament pokers...

kathy liebert

I'd say Selbst

Wrong. Only if and when they make the ME a women only event. Is it just me that gets tilted when a group shouts out for equality and then asks for special treatment to get somewhere?

Obviously, I don't mean that a gender or race issue shouldn't be subject to some special rules where it is shown that being that race or gender has been a handicap or has been the target of discrimination, but that is not the case here.

An opinion isn't "wrong" because you don't agree with it. Any kind of satellite tournament that people wanted to enter that would increase the turn-out for the main event & interest in poker in general can't necessarily be a bad thing.

When a group of friends gets together & holds a tournament where one of them gets to go to the main event is it wrong because they all happen to be from one area? Or profession? Or if they all happened to be men?

Would your problem then be that it's being held at a casino? If so, is it somehow negatively impacting you? Are they taking opportunites away from you to satty into the main event? Are these casinos so jam-packed that taking a table away for such a purpose really angers you & harms your life in any way?

Your opinion can be that it's not necessary, & there's no rational reason to have them, but to say someone is wrong because they would enjoy them is pretty inane.

& as for the actual subject of this thread, trying to pick 1 single person to be the winner of a tournament the size of the ME is pretty crazy. You can say so & so has the best chance from X category or what have you, but the odds of any particular person, even if he or she is the best in the world, winning the ME have to be well less than 1% in any given year.

Why does woman have to be in quotes when referring to Vanessa?

Didn't you hear, there's a rumor that she likes girls in that way

I'm pretty sure being a woman is an important requirement for being a lesbian.

Irony much?

Obviously, I was talking about WSOP sanctioned events. It's silly to think I was talking about dictating what home games or private clubs do, so you must be trolling me.

So with your line of thinking, blacks, whites, homosexual, straight, christian ,atheist etc only tournaments would be acceptable because it would increase the ME numbers? Seriously?

I really don't understand the thought process of people who think having a main event with tens of thousands of people is a good thing. Is it money? Just jump the entry fee up to 100K.

And having satellites just to fill the ME with more women so one might have a better chance of winning is just lolbad, and if I was a woman it would cheapen the win for me if I knew that I didn't have to go through the same obstacles as everyone else to get there.

But hey, if you need a crutch to get there; WELCOME!

No irony. I never said you were wrong, just that your argument was poorly formed and that stating someone is wrong because their opinion differs from yours is circular logic and utterly useless, and not an acceptable tone for this forum.

I don't care one way or the other about satellites for diff groups, I just think it's lol to get that upset about it as it really should have no impact on you one way or the other.

Also, I moderate this forum, and have read every single post in it. I neither know, nor care, who you are, and can't imagine trolling anyone, let alone you. My choices were to either delete your post due to the inappropriateness of the tone, or respond in a manner that would cause you to explain your position, and thus further the debate. I chose the latter.

Ahh, the old "tone" scolding. IMHO tone in an internet post is in the imagination of the reader. The poster said "satellites for women for the main event is a good idea" and I happen to disagree that it is a good idea and have now explained why. If you disagree, that is your right. But deleting the post would be ignorant.

How does that have anything to do with my question?
Are you saying that one's sexual orientation calls into question one's gender?
So, because Vanessa has a girl friend, you are inferring she is not a woman?

Lol! Good luck on 2+2 with your profound idea of internet forum tone-deafness. This site is 95% sarcasm.

Not really to do with poker skills before I get flamed, but I'd love to see Vicky Coren make a decent run.

She comes over as a very good ambassador for women in poker imho.

I though her book was a good read on a long flight fwiw

Completely agree with Crudefinder and I'm pretty sure they are getting some unjustified criticism for saying that. Fair is fair, and I'm all for that, but it's taking it too far if you were going to have women's only satellites to the ME. Could you imagine the outrage there would be if there was a male-only satellite to the ME, run on a major site?

I agree. When I was in school @ Illinois State University they held a yearly "Ms. Black ISU" pageant and I always found the idea to be ridiculous and racist. I just couldn't imagine the outrage if a "Ms. White ISU" pageant was offered, and I feel the continued segregation is a step backwards towards equal rights. The same thing pretty much applies here. I want women to participate in WSOP events as much as anyone but not because we were given a handicapped based on our sex.

Ftr I still support women's events because I believe that creates a scenario where women can come and learn how to play live poker without the intimidation of sitting at a table with 8 other seasoned male pros. I believe that, is good for the game and is different than creating an easier path for women to participate in the event that is regarded as being the most +EV tournament available.

Boree or Obrestadt

I'd take even money on selbst vs boree+oberstad to WIN the ME.
I would not take the same bet to make the final table.

I wasn't criticizing the opinion, just the manner in which it was delivered. It's a perfectly valid viewpoint.