I must say that was the most impressive player (Heinz) that I ever seen. I been playing for 10+ years and watching poker for longer.

For the stakes at risk, and how he was playing, it was so incredible. Absolutely astonishing and he really needs to get props for his FT plays.

I mean, being shorter stack and 2-3-4 betting when there's MILLIONS at risk.

Give Heinz a lot of credit, that kid got mad skills yo.

NO ONE could put him on a hand. That's the way to be, he mixes it up like the best of em. Sure some may think he's a little wreckless at times, but you gotta be to win tournaments. You can't show fear and have to continually put your opponent to the test. And he did that constantly with pressure and no fear.

Can't say enough how impressed I was.

I have been thinking about the 87 two pair hand a lot and I really hate turing it into a bluff on the river. Its an all around bad play imo.

I am in no way claiming I am anywhere near the player Heinz is, just saying I don't like his play in that spot. Very odd.

I believe that Lamb made a REAL mistake by failing to hit a king or a jack when he got his money in with king jack off-suit. If you are going to get it in with that hand, it is IMPERATIVE that you hit either a KING or a JACK, or even both. If you fail to do that, there is a very good chance you will ELIMINATED from the tournament, and that is a BAD thing to to be. Somebody should have told Benba.

I love Benba, and I've played with him way back in the day on tilt in MTT's before he was big time blah blah, he's a great player and I was bummed he didn't TID.
While I agree the KJ ship was standard, I also think the 77 call was pretty automatic. I think some folks are a bit sour on the result so they are taking that approach or whatever.

I just seen ben lambs interview after the blow up. Wow, I think he was a little upset after the hand and tried to defend his play with "if i win that hand im even in chips to play HU". I bet if you ask him today he would think otherwise. People itt talking about dynamics I guess they didnt watch the first hand. Only dynamic I seen was ben lamb getting introduce last like he is the miami heat. They tried to pump up his play with that introduction. Ben Lamb made the final 3 look like a clear mistake. One hand, like that espn saying C'Mon Man. I would defend his play if it was the first hand of the final table. But since everyone in the final 3 is guranteed 3 million you cant shove on the tightest player thinking he is scared money, the chips mean too much when pius is sitting on a 100 million and your a ss. Lol at standard whoever says that clearly will never be at a mainevent, let alone a deep run.

Giannetti played almost perfect postflop and outskilled people over and over. He deserved better.

lolwat?

the guy never had the CL and finished 3rd. what collapse?

I liked the shove on the A turn from Stazko that was sick and the first time he got really out of line.. He was ahead tho with KQ (gutter) > J9

Results orientated much? If Staskzo had folded people would be saying Lamb played the hand perfectly. And honestly, who was not shocked that Staskzo called given history?

Congrats to Heinz. Creative aggressive player and deserving champion. But I question those who are saying his play was exceptional HU.

1. His two pair check raise bluff on the 1card straight board was simply atrocious IMO. Total spaz and could of easily been the end of the match. He clearly put Stzko on a J (otherwise no reason to raise), and to think that Stzko was folding a J given Heinz' image and line was, IMO, not wise.

2. His turn float of Stzko's xraise with no equity (67 I think) on the AA9x board was likewise absurd, esp. because his plan was apparently just to give up if Stzko led the river. If I recall correctly, Stzko c/c the flop out of position making a complete bluff on the turn unlikely.

3. His AQ gut shot shove on the big hand was very questionable. He's really just shove/hoping there and Stzko is only folding his pure bluffs. As it was, Stzko called with the worst hand in his calling range (they were sharing a Q) and Heinz won a coin flip.

4. He got super lucky that Stzko had a brain freeze with that Q high flush draw. Heinz shoved over Stzko's raise with middle pair (a 5 I think) in a situation where he does not have great equity against Stzko's calling range, so again it was a shove/hope play where Stzko really should only be folding his pure bluffs.

There were other plays of the same variety as above. Don't get me wrong, I think Heinz is a very good player. I understand that he was relatively card dead heads up and trying to make things happen. But he was extremely lucky to win that heads up match. I can't recall a single hand where Heinz got Stzko off even a semi-strong hand with one of his aggressive plays. Of the three major hands that won him this thing, he arguably misplayed two of them (3 and 4 above), and woke up with AK on the last hand.

The call was certainly worse than the shove.

yer that chk/fold strategy is strong

Heinz had so many tells. Can't believe no one picked up on it, esp with the 15 min relay... wow.

Lamb had just been eliminated from the biggest poker tournament in the world, and was being interviewed by a clueless idiot, so it isnt that surprising he seemed a little upset, and perhaps disinterested in explaining why he did something x minutes ago. + Your analysis is totally wrong. Lamb made a play based on the perceived range of his opponent. Its fairly obvious he didnt think he was up against a nit who was only 3 betting with the nuts and would never fold.

Its much, much easier to spot tells when you can see every hands, aren't playing for exorbitant amounts of money, and don't have the problem of second-guessing yourself about what you've spotted. Also - both players said that they weren't using spotters to find out their opponents hands during the breaks, and it doesn't seem Staz did, but Heinz might have been given some extra information perhaps. Tbh, the fact that they could find out their opponents hands in the breaks through that method - whether they actually did or not - is so ****ing atrocious, and i cant believe there aren't more threads citing how bad it was that the tournament directors allowed that situation to happen. Beyond how ridiculous it is that either player could have found out their opponents non-showdown every x minutes, unnaturally altering the dynamic, how ****ing tilting must it be to be made to stop playing all the ****ing time.

I agree 100% with everything you said, but it's not as if it was an unfair advantage given to one opponent. Everyone had this info available, and if i'm playing for x million HU and i spot something i think might be a tell, i'll be damn sure to go to my rail and find out if my read was right or not. Maybe they had a gentlemens agreement to not use outside info. Who knows?

Regardless of how stupid the situation is with the hole cards, that's the way it was played and if it was me, i would try my best to adapt to it, which would include trying to pick up tells and confirming them/denying them.

Just accidently CTRL + A deleted half my post about the tell i picked up on Heinz, one hand was the 97o pre hand (Stazko had T4hh). Think he opened/4b, or 3b/5b. Was defo a pretty important hand in confirming tells IMO.

Mr. CallMeCapo:

I have a feeling Ralph Perry derives a great sense of pleasure from watching this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOHPy...eature=related

Former DJ

I thought the HU match was phenomenal. The play, combined with ESPN's coverage, made me enjoy watching poker for the first time in quite a while.

True, but I guess there is a big difference between something being fair for both players and it being the correct thing to do. It would be 'fair' in one sense if two men in a boxing match were both equally entitled to pull out a pump-action shotgun and use it at their leisure, yet no one would consider that a wise move. Also - not really sure it is even fair for both players, as whilst they might both be able to consult their rail about hands, the calibre of players in their rail can obviously be variable, and its totally ridiculous that a WSOP Main Event could be won by someone who isn't even playing spotting and then relaying a tell.

Pius Heinz in the best MTTer to ever win the Main Event. He's like a more refined Cada.

He represented the game at its current state as well as any other young online guy could. Just an absolute clinic.

Now hopefully he proves to be as good of an ambassador as he is a player.

i dont want to take anything away from heinz bc he played really well, but tbh he just played like a good online mtt reg. ppl finally got to see this up close and it seems like most ppl dont understand mtts enough to appreciate how far ahead online players are compared to your average live player or even a good live player. there are hundreds of players that the general public doesnt know that are as good, if not better than heinz and im sure you will seeing more emerge for years to come. in b4 gabe costner

Off topic:

How much publicity/news coverage will the first ever German WSOP ME champion receive back home?

Does the press pay much attention to this sort of thing over there?

European culture will have nothing less than a float parade for the Pius.

Wow Benba Fu**** up so bad. One too many donuts.

+1 i agree with u..also Heinz said about the AQ shove that he thought that staczko's limp calling range couldnt have made something strong on that flop thats why he shoved in a way he is right but stazcko was limping with hands as KJs so it was risky that play

DN would get butchered by Pius in a shorthanded or HU situation IMO.