When was the last time a ME FT had nobody well-known?

My ME FT history isn't very good, but here's what I can think of:
2007 - Watkinson
2006 - Cunningham
2005 - Matusow
2004 - Harrington
2003 - Harrington, Farha, David Grey
2002 - Minh Ly?
2001 - Hellmuth, Matusow, Dewey Tomko
2000 - TJ Cloutier
1999 - Seidel, Seed
....

i dont think sammy farha was known at the time, probably a few more on your list.. but yeah it gonna suck hype wise..

lol donkaments

Chino Rheem Doubles Through Joe Bishop

From under the gun, Joe Bishop raised to 450,000 and Chino Rheem called from the big blind. The flop came {5-Diamonds} {8-Clubs} {2-Spades} and when Rheem checked, Bishop bet 900,000. Almost instantly, Rheem moved all in for 3.7 million and Bishop got up out of his chair. "OK, who has the overpair," he said, before making the call.

His {6-Hearts} {6-Spades} led Rheem's {K-Spades} {9-Spades} and Bishop walked off the set and sat down in a chair by the rail. The dealer burned and turned the {3-Diamonds}, and as the ESPN cameras focused on his face, Bishop heard the roar from Rheem's supporters as the {K-Hearts} spiked on the river. Joe's head rolled back before he rose from the chair and returned to the table. He's down to 11.3 million while Rheem, who was all in for his tournament life just a short time ago, is up to 12.4 million.

----------

What's worse, check/shoving with king high or calling with 66?

fyp

That seems like an unusual name for a Dane

wow. ladies and gentlemen, meet your next PS pros.

I'm sensing the Kevin McBride bathroom ploy is just around the corner for this guy:

This Joe Bishop guy is really, really coming across as a grade A douchenozzle. For him to say that anyone's "legitimate play" is an insult, while he's been nothing but a slow-rolling, trash-talking punk is irony most priceless indeed.

WTF? TWO calls?

JJ & TT? *Shrug*

WTF? No rereaise at any point with Kings?

Go go go Craig!

He probably knows Phil Laak IMO.

Go Craig!


Craig Marquis Doubles Through Dean Hamrick
Peter Eastgate raised to 750,000, Dean Hamrick reraised to 2.1 million, and Craig Marquis tanked for quite a while before moving all in. The Tournament Director approached the table and cut down Marquis' stacks to get an accurate count for the amount of the all in--3.39 million. Eastgate folded and the action was back on Hamrick. He made the call and the crowd got on their feet. Marquis AsQh HamrickQsQd The flop wasJh7s3h and Marquis needed running straight or flush cards to win. The turn was the 4h and the crowd exploded in a collective "Ohhhhhhhh" as Marquis picked up a flush draw. The river was the 5h and the entire room went ballistic as Marquis made his flush and doubled through Hamrick. Marquis is up to about 11.2 million while Hamrick fell to 6 million.

It was nice for Craig to double up into a normal size stack right at the end there.


It would be tough waiting 4 months to play knowing that you will be a short stack and have limited strategic options.

Here's the November Nine:

Seat 1: Dennis Phillips - 26,295,000
Seat 2: Craig Marquis - 10,210,000
Seat 3: Ylon Schwartz - 12,525,000
Seat 4: Scott Montgomery - 19,690,000
Seat 5: Darus Suharto - 12,520,000
Seat 6: David 'Chino' Rheem - 10,230,000
Seat 7: Ivan Demidov - 24,400,000
Seat 8: Kelly Kim - 2,620,000
Seat 9: Peter Eastgate - 18,375,000

Knowing what seat you're going to be in 4 months from now seems silly to me. I say random redraw before play starts again.

Dean Hamrick was probably the best player of the final 10. When I went to bed with 14 left, I thought for sure he'd be at the final table in november, and I really liked his chances of playing in November. Then when I saw someone 4-bet shoved with AQ against him and sucked out, I almost threw up.

Maybe Craig can explain this hand. I was pulling for Dean, and almost threw up when I read this. It seemed crazy to shove AQ after a raise and reraise in front of you, but I wasn't there so I'd like to hear from Craig his thoughts on the play.

It's obvious that to make it this far, all of these players have to be very good tournament players. But I want to be the first one to say this...

I've dealt poker to Dennis Phillips for going on 4 years now. And I can speak for everyone who knows him, that he is an absolute class act! He is one of the most down to earth poker players I have ever had the pleasure of meeting. He never has a bad word to say about anyone, and when something doesn't go his way, he just takes on the chin and with leaves it at that.

I think he would be a great WSOP champion for all of those reasons. I'm sure over the next few months, he will be plastered across poker sites and shows. Once you all get to see a little bit more of him, I'm sure you'll all agree.

Best of luck Dennis!

Original PFR folded ako.

I think knowing that is enough to make my shove with aq +ev.

C

I'm assuming you knew you were a dog to the reraisers range, but if the original raiser folded you would have enough dead money in the pot to make it +EV? I suck at tournaments so sorry if it sounds basic.

Craig - Good job making the final table! We at 2+2 have someone to root for.

Now, for the AQ shove: I posted something on the other WSOP thread when this hand was first reported. My intuition told me it looked like a bad shove (i.e., -EV). I will run some numbers tonight at home, as this can all be calculated with ICM, some assumptions on opponent hand ranges, and some software tools (PM me if you want info on this).

First, you have basically NO fold equity. You are getting called in one, possibly two spots (okay, yeah, a lot of the time the first raiser folds, but the second guy folds approximately never). So you are essentially CALLING all-in with AQ here. I know you are the short stack, you are under pressure to double up. AQ may LOOK like a monster there, especially if you've been card-dead, and the shove may seem like a strong, aggressive play. There might be other considerations - maybe the raiser and re-raiser were in late position, maybe you think their range(s) are loose, etc.

However, you are in a HUGE bubble situation. Hard to put numbers on the dollar value associated with making the final table, but they are non-zero, and there is a pretty healthy dollar bump from 10th to 9th regardless of "final table equity". This is akin to a SNG type bubble with four people left and they pay three spots. You have to lay down some surprisingly big hands in some of these spots, even as a short stack.

Again, I haven't run any numbers yet, but I will. It's a very interesting situation, and I look forward to analyzing it further.

I know you are friends with Raptor and presumably have access to his extended network - ask those guys,and ask, for example, Curtains (ICM/SNG/Everything wizard) for their analysis. And bone up on this stuff using those guys and other resources. You've got some time!

P.S. I'm no expert, and I hope you don't perceive the above as criticism. Good job so far, and good luck the rest of the way.

Gosh, it's hard to feel that pushing with AQ was the right play, especially given that AK and QQ were the other hands involved here.

Let me try to reconstruct the hand:

Blinds T120K/T240K + T30K
Marquis: T5.49M
Hamrick: T11.5M
Eastgate: T11.875M

Pot: T660K

Eastgate: Raise to T750K
Hamrick: Raise to T2.1M
Marquis: Raise to T5.49M
Eastgate: Folds

So for Hamrick, it was T3.39M to call a T9M pot. What are you folding there that is in your 3-bet range?

Let's give Hamrick a really crazy 3-bet range here, say 88+, ATs+, AJo+, KJs+, KQo, QJs.

Pokerstove says...

Hand 0: 49.355% equity 43.64% win 05.71% tie 68003733 pots won 8900508 pots tied {AsQh}
Hand 1: 50.645% equity 44.93% win 05.71% tie 70014915 pots won 8900508 pots tied {88+, ATs+, KJs+, QJs, AJo+, KQo}

Okay, so AQ isn't in horrible shape vs. that range.

What about something tighter? Say... TT+, AJs+, AQo+, KQs, KQo:

Pokerstove says...

Hand 0: 43.979% equity 35.98% win 08.00% tie 36963131 pots won 8220172 pots tied {AsQh}
Hand 1: 56.021% equity 48.02% win 08.00% tie 49334765 pots won 8220172 pots tied {TT+, AJs+, KQs, AQo+, KQo}

So, I'm not THRILLED with this play, it seems like AQo is the bottom of 4-bet range here, but it is within 4-bet range.

Of course, I'll let ICM make its own decisions too

Hamricks 3-bet range there is AQ+,TT+ at least.

Just to complete the math, then:

Hand 0: 34.397% equity 24.06% win 10.33% tie 18542395 pots won 7961685.5 pots tied {AsQh}
Hand 1: 65.603% equity 55.27% win 10.33% tie 42587914 pots won 7961685.5 pots tied {TT+, AQs+, AQo+}

So if Hamrick's 3-bet range is TT+, AQs+, AQo+, then I'm really not liking the shove.

That being said, it's probably the best "mistake" Craig ever made. Always nice to be analyzing bad moves that get you to the WSOP ME FT.