Quote Originally Posted by MumblesBadly View Post
1) He was "a three-better". There is a good chance he would have 3-bet the flop with AQ suited to isolate the orig raiser.

2) Bowker gave no indication that this guy was a donkey.

3) This was *the* WSOP Main Event, not some $10 -- or even a $100 -- online tourney that young hotshots are likely to play with reckless abandon and rinse and repeat if they donk off being overly aggressive with n-th best hands on the river (with n > 8) against the in-position river bettor.

4) Bowker's lead out river bet was large enough to indicate that he was pot committed. Raising all-in while giving Bowker 4-1 on his money -- and when Bowker wouldn't be crippled if he called and lost -- would have been an utterly stupid desperation move by the kid if he held the nut flush. In fact, if he was so reckless/aggresive, he would likely have raised all-in on the turn, where he had more fold equity. Especially when Bowker disguised the ridic strength of his hand by betting out.

5) If the "kid" had been a much older guy (say, my age), and frustrated by events up to that point, there is good chance he would donked off his chips on the river with such a bet with only the nut flush in a vain attempt to "make a move against that punk poker pro Bowker!"

6) If the "kid" had been Jacylin Moskow, it is almost GUAR-RAN-TEED that she would have make such a donkey move with the 9th best hand in that case. (At least as evidenced by her showing in that PNIA hand that she tried to get quashed.)
I'm not gonna argue with you about this because I know how you live for it but where the fuck are you getting your info because I read the article?

1) Where the fuck does it say he's a "3 better"? Seriously, where? It says he flatted.

2) Exactly. He gives no info about his opponent other than calling him a "kid". Geez, I wonder why? Probably so the reader can make our own assumptions to make his fold seem semi-plausible. See, I'm capable of making unfounded assumptions too.

3) You're giving waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much credit for the ME providing great play when the opposite is actually true, especially early which this is, IMO. There's a reason Druff doesn't sell parts of his ME.

4) Okay, I might be a little off-base with the "nut flush" although I still thinks it's a good possibility, & he had 9's full & thought he was slow-playing the turn. Both hands are waaaaaaaaaaaay, waaaaaaaaay, waaaaaaaay more likely than specifically Q-10s IMO.

5) Whatever. Don't see how this is even relevant & goes back to # 2).

6) lol. Okay, I got a chuckle.

The point of my original post that you replied to was that you admonished Druff by asking if he even read the article:
http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news...-in-main-event

when there's absolutely nothing in it, including the betting patterns that you point out, that just SCREAMS Q-10s IMO. It just doesn't in my mind.