Posted Tue Mar 06, 2007 11:54 am GMT by Dave B
I posted this a while ago, but I want to revisit it. Paul Wasicka finishes 2nd in the WSOP (6 mil), he has been impressive on High Stakes Poker, he took 4th in the LA Open (900k) and he just won the National Heads Up Championship (500k).
Now, he has been a successful online player for some time, but he was not making this kind of coin.
After Hashem and Raymer won and followed up w/ some big time success, I asked how many think they could consistantly compete w/ the pros if they had the bankroll to get in the games?
Does his success make anyone else feel that they could be right there w/ the big dogs if they were sitting on a bucket of cash and had no fear of losing a chunk?
BTW-I have been VERY impressed w/ his play. On HSP last night he layed down AA to a small bet w/ a board of 10 5 3 and 2 hearts since he limped UTG and got 7 callers. Todd Brunson turned a flush to snap off Greenstein's flopped set. LOL Donkamatic.
Did you know that participating in a poker forum can help you improve your own game? Be it by sharing experiences or simply asking for help, participation in a forum helps you focus and keep 'on topic' which will help you improve your game. You can learn from other players feedback and from their experiences. Why the THP poker forums? We offer one of the best managed texas holdem poker forums available, and the community within is far more friendly than those typicaly found on other sites. We've made a 'lurkers edition' of the poker forum available here on Holdem Poker Online, but we encourage all visitors to register and join in on the conversations on TexasHoldem-Poker.com
Posted Tue Mar 06, 2007 12:01 pm GMT by wEbMaStEr
He also took 12th in the Aussie Millions a few weeks ago.
I think the advantages a hardcore online player have over "live pros" is that online donks see so many more hands and situations than the live guys.
In addition, they are used to battling thru huge fields of other online donks.
Posted Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:23 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| wEbMaStEr wrote: | | I think the advantages a hardcore online player have over "live pros" is that online donks see so many more hands and situations than the live guys. |
Then watch them try to sit still when they're seeing 30 hands an hour instead of 30 hands in 5 minutes. 
Posted Tue Mar 06, 2007 2:19 pm GMT by Phil14312
Variance.
Posted Tue Mar 06, 2007 2:20 pm GMT by groton
| Sean_in_NJ wrote: | | wEbMaStEr wrote: | | I think the advantages a hardcore online player have over "live pros" is that online donks see so many more hands and situations than the live guys. |
Then watch them try to sit still when they're seeing 30 hands an hour instead of 30 hands in 5 minutes. |
yah i see the guys all the time at foxwoods they look like Prarier Dogs on Speed with tehre heads basicly spinning and pounding Redbull or anouther Energy drink
Posted Tue Mar 06, 2007 2:55 pm GMT by UrAteUp
Could I hang with the big dogs if I had the cash?...oh hell yes. When it comes to Donktastic plays I am the man.
Seriously, I think my poker skills are good enough to hang with the big dogs and earn a living. Would I like to do it? Nah, I think if I had to make a living at it I wouldn't enjoy playing as much as I do. I play for recreation more then $$ but when I get on a good streak and make some $$ it just sweetens the deal.
Posted Tue Mar 06, 2007 3:02 pm GMT by Dave B
From what we know about your game from the posts here, I dont think you could make it.
I was posing my question to decent players.
Posted Tue Mar 06, 2007 3:14 pm GMT by UrAteUp
| Dave B wrote: | From what we know about your game from the posts here, I dont think you could make it.
I was posing my question to decent players. |
 ...nice try Dave but you'll need to do a little better to to score an offical zing.
Here is an idea...go polish your bald spot on your head...then use the solar power to help boost your brain..
Posted Tue Mar 06, 2007 6:52 pm GMT by General Sal
| Dave B wrote: | | Does his success make anyone else feel that they could be right there w/ the big dogs if they were sitting on a bucket of cash and had no fear of losing a chunk? |
Well, I'm working on it. It's tough thing getting started.
Posted Wed Mar 07, 2007 5:45 pm GMT by mortaleclipse
Paul has been my favorite player on HSP this season. His play has been fantastic. He knows when to lay them down and when hes golden. His rock image makes him pretty nasty as well at the table. Didnt he only play like 2 hands in the 2nd episode he was in?
Posted Wed Mar 07, 2007 5:59 pm GMT by xDiamond_CutteRx
Wasicka is a great player, and I've thought so ever since the final table in '06, when I said he was the best player besides Allen Cunningham at the table. Before he won $6 mil there though, he was a regular $10/$20 No-Limit 6-max player online, so I'm not surprised he's used to tough competition.
I expect we'll be hearing a lot more from this guy in the near future.
Could I compete at the highest levels? I still don't think so. The only players I know I could beat would be Sammy (when he's losing) or Eli Elezra (seriously, this guy is not good).
Posted Wed Mar 07, 2007 6:34 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
If I had a spare $30K-$40K lying around, yeah, I think I could hold my own in the $20/$40 or $40/$80 FL games at the Mirage. I am my own worst enemy, so the bigger question is "How long could you do it before you had a crippling blow-up?"
Posted Wed Mar 07, 2007 6:52 pm GMT by wEbMaStEr
| xDiamond_CutteRx wrote: | | The only players I know I could beat would be Sammy (when he's losing) or Eli Elezra (seriously, this guy is not good). |
Ty for saying this. Now If i had said this i'd have been ripped to shreds!
For me Eli typifies what i mean by a lot of live only pros not seeing many hands or situations. Eli plays high, and I guess he makes money, but he plays like he doesn't really know what he's doing.
Now i will get ripped to shreds 
Posted Wed Mar 07, 2007 7:02 pm GMT by exit music
| wEbMaStEr wrote: | | xDiamond_CutteRx wrote: | | The only players I know I could beat would be Sammy (when he's losing) or Eli Elezra (seriously, this guy is not good). |
Ty for saying this. Now If i had said this i'd have been ripped to shreds!
For me Eli typifies what i mean by a lot of live only pros not seeing many hands or situations. Eli plays high, and I guess he makes money, but he plays like he doesn't really know what he's doing.
Now i will get ripped to shreds |
you fool! you couldn't be more wrong
In reality, Eli looks like a fish because he plays with some tough opponents who dont really give him any room. However, Eli is an absolute machine when it comes to reading people and he absolutely PWNs pple with his reads. Willing to push all-in blind preflop after he calls one of Farha's PF bets. Although he screwed it up by chopping, he only had A10 - when sami said "if you double that bet blind, I'll be all-in blind" eli immediately stuck in the extra money - and sami had nothing obviously.
Posted Wed Mar 07, 2007 7:33 pm GMT by wEbMaStEr
I feel you are wrong about the reads, I don't think he reads people at all, to me he seems to make a decision right at the start of a hand that no way is he letting go of it. To me, he's a nofoldem, a gambler, he plays his cards and he plays the board, 3rd level thinking? I don't think he's aware there's a 2nd.
The hands he won against Sammy... fair enough, I like Sammy and think he's an excellent player when he's on, he is also a gambler, but i think he is a far better player than Eli. Eli knows Sammy and knows how he plays, he picked up the perfect hands to crush a player like Sammy.
I dunno what kind of money he makes in poker away from HSP, I dunno what he's made/lost on HSP, I may be wrong, maybe he is a great player and i've got this whole poker thing completely skewed? But of all the pros I've seen on HSP i'd definately peg Eli among the weakest.
If I had the roll behind me to play at that level, I'd definately want Eli at my table.
I'm not slagging off the pros here by the way, there are plenty who I respect think would crush me to a pulp.
Posted Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:45 pm GMT by kingetje
nice fukkin spoiler in the original post 
Posted Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:52 pm GMT by Ciso_B
From what I've seen from Wasicka he plays pretty cautious but seems like a pretty strong player, against big time players who are likely to play agressive letting them be agressive through hands can work to your advantage though.
I think he could do well in tournaments but I doubt he could consistently beat the high stakes game with Farha, Brunson, Negreanu etc.
From what I've seen the players on hsp I am impressed with have been Deeb from series 1, Esfandiari looked quite good, Farha is pretty good too...That Daniel Alei? Looked quite good too actually. Dont really rate Jennifer harman that highly, Todd too, or Eli and that new guy who won 2 bracelets this year?
I cant really say whether I could compete with these guys tbh and no point discussing , let's face it all us players think we're amazing and exagerate how good we are don't we. No Poker player in the world is a losing one if you ask individualy if they win or lose lol.
Posted Wed Mar 07, 2007 11:53 pm GMT by tame_deuces
Daniel Alaei looks to me to have been by far the strongest player on HSP so far, since he consistently plays exceptionally in all facets of the game nomatter if he is winning or losing alot (anybody can look like a genius when they win), I hold that view for this season also, the level of discipline he seems to hold is simply astounding.
Doyle Brunson also looks incredibly strong in that game, with the same steely discipline.
I won't claim that anybody there are bad players (though there are def. a couple of gamblers), but from the few hands we have been shown, I haven't seen anyone who seems to come close to those two.
Posted Thu Mar 08, 2007 4:09 am GMT by supafrey
lol @ you guys hypothesizing about skill from HSP and recent MTT results. it's like I've taught you people nothing, seriously.
Posted Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:01 am GMT by exit music
Phil Laak is impressive, no? I love the way this guy plays. Him and Antonio are probably my two favorite card players, when it comes to style and the amount of thought they put into it. Laak was one of the biggest winners in the 2nd season, he was up 200K I think, although I could be mistaken.
Posted Thu Mar 08, 2007 6:37 am GMT by tame_deuces
| supafrey wrote: | | lol @ you guys hypothesizing about skill from HSP and recent MTT results. it's like I've taught you people nothing, seriously. |
| Phil14312 wrote: | | Variance. |
| wEbMaStEr wrote: |
I dunno what kind of money he makes in poker away from HSP, I dunno what he's made/lost on HSP, I may be wrong |
| Ciso_B wrote: | | From what I've seen |
| Ciso_B wrote: |
I cant really say whether I could compete with these guys tbh and no point discussing |
| tame_deuces wrote: | | but from the few hands we have been shown |
For future reference, it can pay to actually read people posts before you slag them.
Posted Thu Mar 08, 2007 11:44 am GMT by supafrey
How does prefacing your opinion with "from what i've seen" (although there are much more blatant examples of what I said that I notice you somehow forgot to quote...) make the rest of the hot air any more valuable?
From what I've seen, Mars is the bestest planet in the world.
Posted Thu Mar 08, 2007 11:57 am GMT by Dave B
Then by all means, you should do us all a favor and move there.
BTW-be warned, the ice caps are melting on Mars, so dont build to close to the coasts.
Posted Thu Mar 08, 2007 12:05 pm GMT by supafrey
That's because you drove your 4 SUVs all over the place there. Way to give everyone asthma and skin cancer, American.
Posted Thu Mar 08, 2007 12:22 pm GMT by Dave B
I am down to 1 SUV and added a Mustang. It does only get 12mph though, so I am still doing some damage.
Posted Thu Mar 08, 2007 12:26 pm GMT by MasterShake
| Dave B wrote: | | I am down to 1 SUV and added a Mustang. It does only get 12mph though, so I am still doing some damage. |
I like to burn tires in my back yard for fun and profit.
Posted Thu Mar 08, 2007 1:17 pm GMT by MJJ
| MasterShake wrote: | | Dave B wrote: | | I am down to 1 SUV and added a Mustang. It does only get 12mph though, so I am still doing some damage. |
I like to burn tires in my back yard for fun and profit. |
Nothing gets a tire fire going like spraying it with a aerosol can
Posted Thu Mar 08, 2007 2:01 pm GMT by supafrey
I'm pretty sure scienticians proved a very long time ago that the size of your penis is directly in proportion to the amount of damage you can do to our planet.
Posted Thu Mar 08, 2007 2:05 pm GMT by MasterShake
| supafrey wrote: | | I'm pretty sure scienticians proved a very long time ago that the size of your penis is directly in proportion to the amount of damage you can do to our planet. |
Yep. I gots me a big ole dick.
Posted Thu Mar 08, 2007 2:12 pm GMT by Dave B
Oh really? What is your boyfriend's name???
Posted Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:35 pm GMT by MasterShake
| Dave B wrote: | Oh really? What is your boyfriend's name???
|
Chyna. I think he used to be a wrestler.
Posted Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:35 pm GMT by wEbMaStEr
| supafrey wrote: | How does prefacing your opinion with "from what i've seen" (although there are much more blatant examples of what I said that I notice you somehow forgot to quote...) make the rest of the hot air any more valuable?
From what I've seen, Mars is the bestest planet in the world. |
Wow! Speculation, & opinion on a discussion forum!
Whodathunkit???
Posted Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:53 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| wEbMaStEr wrote: | Wow! Speculation, & opinion on a discussion forum!
Whodathunkit??? |
I guess we should take everything that can be known, put it all into tidy little classifications and then find the best person to answer any questions on that topic. Everyone else is barred from speaking on the subject.
Posted Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:03 pm GMT by efram
supa wrote
| Quote: | | I'm pretty sure scienticians proved.... |
Is a scientician a cross between a scientist and politician?
elephino
Posted Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:14 pm GMT by MasterShake
| efram wrote: | supa wrote
| Quote: | | I'm pretty sure scienticians proved.... |
Is a scientician a cross between a scientist and politician?
elephino |
I don't know, but apparently Mars is a planet on earth. lol
Posted Thu Mar 08, 2007 6:27 pm GMT by efram
MasterShake wrote:
| Quote: | efram wrote:
supa wrote
Quote:
I'm pretty sure scienticians proved....
Is a scientician a cross between a scientist and politician?
elephino
I don't know, but apparently Mars is a planet on earth. lol |
what do the scientologists think of this?
If they were to convert, would that make them a scientologician, living on the planet EarthMars?
Posted Fri Mar 09, 2007 5:11 am GMT by supafrey
I, like Shakespeare, enjoy making up words.
Posted Fri Mar 09, 2007 10:13 am GMT by MrDarling
Just seen episode 5 and 6.
As far as comments on those donks ,
It took me a long while to understand Eli's game. In fact I think it was only when I realized he was Israeli that I decided to like him. In previous seasons he was much wilder and very close to a calling station. This season he seems to play pretty solid actually.
I liked how cheaply he got to SD when he flopped 2 pairs and Brunsun turned a str. I also like how he folded rivered 2 paired against lingered str. Betting into Sami with flopped Quads was also pretty smart (considering their history)
On the other hand I find Paul game very weak/tight in these two episodes. I'm sure $100k is a lot of money, even if you just won $6m . And he is just feeling it up. But was a little surprised to see him check/fold pp on a paired flop after Herman bet a turned 3. Or betting into Sami SS with A's on pretty dry flop. (With his tight image betting into Sami was sure to get a fold , while checking might induce a bluff)
As for Sami play, its real fun to see him play, and some of his moves are amazing. But from what I remember seeing on almost all seasons, he doesn't seem to be doing to good. He's almost always losing. I might be wrong though.
Its a good show though.
Posted Sun Mar 11, 2007 12:52 pm GMT by MrDarling
Again, not criticism but am trying to understand. Why doesn't Paul value bet? He keeps over betting his good hand?
One example the A's against Sammy. Sammy had such a small stack that if he had any draw he would have called any way.
and then the hand against Brian , when he had 2 pairs and nut flush draw and he went allin on the turn. $200k into a $40k pot?
was he hoping for a call or is was he really afraid of draws?
Posted Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:22 pm GMT by tame_deuces
| supafrey wrote: | How does prefacing your opinion with "from what i've seen" (although there are much more blatant examples of what I said that I notice you somehow forgot to quote...) make the rest of the hot air any more valuable?
|
You can be all mysteriously elitist and writing 'lol@people' all you want for what I care, but please grow up and stop pretending you were debating some sort of point afterwards.
Posted Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:26 pm GMT by supafrey
Zzz
this is the same problem I had with the AA thread and the one I'll continue to have until my point gets across: There's a point in coming here to talk about elements of your game that are improvable..... about how to make more money.. about what proper theory even is... but talking about celebrities, hypothetical situations that could never come up, and trading cliches about people and the game alike from impossibly small amounts of information are nothing but shooting the shit. The more you think about them and waste your time with them, the more you miss out on cutting away the irrelevant from your game and poker life and focus to making the $$$$$. If people enjoy talking about Anna Nicole in the real world that's fine, that doesn't mean I can't mention how much of a waste of time it is to them.
Posted Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:55 pm GMT by MrDarling
First, there is nothing wrong with a little light entertainment.
However, I still think we can learn from watching the big pro's play, so nothing wrong in discussing it.
Posted Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:57 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| supafrey wrote: | | that doesn't mean I can't mention how much of a waste of time it is to them. |
Which is just a waste of time, and now I've wasted time pointing that out too.
Posted Sun Mar 11, 2007 2:45 pm GMT by tame_deuces
| supafrey wrote: | Zzz
this is the same problem I had with the AA thread and the one I'll continue to have until my point gets across: There's a point in coming here to talk about elements of your game that are improvable..... about how to make more money.. about what proper theory even is... but talking about celebrities, hypothetical situations that could never come up, and trading cliches about people and the game alike from impossibly small amounts of information are nothing but shooting the shit. The more you think about them and waste your time with them, the more you miss out on cutting away the irrelevant from your game and poker life and focus to making the $$$$$. If people enjoy talking about Anna Nicole in the real world that's fine, that doesn't mean I can't mention how much of a waste of time it is to them. |
Yeah, but that's the trouble isn't it. You aren't telling people anything. You just write some flamebait and then cling to an illusion of having made some sort of point afterwards.
I have no interest in finding what it says between the lines in some cliche sarcasm posts.
Posted Sun Mar 11, 2007 3:24 pm GMT by supafrey
it's not my fault you can't extrapolate quick enough. like sean said, the frustrating part for me is that i'm wasting time just replying about why i didn't want to waste time in the first place. I feel like i'm talking to my girlfriend and saying "i don't want to talk about it" only to have her finally drag it out of me and cause the huge fight I originally was trying to avoid by pleading the fifth...
Posted Sun Mar 11, 2007 4:56 pm GMT by Geno
| supafrey wrote: | | it's not my fault you can't extrapolate quick enough. like sean said, the frustrating part for me is that i'm wasting time just replying about why i didn't want to waste time in the first place. |
Then why wade in at all? Let people have their threads and if you have nothing to add that is useful, post in other threads that you approve of.
Posted Mon Mar 12, 2007 12:03 am GMT by MJJ
| supafrey wrote: | | it's not my fault you can't extrapolate quick enough. like sean said, the frustrating part for me is that i'm wasting time just replying about why i didn't want to waste time in the first place. I feel like i'm talking to my girlfriend and saying "i don't want to talk about it" only to have her finally drag it out of me and cause the huge fight I originally was trying to avoid by pleading the fifth... |
Taking the 5th is saying that you won't answer a question; you can do that w/out posting. I enjoy some of your posts- they make me think about Hold Em outside of the box of 'How to play correctly' I have constructed for myself; BUT, when you post the 3 word 'You Suck' answer, it does no good- if you really can't take the time to answer, why bother at all? If you do care about the answer, why not take the time?
-Please don't take this as a personal attack, one of the <few> reasons i read this forum is to see posts by people who play outside of my comfort zone (which would include you and Dave, among others- ironic, huh?)
Posted Mon Mar 12, 2007 2:26 pm GMT by exit music
| MrDarling wrote: | Again, not criticism but am trying to understand. Why doesn't Paul value bet? He keeps over betting his good hand?
and then the hand against Brian , when he had 2 pairs and nut flush draw and he went allin on the turn. $200k into a $40k pot?
was he hoping for a call or is was he really afraid of draws? |
There are lots of reasons to go all-in there, Brian had a huge stack and paul wanted to get paid off. I'm pretty sure he knew he had the best hand. In the odd time when he's up against a set he still has a million outs for the Boat/Flush, and perhaps a worse hand would pay him off.
Posted Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:10 pm GMT by mortaleclipse
You all sound like a bunch of raggin girls
Posted Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:40 pm GMT by jimmer
| Dave B wrote: | | I posted this a while ago, but I want to revisit it. |
| Dave B wrote: | Does his success make anyone else feel that they could be right there w/ the big dogs if they were sitting on a bucket of cash and had no fear of losing a chunk?
|
So going back to the original question;
What's your personal thoughts on consistantly mixing it up with the big guns?
You've obviously given this alot of thought. Is this something your planning/wanting to do?
Posted Thu Mar 29, 2007 4:35 pm GMT by sixsixtie
What about when he folded an open ended straight flush draw on the final table?
Hed rather get 2nd than play for first
Posted Thu Mar 29, 2007 5:37 pm GMT by Geno
| sixsixtie wrote: | What about when he folded an open ended straight flush draw on the final table?
Hed rather get 2nd than play for first |
I saw this again the other day on YouTube and it was pretty questionable but in his defence, the monetary value between 2nd and 3rd was huge in absolute terms.
A lot of people view this situation as if it is a $5 SnG I think when they talk about instantly calling but you have to remember that they had played for something like 8 days to get this far and the emotions they were feeling must have been insane. Most questionable work at the final table is probably excusable given the high pressure situation that most of these guys would not be used to at all.
Here is the YouTube link if anyone wants to see it. The hand starts at about 06:37:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i58ZDi-w_yw
Posted Thu Mar 29, 2007 8:29 pm GMT by exit music
That was a very strange hand, I remember listening to an interview on the Rounders Radio show when they interviewed Wasika and he said he didn't even consider calling there because he was just too focused on getting heads up and then dealing with the massive luxbox from that point onward.
Posted Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:49 am GMT by kingetje
i read an interview where he said he put jamie goldfish on a higher flush draw... in that case i think it was a pretty reasonable laydown
|
|
