Jonathan Tamayo is the latest winner of the WSOP Main Event. But he is probably going to be remembered more as the guy that folded QQ to a single open when it was 10 handed. A move even his coach said in an interview was a mistake. Later in the final table he also made some questionable snap folds like AJdd and AQ both to single opens. I've read so many comments on how poorly he played, how bad a player he is, etc. But how did someone that seemingly played so tight/poor/bad eventually win the whole thing?
 |
Imagine yourself, sitting there with 9 other people, having a shot at winning $10 million dollars. If there's a time you should play to win, this would be it wouldn't it? I do not know Tamayo's financial status, but you are also one person away from winning an additional $200k, which in most main events is the winner's purse, and one person away from WSOP Main Event FT history (nobody remembers the FT bubble boy, except maybe Phil Ivey) You scan the table and you are mid-stacked at a pretty vulnerable 19bbs, with two guys shorter at 11bb and 5bb respectively. UTG opens, you look down at QQ with so many players left to act behind you, including the two shorties. What's the best case scenario? You 3b and take down 4.5bb. What could go wrong? You get 4b, or called by a big stack. Or, within the next two orbits the 5bb is going to have to take a stand otherwise he will be eliminated. Game Theory Optimal would never fold QQ here, no matter the ICM situation. But GTO is designed to be emotionless. It does not care about money, fame or survival. It only cares about playing the hand correctly in a bubble, independent of the previous or next hands.
I call Tamayo's style of play, defensive poker. GTO is about aggression. Guns blazing, all out attack. You can't say Tamayo was playing meekly because later he took some spots like 3 betting with K5o to a late position open, opening 93o in the small blind on bvb, etc. Instead of all out attack, he played defensively, only sneaking in an attack or two here and there when the spot opened up for him. When we look at the hands individually we can critique all we want because as hands, they were probably not played optimally. But considering the spot, where you factor in the payjumps, shorties, opener styles and positions, he took the lower variance route and picked the spots where he felt he had a better chance. Some players can play certain hands creatively, I say Tamayo made some creative folds. In his mind he could see how these hands although as good as they are could get him in trouble. He quickly folded AJdd to a single open, yet called with 77 and even later streets. With AJ you are often dominated, and are only ahead of Kx Qx type hands. If there's a Jack or Ace on the flop you are never comfortable. Whereas 77 is ahead of all Ax, Kx, Qx and if you flop a 7 you are extremely comfortable.
When someone plays a hand differently than us, for me it is an opportunity to learn. Why did he play it that way? Why is it different from how I would have played it? What was going through his mind? Poker is ever evolving, and things we are doing not so long ago would have been considered crazy, stupid, fishy. Also, it's easy to backseat drive when you are comfortably sitting at home, as a spectator. But the guy that's playing is feeling all the emotions of the camera, lights, fame, fortune, a chance of a lifetime. Furthermore, you can't win a tournament in one hand (unless it's down to heads up), you can't aim to be winning every hand, playing to survive sometimes trumps everything else, especially when the payjumps are unlike any other tournaments in the world.
I'm not saying that I would play exactly like Tamayo, but I can respect the moves (including the folds) that he made. In a bubble they may have been mistakes, but given the context, it may have been genius. Phil Ivey once famously mucked the winning hand at showdown in the 2009 Main Event. He later went on to be in the final table. When he was interviewed if he regretted mucking that hand he replied no. It got him as deep as it got him, so it was the right move. I'm a believer in butterfly effects as well, short term gains may not lead to the best outcome in the long run. In an age of GTO and solvers, we may be quick to comment, to critique, but thankfully we are human after all. There are adjustments, emotions, risk v reward, table dynamics, fear v greed, all these human elements to make this game fun, unpredictable and entertaining to watch. Congrats to Mr Tamayo and his team for the win!
.png)
.png)