By
grapsfan |
Published
Jul 25 2008, 09:58 AM
“I would have won the World Series in ’04 if a diamond didn’t hit. I would have won the World Series in ’05 if it didn’t come running hearts.”
- Mike Matusow, after Roy Winston caught a flush to eliminate him at the 2007 Borgata Open final table
Mike Matusow has always been one of my favorite poker players to watch, the good and the bad in equal, extreme measure. His skill in all varieties of poker, both tournament and cash, is undeniable when his head is on straight. His manic narcissism and self-loathing depressive swings are similarly fascinating – in the same way we can’t turn away from a multi-car pileup on the Interstate.
In “normal” people, psychologists consider selective memory as a useful tool in every day life. The brain has to be able to filter our memories as a way to quickly deal with short-term circumstances. If we tried to process every memory – every experience we have ever had – in determining what to do at each particular moment, we’d lock up like a 10-year-old PC trying to run Windows Vista. Selective memory is also a coping tool for what headshrinkers call “cognitive dissonance,” our need to deal with two conflicting opinions, beliefs or facts and keep our ego and positive self-image intact.
As poker players, cognitive dissonance strikes every time we lose a tournament or take a beating in a cash game session. Our self-image is one of a smart, successful, winning player…but we just got our brains beat in. When we do it right, selective memory allows us to put the losing streak behind us and think of times we’ve done really well, boosting our egos back to the level necessary to function in very competitive environments.
In a narcissist, however, selective memories aren’t accurate, but exaggerated past the point of what really happened. Let’s take a look at the two hands Matusow is talking about….
Mike and Greg Raymer were amongst the chip leaders of the 2004 WSOP, and had been butting heads for some time. Matusow raised from the cutoff with 9♠7♠, Raymer re-raised from the small blind with A♦J♦, and Matusow called. The flop came 10♥9♦3♦. Raymer, first to act, immediately went all-in. Matusow agonized and called the shove. The 2♦ fell on the turn…in alignment with Matusow’s selective memory.
What Mike is leaving out, of course, is he was actually a slight underdog in the hand. Raymer had 15 outs twice on the flop, with any Ace or Jack in addition to the diamonds. The truly narcissistic spin on Matusow’s story is when he says he would have won the WSOP if his 2nd pair holds. There were approximately 100 players left in the tournament at the time of the fateful hand, on Day 3 of the six in the event. This pot would have given Matusow approximately 600,000 of the 25,760,000 chips required to win the tournament – approximately 2.3% of the chips in play. Amongst the field left at the time were Marcel Luske, Daniel Alaei, Dan Harrington, Gavin Smith, Chris Ferguson, Harry Demetriou, Julian Gardner, Al Krux, Doyle Brunson, Blair Rodman, David Ulliott and Bradley Berman. And those are just the experienced pros Matusow should have known about.
In other words, the foregone conclusion about “winning if a diamond didn’t hit” is ludicrous, even by Mike Matusow standards.
The possibility of “The Mouth” winning is 2005 was far better. He entered the final table 4th in chips, and was the only professional with any experience on such a high-profile stage. If Matusow’s flopped set of kings holds against Scott Lazar on Hand #2 of the final table, he’s got a slight chip lead over Aaron Kanter. Yes, Lazar caught runner-runner hearts on the last two cards to make an Ace-high flush against Matusow’s King-high.
When the money went in, Lazar had A♦A© to Matusow’s K©K§. The 4.5-to-1 favorite held up. If Mike wants to complain about cold decks (and I’m sure he still does), I don’t blame him. But what happened is what was supposed to happen. He was no more unlucky on the turn and river than he was lucky to flop a third king. And if Mike’s flopped set had held, he would have had approximately 19% of the chips in play, slightly more than Kanter, Tex Barch and Andy Black, all of whom have proven over time to be successful, strong tournament professionals.
Matusow’s depressive nature leads his selective memory in equally an inaccurate direction. He can recite those two hands ad infinitum, every time he loses a tournament on a critical hand. In his mind, he often considers himself the unluckiest player in the history of poker. But he doesn’t remember how many flops he caught and draws he made in winning the Tournament of Champions, final tabling the ToC the year after he won, or in outlasting 5610 players to reach to the 2005 Final Table. Go back and look through the update logs of this year’s Deuce-to-Seven tournament, which Matusow won. Count the number of times he made a 9-low or better hand to crack a better 9 or a pat-10. You have to make low hands to win a lowball event, and Mike made a ton.
The most important skill you need as a poker player is accurate self-assessment. You have to remember everything, and apply those memories in appropriate measure to guide your next strategy, game selection and career direction. There’s no room for delusions of grandeur or pity. Be honest with yourself.
I wonder how far Mike Matusow could go if he would simply tell himself the truth.