Idiots at WSOP final table (spoiler only open if already watched)
There is something I am curious about. As previously mentioned we did not see nearly enough of the final table. What I want to know is why no one gave Eastgate any credit for ever having a hand? Everytime it went to a showdown he had it. Was he playing very aggressively on other hands? Did he get caught bluffing several times during hands we didn't see? I swear the way he was having chips thrown at him it was like a replay of the way Raymer won his main event.
i'm sure he was playing quite aggressively on the other hands. but when a player raises preflop and bets flop and takes it down, they're of course not going to show those hands, because they're not exciting. for all we know, eastgate did this several times with little resistance. he's known as a pretty aggressive player. they just picked bad times to play back at him
Power Stack Bluff
I was kind of disappointed when I watched the Final Table... they hyped it up like there was no tomorrow...
My Money was on Ivan "The Russian"... but he came in second place...
they all played like donkeys... with their power stack bluffs... it was pretty sick to watch people go all in with nothing... not even a drawing hand... Guess they were all trying to bluff big like Moneymaker did...
but my reasoning behind this, is that they might have been pretty tired by now... and just wanted the whole thing over with... besides, am sure they were all pretty happy with the winnings... they were all multi-millioners... so I guess that soften the blow of loosing...
I was kind of disappointed when I watched the Final Table... they hyped it up like there was no tomorrow...
My Money was on Ivan "The Russian"... but he came in second place...
they all played like donkeys... with their power stack bluffs... it was pretty sick to watch people go all in with nothing... not even a drawing hand... Guess they were all trying to bluff big like Moneymaker did...
but my reasoning behind this, is that they might have been pretty tired by now... and just wanted the whole thing over with... besides, am sure they were all pretty happy with the winnings... they were all multi-millioners... so I guess that soften the blow of loosing...
I think it might've been Hellmuth or Negreanu who said in the final table ESPN preview that this would be the most sophisticated play we've seen at that stage because the players had months to prepare. Um...? That's not what I was thinking, but I dunno much.
i'm just glad that douche, jerry yang wasn't at the table. or anyone like him. and is it just me or is everyone getting sick of the world series of pokers feel good stories? seriously! cinderella isn't cinderella anymore if there are a thousand other cinderellas every year. i'm sick of watching poker and getting it confused with full house.
TexasPokerStar said:
First off, they didn't play like donkeys, they played like 9 guys who beat out 6000+ to make the final table of one of the greatest poker tournaments in the world. What part of playing your opponents and not your cards, do people not understand. Yes, sometimes you're gonna get caught, and it can cost you your tournament, but thats poker. The combination of televised poker and lack of understanding is why there are so many donks in poker. Going all in pf when there are 3000 people left in the tournament and when there are only 3 left is waaaaaaay different. How often in live play do you see half the table go all-in pf??? You can call the final 9 whatever you want but they are definately not donkeys!
The way I see it was:
The blinds were getting high and no one had a huge chip advantage like Gold or Yang like in past years. Most of the players held out for good cards as long as they could, made some bad moves, or both, but they had to take their chances. I'd like to know how many hands they actually played heads-up, but I would have to think by the way it ended I'd have to believe they knew they had little time to wait for better hands than they called with. Maybe I'm wrong.
The blinds were getting high and no one had a huge chip advantage like Gold or Yang like in past years. Most of the players held out for good cards as long as they could, made some bad moves, or both, but they had to take their chances. I'd like to know how many hands they actually played heads-up, but I would have to think by the way it ended I'd have to believe they knew they had little time to wait for better hands than they called with. Maybe I'm wrong.
There seems to be a lot of confusion from the posts I have read so far. If not confusion, then a lot of differences of opinion.
The way I see it is that ESPN needs to get their act together and try and show things as they actually played out a bit more. By that I mean they should alter their format to tell the story better.
Yeah I know showing uneventful pots isnt what they want to do and isnt what the viewers want to see but they certainly could help the viewer out a bit more in those areas.
Something like a one minute rundown of whats been going on in between the pots they really want to show to give us all a better indication of whats been happening would help.
A brief summery of some sort with 4 or 5 ten second segments just to give us a better picture of whats happening maybe. I dont think it would hurt to do something like that and TBH, surely it would be much better to do that instead of boring us with "The Nuts" segments etc.
The way I see it is that ESPN needs to get their act together and try and show things as they actually played out a bit more. By that I mean they should alter their format to tell the story better.
Yeah I know showing uneventful pots isnt what they want to do and isnt what the viewers want to see but they certainly could help the viewer out a bit more in those areas.
Something like a one minute rundown of whats been going on in between the pots they really want to show to give us all a better indication of whats been happening would help.
A brief summery of some sort with 4 or 5 ten second segments just to give us a better picture of whats happening maybe. I dont think it would hurt to do something like that and TBH, surely it would be much better to do that instead of boring us with "The Nuts" segments etc.
ESPN does a horrible job editing wsop as far as "great poker" is concerned they only show what they want you to see whatever is gonna make someone say "what an idiot" or "did u see that call" , "what about that laydown" some of the best plays or best "moves" are never televised because they didnt involve the words "im all in" or "i call" the best thing they did was in the past when they offered it on live pay per view the pure poker fans of the game like myself loved it but this watered down "good for t.v." crap is only good for the network and its also why the poker playing online is sooooo crazy they see what they see on t.v and think "well i seen chino rheem do it" so thats how they play
I havn't had the chance to watch it yet, but I was looking forward to a spoiler haha 😀 Not quite sure what the spoiler is yet tho, pros bluffing? thats a industry standard isn't it? haha I was listening to it last weekend when it started, that was kinda cool. now i have to wait for replays on tv 😀 oh wait, is it on the net somewhere?
That's right and some of the audience doesn't even realize that this is edited. They think every hand something exciting happens. They don't understand that the levels were 2 hours long and every time espn showed the blind level it had gone up yet again. Maybe 2 hands were shown from each level in addition to the knockout hands. LOL when they didn't even show how Kim got knocked out. Just come back from commercial break and show him walking away from the table. What a joke. Edit out Chad's inane comments and show some real poker action and by action I mean the psychological warfare that goes on in the "Boring" hands.
bigpick76 said:
I actually found the antics pretty enjoyable, if David philips was the dude that would push with any Ace I found him hilarious, he obviously had an infatuation with any ace preflop so it was pretty funny to me what he did. Its entertainment, everyones not a pro, I don't understand how you can be so mad, there are always gonna be plenty of people that get lucky to make it to the final table of the main event.
Schwartz's (sp?) raise, I don't think he had to raise all in, I think he couldve made a sizeable raise leaving him with chips left. For the most part I don't think it was the raise that got him, I think he looked pretty tired/beat, he looked exhausted and was somewhat antsy that he hadn't got any action in a while. You know, when you get that feeling like "I'm tired of losing/not getting cards" and you decide mentally I'm going to win the next hand that I play. I think thats what was going on in his head, you can't take nothing away from him for making that play but I think he was more exhausted/tired of being card dead, he looked uninterested compared to the earlier stages of the final table...Remember its hours of footage we never see, and poker can get pretty redudant and you can lose focus easily when you become card dead like he was.
Schwartz's (sp?) raise, I don't think he had to raise all in, I think he couldve made a sizeable raise leaving him with chips left. For the most part I don't think it was the raise that got him, I think he looked pretty tired/beat, he looked exhausted and was somewhat antsy that he hadn't got any action in a while. You know, when you get that feeling like "I'm tired of losing/not getting cards" and you decide mentally I'm going to win the next hand that I play. I think thats what was going on in his head, you can't take nothing away from him for making that play but I think he was more exhausted/tired of being card dead, he looked uninterested compared to the earlier stages of the final table...Remember its hours of footage we never see, and poker can get pretty redudant and you can lose focus easily when you become card dead like he was.
I think the discussion has been pretty good even with that fact in mind. Probably because people seem to tend to agree with OP based by what they saw on T.V.
You dodge thousands of players to make the final table in the sport's most coveted event to have someone in forum land call you an idiot. What a dream. 🙂 lol It's not as if they even got there by implementing something like Jamie Gold border-line cheating antics, Varkonyi dumb-luck, or Jerry Yang prayers. They all seemed to have decent personalities and be very decent players, even the amatuers.
Watching poker on t.v. is barely watchable for me. I play online poker and I can't imagine what others think if they don't, or what it would be like if they spent time showing hands with no action or recapping people sitting around...etc. Would it be worse than showing bad attitudes, antics, and personalities?
Ratings are everything... I thought I might throw some stats in about this year's WSOP on ESPN.
"Nielsen ratings of all 30 WSOP episodes were up 6 percent, with a 10-percent increase on main event episodes."
"...Nearly 2.4 million people tuned in for the final table. The Nielsen rating of 1.9 is a 46-percent increase from last year's final table."
Delayed final table will become norm for WSOP - Dead Money - The Grand Rapids Press - MLive.com
You dodge thousands of players to make the final table in the sport's most coveted event to have someone in forum land call you an idiot. What a dream. 🙂 lol It's not as if they even got there by implementing something like Jamie Gold border-line cheating antics, Varkonyi dumb-luck, or Jerry Yang prayers. They all seemed to have decent personalities and be very decent players, even the amatuers.
Watching poker on t.v. is barely watchable for me. I play online poker and I can't imagine what others think if they don't, or what it would be like if they spent time showing hands with no action or recapping people sitting around...etc. Would it be worse than showing bad attitudes, antics, and personalities?
Ratings are everything... I thought I might throw some stats in about this year's WSOP on ESPN.
"Nielsen ratings of all 30 WSOP episodes were up 6 percent, with a 10-percent increase on main event episodes."
"...Nearly 2.4 million people tuned in for the final table. The Nielsen rating of 1.9 is a 46-percent increase from last year's final table."
Delayed final table will become norm for WSOP - Dead Money - The Grand Rapids Press - MLive.com
So I just watched the FT on youtube and lol at these responses. I skipped through the last two but a few things:
1. Already been said, I think HU was like 7 hours? They showed 2 hands.
2. This is good, especially for us internet players if we get the UIGEA lifted. People watch TV, see "lol obviously all poker is is shoving preflop and winning flips" and then we profit. They're the ones who sit at a cash table and wonder why they're 5-bet all-in with A3 always runs into KK or AA (or once in a while AK).
3. How about that sick laydown with the 2nd nut flush? Sure there were some 2-card straight flushes and the board paired (but flop wasn't bet, have to believe set/2 pair bets that flop, but maybe not) and I definitely agree that's not a raise, but I don't think I would have been able to fold there. Good fold?
1. Already been said, I think HU was like 7 hours? They showed 2 hands.
2. This is good, especially for us internet players if we get the UIGEA lifted. People watch TV, see "lol obviously all poker is is shoving preflop and winning flips" and then we profit. They're the ones who sit at a cash table and wonder why they're 5-bet all-in with A3 always runs into KK or AA (or once in a while AK).
3. How about that sick laydown with the 2nd nut flush? Sure there were some 2-card straight flushes and the board paired (but flop wasn't bet, have to believe set/2 pair bets that flop, but maybe not) and I definitely agree that's not a raise, but I don't think I would have been able to fold there. Good fold?
I think by far one of the worst players of the final table, if not the entire tournament, was Scott Montgomery. I understand his aggressive nature, but he made some terrible moves late in the tournament, and was extremely lucky not to have busted sooner than he did. The hand he sucked out on Paul Sneed still pains me to watch, but such is poker.
xholdemking said:
Yeah that was just ugly. Have like no fold equity (yet somehow Snead had to consider calling with TP) yet bluff with A high? Obviously there's pressure but I'd like to hear his justification for that play. Just seemed to make no sense, although there must have been some crazy meta-game for Snead to call with J7 to a preflop 3-bet (I think that's what happened, right?)
I don't think what espn showed did justice to the final table at all. They did make it look crappy. It seems thats all the showed was the bluffs not working. I'm sure there were a lot of hands guys got bluffed on and it worked. Espn should look back on this and have a talk with there editors
We are fortunate to be able to see there cards and critique there play. But they do not get to see the cards, so how are we to know what they are thinking. Bluffing is a big part of the game. If u play live enough, u should know that u never know what someone has until there cards are turned up. Obviously you were not around to watch poker back when there was no hole cards viewed. A little harder to call someone an idiot when u don't know what they are playing.
Insaneasylm said:
The thing is though, they've got 90 minutes to show the whole two days of final table play. As mentioned above, heads up alone took several hours.
It makes sense that in those 90 minutes they'll show the hands where big amounts of chips change hands, and bluffs gone wrong make up a big part of that.
If they were to show the whole thing, BTW, it'd be an even bigger snoozefest than Poker After Dark. I've got a live stream of the 2007 WSOP-E HORSE final table somewhere. It practically defines dull.