# 2010 WSOP World Series of Poker Spoilers only for Episodes already aired on ESPN



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

Wow, that time of year again already! Just noticed on ESPN last night that the tourney is now airing. This thread is only for discussion of episodes that have aired on ESPN even though the entire tournament is already complete. No spoilers other than what's been telecast, please.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

The entire tournament is already complete?

So I guess they didn't put off the Main Event final table until November like last year?


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

I am pretty sure they are now down to the final nine, but the final table will be played in November.

-- Don


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

I would guess that Don's correct, and the final table for the ME will be telecast live, but honestly I don't know since I don't want to stumble upon any spoilers.


----------



## midas (Jun 1, 2000)

hummingbird_206 said:


> I would guess that Don's correct, and the final table for the ME will be telecast live, but honestly I don't know since I don't want to stumble upon any spoilers.


Final table won't be live, but they'll show within a day or two after completion. ESPN would never dedicate the time to show the whole final table. It usually goes at least 12 hours.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

If it's like last year, they play into Sunday, and air it on Tuesday.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

For the Main Event, the final table starts Saturday, November 6, and the final two play on Monday, November 8. Then it airs on ESPN on Tuesday, November 9 (how appropriate).

I wonder how the players felt about the NLHE-only final table format for the Players Championship. I remember that they did it that way the first year, when it was H.O.R.S.E., then from what I heard, the players themselves complained and said that it should be H.O.R.S.E. all the way through. I know that the only reason they changed it back (in addition to the 8-game format instead of HORSE) was so that it would be televised, since ESPN decided they wouldn't televise anything other than NLHE. Obviously they were generally ok with the trade-off but I just wonder how much objection there was about it among the purists.

I definitely like the 8-game format better, at least as a format to decide the "best all-around player" but I think the NLHE final table sort of cheapens that aspect of it. Just MHO.


----------



## TampaThunder (Apr 8, 2003)

jeff125va said:


> I definitely like the 8-game format better, at least as a format to decide the "best all-around player" but I think the NLHE final table sort of cheapens that aspect of it. Just MHO.


I agree. Was surprised to see only NLHE. I can imagine the production issues ESPN would have with the mixed games though. Not to mention the clueless general audience wondering what the hell was going on.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

TampaThunder said:


> I agree. Was surprised to see only NLHE. I can imagine the production issues ESPN would have with the mixed games though. Not to mention the clueless general audience wondering what the hell was going on.


I can almost guarantee that the production issues had nothing to do with it, and the audience (most of whom treat NLHE as if it's the only type of tournament poker that even exists) having everything to do with it. Do most people even know what seven-card stud is any more?

(Then again, I don't think ESPN spent much time even trying to explain how the other games worked - for example, what were the limits in "pot limit Hold'em"?)

-- Don


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

I don't think it had anything to do with production issues. They covered the Players Championship (HORSE) last year, and I remember watching Omaha/8 as well as Stud/8, and they had graphics with Hi, Lo, and scoop percentages calculated for all the players in the pot.

They just get better ratings for NLHE and I guess it just came down to the bottom line.


----------



## mcb08 (Mar 10, 2006)

I think that last time they showed HORSE was in 2008. They are definitely trying to cater to the lowest common denominator now.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

mcb08 said:


> I think that last time they showed HORSE was in 2008. They are definitely trying to cater to the lowest common denominator now.


It's unfortunate but it's hard to blame ESPN if the ratings don't justify it. But it bothers me in regards to the integrity of the tournament. If I were a player who had any input about it, I'd rather they televise the $25K 6-handed event and keep the Players Championship in the 8-game format for its entirety, even if that meant no TV. The $25K event should become one of the more prestigious events if they continue to play it; would be better to see it get the attention it deserves.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

jeff125va said:


> I definitely like the 8-game format better, at least as a format to decide the "best all-around player" but I think the NLHE final table sort of cheapens that aspect of it. Just MHO.


At least NLH is one of the 8 games. Unlike the earlier HORSE where they just pulled NLH out of nowhere.

Limit just doesn't work on TV.

And it's not just a one time airing, they air old poker shows forever.

-smak-


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

smak said:


> At least NLH is one of the 8 games. Unlike the earlier HORSE where they just pulled NLH out of nowhere.
> 
> Limit just doesn't work on TV.
> 
> ...


True, but it's more like deciding the best NLHE player among the 8 best mixed-game players.

While I have plenty of appreciation for Limit poker, I guess there's a bigger element of suspense when a player is making a decision and there's a much wider range of options when you factor in all the possible amounts he could bet or raise.

Yeah I watched a Stud final table from 2004 or 2005 a couple months ago. I don't even think the entire f.t. cashed. I think Men the Master won, he was definitely one of the players. They've definitely come a long way in terms of production aspects. And the Rio definitely makes for a better TV venue than Binion's.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

I definitely appreciate the onscreen graphics change. It is MUCH more readable. I watch a 27" TV from probably-too-close, so I still see a fairly big image, but most poker shows still have the onscreen graphics too small.. and sometimes clubs and spades are even hard to tell apart.

It's strange that they redid them, because I've been thinking that the old graphics (and those that other shows use) are probably crystal clear on an HDTV set.

(Also, I never quite got what the old graphics were trying to _be_. I mean the background image of the cards/name was some weirdly shaped thing.)


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

I like the new graphics, too. I also like the indicators for BB, SB, D, etc. It's easy to figure out who's where, but sometimes I don't pay real close attention and lose track, so the visual reminder is helpful.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Did they give any explanation of what those mean for the audience, because a lot of people probably don't know what HJ, CO, +1 etc.. mean.

I guess it's UTG, +1, +2, +3, HJ, CO, D, SB & BB. Don't remember seeing them all.

-smak-


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

I heard them mention all except +number and I never saw HJ and CO. I didn't pay a lot of attention to the first hour, so could be they did explain them and I just missed it. I didn't hear them explicity say "The UTG on the graphic means Under the Gun" but did hear "_Name_ is Under the Gun". For folks not used to acronyms it could be confusing. But I got it.


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

mbn to have a horseshoe stuck up your arse like "The Grinder"


----------



## max99 (May 23, 2004)

smak said:


> Did they give any explanation of what those mean for the audience, because a lot of people probably don't know what HJ, CO, +1 etc.. mean.
> 
> I guess it's UTG, +1, +2, +3, HJ, CO, D, SB & BB. Don't remember seeing them all.
> 
> -smak-


Yes they did. About 10 minutes into the first episode, they put up a graphic that explained what each meant.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

They explained it again when they got down to heads-up and it changed to "D/SB" and "BB".

Since this final table was only 8 players, they never would have had UTG+3, but yeah I also don't recall too many hands either where any of the UTG+_x_'s were in the hand past the flop.

I don't think anyone wins a tournament like that one without a good deal of luck AND a good deal of skill.


----------



## TampaThunder (Apr 8, 2003)

pjenkins said:


> mbn to have a horseshoe stuck up your arse like "The Grinder"


He must have borrowed Joe Cada's from last year's Main Event.


----------



## playa (Aug 2, 2010)

jeff125va said:


> They explained it again when they got down to heads-up and it changed to "D/SB" and "BB".
> 
> Since this final table was only 8 players, they never would have had UTG+3, but yeah I also don't recall too many hands either where any of the UTG+_x_'s were in the hand past the flop.
> 
> I don't think anyone wins a tournament like that one without a good deal of luck AND a good deal of skill.


In Cada's case last year, it was pure luck anf a clueless hick as his heads up opponent.

I've played against the Grinder. Prick got massivey lucky against me with about 45 players keft in the Ca State Poker Championship. Moron called off all his chips with a K-10 in late position against my all in SB AJ(when he has no reason to, given his position and chip count.) of course the board cane JJ10, with a f'ig10 on the river. That's poker


----------



## playa (Aug 2, 2010)

pjenkins said:


> mbn to have a horseshoe stuck up your arse like "The Grinder"


THIS


----------



## Tpfer (Mar 2, 2001)

playa said:


> I've played against the Grinder. Prick got massivey lucky against me with about 45 players keft in the Ca State Poker Championship. Moron called off all his chips with a K-10 in late position against my all in SB AJ(when he has no reason to, given his position and chip count.) of course the board cane JJ10, with a f'ig10 on the river. That's poker


Didnt know J's full lost to 10's full. Must be a Cali game!


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

Tpfer said:


> Didnt know J's full lost to 10's full. Must be a Cali game!


Yeah, that IS "massively" lucky. Normally I wouldn't call a 2:3 dog "massively" lucky, but when you beat your opponent's bigger full house, it definitely is.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

Oh well it sounded like a good story in his head.


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

playa said:


> In Cada's case last year, it was pure luck anf a clueless hick as his heads up opponent.
> 
> I've played against the Grinder. Prick got massivey lucky against me with about 45 players keft in the Ca State Poker Championship. Moron called off all his chips with a K-10 in late position against my all in SB AJ(when he has no reason to, given his position and chip count.) of course the board cane JJ10, with a f'ig10 on the river. That's poker


assuming you mean the board came J J T T with a river T for the runner/runner 2%er?


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

========================
8/3/2010 Tournament of Champions
========================

I hate it when ESPN broadcasts spoilers for future eps. I guess this tournament was at the end of the WSOP and in the interview with Daniel, he told about his results in the 2010 WSOP. Even though it was in the broadcast, I won't spoil it for anyone else here. Just be warned if you don't want to know how Negreanu did in this year's WSOP, don't watch the interview in the first hour of the telecast.

I seem to remember during last year's WSOP broadcasts that there were spoilers in commercials. Yet another good reason to FF through commercials.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

hummingbird_206 said:


> ========================
> 8/3/2010 Tournament of Champions
> ========================
> 
> ...


It didn't spoil anything, because they aren't televising any of the tournaments he was referring to, which would be everything but the main event. They started the TOC Final Table on July 4, and I seem to recall it continued into the Day 1's of the Main Event. I remember something about having to play it around the players who were playing on Day 1a or 1b or something like that.

Regardless, it took place BEFORE the Main Event which is the only other event that they'll be televising.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Why wasn't the TOC played from 2007 to 2009?


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

I'm not sure, but since it's been a freeroll event, presumably with prize money from sponsorships, I would guess it had something to do with that.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

jeff125va said:


> It didn't spoil anything, because they aren't televising any of the tournaments he was referring to, which would be everything but the main event. They started the TOC Final Table on July 4, and I seem to recall it continued into the Day 1's of the Main Event. I remember something about having to play it around the players who were playing on Day 1a or 1b or something like that.
> 
> Regardless, it took place BEFORE the Main Event which is the only other event that they'll be televising.


Thanks for the info. There was no indication of this during the telecast. Matter of fact I don't even know what is being broadcast this year on ESPN since I'm avoiding spoilers and you just never know where those will pop up.

But I still hate it when they broadcast spoilers (either during the weekly broadcast or during other shows or commercials on ESPN.)


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

hummingbird_206 said:


> Thanks for the info. There was no indication of this during the telecast. Matter of fact I don't even know what is being broadcast this year on ESPN since I'm avoiding spoilers and you just never know where those will pop up.
> 
> But I still hate it when they broadcast spoilers (either during the weekly broadcast or during other shows or commercials on ESPN.)


Yeah it was just the $50K Players Championship that aired last week, the TOC, and then the Main Event starts (on TV) next week. Most likely that interview happened before the Main Event started.

And yeah, they showed commercials last year for Phil Ivey playing in the November Nine, for several weeks before it was revealed in the broadcast that he had made it. The year before, ESPN showed on its own scores/news crawler who had won the Main Event, during the day of the night it was to air. Really defeats the stated purpose of the November Nine format which was to allow viewers to watch the coverage without knowing who won.


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

Coverage of the Main Event started last night. I must say, my friend doesn't come across as very nice/likable in hour 2, she really needs to work on her camera skills 

Thought Matusow played like a complete donkey, so they either edited well to show him in a bad light or he really did play poorly. Folding JJ to the guy he labelled Kamakazi? wtf?

Amazing about his bet with Ted Forrest though. Not sure how Ted can lose the 20lbs in the final 3 weeks to win the bet


Spoiler



but he does!!! amazing...


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

Yep, A really came across as a big B. Is she trying to be Hellmouth Jr? I'm sure she's under a lot of pressure, but she needs to learn to handle it better.

I got to the point where I had to mute when they showed The Mouth. Not that I normally dislike him, just didn't want to have to hear him anymore. Was probably just the editing, but sooooo annoying.


----------



## danielhart (Apr 27, 2004)

pjenkins said:


> mbn to have a horseshoe stuck up your arse like "The Grinder"


He knocked me out of the last 1500 buy in tourney I played in, and I was deep stacked and poised to cash and prolly make FT given where my stack would have been huge if not for the "horseshoe up his ass" u mentioned. I was small blind with AJ suited, UTG min raised (but I read him for not being super strong like AA or KK) and there were like four flat calls including the Grinder in the cutoff spot, so I decided to make a substantial reraise. My only worry was the UTG initial raiser, he folded what I later found out to be AQ, as did everyone else, but the amazing Grinder called off about half of his (also substantial) stack. Flop came J 10 10 - I shoved, he snap called and I almost puked when he flipped over K-10 offsuit. A$$F**k even hit the fourth ten on the turn. Left me with next to no chips and I busted out a few hands later with JJ.......

I hate him.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

playa said:


> In Cada's case last year, it was pure luck anf a clueless hick as his heads up opponent.
> 
> I've played against the Grinder. Prick got massivey lucky against me with about 45 players keft in the Ca State Poker Championship. Moron called off all his chips with a K-10 in late position against my all in SB AJ(when he has no reason to, given his position and chip count.) of course the board cane JJ10, with a f'ig10 on the river. That's poker





danielhart said:


> He knocked me out of the last 1500 buy in tourney I played in, and I was deep stacked and poised to cash and prolly make FT given where my stack would have been huge if not for the "horseshoe up his ass" u mentioned. I was small blind with AJ suited, UTG min raised (but I read him for not being super strong like AA or KK) and there were like four flat calls including the Grinder in the cutoff spot, so I decided to make a substantial reraise. My only worry was the UTG initial raiser, he folded what I later found out to be AQ, as did everyone else, but the amazing Grinder called off about half of his (also substantial) stack. Flop came J 10 10 - I shoved, he snap called and I almost puked when he flipped over K-10 offsuit. A$$F**k even hit the fourth ten on the turn. Left me with next to no chips and I busted out a few hands later with JJ.......
> 
> I hate him.


interesting


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

well at least he fixed his story to make it plausible.


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

JFriday said:


> well at least he fixed his story to make it plausible.


huh?


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

pjenkins said:


> huh?


I'm assuming it's the same story using different id's.


----------



## danielhart (Apr 27, 2004)

cherry ghost said:


> interesting





JFriday said:


> well at least he fixed his story to make it plausible.





pjenkins said:


> huh?





JFriday said:


> I'm assuming it's the same story using different id's.


It's not a story - it's the truth. I recently had a temp username change and then switched back. The playa post was 11:34 pm so I was likely mildly intoxicated. Maybe more than mildly since I don't even recall posting that.  Tonight I was stone sober, and what I posted was accurate. It's one of those "never forget" hands.

I have been playing on and off since the early nineties, and I live in Los Angeles, so playing at tables with known pros in tournies is not something I am unaccustomed to. Hell, I used to play the cheapie ten dollar day tourneys at Hollywood Park back when they were run by Cowboy Kenna James before he married Marsha Waggoner for her looks (not) and bankroll and subsequently got a TV gig and won half a mil at the Legends. I basically quit right b4 the boom, then came back for a bit, then quit again. Today I am an occasional cash game player (300-500 NLHE at the Bike) and even rarer tourney player (too many moron landmines to wade through) - it's not fun for me.

But if you think I am just some guy making sh*t up - here are some albeit incomplete and inaccurate stats from some of the rare tourneys I have played the past several years:

http://www.pokerpages.com/player-profile/daniel-hartman.htm


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

danielhart said:


> http://www.pokerpages.com/player-profile/daniel-hartman.htm


someone else we know 
http://www.pokerpages.com/player-profile/scott-friedman.htm

Name: Scott Friedman AKA "Ballgame"

Ballgame?? LMAO


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

danielhart said:


> It's one of those "never forget" hands.


Clearly.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

pjenkins said:


> someone else we know
> http://www.pokerpages.com/player-profile/scott-friedman.htm
> 
> Name: Scott Friedman AKA "Ballgame"
> ...


LOL!


----------



## JLucPicard (Jul 8, 2004)

I don't recall ever seeing her on TV before, but DANG, Thuy Doan is VERY, VERY cute!


----------



## brettatk (Oct 11, 2002)

Maybe it's just me, but I preferred seeing more of the smaller events rather than seeing 16 weeks or so of the Main Event.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

I like the idea of seeing more of the main event than we've seen in past years. Guess I won't know until it's over if I really liked it better. I wish it had been in addition to covering the other/smaller events rather than instead of.


----------



## brettatk (Oct 11, 2002)

hummingbird_206 said:


> I like the idea of seeing more of the main event than we've seen in past years. Guess I won't know until it's over if I really liked it better. I wish it had been in addition to covering the other/smaller events rather than instead of.


That's true. I agree that something in between would probably be a bit better.


----------



## eMarkM (Apr 28, 2003)

Just catching up on the recent episodes myself.



danielhart said:


> I hate him.


Well, The Grinder has a lot of debt apparently, so I guess he could use the money . You'd think these guys would manage their money better as this guy was the s*** in '06 making Card Player Magazine "Player of the Year". But these guys never own anywhere near 100% of themselves and I'm sure he's parceled out all over the place since he's strapped for cash. Hopefully he won't blow it all on bling this time.

I totally agree about the stupidity of taking a great format like 8-game and then just making it NLHE for TV purposes. Just play it out as 8-game the whole time and televise another straight big buy-in NLHE tournament. The $25k 6-hand would probably be a good choice.

TOC holds no interest to me. Non-bracelet Freeroll just so we can see poker celebs gab it up. Many of which haven't been relevant in tournaments for years. Meh.

I do enjoy early Main Event action when stacks are all deep vs blinds. Annette's attitude was pretty disappointing to watch, given how anticipated her arrival here was. Though the laydown of the small boat was pretty amazing. Matusow was terrible, I really think the TV table gets him into Fancy Play Syndrome and he wants show how much he can outplay "internet donks".


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
8/17/2010 ME Day 1 eps 10007 and 10008
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

hahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hellmouth out on the first day. 

I really like Moon. He's not a Pro. He's not a great player. He doesn't know all the rules. But he just seems like such a nice guy. And he's so calm. And so lucky! I hope he does well again this year.


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

hummingbird_206 said:


> hahahahahahahahahahahaha
> Hellmouth out on the first day.


so great. he's such a gigantic doooooosh it isn't funny.



hummingbird_206 said:


> I really like Moon. He's not a Pro. He's not a great player. He doesn't know all the rules. But he just seems like such a nice guy. And he's so calm. And so lucky! I hope he does well again this year.


he's the poster child for the term "donk". and, just like the donks online, he gets his money in bad often and hits in a big way


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

I really dislike Hellmuth. I could forgive his over-the-top entrances (kind of) if only he didn't badmouth the other players when he loses to them...


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

pjenkins said:


> he's the poster child for the term "donk". and, just like the donks online, he gets his money in bad often and hits in a big way


I know, you're right. But I just can't help liking him.



Amnesia said:


> I really dislike Hellmuth. I could forgive his over-the-top entrances (kind of) if only he didn't badmouth the other players when he loses to them...


Yep, it's the insults that make me never want to watch him. The flamboyance I can take, even find a bit entertaining. But it's what he says about everyone else that I can't stand.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

I have mixed feelings about Hellmuth. He's a great player, but he should let his accomplishments speak for themselves. The main event entrances are ridiculous. As for the insults, I'd have more respect for him if he kept his mouth shut, but I find myself lots of times going on similar tirades, but never out loud (well, unless I'm home playing online). But for the hand they showed when he walked over to his parents calling the guy the worst player at the table, I don't really remember the guy doing anything to deserve the insults. Not that he should insult people even when they deserve it, just saying, it's even worse when they really don't.

I can't believe Darvin Moon checked the nuts. I didn't realize it was an actual rule either, but that's irrelevant, it's just plain stupid. Even if you're as sure as sure can be that the guy won't call, there was no guarantee until he checked behind. I thought the other players were joking, as though he deserved a penalty just for being stupid. I don't mean to berate the guy personally, just saying that was an absolutely horrible play. Not knowing there would be a penalty doesn't even matter.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

jeff125va said:


> (...) when he walked over to his parents calling the guy the worst player at the table, I don't really remember the guy doing anything to deserve the insults.


He beat Hellmuth in the hand. That's all that someone has to do.


jeff125va said:


> I didn't realize it was an actual rule either, but that's irrelevant, it's just plain stupid (...) that was an absolutely horrible play.


Moon explained his logic---he wanted to see the other player's hand and therefore gain more information about how his opponent plays. You don't need to agree with his reasoning---just realize that he had a purpose behind his actions. You also see players call a bet even when they expect to be beaten for much the same reason.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

Amnesia said:


> He beat Hellmuth in the hand. That's all that someone has to do.
> Moon explained his logic---he wanted to see the other player's hand and therefore gain more information about how his opponent plays. You don't need to agree with his reasoning---just realize that he had a purpose behind his actions. You also see players call a bet even when they expect to be beaten for much the same reason.


I don't doubt that, but I thought about rewinding it and watching the hand again to see if the guy played it questionably at any point, which I didn't think he had. I was multi-tasking at the time and didn't get a chance to look at it again. Of course he may have been referring to other hands the guy had played questionably that we didn't see. Still not good to berate the guy like that, just wondering if his statements were well-founded.

I guess that's a good enough reason, I may have missed him saying that. Then again, had Moon been the last to bet? The other guy might not have shown if Moon had shown his first. But in general I guess you're "paying" for that information, even though it's more of an opportunity cost than an actual cost.


----------



## TampaThunder (Apr 8, 2003)

jeff125va said:


> I don't doubt that, but I thought about rewinding it and watching the hand again to see if the guy played it questionably at any point, which I didn't think he had. I was multi-tasking at the time and didn't get a chance to look at it again. Of course he may have been referring to other hands the guy had played questionably that we didn't see. Still not good to berate the guy like that, just wondering if his statements were well-founded.
> 
> I guess that's a good enough reason, I may have missed him saying that. Then again, had Moon been the last to bet? The other guy might not have shown if Moon had shown his first. But in general I guess you're "paying" for that information, even though it's more of an opportunity cost than an actual cost.


Hellmuth kept checking while he was ahead and giving the other guy free cards. The guy hits on the river and Hellmuth says the other guy's a horrible player?? LOL

I love watching Phil cuz more often than not he's gonna lose and provide some high quality entertainment from Cry Baby Productions.

As far as Darvin - I didn't know the rule either but I'm never checking the nuts just to see some cards. I'd be min betting at the least just because of the chance to get more chips. More chips have a lot more value than more information.


----------



## shelly40 (Nov 20, 2000)

It is only when you are the last player to act, and everyone checked ahead of you, that you have to raise....

If he were first to act with players behind him, then no raise is required on his part.....


Shelly


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

I haven't seen this episode yet, but if I understand correctly, someone had the nuts on the river and as last to act checked, and that was against the rules and resulted in a penalty?

Why is that against the rules? Is it an anti-collusion thing?

What was the penalty, being forced to sit out and get blinded off for X minutes?


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

busyba said:


> I haven't seen this episode yet, but if I understand correctly, someone had the nuts on the river and as last to act checked, and that was against the rules and resulted in a penalty?
> 
> Why is that against the rules? Is it an anti-collusion thing?
> 
> What was the penalty, being forced to sit out and get blinded off for X minutes?


Yes anti-collusion, he had to sit out 1 hand as his penalty.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

I guess just a one hand penalty isn't so bad. Although the rule is kinda dumb, since people who actually are colluding probably wouldn't do that anyway. One guy would just signal the other guy to fold to his bet.

I wonder if they gave Phil Ivey a penalty last year for folding the winning hand after the river was checked down.


----------



## JLucPicard (Jul 8, 2004)

I don't recall the entire hand - did there happen to be a pair on the board?

I know it sounds far-fetched that someone wouldn't actually bet in this situation, but if the board were paired, and the last-to-act is sitting with the nut flush, but suspects that his opponent, who checked ahead of him, may have a full house and plans to check raise - if the first-to-act checks, and the guy with the nut flush checks behind, and the first guy doesn't actually have the full house, is that still subject to a penalty?

(And after typing all of that I'm guessing the board probably wasn't paired so the nut flush would have obviously been the absolute nuts. )


----------



## shelly40 (Nov 20, 2000)

No penalty then...... the rule is referencing the absolute best hand that is possible with any given board...... and he had it........

I would think there might be some people that really don't recognize the fact that they have the best hand possible though.......

My wife sometimes plays in our games, and she probably wouldn't know......


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

shelly40 said:


> My wife sometimes plays in our games, and she probably wouldn't know......


1/2 the people i see play live don't know it most times either


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

shelly40 said:


> No penalty then...... the rule is referencing the absolute best hand that is possible with any given board...... and he had it........
> 
> I would think there might be some people that really don't recognize the fact that they have the best hand possible though.......
> 
> My wife sometimes plays in our games, and she probably wouldn't know......


He definitely did in this case, but chose to see his opponent's cards rather than attempting to win some chips. But even if he claimed that he hadn't, I doubt it would have mattered because anyone could simply claim ignorance like that, and the rule would be pointless.


pjenkins said:


> 1/2 the people i see play live don't know it most times either


On Saturday night, after a good bit of discussion of Darvin Moon throughout the evening, one of my buddies checked the 2nd nuts (a wheel), last to act on the river. Not because he was afraid of the 1st nuts (broadway), but because he didn't even realize he had the wheel. Needless to say we gave him quite a bit of good-natured teasing. I should point out that it was an Omaha hand, and he also had two-pair which is what he was thinking about. He's not quite bad enough to do that in hold 'em.


----------



## Supfreak26 (Dec 12, 2003)

I don't get Hellmuth. I don't watch a ton of poker but what I have seen of Phil, I'm not impressed at all. He's regularly schooled by pros and you can tell that most pros think he's a joke. He even lets amateurs push him around. He always blames the other player no matter how bad he plays the hand. How can you improve if you don't know that you suck? 

I understand that he has a bunch of bracelets (the most?) but I just can't see how he won any of them. 

Am I missing something here?


----------



## mcb08 (Mar 10, 2006)

Supfreak26 said:


> I don't get Hellmuth. I don't watch a ton of poker but what I have seen of Phil, I'm not impressed at all. He's regularly schooled by pros and you can tell that most pros think he's a joke. He even lets amateurs push him around. He always blames the other player no matter how bad he plays the hand. How can you improve if you don't know that you suck?
> 
> I understand that he has a bunch of bracelets (the most?) but I just can't see how he won any of them.
> 
> Am I missing something here?


He plays *every* NLHE event, and has for the last 20 years. That kind of volume is going to result in some wins for a "skilled player" (he does have a knack for reading people). This is why he's still had some success lately (final tables, top 25's). The game has passed him by though, and he's reluctant to change his style (checks too much, calls too much, doesn't raise enough). He can't deal with the aggressive style of the new breed of player.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

mcb08 said:


> He plays *every* NLHE event, and has for the last 20 years. That kind of volume is going to result in some wins for a "skilled player" (he does have a knack for reading people). This is why he's still had some success lately (final tables, top 25's). The game has passed him by though, and he's reluctant to change his style (checks too much, calls too much, doesn't raise enough). He can't deal with the aggressive style of the new breed of player.


I'm convinced that most of the reason why he's such a promotion whore these days is that he's recognized that he now needs an alternative steady revenue stream since he can't count on the poker itself anymore.

It's almost like playing poker is just a loss leader for his other ventures now.

I can't recall the last time I saw him on any television poker event where he did well. Mostly I just see him get destroyed. Then again, on TV he's rarely playing any fish.


----------



## mcb08 (Mar 10, 2006)

busyba said:


> I'm convinced that most of the reason why he's such a promotion whore these days is that he's recognized that he now needs an alternative steady revenue stream since he can't count on the poker itself anymore.
> 
> It's almost like playing poker is just a loss leader for his other ventures now.
> 
> I can't recall the last time I saw him on any television poker event where he did well. Mostly I just see him get destroyed. Then again, on TV he's rarely playing any fish.


I'd agree with that assessment. I'm sure he has a good stake in Ultimate Butt. Also, I'm sure there are lots of businessmen in private games that love to say that they've played with him, and donate their $$ to him. I think I've seen him win once or twice (Poker After Dark Cash Game...maybe another winning session on a European poker show.) in recent memory. In his defence, he did have a really bad beat on the PokerStars Big Game:


Spoiler



He got all his money in good (~ $200K total) as a 4:1 favourite, and they ran it four times. He lost 3 of the 4.


----------



## eMarkM (Apr 28, 2003)

busyba said:


> I'm convinced that most of the reason why he's such a promotion whore these days is that he's recognized that he now needs an alternative steady revenue stream since he can't count on the poker itself anymore.
> 
> It's almost like playing poker is just a loss leader for his other ventures now.
> 
> I can't recall the last time I saw him on any television poker event where he did well. Mostly I just see him get destroyed. Then again, on TV he's rarely playing any fish.


Far be it from me to defend Hellmuth's behavior, it's always atrocious. But his record is still pretty good. He's still a great NLHE tournament player that is handling the "new school" players just fine, despite his tirades. According to Sharkscope.com, Hellmuth has made $597k over the 104 tournaments they have recorded there. This is total profit, not prizes, so all buy-ins/rake lost where he went busto early are included. His total ROI is 63%. Ok, maybe not the greatest of sample sizes, but he appears to be doing Ok with the poker.


----------



## mcb08 (Mar 10, 2006)

eMarkM said:


> Far be it from me to defend Hellmuth's behavior, it's always atrocious. But his record is still pretty good. He's still a great NLHE tournament player that is handling the "new school" players just fine, despite his tirades. According to Sharkscope.com, Hellmuth has made $597k over the 104 tournaments they have recorded there. This is total profit, not prizes, so all buy-ins/rake lost where he went busto early are included. His total ROI is 63%. Ok, maybe not the greatest of sample sizes, but he appears to be doing Ok with the poker.


Hey, everybody....Phil Hellmuth is on TCF!!!


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

mcb08 said:


> Hey, everybody....Phil Hellmuth is on TCF!!!


Nah, if it was really Phil he'd be calling us all a bunch of idiots.


----------



## bryhamm (Jun 30, 2004)

shelly40 said:


> It is only when you are the last player to act, *and everyone checked ahead of you, that you have to raise....*
> 
> If he were first to act with players behind him, then no raise is required on his part.....
> 
> Shelly


If everyone checked to you on the river, you would have to BET not raise.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

mcb08 said:


> He can't deal with the aggressive style of the new breed of player.


That's funny.. wasn't he one of the first of the "new generation" (after Brunson I guess) of aggressive players?

Though I have noticed lately that the standard raise seems to have gone from 3x big blind to 2.5x big blind...??


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

hummingbird_206 said:


> Nah, if it was really Phil he'd be calling us all a bunch of idiots.


Only the people from Northern Europe.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with any of the points about Hellmuth, but it could also have a lot to do with editing. He's much more entertaining when he's losing.


----------



## eMarkM (Apr 28, 2003)

mattack said:


> That's funny.. wasn't he one of the first of the "new generation" (after Brunson I guess) of aggressive players?


I would say "old school" is anyone who was playing professionally pre-Moneymaker, pre-internet boom. Since Hellmuth won the ME in '89, that makes him "old school" though he's obviously a lot younger than Brunson. Old school is where you would only 4-bet preflop with a hand like AA/KK.

New school are players who came up through internet and play a much looser style of play where a 4-bet might mean...anything. Scandinavian players like Hanson & Antonius have led the way in this school.

Old vs New is just a generalization with a lot of exceptions, obviously. Any great player has adapted to the New School players and continue to do well and can play and play against both styles effectively. But Hellmuth is mostly Old School and loathes to get it all-in early unless he has a lock hand. New School players are much more likely to push their stacks around and put you all-in on a pure bluff.


----------



## Supfreak26 (Dec 12, 2003)

Did only one hour broadcast last night?


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

Supfreak26 said:


> Did only one hour broadcast last night?


it only recorded an hour for me, but it apparently ran 2 hours, was trying to find a torrent today...


----------



## Supfreak26 (Dec 12, 2003)

pjenkins said:


> it only recorded an hour for me, but it apparently ran 2 hours, was trying to find a torrent today...


Please let me know if you find one.


----------



## eMarkM (Apr 28, 2003)

I got both episodes.

Antonius is the man and shows just how confounding the "hyper-LAG" style is. You just can't put him on a hand. That board with the two fives hit him? Does he have quad tens or 95s? Note how he mostly makes the crazy calls with junk from the button or when he'll have position. Just float the flop and call the continuation bet and take it from them on the turn. Candy from babies, esp with his stack. They all give him credit for monster hands when he makes this move and he has the chips to pull bluffs all the way to the river. 

I hate playing against guys like him and sometimes the best thing to do is just play "rope-a-dope" and just check/call middling hands. Sounds passive, but you can snap off these multi-street bluffs against these uber-aggros. Or get stacked .

Is it just me, or is Daniel's act wearing a bit thin? How many times do we have to hear Kid Poker tell everyone he's a Vegan? Seems like every poker show ever. We get it, you don't dig on swine.

I love how Kopp calls Moon a noob and then was surprised when an amateur couldn't think on a higher level and lay down a Q-high flush last year when the board paired. Revisionist history methinks and he thought his baby flush was actually good there and he just donked off.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

I watch virtually every poker show around, and I don't remember Daniel talking about his veganism other than possibly brief mentions.. He has mentioned it more "forcefully" on his twitter feed though.


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

DN has been very doooooshy lately, for sure


----------



## LifeIsABeach (Feb 28, 2001)

mattack said:


> I watch virtually every poker show around, and I don't remember Daniel talking about his veganism other than possibly brief mentions.. He has mentioned it more "forcefully" on his twitter feed though.


He talks about it several times a season on High Stakes Poker. Not that I care. He is doesn't do it in a way to scold meat eaters. Of course with the Dwan/Ivy $1 million no meat for a year bet it will tend to come up.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

LifeIsABeach said:


> He is doesn't do it in a way to scold meat eaters.


I agree. He's very non-militant about it...


----------



## Supfreak26 (Dec 12, 2003)

I must not be paying attention. I didn't know Daniel was a vegan. And he's my favorite player. 

I figured out why i missed the second show. Conflict with Rescue Me and America's Got Talent. Fixed it for this week. 

I don't think Daniel is being dooshy at all. He seems confident which is great. He's usually getting his butt kicked in this event so it's good to see his mojo working.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

Supfreak26 said:


> I figured out why i missed the second show. Conflict with Rescue Me and America's Got Talent. Fixed it for this week.


I think it re-airs later in the week not during prime-time. I'm not sure exactly when, but I know my SP always picked it up last year when I had a conflict, usually with the 2nd episode.

I also had a second SP set up on ESPN2 last year, which I think came on at like 1 or 2 am eastern time (i.e. wee hours of Wednesday) but I always had to pad it by an hour because there was usually some game on that ran late and pushed back the WSOP. I really have no idea what the schedule is right now because I don't have any conflicts to deal with until the fall season starts.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

jeff125va said:


> I think it re-airs later in the week not during prime-time. I'm not sure exactly when, but I know my SP always picked it up last year when I had a conflict, usually with the 2nd episode.
> 
> I also had a second SP set up on ESPN2 last year, which I think came on at like 1 or 2 am eastern time (i.e. wee hours of Wednesday) but I always had to pad it by an hour because there was usually some game on that ran late and pushed back the WSOP. I really have no idea what the schedule is right now because I don't have any conflicts to deal with until the fall season starts.


Yeah, they re-air the episodes a LOT, but basically don't trust the re-airings at all.


----------



## Eddief66 (Oct 24, 2009)

ESPN2's showing a single episode tonight that supposedly first aired last Tuesday. Whether it's the first or second episode is anybody's guess.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

The eps that first aired on 8/24 were numbered 10009 and 10010.


----------



## Eddief66 (Oct 24, 2009)

hummingbird_206 said:


> The eps that first aired on 8/24 were numbered 10009 and 10010.


That helps. My guide says that it's #10010. :up:

The bad news is that it's following live tennis and since it's a repeat they might not delay it if they decide to extend the tennis coverage.


----------



## bryhamm (Jun 30, 2004)

Wow, can't believe the floor/dealer screwed up like that last night. I would have been pissed too if I was at that table and that was the ruling that was made.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Yeah, he totally said call in time.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

hummingbird_206 said:


> The eps that first aired on 8/24 were numbered 10009 and 10010.


Yeah, for WSOP, I actually keep track of the episode #s I've seen.

I sure wish the WPT reruns(*) on GSN ALWAYS had the right episode #s. I know I've missed virtually all of season 8 or whichever season they did, and usually the Sat night reruns don't have episode #s.

(*) I know I rant about reruns, but I don't suspect they're going to put even more commercials into a show they did that recently.. plus, even if they do, a poker show is already highly edited, so it's less-bad than edited reruns of a regular scripted show.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

Two of my favorites out...Ivey and Moon.

Maybe it's just me, but doesn't seem like we're seeing very many poker hands. There are so many side stories I feel like I'm watching NBC's coverage of the Olympics. 

Oh, and yeah, the floor guy really screwed up. He called, the dealer said "he called" but the floor guy overruled her and called the hand dead.


----------



## shelly40 (Nov 20, 2000)

Definite bad ruling............

Now we need instant replay in poker....................


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

barking? seriously? and people actually went along with that tard for any length of time before finally getting a TD to tell him to STFU or he'd be assessed a penalty? between him and that cigar crunching cuz moron, it's a wonder anyone wants to play in the ME


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

mattack said:


> Yeah, for WSOP, I actually keep track of the episode #s I've seen.
> 
> I sure wish the WPT reruns(*) on GSN ALWAYS had the right episode #s. I know I've missed virtually all of season 8 or whichever season they did, and usually the Sat night reruns don't have episode #s.
> 
> (*) I know I rant about reruns, but I don't suspect they're going to put even more commercials into a show they did that recently.. plus, even if they do, a poker show is already highly edited, so it's less-bad than edited reruns of a regular scripted show.


I missed the first couple episodes of the most recent season of HSP. They had a whole bunch of repeats on this past weekend, and most didn't have OAD's in the description, so I just recorded them all. I watched the beginning of the first several, and I could tell right away that they weren't the ones I missed, at least the first one, since they all had "previously on HSP" at the beginnning. At least it was easy to tell whether they were from this season because of Kara Scott. The last bunch did have OAD's but they were definitely from later in the season.

But my point is that not only do they not have complete guide data, but they run what looks like it might be a marathon of the last season, but they skip the first couple episodes, and intersperse a bunch of random repeats from previous seasons.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

pjenkins said:


> barking? seriously? and people actually went along with that tard for any length of time before finally getting a TD to tell him to STFU or he'd be assessed a penalty? between him and that cigar crunching cuz moron, it's a wonder anyone wants to play in the ME


Wow, no kidding. Only thing more annoying than the guy barking was ESPN's insistence on showing it over and over. I was thrilled to see him get a warning.

Looks like Johnny Chan is racking up the chips.

I don't like watching Scotty Nguyen after his drunken tirade (can't remember what tourney that was at.) Thought it was funny when either Norm or Lon made the comment about about him being a reformed sinner.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

hummingbird_206 said:


> Wow, no kidding. Only thing more annoying than the guy barking was ESPN's insistence on showing it over and over. I was thrilled to see him get a warning.
> 
> Looks like Johnny Chan is racking up the chips.
> 
> I don't like watching Scotty Nguyen after his drunken tirade (can't remember what tourney that was at.) Thought it was funny when either Norm or Lon made the comment about about him being a reformed sinner.


I haven't seen last night's yet, but I'm looking forward to it just for that. Yeah I was annoyed that they felt that that was worthy of TV attention. We were really expecting to see the buddy of mine who won the Main Event satellite league I played in, mainly because he was sitting next to Orel Hershiser, who works for ESPN and is usually featured anyway. It would have been kinda cool, and it annoys me to think that whoever was editing the footage thought that some idiot barking made for better TV than, well, just about anything really, but who knows if it came down to a choice between that and Hershiser getting busted, which the cameras were definitely there for.

That was the 2008 $50K HORSE event that Scotty won.


----------



## LifeIsABeach (Feb 28, 2001)

shelly40 said:


> Definite bad ruling............
> 
> Now we need instant replay in poker....................


Casinos have so many cameras I thought for sure they would go to the tape. Is it against the rules of the WSOP to do that?

Glad Friedman finally busted out. Haven't liked him since the Alessandro incident.

Way to go Johnny Chan!


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

LifeIsABeach said:


> Casinos have so many cameras I thought for sure they would go to the tape. Is it against the rules of the WSOP to do that?


I don't know what the rules would be for that situation, but in any case I'm pretty sure that the casino cameras (as opposed to the ESPN cameras) do not record sound, so they wouldn't have been of any use in this case anyway.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

Anyone else get 30 for 30 on the 2nd episode last night?


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

JFriday said:


> Anyone else get 30 for 30 on the 2nd episode last night?


I have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

Ditto. 30 for 30?

edit: Ah, I see now, that's a show on ESPN2. The original airings were on ESPN on Tuesday at the scheduled times, but repeats were on ESPN2 on Wed. Since ESPN2 has been televising the US Open tennis live, I'd guess that the schedule on ESPN2 got hosed.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

busyba said:


> I don't know what the rules would be for that situation, but in any case I'm pretty sure that the casino cameras (as opposed to the ESPN cameras) do not record sound, so they wouldn't have been of any use in this case anyway.


There's no way they'd use some sort of instant replay considering how rarely a countdown like that even comes up. Even if it were a situation that didn't require sound, it takes a REALLY long time to go review security camera footage. It would have to be an extremely unusual situation in a tournament for them to use the casino cameras. That table would be sitting there waiting while the rest of the tournament continued play. The floor man might have been wrong, but it was a bang-bang play like a groundout throw to first base. They're not perfect, but they're good enough the vast majority of the time. As long as there was someone there to make a call and was willing to stand by it, there'd never be any sort of review. Maybe if there were no floor person around and the dealer wasn't sure what happened and there was dispute among the players, then maybe.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

hummingbird_206 said:


> Wow, no kidding. Only thing more annoying than the guy barking was ESPN's insistence on showing it over and over. I was thrilled to see him get a warning.
> 
> 
> > Ugh, I hadn't yet gotten to the part where they actually did a feature interview on this guy. Interesting to hear that he became a male stripper. Wonder what kind of stripper he was before that.


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

Norman Chad with the best line of the WSOP so far

"That's one happy donkey!"


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

pjenkins said:


> Norman Chad with the best line of the WSOP so far


You don't think the best line is "I believe they're the Rambling Wreck"?


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

jeff125va said:


> There's no way they'd use some sort of instant replay considering how rarely a countdown like that even comes up. Even if it were a situation that didn't require sound, it takes a REALLY long time to go review security camera footage.


Sorry this is vague, but on the 2+2 pokercast, one of the co-hosts mentioned that he was in a tournament (and I *THINK* it might have been WSOP), and he was even only _vaguely_ feeling that he didn't have the right # of chips. IIRC, they went back and reviewed the tape.

Yes, this is WAY vague, but it's from an episode in the past 2-3 months.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
9/21/2010 Eps 10017 and 10018
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

At about the 42 minute mark on the first hour, they showed a hand between Nguyen and Casal. Nguyen went all in on the river. Casal called. Nguyen showed a full house and Casal mucked his hand. But then Lon said that the dealer showed Casal's rivered flush. Why would the dealer show Casal's hand after he conceded defeat to Nguyen's full house and mucked his cards?

It was hard for me to get into these 2 eps. They seemed to jump from table to table to table showing only the end of 1 hand then off to the end another. I like at least seeing how the whole hand develops, not just who wins.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

jeff125va said:


> For the Main Event, the final table starts Saturday, November 6, and the final two play on Monday, November 8. Then it airs on ESPN on Tuesday, November 9 (how appropriate).


The November 9 is telecast on November 9th Yikes, I still haven't watched last week's eps and two more new ones are on tonight! Just haven't had time with all the fall TV season starting. Guess I'd better start getting caught up!


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

Amnesia said:


> You don't think the best line is "I believe they're the Rambling Wreck"?


it's gaining on me, especially when combined with the random school in Russia  i wonder if there are any GaTech grads left where he can actually be correct in using the term


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Amnesia said:


> You don't think the best line is "I believe they're the Rambling Wreck"?


He's saying it too often. I had thought in the past he made up a new fake nickname for each school.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

I'm finally all caught up. The field is down to 27 now. 

Johnny Chan's luck changed fast (at least it seemed fast the way they edited the show.) Sorry to see him gone.

Couldn't believe Candio got penalized a full round for his 'excessive' celebration. Seemed like an excessive penalty to me unless there was some previous warning that I missed? 

Amazed that the grinder is still there and building a pretty good chip stack. 

No one left that I'm rooting for (nor against.) At least they are finally showing more poker hands.


----------



## Paperboy2003 (Mar 30, 2004)

hummingbird_206 said:


> I'm finally all caught up. The field is down to 27 now.
> 
> Johnny Chan's luck changed fast (at least it seemed fast the way they edited the show.) Sorry to see him gone.
> 
> ...


I just got current and I can't believe the runner runner Candio caught to crack the aces. WoW! That's some good livin right there.... I thought he was going to hurt himself during the celebration (for which he didn't seemed to be penalized -- this time).


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

The Affleck hand was brutality - $1million++ bad beat. For those wondering, Duhamel said he was calling an Affleck shove pre-flop so the hand plays out exactly the same, he put Affleck on AK.

Senti's laydown with QQ against Soi was redonkulously bad, he completely underrep'd his hand then didn't have the follow through. If he plays that better/differently, we likely see Stevens make the Nov 9.

Should be a fun live rail Saturday, looking forward to it on ESPN360.com


----------



## Maui (Apr 22, 2000)

pjenkins said:


> The Affleck hand was brutality - $1million++ bad beat. For those wondering, Duhamel said he was calling an Affleck shove pre-flop so the hand plays out exactly the same, he put Affleck on AK.
> 
> Senti's laydown with QQ against Soi was redonkulously bad, he completely underrep'd his hand then didn't have the follow through. If he plays that better/differently, we likely see Stevens make the Nov 9.
> 
> Should be a fun live rail Saturday, looking forward to it on ESPN360.com


I was rooting for Affleck so I am very disappointed to see him go out that way. That being said. I was kind of shocked at the all-in and even more shocked at the call. I think they both overplayed their hands. I can't remember exactly at what point the all-in happened but if i remember correctly there were both straight and flush draws on the board.


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

Maui said:


> I was rooting for Affleck so I am very disappointed to see him go out that way. That being said. I was kind of shocked at the all-in and even more shocked at the call. I think they both overplayed their hands. I can't remember exactly at what point the all-in happened but if i remember correctly there were both straight and flush draws on the board.


Which the pre-flop action almost completely ruled out.

All in was on the turn. Duhamel opened, Affleck 3-bet, Duhamel 4-bet and Affleck called in position.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

pjenkins said:


> Should be a fun live rail Saturday, looking forward to it on ESPN360.com


Thanks for the heads up on ESPN360.com. I always forget to check for things on there. I watched on one of the poker sites last year.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

We'll probably post a group chat room here for anybody who's watching it on ESPN3 to discuss. Is it hole cards on the delayed broadcast? Should be if it's delayed.

-smak-


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

smak said:


> We'll probably post a group chat room here for anybody who's watching it on ESPN3 to discuss. Is it hole cards on the delayed broadcast? Should be if it's delayed.
> 
> -smak-


there is a 5 minute delay on the ESPN3 feed/commentary with NO hole cards. ESPN is editing the footage quickly and will be ready Tuesday for the final 9 (complete w/hole cards).


----------



## LifeIsABeach (Feb 28, 2001)

I can't believe they show the chip count 20 times a show, but never showed it at the end. If anyone who hasn't looked it up is interested:

JONATHAN DUHAMEL 65,975,000
JOHN DOLAN 46,250,000
JOSEPH CHEONG 23,525,000
JOHN RACENER 19,050,000
MATTHEW JARVIS 16,700,000
FILIPPO CANDIO 16,400,000
MICHAEL MIZRACHI 14,450,000
CUONG 'SOI' NGUYEN 9,650,000
JASON SENTI 7,625,000

Not sure who I am cheering for. No one I really like. I did get a chuckle whenever they showed Duhamel because he looks like Charlie from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.


----------



## Maui (Apr 22, 2000)

I am rooting for the Grinder. Just because it would be amazing to see him win two of the biggest tourneys of the World Series.

I know who I am rooting against.... Filippo Candio


----------



## Paperboy2003 (Mar 30, 2004)

Racener has been annoying me....he hardly says a world, but when he does, he's arrogant. Candio at least seems genuine.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

The Mizrachis are local. Here is a story on Mama Grinder and her family.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/fl-mizrachi-family-20101027,0,2601972.story


----------



## Maui (Apr 22, 2000)

Paperboy2003 said:


> Racener has been annoying me....he hardly says a world, but when he does, he's arrogant. Candio at least seems genuine.


If I remember correctly Candio should have been out of this tourney at least twice and suvived with major suckouts, which he celebrated a little too much in my opinion.

Senti seems like a guy I would not mind sitting down at a table with.

I used to dislike Grinder but have enjoyed him in this tournement. It would be nice to see a well established pro win the big one. Besides I think his wife will have a nervous breakdown if he doesn't win. She may have one anyway.


----------



## LifeIsABeach (Feb 28, 2001)

Maui said:


> I used to dislike Grinder but have enjoyed him in this tournement. It would be nice to see a well established pro win the big one. Besides I think his wife will have a nervous breakdown if he doesn't win. She may have one anyway.


I liked seeing The Grinder advanced simply because his wife is easy on the eyes. As is Dolan's sister (I think he was the one).

I know Frank Kassela was probably watching the tournament because he loves poker and/or they asked him to be there in case The Grinder got knocked out so they could announce him as Player of the Year, but every time they showed him he looked like a ghoul watching over The Grinder hoping that he gets eliminated.

I was surprised that neither Annie Duke nor Howard Lederer showed up to root for their sister's boyfriend. Maybe they were jealous of him getting that far with much less experience.


----------



## ADG (Aug 20, 2003)

Maui said:


> If I remember correctly Candio should have been out of this tourney at least twice and suvived with major suckouts, which he celebrated a little too much in my opinion.


Not to mention his late fold when he was "on the clock". He should have been all in and would have lost.


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

ADG said:


> Not to mention his late fold when he was "on the clock". He should have been all in and would have lost.


that wasn't Candio, that was Prahlad Friedman...


----------



## eMarkM (Apr 28, 2003)

Here are how they're seated:

Seat 1: Jason Senti (7,625,000) 15 BB, M=6.35
Seat 2: Joseph Cheong (23,525,000) 47 BB, M=19.6
Seat 3: John Dolan (46,250,000) 92 BB, M=38.5
Seat 4: Jonathan Duhamel (65,975,000) 131 BB, M=54.9
Seat 5: Michael Mizrachi (14,450,000) 29 BB, M=12
Seat 6: Matthew Jarvis (16,700,000) 33 BB, M=13.9
Seat 7: John Racener (19,050,000) 38 BB, M=15.9
Seat 8: Filippo Candio (16,400,000) 33 BB, M=13.6
Seat 9: Soi Nguyen (9,650,000) 19 BB, M=8

Duhamel has nearly perfect position at the table as he'll act after the next two biggest stacks most of the time. He'll also be able to attack all the middling stack's blinds to his left. It's really his to lose.

Blinds will be 250,000/500,000 with a 50,000 ante so I put each player's number of big blinds left and their "M" value (total cost of each round). Nguyen and Senti have decent stacks to 3-bet shove and the rest have a bit of play left. Should be a good final table.


----------



## ADG (Aug 20, 2003)

pjenkins said:


> that wasn't Candio, that was Prahlad Friedman...


Oops. Thanks for the correction


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

eMarkM said:


> Duhamel *is a huge lucksack*


fyp


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

eMarkM said:


> Here are how they're seated:
> 
> Seat 1: Jason Senti (7,625,000) 15 BB, M=6.35
> Seat 2: Joseph Cheong (23,525,000) 47 BB, M=19.6
> ...


I'd say perfect position for Duhamel and Grinder.

-smak-


----------



## eMarkM (Apr 28, 2003)

Action is just underway in Vegas right now. Please DON'T post any spoilers, but you can watch it streaming here.

There are no hole cards being show, but you can watch every hand as it's played live if you're into seeing how live poker really works. Basically every hand is the Jack Link's Wild Card hand.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

smak said:


> We'll probably post a group chat room here for anybody who's watching it on ESPN3 to discuss. Is it hole cards on the delayed broadcast? Should be if it's delayed.
> 
> -smak-


Is this chat room going? If so, how do I join?


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

they look so silly with the huge logos on their shirts and hats. It's like a freaking NASCAR car.

Is the table back in the convention/meeting area where they host the whole tournament, or do they move it to a more prime location within the Rio?


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

Yeesh even The Grinders family is covered In logos


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

jsmeeker said:


> they look so silly with the huge logos on their shirts and hats. It's like a freaking NASCAR car.
> 
> Is the table back in the convention/meeting area where they host the whole tournament, or do they move it to a more prime location within the Rio?


it's in the Penn&Teller theater..


----------



## eMarkM (Apr 28, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> they look so silly with the huge logos on their shirts and hats. It's like a freaking NASCAR car.
> 
> Is the table back in the convention/meeting area where they host the whole tournament, or do they move it to a more prime location within the Rio?


It's funny, even their friends and family are covered head to toe. They're probably getting a solid 5 figures for each patch depending on the player and the sponsor. It would be hard to say "No".

They're playing in the Penn and Teller theater.


----------



## eMarkM (Apr 28, 2003)

For those following the live stream, I created a new thread where we can post spoilers.

Put your spoilers here.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

eMarkM said:


> For those following the live stream, I created a new thread where we can post spoilers.
> 
> Put your spoilers here.


Good idea. Thanks!


----------



## eMarkM (Apr 28, 2003)

I watched nearly the entire final table, probably 16 hours. While there were some issues with the live feed, it was really nice to be able to watch it on XBox live on my 50" HDTV via ESPN3. A few technical glitches with the coverage, but it was pretty much top notch--well except for Hellmuth droning on when he was there. No hole cards of course. Can't wait to see what they had!

A really amazing final table with great made-for-TV hands...and that's all I'll say until tomorrow night 

If you really want to enjoy with no spoilers, don't open a web browser between now and the show tomorrow.

Also, make sure you set your Tivos to pad at least an hour. Last year's ran over quite a bit.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

Good advice on padding tonight's final table broadcast. Last year I didn't(though I had viewed on the web and already knew the outcome.) They do replay on ESPN2 though in case you miss it the first time around.

I was not very pleased with ESPN's weekly coverage this year. Too much fluff and not enough poker hands each week. I really hope they don't do this with the final table.


----------



## eMarkM (Apr 28, 2003)

Just finished watching the edited version this morning. No comments yet?

Duhamel played well, trapping Grinder with aces was really nice.

The edited version made Cheong look pretty bad when in reality he played better than anyone by far. The call of the 3 bet OOP with 64s was questionable, but other than that he played nearly flawlessly. The bluff with J5s was one of many he pulled, but weren't shown. That was like the only one he got caught with.

While A7 v QQ hand really was a blow up by Cheong, during 3 handed he had 4 bet Duhamel a lot with Duhamel folding. So when Duhamel 5 bet (and a perfectly sized bet at that) Cheong probably thought he was doing it light because he was sick of getting run over. So he 6 bet push thinking no way Duhamel can call with Racener sitting there on a very short stack. Unfortunately he ran into queens. Anything less than that and Duhamel probably folds again.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

I watched it last night and have the same complaint I've had all season, too much fluff and not enough poker hands.

I thought Duhamel played really well and deserved the win.


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

eMarkM said:


> Just finished watching the edited version this morning. No comments yet?


the edited version sucked, imo, i really enjoyed the live broadcast, sans the tilt-inducing blow hard doooshbag that is Phil Hellmuth..



eMarkM said:


> The edited version made Cheong look pretty bad when in reality he played better than anyone by far. The call of the 3 bet OOP with 64s was questionable, but other than that he played nearly flawlessly. The bluff with J5s was one of many he pulled, but weren't shown. That was like the only one he got caught with.


and if the K doesn't hit the river he gets away with that one as well 



eMarkM said:


> While A7 v QQ hand really was a blow up by Cheong, during 3 handed he had 4 bet Duhamel a lot with Duhamel folding. So when Duhamel 5 bet (and a perfectly sized bet at that) Cheong probably thought he was doing it light because he was sick of getting run over. So he 6 bet push thinking no way Duhamel can call with Racener sitting there on a very short stack. Unfortunately he ran into queens. Anything less than that and Duhamel probably folds again.


he made a very risky play against a guy who was waiting to trap him and didn't fold once he decided to play a hand out. the 5-bet was a perfectly sized raise to give Cheong the illusion of fold equity, when he had zero. For all the crap that Duhamel received, he clearly outplayed/out-thought Cheong when it mattered most, then rolled to victory.

and lol @ ESPN showing 2 of the 43 heads up hands. horrible coverage, imo.


----------



## eMarkM (Apr 28, 2003)

pjenkins said:


> the edited version sucked, imo, i really enjoyed the live broadcast, sans the tilt-inducing blow hard doooshbag that is Phil Hellmuth..


Yeah, I'll always watch these live feeds, even if they do go on for hours and mostly it's raise and take down the blinds preflop. I really enjoyed no hole card cams and then seeing the edited version to see if my own reads were correct. But then I'm a pretty serious poker player and the stream might be a little too hardcore for casual viewers.

Hellmuth is terrible. They bring in Cheong during heads-up to chat and the British guy asks him a question. Cheong starts to answer and Hellmuth just rudely interrupts him and Cheong basically never gets a word in. Big hands are developing and Hellmuth can't stop talking about himself. Ugh.


----------



## bryhamm (Jun 30, 2004)

pjenkins said:


> the edited version sucked, imo, i really enjoyed the live broadcast, sans the tilt-inducing blow hard doooshbag that is Phil Hellmuth..
> 
> and if the K doesn't hit the river he gets away with that one as well
> 
> ...


Seems consistent with how they've been handling heads up.


----------



## Paperboy2003 (Mar 30, 2004)

It's not like it was a close race after Cheong got knocked out. Duhamel had about 85&#37; of the chips. I'm sure if Racener made more of a battle out of it, they would've showed more heads up.


----------



## bryhamm (Jun 30, 2004)

Paperboy2003 said:


> It's not like it was a close race after Cheong got knocked out. Duhamel had about 85% of the chips. I'm sure if Racener made more of a battle out of it, they would've showed more heads up.


I doubt it. They haven't in the past. Easton and the Russion dude apparently battled for hours and they should something like 2 or 3 hands.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

The ESPN final table is an abomination compared to the live feed. It's like two totally different events.

The live feed was great. 

-smak-


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Did the live feed have Norman Chad?


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

busyba said:


> Did the live feed have Norman Chad?


nope, Adam Shoenfeld, Gavin Griffen, Bernard Lee and various guests mainly including Phil Hellmuth who almost ruined the entire show.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

smak said:


> The ESPN final table is an abomination compared to the live feed. It's like two totally different events.
> 
> The live feed was great.
> 
> -smak-





busyba said:


> Did the live feed have Norman Chad?





pjenkins said:


> nope,


Well, that would explain it. 

Seriously, somewhere back around the day 2 or 3 episodes, I got about 10 minutes in before I finally just couldn't stand listening to Norman anymore and I deleted the SP and all the recordings I had stored. I haven't watched a single hand since and I don't miss it.


----------



## Paperboy2003 (Mar 30, 2004)

Knowing that the only time I need to hear Chad during the entire year is during the WSOP helps a lot. He's is quite grating....


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

My friend and I were discussing the broadcast the next day, and between the two of us we noticed several major continuity issues. Obviously they don't show every hand, but considering what they do to create the illusion that it's one continuous final table (e.g. asking the players to wear the same clothes), they do a poor job in other areas. He pointed out several instances where one player would take the chip lead just before a commercial, then when they returned, the chip standings showed a different chip leader. 

I noticed that right after Cheong took the big blow to his stack, he was left with something like 6.95M, yet the size of the pot on the hand he busted out was somewhere around 36M, so he obviously doubled up some time in between. Would it really be so hard just to mention that?

Some other guys I know said that their TV provider only listed the show for one hour, instead of 2. One guy said that his was for two hours, but he actually missed the final hand in the few minutes that ran past the 2:00 mark, not just the celebration stuff.

I don't hate on Chad as much as a lot of people here do. It's probably residual first impressions from the weekly NFL picks column he used to do years ago (I read it in the Washington Post, but I think it was syndicated). I looked forward to that every week back then.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

jeff125va said:


> Some other guys I know said that their TV provider only listed the show for one hour, instead of 2. One guy said that his was for two hours, but he actually missed the final hand in the few minutes that ran past the 2:00 mark, not just the celebration stuff.


Yeah, I said that, it ran about 6 mins total over 2 hrs, including the last hand.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Are they not airing WSOPE this year?


----------



## Eddief66 (Oct 24, 2009)

mattack said:


> Are they not airing WSOPE this year?


It'll air next month according to this:
http://www.fifthstreetjournal.com/2010/12/wsop-europe-airs-in-february.html


----------

