# 2009 WSOP World Series of Poker Spoilers only for Episodes already aired on ESPN



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

Looks like the weekly broadcasts will start airing on ESPN tomorrow (July 28). So spoilers only for results that have aired on the weekly ESPN broadcasts. For those of you who took part in the thread last year, same thing.

I already got a small spoiler yesterday while watching tennis...Brad Gilbert announced someone who made the final table. They were doing the promo for the coverage starting tomorrow, so don't know if he meant for tomorrow's ep or for the main event? I don't want to know any of the results prior to viewing the eps! Stupid Brad Gilbert...no wonder he keeps getting fired as a coach.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

how realisitc is it for people to avoid learning who is at the final table? I follow poker only very, very casually, and I know some names. I was actually in Vegas during the main event. (up until the final table, obviously)

The news is all over the place. You would have to avoid every poker site, Twitter, etc. etc.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

Worked for me last year. I didn't know the final table ahead of time. I don't do podcasts or twitter, so it's actually very easy to avoid spoilers if you really want to.


----------



## JakeyB (Apr 24, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> how realisitc is it for people to avoid learning who is at the final table? I follow poker only very, very casually, and I know some names. I was actually in Vegas during the main event. (up until the final table, obviously)
> 
> The news is all over the place. You would have to avoid every poker site, Twitter, etc. etc.


Worked for me last year without any problems. But I don't follow poker closely at all. So I never visit poker sites and I don't really do the twitter thing.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

JakeyB said:


> Worked for me last year without any problems. But I don't follow poker closely at all. So I never visit poker sites and I don't really do the twitter thing.


 I guess you don't have any poker nerds for friends, either. 

(note: If you want to avoid spoilers, don't go to Las Vegas during a TC meet that occurs during the main event if scottjf8 and smak are there  )


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

I have a few "poker nerd friends" but they respect that I don't want to know any spoilers. Respect may not be the right word....fear is probably what they have...afraid I'll do them grave bodily injury if they spoil it for me.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

My guess is that the vast majority of people who tune into ESPN's coverage of the WSOP are those that don't go to the other sites where the info would get spoiled. My sense is that the majority of people who watch ESPN's poker coverage are the extremely casual, non-dedicated poker fans whose only exposure to real tournament poker is what they see on ESPN, so the fact that the event is already over for months (except for the final table) before it starts airing is not much of a factor at all.

Of course, there are those that are die-hards and also watch the ESPN coverage, but I'll bet that those people make up less than 10&#37; of the ESPN poker viewing audience.


----------



## mcb08 (Mar 10, 2006)

DevdogAZ said:


> My guess is that the vast majority of people who tune into ESPN's coverage of the WSOP are those that don't go to the other sites where the info would get spoiled. My sense is that the majority of people who watch ESPN's poker coverage are the extremely casual, non-dedicated poker fans whose only exposure to real tournament poker is what they see on ESPN, so the fact that the event is already over for months (except for the final table) before it starts airing is not much of a factor at all.
> 
> Of course, there are those that are die-hards and also watch the ESPN coverage, but I'll bet that those people make up less than 10% of the ESPN poker viewing audience.


^^^^^^^^. I wouldn't think it would be too hard to avoid poker coverage - I rarely see it covered through mainstream media. I think I would fall into the die-hard catergory, though (watched a few final tables online, including 2-7 single draw!!)


----------



## mcb08 (Mar 10, 2006)

Is anyone else disappointed that ESPN is only showing one bracelet event besides the ME? I guess they will be dedicating more time to ME coverage, but personally, I enjoy watching some of the lesser-known events where you're more likely to see a few pros at the final table.


----------



## dowalker (Sep 29, 2002)

Only one? That's not good at all. I love the other events. Which one are they showing?
Doug


----------



## mcb08 (Mar 10, 2006)

dowalker said:


> Only one? That's not good at all. I love the other events. Which one are they showing?
> Doug


They're showing the $40K no-limit hold-em event. It's a special event for the 40th anniversary of the WSOP. They are also showing the Champions Cup Invitational (non-bracelet), where all the past ME winners were invited, and the Ante Up for Africa Charity event.


----------



## JakeyB (Apr 24, 2003)

mcb08 said:


> Is anyone else disappointed that ESPN is only showing one bracelet event besides the ME? I guess they will be dedicating more time to ME coverage, but personally, I enjoy watching some of the lesser-known events where you're more likely to see a few pros at the final table.


Wow, that really sucks. I enjoyed seeing other events as well.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

mcb08 said:


> Is anyone else disappointed that ESPN is only showing one bracelet event besides the ME? I guess they will be dedicating more time to ME coverage, but personally, I enjoy watching some of the lesser-known events where you're more likely to see a few pros at the final table.


I didn't know this. What a bummer. I really enjoy the limit games and things I never see like HORSE and Omaha. I would like to see more of the ME than they've shown in past years, but not at the expense of the other events. Would be nice if they'd show these other events on ESPN2 rather than showing repeats of what was on ESPN the previous week.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

I wish they would show more too. Though Lon McEaren (sp?) was on the Two Plus Two Pokercast and said that it's really hard to do HORSE or other multi-game tournaments in TV coverage, because they show so few hands... they're then jumping around from game to game even more than they would if they tried to show them in 'order'.

I can't believe people don't listen to the various podcasts. (Two Plus Two, Poker Edge are the two I listen to regularly -- I will likely try more at some point.) I'll even listen to old poker podcasts, since often they just have interviews and talk strategy and it doesn't matter if they talk about long ago tournaments. (I have once in a while found old news broadcasts I moved to DVD to save space, and watched them, though FFed through REALLY dated material like storm coverage..)


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

After the final regular broadcast of the WSOP on ESPN season, when the final table of the ME is set, I'll go back and visit poker sites, read some forums, and listen to some podcasts. But I've learned that I don't like to have the broadcasts spoiled so I don't do that stuff until after the ME final table is set. It's not that hard to just avoid them for a few months since for me the payoff is really enjoying the weekly broadcasts. YMMV


----------



## speaker city (Sep 28, 2005)

Forgive my ignorance, as I am not much of a Poker watcher or player. I occasionally watch Poker After Dark. I was wondering why Annie Duke isn't in this. I just know her from The Apprentice and thought she was like a Top 10 player. Was she eliminated earlier or something?


----------



## JLucPicard (Jul 8, 2004)

The World Series of Poker encompasses MANY separate events. It's tough to say which events she's in or where she may have done well enough to make the final tables.

As for the Main Event itself, there are usually 10,000 to 15,000 or so people who enter and there are many, many world class poker players that get knocked out the first couple of days and never even get close to the final table.


----------



## mcb08 (Mar 10, 2006)

Annie Duke is definitely at the WSOP. She (along with Don Cheadle) are the founders of the Ante Up for Africa Charity event, which will be aired on ESPN. FWIW, the ME peaked at 8,773 entrants in 2006, and it's rare these days for a recognized name to make the final table.



Spoiler



She also made the final table in the $10K Championship Omaha 8 or better event


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

speaker city said:


> Forgive my ignorance, as I am not much of a Poker watcher or player. I occasionally watch Poker After Dark. I was wondering why Annie Duke isn't in this. I just know her from The Apprentice and thought she was like a Top 10 player. Was she eliminated earlier or something?


Please don't discuss (without spoiler tags) any results or players in or out of any events until those events air on ESPN. That's why this thread is in the TV show talk forum for discussion of the TV show after it has aired!


----------



## scottjf8 (Nov 11, 2001)

hummingbird_206 said:


> After the final regular broadcast of the WSOP on ESPN season, when the final table of the ME is set, I'll go back and visit poker sites, read some forums, and listen to some podcasts. But I've learned that I don't like to have the broadcasts spoiled so I don't do that stuff until after the ME final table is set. It's not that hard to just avoid them for a few months since for me the payoff is really enjoying the weekly broadcasts. YMMV


Whatever you do... do NOT watch ESPN the day they air the final table (I think it's November 11th)

Last year the had the final 9 on Nov 9th, played down to 2, then came back the 10th to finish. On the 11th they showed it on ESPN - however during PTI that day they spoiled the winner on the BottomLine.


----------



## JakeyB (Apr 24, 2003)

mattack said:


> I can't believe people don't listen to the various podcasts. (Two Plus Two, Poker Edge are the two I listen to regularly -- I will likely try more at some point.) I'll even listen to old poker podcasts, since often they just have interviews and talk strategy and it doesn't matter if they talk about long ago tournaments.


I'm the kind of viewer DevdogAZ mentioned. 5-6 years ago when I cared about poker a lot more I might have taken the time to listen to podcasts and reports from the WSOP as they happened. But I haven't played poker in probably about 4 years and I don't watch any poker show at all anymore other than the WSOP. And I only watch that because it's typically on in the middle of the summer with nothing else to conflict. It's not really a high priority for me these days


----------



## scottjf8 (Nov 11, 2001)

JakeyB said:


> It's not really a high priority for me these days


Me either


----------



## JLucPicard (Jul 8, 2004)

mcb08 said:


> FWIW, the ME peaked at 8,773 entrants in 2006, and it's rare these days for a recognized name to make the final table.


Woops! Kind of overshot JUST a bit!


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

scottjf8 said:


> Whatever you do... do NOT watch ESPN the day they air the final table (I think it's November 11th)
> 
> Last year the had the final 9 on Nov 9th, played down to 2, then came back the 10th to finish. On the 11th they showed it on ESPN - however during PTI that day they spoiled the winner on the BottomLine.


Yikes, good advice, thanks.


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

so the rule is i have to spoilerize anything related to Tuesday's show or what?



Spoiler



nice to see Haxton lose, can't stand the guy personally, dunno why, he's just another cocky smart huge money winner that is uber agressive


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

Once the ep airs on ESPN you don't need to spoilerize. Just like any TV show you can talk about that ep. Only stuff that that hasn't aired is considered a spoiler.

Was nice to see a couple of familiar faces at a final table. Too bad Ted was so short stacked. After all these years, I still can't decide if I like Raymer.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

hummingbird_206 said:


> After all these years, I still can't decide if I like Raymer.


What's with wearing his bracelet at the table? It's not like anyone doesn't know who he is or that he won the Main Event...


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

I don't have a problem with Raymer wearing his bracelet at the table since it is a WSOP bracelet. I'd think it would be bad if he wore it at non-WSOP events. But I think if I was in the crowd I'd like to see the champs with their bracelets, and probably people want pics with the champs and their bracelets, so I can see it being ok there. My problem with Raymer is those stupid glasses he wears. In general I think that sunglasses at the table are a bad idea, but those stupid glasses Raymer wears drive me bats. I have a really hard time rooting for someone who wears those glasses.


----------



## dowalker (Sep 29, 2002)

Amnesia said:


> What's with wearing his bracelet at the table? It's not like anyone doesn't know who he is or that he won the Main Event...


I think it might be because he is also in the Tournament of Champs or what ever they are calling it. (he's did go to that table on one of the breaks)They might have asked all the champs to wear theirs. Just a guess on my part.


----------



## mcb08 (Mar 10, 2006)

hummingbird_206 said:


> I don't have a problem with Raymer wearing his bracelet at the table since it is a WSOP bracelet. I'd think it would be bad if he wore it at non-WSOP events. But I think if I was in the crowd I'd like to see the champs with their bracelets, and probably people want pics with the champs and their bracelets, so I can see it being ok there. My problem with Raymer is those stupid glasses he wears. In general I think that sunglasses at the table are a bad idea, but those stupid glasses Raymer wears drive me bats. I have a really hard time rooting for someone who wears those glasses.


Unfortunately, the glasses are now a part of Raymer's "image". People want to see him wear them, get their picture taken with him, etc.


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

hummingbird_206 said:


> After all these years, I still can't decide if I like Raymer.


he's one of the nicest guys on the poker circuit and is very cordial at the tables. he rarely gets upset or overly emotional , and has given back a ton to the poker community with the work he's done on the PPA. he definitely has his opinions on certain areas (he's an attorney and they are notoriously opinionated), but overall i think he's been a great ambassador for the game.

what don't you like about him compared to, say, the complete and total dooooshbaggery that is Isaac Haxton?


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

pjenkins said:


> he's one of the nicest guys on the poker circuit and is very cordial at the tables. he rarely gets upset or overly emotional , and has given back a ton to the poker community with the work he's done on the PPA. he definitely has his opinions on certain areas (he's an attorney and they are notoriously opinionated), but overall i think he's been a great ambassador for the game.
> 
> what don't you like about him compared to, say, the complete and total dooooshbaggery that is Isaac Haxton?


Your post points out a lot of good things about Raymer, and for those reasons I should like him. But like I said, after all these years I just can't decide if I do. I think it all boils down to the stupid glasses. I cringe every time he puts them on. They make it hard for me to want to watch him and root for him. I can't defend it, it's not a good reason to not like a nice guy....but that's just how I feel.


----------



## stujac (Jan 26, 2002)

pjenkins said:


> he's one of the nicest guys on the poker circuit and is very cordial at the tables. he rarely gets upset or overly emotional , and has given back a ton to the poker community with the work he's done on the PPA. he definitely has his opinions on certain areas (he's an attorney and they are notoriously opinionated), but overall i think he's been a great ambassador for the game.
> 
> what don't you like about him compared to, say, the complete and total dooooshbaggery that is Isaac Haxton?


The act he puts on, staring at the opponent who dares call him is not indicative of a "nice guy." He's a jerk for that; might be nice away from the table but his act wears thin on me and many others. If he's as great as he thinks he is he should ditch the glasses and play poker without the stare down.


----------



## mcb08 (Mar 10, 2006)

stujac said:


> The act he puts on, staring at the opponent who dares call him is not indicative of a "nice guy." He's a jerk for that; might be nice away from the table but his act wears thin on me and many others. If he's as great as he thinks he is he should ditch the glasses and play poker without the stare down.


It's intimidation...part of poker. Have you ever seen Phil Ivey play? His stare would stop a bull in it's tracks. These guys will use any edge they can get at the table, and if they sense weakness, they will seize the opportunity to take your chips or ($$).


----------



## stujac (Jan 26, 2002)

I know what you are saying and I have seen Phil's act also but for some reason Raymer rubs me the wrong way with his glasses and stare.


----------



## scottjf8 (Nov 11, 2001)

pjenkins said:


> he's one of the nicest guys on the poker circuit and is very cordial at the tables. he rarely gets upset or overly emotional , and has given back a ton to the poker community with the work he's done on the PPA. he definitely has his opinions on certain areas (he's an attorney and they are notoriously opinionated), but overall i think he's been a great ambassador for the game.


+100

Of the last 4 ME champs, not one of them has done anything to help move poker into the mainstream. Hack'em has done a little bit, but Gold/Yang/Eastgate were all a bunch of duds.

Raymer has been to congress to preach for legislation of online poker, etc...

Sure, his schtick is annoying, but I think he does it mostly for image/ESPN, etc...


----------



## stujac (Jan 26, 2002)

Yes-we have to give him props for trying to move on-line poker to legal status. He's obviously got more personality than anyone at last year's table. It's just those glasses and that stare that bug me but you're right-he deserves kudos.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

scottjf8 said:


> Raymer has been to congress to preach for legislation of online poker


And in the meantime, the 2009 WSOP rules include a clause that says that a player can be punished if they wear anything that advertises a ".net" website where the ".net" portion of the name is not the same size as the rest of it - for example, this sort of thing would not be allowed:

TCFONLINEPOKER.net

Speaking of which, if accessing .com poker sites is still illegal in the USA, what incentive do the companies have to keep pushing their .net sites?

-- Don


----------



## mcb08 (Mar 10, 2006)

That Don Guy said:


> And in the meantime, the 2009 WSOP rules include a clause that says that a player can be punished if they wear anything that advertises a ".net" website where the ".net" portion of the name is not the same size as the rest of it - for example, this sort of thing would not be allowed:
> 
> TCFONLINEPOKER.net
> 
> ...


IANAL, but my understanding is that technically accessing the .com poker site, even playing online poker isn't illegal in the USA. The illegal part is the transfer of $$ to/and from your bank account, which contravenes the wire act. Of course I live in Canada, so what do I know.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

mcb08 said:


> Annie Duke is definitely at the WSOP. She (along with Don Cheadle) are the founders of the Ante Up for Africa Charity event, which will be aired on ESPN. FWIW, the ME peaked at 8,773 entrants in 2006, and it's rare these days for a recognized name to make the final table.





Spoiler



Rare, but it happens.. like this year.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

mcb08 said:


> IANAL, but my understanding is that technically accessing the .com poker site, even playing online poker isn't illegal in the USA. The illegal part is the transfer of $$ to/and from your bank account, which contravenes the wire act. Of course I live in Canada, so what do I know.


AFAIK (IANAL), playing poker online is not illegal.

Transferring money to a 'gambling site' (check the law for more specifics) will be illegal WHEN THE FINAL DATE hits, which IIRC is in December of this year... and that will be illegal
FOR THE BANK.. not anything for the customer. This is referring to the UIGEA.

Apparently you can now still get money in/out of online poker sites easily. I haven't done it yet, but have semi-seriously considered it, to play some microstakes tournaments. (Is a $5 tournament considered microstakes?) I'm not sure if they even have tournaments that low, but they apparently have cash games in the penny range (e.g. 1 cent, 2 cent limit).


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

That Russian guy who won the $40K event was probably the least enthusiastic winner I've ever seen. Was he on Zoloft or something?


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

busyba said:


> That Russian guy who won the $40K event was probably the least enthusiastic winner I've ever seen. Was he on Zoloft or something?


I think he was just worn out. In an interview they showed with him he said when he won a bracelet last year he was exhausted afterward. His buddies were nitwits, but he seemed like an ok guy. I'd rather see that kind of subdued reaction over some of going crazy stuff you see sometimes.


----------



## mcb08 (Mar 10, 2006)

mattack said:


> AFAIK (IANAL), playing poker online is not illegal.
> 
> Transferring money to a 'gambling site' (check the law for more specifics) will be illegal WHEN THE FINAL DATE hits, which IIRC is in December of this year... and that will be illegal
> FOR THE BANK.. not anything for the customer. This is referring to the UIGEA.
> ...


Right. I think the plan is to force the banks to stop using the payment processors that are used by the poker sites. There was a big outroar when ~$30 million in transfers was frozen by the US government in June. I'm not sure what site you're looking at playing on, but I know the ones I play on have tournaments for as low as $0.01, as well as 1 cent/2 cent cash games.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

hummingbird_206 said:


> I'd rather see that kind of subdued reaction over some of going crazy stuff you see sometimes.


Oh, I agree... but dude, at least smile!


----------



## scottjf8 (Nov 11, 2001)

busyba said:


> That Russian guy who won the $40K event was probably the least enthusiastic winner I've ever seen. Was he on Zoloft or something?


Go re-watch the FT of the Main Event last year.

Eastgate turns over his hand, calmly stands up and turns around to his friends.


----------



## scottjf8 (Nov 11, 2001)

mattack said:


> Apparently you can now still get money in/out of online poker sites easily. I haven't done it yet, but have semi-seriously considered it, to play some microstakes tournaments. (Is a $5 tournament considered microstakes?) I'm not sure if they even have tournaments that low, but they apparently have cash games in the penny range (e.g. 1 cent, 2 cent limit).


Nothing "apparently" about it.. you absolutely can (at least on Stars and Tilt)

I have put money online via my Wells Fargo debit card a few times, and I won a WSOP seat ($11k) a few weeks ago... did a wire transfer directly to my bank, and got it a week later.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

Congrats on your win scottjf8! Is that a seat in the 2010 ME? If you make it to the final table, be sure to post a spoiler!


----------



## scottjf8 (Nov 11, 2001)

hummingbird_206 said:


> Congrats on your win scottjf8! Is that a seat in the 2010 ME? If you make it to the final table, be sure to post a spoiler!


No, it was back in June for the 09 wsop. I didn't play


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

scottjf8 said:


> No, it was back in June for the 09 wsop. I didn't play


You just played a different event.

Then went back to Vegas like a week later.


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

jsmeeker said:


> You just played a different event.
> 
> Then went back to Vegas like a week later.


and still ended up with lots of $$$


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

scottjf8 said:


> No, it was back in June for the 09 wsop. I didn't play


So if you win an entry in the WSOP from one of the online tournaments, they just give you the cash and you can pocket it rather than playing in the WSOP? I guess I always assumed they bought the entry for you and you had to go (or give the entry to someone else).


----------



## stujac (Jan 26, 2002)

Or sell it to someone else?


----------



## mcb08 (Mar 10, 2006)

DevdogAZ said:


> So if you win an entry in the WSOP from one of the online tournaments, they just give you the cash and you can pocket it rather than playing in the WSOP? I guess I always assumed they bought the entry for you and you had to go (or give the entry to someone else).


Part of the UIGEA banned online poker sites from directly buying players into the event. It's the reason why the numbers have been down from the peak in 2006.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

mcb08 said:


> Right. I think the plan is to force the banks to stop using the payment processors that are used by the poker sites.


I wasn't aware that there was anything along the lines of an organized way around the credit card/check/transfer ban. (I figured that most people would do something like open a checking account on a European bank - I did this about 20 years ago when I did business with some companies in England that didn't take credit cards and the foreign currency money order fees got outrageous - and either use that as their online gambling account or use that to get a credit card from that bank.) I do know that at least one overseas bookmaking site checks your IP address when you log in and warns you if you are "from a country where betting on our site is illegal"...

-- Don


----------



## mcb08 (Mar 10, 2006)

That Don Guy said:


> I wasn't aware that there was anything along the lines of an organized way around the credit card/check/transfer ban. (I figured that most people would do something like open a checking account on a European bank - I did this about 20 years ago when I did business with some companies in England that didn't take credit cards and the foreign currency money order fees got outrageous - and either use that as their online gambling account or use that to get a credit card from that bank.) I do know that at least one overseas bookmaking site checks your IP address when you log in and warns you if you are "from a country where betting on our site is illegal"...
> 
> -- Don


When/if the banks are mandated to not process payments from the agencies used by the online poker sites, there will be no way around the ban. Currently, the banks aren't enforcing it, because there's a lot of work involved on their end to systematically block the payments (this is my understanding, anyway). There are some systematic blocks based on IP address in place currently - If you reside in Italy, you can't log into the Pokerstars main site (but they have a .it version, too)


----------



## scottjf8 (Nov 11, 2001)

jsmeeker said:


> You just played a different event.
> 
> Then went back to Vegas like a week later.


Well that too 

and it was 2 weeks. I was there the weekend your heart malfunctioned.


----------



## scottjf8 (Nov 11, 2001)

mcb08 said:


> When/if the banks are mandated to not process payments from the agencies used by the online poker sites, there will be no way around the ban. Currently, the banks aren't enforcing it, because there's a lot of work involved on their end to systematically block the payments (this is my understanding, anyway). There are some systematic blocks based on IP address in place currently - If you reside in Italy, you can't log into the Pokerstars main site (but they have a .it version, too)


I've heard the banks were told to start enforcing it by December.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

stujac said:


> The act he puts on, staring at the opponent who dares call him is not indicative of a "nice guy." He's a jerk for that; might be nice away from the table but his act wears thin on me and many others. If he's as great as he thinks he is he should ditch the glasses and play poker without the stare down.


I didn't see that. I saw him stare at opponents who's turn it was to act, to find tells.

-smak-


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

mcb08 said:


> Part of the UIGEA banned online poker sites from directly buying players into the event. It's the reason why the numbers have been down from the peak in 2006.


I only checked wikipedia, but are you sure?

I think this actually was a rule made by the WSOP itself. I don't think it has anything to do with UIGEA.


----------



## scottjf8 (Nov 11, 2001)

mattack said:


> I only checked wikipedia, but are you sure?
> 
> I think this actually was a rule made by the WSOP itself. I don't think it has anything to do with UIGEA.


It was a rule harrah's started, but it was definitely a "fallout" from the UIGEA.

Up through 2006, you had to play the seat you won (I did in 05 and 06) since Stars would automatically register you. Then Harrah's said no third-party registrations, unless it's from one of their sponsors (for example, if you play a satellite at another Harrah's property, they can register you.)


----------



## mcb08 (Mar 10, 2006)

FWIW, from the WSOP Wikipedia page (Main Event):

"With passage of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) of 2006 online poker sites have been barred from purchasing entrance directly for their users."


----------



## mcb08 (Mar 10, 2006)

No love for the latest episodes, I suppose. Not too surprising, since it wasn't a bracelet event. I'd like to talk to the people at EPSN who thought that this would be good tv. The slowroll by Harrington vs. Eastgate was pretty ugly. I was pulling for the suckout.  Bring on the Ante up for Africa charity event! ~yawn~


----------



## scottjf8 (Nov 11, 2001)

mcb08 said:


> No love for the latest episodes, I suppose. Not too surprising, since it wasn't a bracelet event. I'd like to talk to the people at EPSN who thought that this would be good tv. The slowroll by Harrington vs. Eastgate was pretty ugly. I was pulling for the suckout.  Bring on the Ante up for Africa charity event! ~yawn~


It was horrid. If I wanna watch a bunch of boring old men play slow azz poker, I'll go to the casino and rail a 7-stud game.

The AUFA thing might be better


----------



## JLucPicard (Jul 8, 2004)

scottjf8 said:


> The AUFA thing might be better


That's what I was thinking. There may be more interesting people and they may 'let their hair down' a little for this one (I'm hoping).


----------



## mcb08 (Mar 10, 2006)

Hopefully ESPN gets a boatload of letters from people begging for "real" WSOP poker coverage next year. Could Herschel Walker be any more clueless - "Hey, let's min-bet with the (probable) nuts!" I get that it's a charity event, and people are just there to support the cause, yada, yada....but I don't want to see it on TV!!!!! Charles Barkely had the best line of the broadcast - "I'm struggling like black folks in the 60's!" Bring on the Main Event!


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

What happened to the coverage of all the other bracelet events? I thought that in past years they showed a ton of other events and then we finally made it to the Main Event...

And on an unrelated note, how do charity events like AUFA make money for the charity? Do the players (celebs and non-celebs alike) buy in but don't get anything for winning (or get less than they would at a normal event)? Or maybe the celebs don't pay but the ordinary folk do in order to rub elbows with the "elite"?


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

Amnesia said:


> What happened to the coverage of all the other bracelet events?


they decided to have more limited coverage of anything but the Main Event. they have expanded their Main Event coverage based on customer feedback.



Amnesia said:


> And on an unrelated note, how do charity events like AUFA make money for the charity? Do the players (celebs and non-celebs alike) buy in but don't get anything for winning (or get less than they would at a normal event)? Or maybe the celebs don't pay but the ordinary folk do in order to rub elbows with the "elite"?


they all pay an entrance fee, part of which is giving to the charity. most people who cash in the event, then give some % of their winnings back to the charity as well. iirc most of the celebs give 100% to the charities if they happen to cash, and the pros mostly give the same or close to it.


----------



## mcb08 (Mar 10, 2006)

Amnesia said:


> What happened to the coverage of all the other bracelet events? I thought that in past years they showed a ton of other events and then we finally made it to the Main Event...
> 
> And on an unrelated note, how do charity events like AUFA make money for the charity? Do the players (celebs and non-celebs alike) buy in but don't get anything for winning (or get less than they would at a normal event)? Or maybe the celebs don't pay but the ordinary folk do in order to rub elbows with the "elite"?


ESPN decided that the non-Hold 'Em events were "too complicated" for the average viewer, so they got rid of them. The players all buy in for AUFA, but there is an expectation that they will donate part of their winnings to the charity...usually at least 50%. Part of the rake is also dontated to the charity. There was some controversy this year when one of the winners (Adam Richardson) didn't make his donation right away after the tournament ended. I didn't hear any mention of it during the broadcast, though.

ETA: or what pjenkins said.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Since when is poker a SPORT. It's a game!! You wouldn't say Monopoly is a sport, would you? Anyway, my point is, this doesn't belong on ESPN.


----------



## mcb08 (Mar 10, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> Since when is poker a SPORT. It's a game!! You wouldn't say Monopoly is a sport, would you? Anyway, my point is, this doesn't belong on ESPN.


*Entertainment* and Sports Programming Network


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Steveknj said:


> Since when is poker a SPORT.


Why isn't it?
Is golf a sport? What about bowling? 8 ball? Target shooting?


----------



## stujac (Jan 26, 2002)

One requires physical skill, the other mental skill (or more likely - luck). There is a difference.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> Why isn't it?
> Is golf a sport? What about bowling? 8 ball? Target shooting?


To me, a sport has to have some physical element to it. Golf, bowling, even 8 ball are sports because of it (although I never thought of billiards as a "sport" but under my definition, it is). There's no physical dimension in poker (or any other card game). And don't tell me that you "throw" your cards or chips in the middle of the table, thus, that's "physical".

Poker started out on ESPN because they didn't have enough summer programming, but since it got ratings they kept it.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

That argument is really old.

They have been showing it on EPSN for many years now.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

mcb08 said:


> FWIW, from the WSOP Wikipedia page (Main Event):
> 
> "With passage of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) of 2006 online poker sites have been barred from purchasing entrance directly for their users."


This is how the actual law reads:

_No person engaged in the business of betting or wagering may knowingly accept, in connection with the participation of another person in unlawful Internet gambling--

(1) credit, or the proceeds of credit, extended to or on behalf of such other person (including credit extended through the use of a credit card);

(2) an electronic fund transfer, or funds transmitted by or through a money transmitting business, or the proceeds of an electronic fund transfer or money transmitting service, from or on behalf of such other person;

(3) any check, draft, or similar instrument which is drawn by or on behalf of such other person and is drawn on or payable at or through any financial institution; or

(4) the proceeds of any other form of financial transaction, as the Secretary and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System may jointly prescribe by regulation, which involves a financial institution as a payor or financial intermediary on behalf of or for the benefit of such other person._

I assume purchasing a WSOP entry as a prize for the winner of an online poker event where some sort of buy-in was required falls under "the proceeds of an electronic fund transfer or money transmitting service" in (2).

-- Don


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

pjenkins said:


> they decided to have more limited coverage of anything but the Main Event. they have expanded their Main Event coverage based on customer feedback.


Does anyone know yet what exactly this entails? I almost never watch WSOP because I can't stand how disjointed the coverage is, moving around from one table to another, seeing only one hand from a table and then moving on. It's simply too hard to get any sense for what's actually going on as far as who is at a table, chip counts, etc.

I did have the AUFA coverage on last night and it was no better than the WSOP coverage of years past.

I much prefer my TV poker to follow one table like WPT or the old Celebrity Poker Showdown. I realize that with the scope of the WSOP, that's not entirely possible, but the way they're doing it certainly doesn't make it very enjoyable to watch.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

DevdogAZ said:


> I did have the AUFA coverage on last night and it was no better than the WSOP coverage of years past.


IMO, it was much worse because of the terrible celebrity players. ("Is it OK if I look at my cards again?") I watch poker on TV to see professionals (or at least very good amateurs) play---I don't want to watch people who don't know how to play the game. That's not educational and not entertaining.

I would much rather have watched the final table of, say, a pot limit hold-em bracelet event than the celebrity charity thing...


----------



## mcb08 (Mar 10, 2006)

Amnesia said:


> ....I would much rather have watched the final table of, say, a pot limit hold-em bracelet event than the celebrity charity thing...


Or the heads-up championship, or the 6-handed event, etc, etc.


----------



## Magister (Oct 17, 2004)

I like watching the other games. This will only make it harder to find a non-Texas Hold'em game at the local home games.


----------



## scottjf8 (Nov 11, 2001)

I thought the AUFA thing was terrible. Sure, the entertainers were semi-fun (except for Barkley) but there was very little poker. In a real world series tourney, nobody is calling all in's for their whole stack with the crap people called with.

I'm surprised they didn't talk at all about the big controversy. Apparently Adam (2nd place finisher - knows as Admo on 2+2) took the prize money and didn't "immediately" donate his portion back. He said he wanted to talk to Annie Duke first about where the money goes, etc... 

But a big deal was made that night about how he took the prize money and left and didn't donate it back "to the cause."


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

you would think if he was concerned about the charity and where the money went, he would have checked into it before buying in for the tourney.


----------



## scottjf8 (Nov 11, 2001)

FYI, the story about Adam is here http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/2...-admo-stiff-ante-up-africa-do-we-care-524504/


----------



## mcb08 (Mar 10, 2006)

See, and I thought that Barkely was funny. I guess that's why there's chocolate and vanilla.  I wasn't surprised that they ignored the Admo controversy - any bad press would have taken away from the feel good story that ESPN was trying to show with AUFA.


----------



## scottjf8 (Nov 11, 2001)

jsmeeker said:


> you would think if he was concerned about the charity and where the money went, he would have checked into it before buying in for the tourney.


Read the link I posted. Basically they were HOUNDING him the second the tourney was done, and he was trying to call home because he was worried about his wife (I think she was prego.)

They even followed him into the bathroom.


----------



## mcb08 (Mar 10, 2006)

jsmeeker said:


> you would think if he was concerned about the charity and where the money went, he would have checked into it before buying in for the tourney.


I think he was more concerned with making a statement regarding the Ultimate Bet scandal (there's still a lot of unanswered questions), and the fact that he was hounded (in the bathroom) as soon as the event was over for his donation.

ETA: Or what Scott said.


----------



## Magister (Oct 17, 2004)

scottjf8 said:


> FYI, the story about Adam is here http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/2...-admo-stiff-ante-up-africa-do-we-care-524504/


Can anyone cut/paste from there? Gambling related site is blocked from work.


----------



## mcb08 (Mar 10, 2006)

Magister said:


> Can anyone cut/paste from there? Gambling related site is blocked from work.


The link is to a thread on a poker forum, so can't really cut/paste. Coles notes version:

*Admo comes in 2nd in AUFA
*Admo mentions to ESPN that he plans on donating all the money, but wants to expose Annie Duke/Ultimate Bet.
*Admo finds out that wife is having pregnancy-related complications
*While speaking with her in the bathroom, an AUFA-organizer follows him, and asks how much/when he will be donating
*Admo says GTFO
*Online stories quickly appear, painting Admo as stiffing AUFA
*Admo responds by saying that he will be making a contribution at some point (though not necessarily to AUFA), but has personal business to attend to first
*Admo ends up donating ~$60k (IIRC)


----------



## Magister (Oct 17, 2004)

mcb08 said:


> The link is to a thread on a poker forum, so can't really cut/paste. Coles notes version:
> 
> *Admo comes in 2nd in AUFA
> *Admo mentions to ESPN that he plans on donating all the money, but wants to expose Annie Duke/Ultimate Bet.


What is the Annie Duke/Ultimate Bet thing? I don't remember hearing anything about that.


----------



## mcb08 (Mar 10, 2006)

Magister said:


> What is the Annie Duke/Ultimate Bet thing? I don't remember hearing anything about that.


There were some people that worked for Ultimate Bet that had access to accounts where they could see the hole cards while they were playing. There was a story about it on 60 Minutes last fall. They cheated players out of 10s of millions of $$. A large portion of the $$ was returned to the players, but there's still anger among the poker community that UB isn't doing anything to identify who the cheaters were. Annie Duke, a major pro sponsored by UB, was accessible since she was organizing this event, so Admo saw it as an opportunity to get in her face about it.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Personally, I don't think anyone had any right to "hound" Adam for a contribution. If there was no requirement to give a portion of the money to the charity, then he had as much right to give or not give a donation as did anyone else in Las Vegas.

If he had an obligation that he didn't fulfill, that's one thing. If he simply chose not to donate, I don't see why people were calling him all kinds of names...


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

mcb08 said:


> There were some people that worked for Ultimate Bet that had access to accounts where they could see the hole cards while they were playing. There was a story about it on 60 Minutes last fall. They cheated players out of 10s of millions of $$. A large portion of the $$ was returned to the players, but there's still anger among the poker community that UB isn't doing anything to identify who the cheaters were. Annie Duke, a major pro sponsored by UB, was accessible since she was organizing this event, so Admo saw it as an opportunity to get in her face about it.


Phil Hellmuth is also an Ultimate Bet celeb player. (I like both Annie Duke & Phil, in terms of being entertaining on TV.. and Annie should have won Celebrity Apprentice..)

The 60 minutes story didn't cover it well, IMHO. Listen to old episodes of the Two Plus Two Pokercast for the whole story.

http://pokercast.twoplustwo.com/archives.php
has only one with 'ultimate' in the description, but they covered it on many episodes.

..and yeah, I wouldn't give to the charity either.. possibly unless it was a registered charity so I could write off the donation.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

The main event has to be done really really well this year to make up for all the crap they've shown so far.

WSOP is now the 4th best regulary scheduled televised poker on TV, which would make it last.

It's a shame.

-smak-


----------



## Mispelld (May 6, 2009)

scottjf8 said:


> FYI, the story about Adam is here http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/2...-admo-stiff-ante-up-africa-do-we-care-524504/


I've lurked at twoplustwo for years and this is a perfect thread to prove that 50% of the posters there are crazy and the other half are insane!  It's a long and very interesting read that goes to show how things get so easily distorted on the internet and it's almost impossible to ever get the full truth.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

mcb08 said:


> No love for the latest episodes, I suppose. Not too surprising, since it wasn't a bracelet event. I'd like to talk to the people at EPSN who thought that this would be good tv. The slowroll by Harrington vs. Eastgate was pretty ugly. I was pulling for the suckout.  Bring on the Ante up for Africa charity event! ~yawn~


I've been on vacation and just got caught up on the last 2 weeks last night. Oh man, worst poker on TV I've ever seen. Even the old Celeb Poker thing that Phil Gordon cohosted was better than the Former Champions and the Charity shows. Ugh! What a couple of snooze fests.



smak said:


> The main event has to be done really really well this year to make up for all the crap they've shown so far.
> 
> WSOP is now the 4th best regulary scheduled televised poker on TV, which would make it last.
> 
> ...


No kidding. I can't believe all they are showing is who has won bracelets and none of the coverage of those events.

I am sooooo disappointed with ESPN's coverage this year.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

I guess I don't get what people hate so much about it (except the number of different events they're showing).

To me, it seems about the same as always.. Norman Chad's lame jokes (though I have defended them in the past, and will continue to -- they're still somewhat funny), and the same sort of celeb/pro-obsessed coverage as always.


----------



## scottjf8 (Nov 11, 2001)

mattack said:


> I guess I don't get what people hate so much about it (except the number of different events they're showing).


That's exactly what I hate about it... they skipped just about every bracelet event (except for the $40k.) They showed 2 non bracelet events that had no interest.

They could have shown:

Steve Sung winning the $1k event
The $50k Horse
at least ONE of the many $1,500 events
Ivey winning 2 bracelets
Lissandro winning 3 bracelets

Instead we got old fogies slowrolling each other to win a vette and Charles Barkley not even knowing how to play poker.

Meh.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

mattack said:


> I guess I don't get what people hate so much about it (except the number of different events they're showing).
> 
> To me, it seems about the same as always.. Norman Chad's lame jokes (though I have defended them in the past, and will continue to -- they're still somewhat funny), and the same sort of celeb/pro-obsessed coverage as always.


This year has been by far the worst. They are only showing events where they hoped or were guaranteed to have big name finalists and/or celebrities.

The 40k, the champions one, and the Ante up for Africa.

This was the first year they didn't show a $1500. I think they've shown PLO most of the years.

They abandoned the HORSE, probably because the WSOP took away the NLH final table, and they didn't want to continue explaining HORSE.

The main event will probably be the only worthwhile thing they show this year.

-smak-


----------



## scottjf8 (Nov 11, 2001)

nice... day 1a of the Main Event and ESPN has some stupid programming run over and I missed the end. ESPN sucks.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

scottjf8 said:


> nice... day 1a of the Main Event and ESPN has some stupid programming run over and I missed the end. ESPN sucks.


I haven't viewed my recordings yet. But after seeing this I guess I'll record the later tonight repeats on ESPN2 with some padding just in case the earlier ones got cut off. Sorry this happened to you, but thanks for the heads up!


----------



## Magister (Oct 17, 2004)

scottjf8 said:


> nice... day 1a of the Main Event and ESPN has some stupid programming run over and I missed the end. ESPN sucks.


I started watching before they were done, so I could add the Baseball show after.

They really don't seem to respect the schedule at ESPN.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

scottjf8 said:


> nice... day 1a of the Main Event and ESPN has some stupid programming run over and I missed the end. ESPN sucks.


Yeah, I even checked the schedule for a few hours before, and didn't see what ran over. Seems like they could have easily just truncated the show that aired before WSOP..

I simply watched the recordings I had and recorded the 11pm rerun of the second hour to catch the bit I missed.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

Way too much of The Mouth. I don't hate him, but just seems to me on day 1 with sooooo many other options that they could have shown less of him.

Speaking of The Mouth, anyone read his book? Check Raising The Devil Not available on Kindle. I might read it if there's ever a kindle edition, or when the more affordable PB comes out.


----------



## JLucPicard (Jul 8, 2004)

Brett Favre press conference was supposed to be around 5:00 CT. They didn't actually get started until well past 5:30. It ran until about 20 minutes after 6:00 and they ran E:60 in it's entirety after that, pushing the WSOP back 20 minutes.

Probably not much help to the majority in this case, but I did update the "URGENT Pad Recording Alerts" thread in the Season Pass Alerts forum just after 7:30. If subscribed as "Notify Immediately" (or whatever verbiage they use), it should help some people catch it in time to pad. I think that's how that thread is supposed to work anyway.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

Only viewed tonights first hour so far. Sorry to see Daniel and Annie out. Hellmouth annoys me to no end, but do have to give him props for buying drinks.

Looking forward to watching Phil _(edit: Ivey)_ and Eric on the second hour.


----------



## scottjf8 (Nov 11, 2001)

Is this a limit holdem tourney? The preflop minraising is putting me on tilt.

Daniel folding AA early on to an 800 bet was weak sauce.


----------



## Magister (Oct 17, 2004)

scottjf8 said:


> Is this a limit holdem tourney? The preflop minraising is putting me on tilt.
> 
> Daniel folding AA early on to an 800 bet was weak sauce.


I think the miniraising is just the safe way to see a flop for weak hands. Then you gotta do it to hide your strength.

Daniel was pretty sick. I think he was really out of his game. Maybe we will find out he had H1N1 and infected the whole tourny.


----------



## scottjf8 (Nov 11, 2001)

Tonight is really making me feel like an IDIOT for not playing the main event.

Some dude folds KK to Raymer's 3 bet?


----------



## scottjf8 (Nov 11, 2001)

Oh and the 100 year old man slowrolling with a flopped boat was just ridiculous.


----------



## LifeIsABeach (Feb 28, 2001)

When Jason Alexander lost that one hand to Fossilman I was surprised he didn't yell, "Raymer" ala Jerry's "Neuman" rather than slapping him. Glad to see that he embraces his George character unlike some stars who end up hating the characters that made them famous.


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

scottjf8 said:


> Oh and the 100 year old man slowrolling with a flopped boat was just ridiculous.


nh, wp, ul for the 76 guy, tid, etc.


----------



## Supfreak26 (Dec 12, 2003)

scottjf8 said:


> Oh and the 100 year old man slowrolling with a flopped boat was just ridiculous.


That was awesome.

For some reason, I'm really not getting into this year's tourney like I usually do. Maybe it's the massive fields. Maybe I'd prefer to watch these smaller games with more pros. I don't know. Anyone else feeling the same?

I am enjoying Jason Alexander, though. He seems like a genuinely nice guy. I'm really pulling for him.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

I agree, for me the main event this year has been pretty boring. I don't know why, but it's just not doing it for me this year. I'll keep watching, but I find myself doing other things while watching cause it's just not holding my interest. Only thing I can think of is they keep spending a lot of time on players I hate watching, like Brad Garrett. And as I type this, Garrett goes out, yippee!

I've never been a fan of either Jason Alexander nor Greg Raymer and all of the coverage they got at the featured table on these day 3 eps have done nothing to change my mind. Don't hate them, but sure didn't want to see so much of them.

Sorry to see Eli and Gus out. 

Hope next week's day 2 tables are more entertaining....


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

1) They referred to a "possession arrow" in the commentary. Googling seems to answer it for me - I guess it has to do with basketball.. can someone explain it more thoroughly and the relevance to its use on the episode?

2) There was another joke, sorry I don't think I remember EXACTLY what it was.. But I think it was Lon who said approximately "deuce on the river", they laughed, and Norman gave his usual "Nice..." kind of response. I totally didn't get this joke at all, and rewound a few times and listened again.. still missed it.


----------



## Magister (Oct 17, 2004)

mattack said:


> 1) They referred to a "possession arrow" in the commentary. Googling seems to answer it for me - I guess it has to do with basketball.. can someone explain it more thoroughly and the relevance to its use on the episode?
> 
> 2) There was another joke, sorry I don't think I remember EXACTLY what it was.. But I think it was Lon who said approximately "deuce on the river", they laughed, and Norman gave his usual "Nice..." kind of response. I totally didn't get this joke at all, and rewound a few times and listened again.. still missed it.


'Deuce' refers to the number two. Number Two generally refers to 'Poo'. So saying 'Deuce on the River' is like saying '$*&#@ on the River'. Meaning the card didn't help.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

mattack said:


> 1) They referred to a "possession arrow" in the commentary. Googling seems to answer it for me - I guess it has to do with basketball.. can someone explain it more thoroughly and the relevance to its use on the episode?


Norman Chad is an idiot. That's all you need to know.


----------



## stujac (Jan 26, 2002)

Norman Chad rocks and has for over 30 years.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

stujac said:


> Norman Chad rocks and has for over 30 years.


Thank you Mrs. Chad, but I think you might be a little biased.

Someone needs to take Greg Raymer to the top of the Strat and drop him onto Norman Chad.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

busyba said:


> Thank you Mrs. Chad (...)


Which one?


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> Which one?


I was going for mother, not ex-wife, but I can see how that might have been unclear.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

busyba said:


> Norman Chad is an idiot. That's all you need to know.





stujac said:


> Norman Chad rocks and has for over 30 years.


I really like Lon, and most of the time don't mind the extra color from Norman. However, I really hate it when they don't show one player's cards so the audience can try to guess what's going on. At that point, I wish Norman would just STFU so I can enjoy seeing if I would play the hand correctly or not....probably not, but with Norman running off at the mouth I don't stand a chance of trying to figure it out. I don't want to mute cause I want to hear the table talk. Is there a Norman filter I can install?


----------



## bigpuma (Aug 12, 2003)

mattack said:


> 1) They referred to a "possession arrow" in the commentary. Googling seems to answer it for me - I guess it has to do with basketball.. can someone explain it more thoroughly and the relevance to its use on the episode?


They split the pot and he was joking that instead of splitting the pot they should use a posession arrow to determine who should get the money. The posession arrow is just an arbitrary way to determine who gets the ball in college basketball. It was a mildly amusing joke.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

Judging by the lack of thread activity, I guess I'm not the only one less than thrilled with the shows this year? I continue watching only to see how the Nov 9 get there. Maybe it will get better, but not holding out a lot of hope.


----------



## EMoMoney (Oct 30, 2001)

bigpuma said:


> The posession arrow is just an arbitrary way to determine who gets the ball in college basketball.


Not arbitrary at all. If Team A wins the opening jump ball, then Team B has the possession arrow for the next jump ball situation or second half whichever occurs first. Once Team B benefits from the possession from the scenarios mentioned above, then Team A has the possession arrow.



hummingbird_206 said:


> Judging by the lack of thread activity, I guess I'm not the only one less than thrilled with the shows this year? I continue watching only to see how the Nov 9 get there. Maybe it will get better, but not holding out a lot of hope.


I'm liking the coverage. I just don't hang out here much during the summer.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

Am I missing something in the listings, or are there no re-airings of the new episodes on ESPN ("ESPN 1")? Now that my regular shows are all coming back on, I'll have to record this later, but I'm pretty sure that in prior seasons there was at least one re-airing on ESPN, but I may have to set up another season pass on ESPN 2. And since it often comes on later in the evening following live sports, I'll have to pad it for an hour to make sure I don't miss anything.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

jeff125va said:


> Am I missing something in the listings, or are there no re-airings of the new episodes on ESPN ("ESPN 1")? Now that my regular shows are all coming back on, I'll have to record this later, but I'm pretty sure that in prior seasons there was at least one re-airing on ESPN, but I may have to set up another season pass on ESPN 2. And since it often comes on later in the evening following live sports, I'll have to pad it for an hour to make sure I don't miss anything.


Yes, in prior years I also remember there being a repeat of the ep's later in the evening on ESPN. This year it looks like the repeat is on ESPN2. Here in Seattle the first airing is on ESPN at 5pm and 6pm. The repeat is on ESPN2 at 10pm and 11pm.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

So a guy has to sit out a hand because he told a guy he lost because of his ugly haircut (and then apologized for the insult) but Hellmouth is never penalized for calling people idiots and worse and not apologizing? Huh??


----------



## scottjf8 (Nov 11, 2001)

Because hellmuth is a pro. 

Besides, the Mohawk guy (Kevin Saul - known online as belowabove) is a jerk and got chat banned for telling someone to get cancer and die.


----------



## EMoMoney (Oct 30, 2001)

hummingbird_206 said:


> So a guy has to sit out a hand because he told a guy he lost because of his ugly haircut (and then apologized for the insult) but Hellmouth is never penalized for calling people idiots and worse and not apologizing? Huh??


We're only seeing a fraction of what is actually happening. Phil actually made a comment in one of this season's episodes that he was trying not to get a penalty this year. So, it is very possible Phil has received numerous penalties and we just don't see it.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

Very true that we don't see everything. But I find it hard to believe they wouldn't show Hellmouth getting a penalty. YMMV.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Talking about Hellmuth---I'm so glad that he's gone!


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

Amnesia said:


> Talking about Hellmuth---I'm so glad that he's gone!


:up: Me too!

OTOH, glad to see Phil Ivey still around!


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

I think the guy was a jerk, but that was very mild to get a penalty. Geez, I thought he was clearly joking.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

mattack said:


> I think the guy was a jerk, but that was very mild to get a penalty.


It wasn't just that. If you recall, the floor man had first come over because of the guy's loudness after he won the hand---the floor guy even said that he was giving him a warning. I don't think the personal insult by itself would have triggered the penalty---it was that it was on top of the other issue...


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

the only reason that happened is b/c of the all-in camera crap they do. if the cameras never come to the table, that little exchange doens't happen, imo.

oh, and saul is a grade A doooooshbag, but many of the poker pros are, no surprise there (see Hellmuth and his ridiculous table demeanor)


----------



## stujac (Jan 26, 2002)

pjenkins said:


> the only reason that happened is b/c of the all-in camera crap they do. if the cameras never come to the table, that little exchange doens't happen, imo.
> 
> oh, and saul is a grade A doooooshbag, but many of the poker pros are, no surprise there (see Hellmuth and his ridiculous table demeanor)


This is dead on. I used to cover these tournaments in the early 80's and the pros then were much worse than now but they are still a bunch of crybabies. You'd think a pro would be able to handle a bad beat after having suffered thousands of them.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

I'm still watching, but still not loving it. Nice to see a (non-annoying so far) woman #2 in chips.

If you have an SP might want to check for conflicts since the air time is different next week. I think it's an hour later, but not really sure since I let the SP work for me and I didn't have any conflicts.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

mattack said:


> Yeah, I even checked the schedule for a few hours before, and didn't see what ran over. Seems like they could have easily just truncated the show that aired before WSOP..
> 
> I simply watched the recordings I had and recorded the 11pm rerun of the second hour to catch the bit I missed.


I'm a few weeks behind and just caught these episode this past weekend. Anything particularly noteworthy happen in the last ~20 minutes or so that were cut off? I guess that was the day 1b episode.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

I don't remember.. that was a while ago. But remember the episode # and check upcoming episodes every week or two -- it'll eventually show up again.


----------



## LifeIsABeach (Feb 28, 2001)

Impressed with Lou Diamond Phillips still hanging in there. Even though I cheated and looked to see who made the final table it was still a relief when I saw Hellmuth finally knocked out.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

I'll keep an eye out, but I doubt that anything from the last few minutes of Day 1b will prove to be critical. And I did take a quick glance through the upcoming episodes on ESPN2, and they all seemed to be re-airings of the two current episodes.

I really need to get caught up. I know who the final 9 are, but I think I can avoid all media for 24 hours or so, and watch the final table broadcast not knowing the outcome.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

BTW, ESPN Classic has been airing some of the *really old* WSOPs.. 1994, 1995, and I think there are a few more tonight.

I only watched one so far, and I *think* I kept another, that had Stu Ungar on it.

I knew the one I watched would be bad.. but I had to watch out of historical interest. If I had more space, I'd keep the rest and watch them, but I deleted a couple since my Tivo's very close to full.


Basically - no hole cards, I knew that would be true.. only one hour long (i.e. really ~45 minutes without commercials -- and there seemed to be a couple of edits to make even more commercial time)... and Dick van Patten basically asking "what do you think he has?" over and over. I thought he was actually a poker guy (no I don't think I'm in any way conflating him with Gabe Kaplan).


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

mattack said:


> BTW, ESPN Classic has been airing some of the *really old* WSOPs.. 1994, 1995, and I think there are a few more tonight.
> 
> I only watched one so far, and I *think* I kept another, that had Stu Ungar on it.
> 
> ...


I guess it's hard to come up with things to say when you can't see the hole cards, and presumably, they're doing live commentary as opposed to recording voice-overs later. Unless they're all-in with cards still to come, you just don't know what cards someone needs in order to avoid being wamboozled.

I saw Dick Van Patten play on WPT when they did the father-son tag team tournament. He was unbelievably bad.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

Anyone else miss a recording this week? I think this was the week that they switched from 8 and 9 eastern to 9 and 10. I have two SP's set up for this, one on ESPN and one on ESPN2. They are both near the bottom of my priority lists, with the ESPN one right before the ESPN2 one. I guess I only had one other thing recording at 10:00, so that one recorded on all my DVR's, and normally whatever doesn't record on ESPN during prime-time gets recorded later at night on ESPN2. But the ESPN2 recording turned out to be the Ante Up for Africa episode, not a replay of the new one, like usual.

But I wasn't worried because I have it set up on another DVR in our workout room where pretty much the only SP's are some poker shows and a couple other things, and WSOP is #1 on the list. But even on that one only the 10:00 episode recorded. The 10/6 episodes are listed in the guide data for I believe early tomorrow morning; I just hope it's correct.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

I got them both. I was surprised no ones commented on the dealer mucking the french womens hand after she went all in (she said she had pocket aces).


----------



## cheerdude (Feb 27, 2001)

It was mentioned in the Poker thread.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

JFriday said:


> I got them both. I was surprised no ones commented on the dealer mucking the french womens hand after she went all in (she said she had pocket aces).


I'm a bit behind in viewing and just saw this week's eps. I was torn between feeling sorry for her that her hand got mucked by mistake and wondering if she really had pocket aces. She probably whispered in the official's ear what she really had, but that doesn't mean what she announced to the table was what she really had.

Am I just not paying attention or are they not even showing the chip leaders? When they put up the leaderboard I don't remember seeing a single hand with most of those players.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

Caught the repeat last night. Schedule was accurate and the shows started when they were supposed to.

Yeah, I felt bad for her. They made the dealer look like an idiot, her chips were right out there in front of her and her cards, then with the floor man scolding him. I have no reason whatsoever to doubt that she had the Aces. Unfortunately, it looked like he immediately mingled her cards with the two that he had grabbed right before (or after?) hers, so they weren't the ones right on top of the muck.

So the 9/29 episodes were Day 5, right? And 10/6 was days 5 & 6, and tomorrow night is Day 6, according to ESPN.com. Then one night of Day 7 and two nights of Day 8, but just 2 hours of the final table. I know the whole idea is to air the show soon enough for people to avoid finding out the winner, but couldn't they at least extend it to 3 hours just for that one night?

They're showing some of the chip leaders. Tom Schneider, for sure. But yeah, definitely don't recall seeing some of them when they put the names up. Lots of Hachem and Eastgate, and Ivey of course.


----------



## Supfreak26 (Dec 12, 2003)

cheerdude said:


> It was mentioned in the Poker thread.


What poker thread are you speaking of?

As a casual poker fan, this is the first time I've got to see what is so great about Phil Ivie. It seems like everything I saw of him before was not favorable to him. He is ripping it up this tourney, though. I can see why he'd be an intimidating player to face.

Anyone else here think Hachem is an ass? He just rubs me the wrong way. Very arrogant since he won.


----------



## LifeIsABeach (Feb 28, 2001)

Supfreak26 said:


> Anyone else here think Hachem is an ass? He just rubs me the wrong way. Very arrogant since he won.


Yes. 

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=6670677#post6670677


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

Supfreak26 said:


> Anyone else here think Hachem is an ass? He just rubs me the wrong way. Very arrogant since he won.


I have thought that on some other occasions where I've seen him, but actually not at all during the WSOP so far. And they've featured him quite a bit.


----------



## scottjf8 (Nov 11, 2001)

Supfreak26 said:


> What poker thread are you speaking of?
> 
> As a casual poker fan, this is the first time I've got to see what is so great about Phil Ivie. It seems like everything I saw of him before was not favorable to him. He is ripping it up this tourney, though. I can see why he'd be an intimidating player to face.
> 
> Anyone else here think Hachem is an ass? He just rubs me the wrong way. Very arrogant since he won.


Poker thread -> http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=433793

Hack'em is annoying... "ONE TIME.."... dude, your one time was in August, 2005.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

scottjf8 said:


> Hack'em is annoying... "ONE TIME.."... dude, your one time was in August, 2005.


This (it's ok for him to suck out, but heaven forbid anyone else do so.)

Plus, I'm really sick of him being so critical of what others are holding when they stay in or raise. So people are going against the odds and raising with junk, um, isn't bluffing part of this game? And isn't luck part of the game? He's really starting to sound like Hellmouth..."how dare you call me with that crappy hand". I hate it when anyone whines about how another player plays their hand.


----------



## scottjf8 (Nov 11, 2001)

hummingbird_206 said:


> I hate it when anyone whines about how another player plays their hand.


Me too!


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

scottjf8 said:


> Poker thread -> http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=433793
> 
> Hack'em is annoying... "ONE TIME.."... dude, your one time was in August, 2005.


can i use this for other players that constantly complain about running bad but had huge scores prior?


----------



## scottjf8 (Nov 11, 2001)

pjenkins said:


> can i use this for other players that constantly complain about running bad but had huge scores prior?


Mr.Slowplay?


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

scottjf8 said:


> Mr.Slowplay?


among others


----------



## Mr.Slowplay (Apr 9, 2007)

scottjf8 said:


> Mr.Slowplay?


----------



## JLucPicard (Jul 8, 2004)

I normally FF thorugh commercials (who here doesn't? ), but I happened to see one on the second hour that made it very clear at least one of the people who will be at the final table (though I think we've all been spoiled with that one). Maybe they figure it's better for them to get that out there when people are watching, but had I not known already about that one person, I would have a been a little ticked.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

Well I'm even happier than usual that I FF thru the commercials. I have somehow managed (with all of your help:up to keep from finding out any of the Nov 9 so far.


----------



## Supfreak26 (Dec 12, 2003)

hummingbird_206 said:


> Well I'm even happier than usual that I FF thru the commercials. I have somehow managed (with all of your help:up to keep from finding out any of the Nov 9 so far.


Same here so STFO!!


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

you don't know who most of the Nov 9 are anyway, so why does it matter if you hear the names? for that matter, it's just poker hands / results, why do people care about spoilers?


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

Supfreak26 said:


> Same here so STFO!!


 I know "STFU" but what's "STFO"?



pjenkins said:


> you don't know who most of the Nov 9 are anyway, so why does it matter if you hear the names? for that matter, it's just poker hands / results, why do people care about spoilers?


As I said earlier in this thread, for me it spoils my enjoyment of the weekly telecasts if I know ahead of time who made the Nov 9. Mainly it's because if I know PlayerX makes it to the final table, then I know that any time PlayerX goes all in that he's not going to lose.

I don't undertand why people can't just accept that others care about spoilers even if they don't.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

There should be a penalty for any player who high fives himself.

edit: Ah, thank you poker gods.


----------



## Magister (Oct 17, 2004)

JLucPicard said:


> I normally FF thorugh commercials (who here doesn't? ), but I happened to see one on the second hour that made it very clear at least one of the people who will be at the final table (though I think we've all been spoiled with that one). Maybe they figure it's better for them to get that out there when people are watching, but had I not known already about that one person, I would have a been a little ticked.


ugh, I was so good about skipping, then I had left the remote on the chair and caught the ad you are talking about. Stinks to know.


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

hummingbird_206 said:


> I don't undertand why people can't just accept that others care about spoilers even if they don't.


i accept it (and don't spoil the threads), just seems stupid


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

Wow, we got to see the chip leader! That's the first hand I've seen Moon play.

Schneider's wife is extremely annoying. I wish they'd quit showing her doing her stupid cheer thing.

Those closeups of Dennis Phillips make my eyes water. Wonder what the huge thing is in the corner of this left eye?


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

I'm still having some weirdness with my SP's working properly. I had conflicts at 9:00 last night, but the 10:00 episode was recorded on ESPN. But on my ESPN2 backup SP, instead of recording the repeat of the the 9:00 episode (at 1:30 am) it was only set to record the repeat of the 10:00 (at 2:30 am). Fortunately I thought to check on it and set the 1:30 to record, and also fortunately I padded it an hour since SportsNation ran over until about 35 minutes into the WSOP.

I only checked the beginning, presumably they aired the entire episode. A few weeks ago, there was an episode that started late, but finished on time. For some reason (luckily for me) it recorded the episode again in full later in the week. I re-watched it, and there was a segment (between two commercial breaks) that they had cut out entirely so that the 2nd part would run during its one-hour block as scheduled. I think this was from day 3 or 4.


----------



## Supfreak26 (Dec 12, 2003)

hummingbird_206 said:


> I know "STFU" but what's "STFO"?


Ummmm.... STF Off? STF Out? I don't know where that O came from. lol



Magister said:


> ugh, I was so good about skipping, then I had left the remote on the chair and caught the ad you are talking about. Stinks to know.


Same thing happened to me. So pissed at ESPN right now. How lame is that? I'm watching the Main Event already. Why do you feel the need to push the final table broadcast on me? If I'm watching every day of the Main Event, don't you think I'll be there for the final table? And will announcing on of the players entice me that much more?

Idiots.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

JLucPicard said:


> I normally FF thorugh commercials (who here doesn't? ), but I happened to see one on the second hour that made it very clear at least one of the people who will be at the final table (though I think we've all been spoiled with that one). Maybe they figure it's better for them to get that out there when people are watching, but had I not known already about that one person, I would have a been a little ticked.


Thank you so much for this heads up. I was really careful last night to FF thru the commercials so that I didn't see it. All because of your warning. I'm really sorry that others have had it spoiled for them. STUPID ESPN.


----------



## scottjf8 (Nov 11, 2001)

Thank god Hack'em is gone 

Darvin Moon runs ridiculous... it's also interesting to see things develop that I've heard about, including the legend of Billy Kopp. No spoilers, but it gets interesting moving forward.

The "nuts" bit about "nice hand" was hilarious. The mouth was great - "they really mean go F yourself".. no truer words were spoke.


----------



## mbhuff (Jan 25, 2004)

Phil Ivey isn't as big name in tournament poker. In cash games, he is widely considered the best hold-em player and maybe the best all-around since Chip Reese passed. He has been known to play 72 hours straight at the highest levels. Read "The professor, the banker and the suicide kings" if you want to learn a little about the "big" game (it's a little one sided, but it's a good read).


----------



## scottjf8 (Nov 11, 2001)

mbhuff said:


> Phil Ivey isn't as big name in tournament poker.


Really? He has (I think) 7 bracelets, including 2 so far this year. He's also won a WPT event.

He doesn't PLAY a lot of tournaments, but you can't say he's not a big name.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

mbhuff said:


> Phil Ivey isn't as big name in tournament poker.


I know what you're trying to get at, but at least in televised tournaments, he shows up fairly often. e.g. "Poker After Dark". I think he was on High Stakes Poker (I only relatively recently had access to GSN, and am trying to catch up on the show in order.. they air reruns in weird orders).


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

jeff125va said:


> Anyone else miss a recording this week?


I know this was a message from a week or so ago, but I've been keeping track of which episodes I've seen -- at least based upon the episode #s shown in the Tivo guide data.

There was a case where something like the following was listed *in the guide data*.. These aren't the exact numbers, but fit in with this season's numbering scheme..

One Tuesday (maybe two weeks ago), the guide data said it would show 9020, 9021, 9022 on Tuesday (but my first run poker WL didn't pick up 9022).. the next tuesday, the "new" episodes were 9022 and 9023. (This was NOT due to the 28 day rule as far as I can tell since there was no conflict.)

Again, those numbers aren't really right, since last night aired 9023 and 9024.. but in essence, I think the guide data was wrong for a later showing Tuesday night, and showed "too high" episode number for one episode.

As someone else mentioned, they've done some weird chopping of reruns into half hour time slots/starting late too.. (I think I hit that one when trying to successfully record the last third or so of an episode that had a semi-major signal corruption in the last section.)


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

mattack said:


> I know this was a message from a week or so ago, but I've been keeping track of which episodes I've seen -- at least based upon the episode #s shown in the Tivo guide data.
> 
> There was a case where something like the following was listed *in the guide data*.. These aren't the exact numbers, but fit in with this season's numbering scheme..
> 
> ...


I'll have to check my other DVR (the one where I record mostly poker stuff and this is tops on the list), to see if it recorded the 9:00 episode. Conflicts definitely explain why it only recorded the 10:00 for me this week, but I want to see if it happened again on that one where conflicts couldn't be the cause.

I've seen where they've had episodes scheduled for 1/2 hour before, but they tend to be much older (at least several months). The one I was referring to was no more than a week or so, and it was in a full hour time slot in the guide data. I had to fast forward roughly 20 minutes into it to find the beginning, so I expected it to end at about 1:20, but the second episode from that night began at 1:00 (I always pad my ESPN2 recordings by an hour, since they frequently start late, esp. the late-night ones).


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

mbhuff said:


> Phil Ivey isn't as big name in tournament poker. In cash games, he is widely considered the best hold-em player and maybe the best all-around since Chip Reese passed. He has been known to play 72 hours straight at the highest levels. Read "The professor, the banker and the suicide kings" if you want to learn a little about the "big" game (it's a little one sided, but it's a good read).





scottjf8 said:


> Really? He has (I think) 7 bracelets, including 2 so far this year. He's also won a WPT event.
> 
> He doesn't PLAY a lot of tournaments, but you can't say he's not a big name.





mattack said:


> I know what you're trying to get at, but at least in televised tournaments, he shows up fairly often. e.g. "Poker After Dark". I think he was on High Stakes Poker (I only relatively recently had access to GSN, and am trying to catch up on the show in order.. they air reruns in weird orders).


I think the only thing you can say about Ivey in terms of tournaments vs. cash is that he himself is more of a cash game player. But in terms of tournament accomplishments, he's 3rd in all-time money winnings (take away Jamie Gold's one significant cash and he'd be 2nd to Negreanu), 6th in WSOP bracelets, first in WPT final tables, etc. etc. So he's a huge name in tournament poker, it's just that he's perhaps even bigger in cash games.

I think when people talk about Ivey being the best all-around player, it's in terms not only of multiple poker variants, but of both tournaments and cash games as well.

Yeah, I enjoyed that book. I found it interesting where he talks about no-limit hold 'em being (paraphrasing) virtually unheard-of as a cash game. I probably read it two years ago and the book was probably two years old at the time.

Strangely, I suddenly had about 6 episodes of HSP in my To Do list between around 6:00 and midnight this past Sunday. I have it set for first run only, so I thought they might be starting a new season, but it was a bunch of scattered episodes from earlier seasons. Guide data glitch, perhaps? I believe Ivey played during season 3.


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

mbhuff said:


> Phil Ivey isn't as big name in tournament poker.


level?


----------



## scottjf8 (Nov 11, 2001)

pjenkins said:


> level?


3


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

scottjf8 said:


> 3


wp.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

jeff125va said:


> Strangely, I suddenly had about 6 episodes of HSP in my To Do list between around 6:00 and midnight this past Sunday. I have it set for first run only, so I thought they might be starting a new season, but it was a bunch of scattered episodes from earlier seasons. Guide data glitch, perhaps? I believe Ivey played during season 3.


Last Sunday's episodes of HSP had no guide data. (As I've said, I've been keeping track of which episodes I've seen.. checking my iphone notes.. Except for a few that I'm pretty sure that I forgot to write down, I've caught season 1, season 4 and season 5 from their first episode when I saw them starting at the beginning of a season on Sunday afternoons, in the past few months.. e.g. I've seen 13 eps of S1 (whole thing), 9 eps of s4, and 6 eps of S5.. but I think I have one or two recorded I haven't watched yet.)


----------



## scottjf8 (Nov 11, 2001)

I watched one of the S1 repeats the other day, and they don't show the bet/raise amounts on the graphics. So lame.


----------



## Supfreak26 (Dec 12, 2003)

Finally got around to watching last week's shows. Really starting to get interested now that they are getting closer to the final table. I don't have any favorites right now since all of my faves have been knocked out. Just enjoying the ride.

Someone mentioned Jamie Gold earlier. What happened to him? I seem to recall him coming back the year after he won (last year?) but I don't remember seeing him in this tourney. (Not that I miss him. He seemed to be a first class ass. Just curious.)


----------



## Paperboy2003 (Mar 30, 2004)

He was there, briefly, as I recall.

I really would like to see Leo Margets get to the final table. 

There's a kid from my hometown on LI still in it, Lichtenberger (I think), but I have no idea how far he's gone and if he made it past 27th, I just saw him in the background on the last hour


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

With EPSN2's wacky broadcasting techniques, I've missed chunks here and there.

There was some guy who on Day 1 was down to just $400, but miraculously made it to at least Day 6 or 7 with over a million. Anybody know if he's still in it or what place he busted out at?


----------



## Magister (Oct 17, 2004)

busyba said:


> With EPSN2's wacky broadcasting techniques, I've missed chunks here and there.
> 
> There was some guy who on Day 1 was down to just $400, but miraculously made it to at least Day 6 or 7 with over a million. Anybody know if he's still in it or what place he busted out at?


He went out on this weeks episode. I think in the low 30's.


----------



## mcb08 (Mar 10, 2006)

Paperboy2003 said:


> He was there, briefly, as I recall.
> 
> I really would like to see Leo Margets get to the final table.
> 
> There's a kid from my hometown on LI still in it, Lichtenberger (I think), but I have no idea how far he's gone and if he made it past 27th, I just saw him in the background on the last hour


They played down to 27 last week and he's still in.


----------



## mcb08 (Mar 10, 2006)

Supfreak26 said:


> Finally got around to watching last week's shows. Really starting to get interested now that they are getting closer to the final table. I don't have any favorites right now since all of my faves have been knocked out. Just enjoying the ride.
> 
> Someone mentioned Jamie Gold earlier. What happened to him? I seem to recall him coming back the year after he won (last year?) but I don't remember seeing him in this tourney. (Not that I miss him. He seemed to be a first class ass. Just curious.)


Jamie Gold did play in the ME this year, and got knocked out on the first day.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Supfreak26 said:


> Not that I miss [Jamie Gold]. He seemed to be a first class ass.


Second class at best---no one is in Phil Hellmuth's league...


----------



## Mispelld (May 6, 2009)

Amnesia said:


> Second class at best---no one is in Phil Hellmuth's league...


True, but there is never any shortage of pretenders to the crown.


----------



## Supfreak26 (Dec 12, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> Second class at best---no one is in Phil Hellmuth's league...


I don't know. I think Phil knows he's being an ass and it's part of his schtick. Gold was just an ass.

I've heard that most of these pros are asses. Does anyone have some personal experiences with these guys that proves or disproves these rumors? Please share!


----------



## stujac (Jan 26, 2002)

I had experience with all of them from 1981 through 1984 and can confirm that they were all, with the exception of about 3-4, total asses. The exceptions where Tom McEvoy, Bobby Baldwin, Johnny Chan and Jack "Treetop" Strauss.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

Magister said:


> He went out on this weeks episode. I think in the low 30's.


I believe that was Bradley Craig. It might have even been the upper 20's.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

stujac said:


> I had experience with all of them from 1981 through 1984 and can confirm that they were all, with the exception of about 3-4, total asses. The exceptions where Tom McEvoy, Bobby Baldwin, Johnny Chan and Jack "Treetop" Strauss.


Not many of the pros (at least the ones you see on TV shows) were playing back then, were they? Phil Hellmuth couldn't play legally in the US until 1986.


----------



## dimented (May 21, 2003)

Wow. Phil Ivey mucks the winning hand when he rivers a small flush. Misread his hand. I guess even pros make stupid mistakes.


----------



## Maui (Apr 22, 2000)

dimented said:


> Wow. Phil Ivey mucks the winning hand when he rivers a small flush. Misread his hand. I guess even pros make stupid mistakes.


That was unbelievable. It was a two million dollar pot too so it would have helped offset his other losses for the day.


----------



## Fool Me Twice (Jul 6, 2004)

He sucks.


----------



## Magister (Oct 17, 2004)

dimented said:


> Wow. Phil Ivey mucks the winning hand when he rivers a small flush. Misread his hand. I guess even pros make stupid mistakes.


Wonder if he comments on it now that he has seen/heard about the hand. I have done that before, but not in a multi-million dollar tournament.


----------



## JLucPicard (Jul 8, 2004)

So I wonder if he didn't think/realize he had a spade, or misread, when they other guy turned his hand over, the nine of clubs as the nine of spades and figured he was beat.

My jaw dropped, I was like "Whoa! That did NOT just happen." Then I realized it was the eighth straight day and thought, "Ya, at that point I could see that happening."

I actually felt bad for him, and seeing how things went after that, Phil sure could have used those chips!


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

I wonder when he first found out about it. I guess it depends on when the hole card camera feeds are accessible. I know that Lon and Chad record their commentary later because there are restrictions on seeing the hole card cams live at the casino, but I don't know if perhaps someone off-site can watch them live or some time soon after or whatever.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

JLucPicard said:


> So I wonder if he didn't think/realize he had a spade, or misread, when they other guy turned his hand over, the nine of clubs as the nine of spades and figured he was beat.
> 
> My jaw dropped, I was like "Whoa! That did NOT just happen." Then I realized it was the eighth straight day and thought, "Ya, at that point I could see that happening."
> 
> I actually felt bad for him, and seeing how things went after that, Phil sure could have used those chips!


I think he was just so mad at himself for letting the guy catch the Ace that it distracted him from the flush.


----------



## eMarkM (Apr 28, 2003)

dimented said:


> Wow. Phil Ivey mucks the winning hand when he rivers a small flush. Misread his hand. I guess even pros make stupid mistakes.


Yeah, that was pretty shocking given the circumstances. Something that's happened to everyone that's played a lot of poker, even the arguably best player in the world apparently. Typically happens when you get frustrated at that river card that "beats" you. You're so obsessed with looking at the other guy's made hand you forget to check your own hand and realize you have a made hand, too.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

I've only seen the first hour so far:

Kopp holding 7-4 and rivering a straight was just sick. And it gave him the chip lead

I've enjoyed watching Esfandiari playing. His life coach seems to really be helping his game. Sorry to see him go out.

And as already discussed...Ivey misreading his hand and mucking the flush was just OMG crazy! Holy crap!!!


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

hummingbird_206 said:


> I've enjoyed watching Esfandiari playing. His life coach seems to really be helping his game. Sorry to see him go out.


I was surprised not to see Laak rooting on his friend...


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

Hum, good point. Maybe since Antonio isn't partying Phil dumped him?


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

What was Kopp thinking?


----------



## scottjf8 (Nov 11, 2001)

lol billykoppaments


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

hummingbird_206 said:


> What was Kopp thinking?


he wasn't, which is pretty common actually, especially late in a tournament, and this is probably the highest stress level tourny in existence. his shove makes no sense on that board/against that opponent, and you can tell pretty quickly he regretted not taking more time and figuring it out. it will, imo, go down as one of the biggest WSOP ME gaffs in history...

or what scottjf8 said LOL


----------



## scottjf8 (Nov 11, 2001)

pjenkins said:


> he wasn't, which is pretty common actually, especially late in a tournament, and this is probably the highest stress level tourny in existence. his shove makes no sense on that board/against that opponent, and you can tell pretty quickly he regretted not taking more time and figuring it out. it will, imo, go down as one of the biggest WSOP ME gaffs in history...
> 
> or what scottjf8 said LOL


As soon as I saw it, it reminded me of that sick blowup Scotty Nguyen had a few years back...

I was thinking of how I would play the hand if I was Kopp... it'd be tough... after the flop call by logger boy, I think checking behind the turn and calling a river bet would be best. His ship was ridiculous.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

Strange that there weren't any re-airings on ESPN2 later last night. I don't see any more airings of last night's episodes until Sunday. I usually rely on those for the 9:00 (eastern) episode because of all my prime-time stuff that's only on once. Fortunately I did get it on my "extra" DVR that I can watch either in the gym or at the bar. Decisions, decisions...

I've known the final 9 for a while but really looking forward to see how it plays out.


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

live broadcast of FT now - spoilerized b/c it's obv gonna not be broadcast until Tuesday!!!



Spoiler



http://www.bluffmagazine.com/live/


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

I don't think you need to spoilerize it when it's just a url.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

Better to err on the safe side when it comes to spoilers. Plus the new buttons are fun to play with.


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

hummingbird_206 said:


> Better to err on the safe side when it comes to spoilers. Plus the new buttons are fun to play with.


yeah, people hate when others spoil things so better safe than sorry/yelled at!!


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

pjenkins said:


> yeah, people hate when others spoil things so better safe than sorry/yelled at!!


i'm not spoiling with any details but it will be interesting to see reactions to Tuesday's broadcast - such a donkfest that is the ME FT


----------



## Magister (Oct 17, 2004)

I listened to some of that late last night, but I couldn't stay up for the end. Will be exciting (not indicating anything, but anytime people are playing for millions of bucks it is exciting).


----------



## scottjf8 (Nov 11, 2001)

Spoiler



GO CADA!!!!!!


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

I did follow the bluffmagazine broadcast last night/this morning. First time I've ever listened to/watched a webcast poker tourney. Aside from the annoying people who felt it more important to chat and plug their personal businesses than announce the game play, it was pretty cool to 'see' every hand....well, except when I fell asleep for a while.


----------



## mcb08 (Mar 10, 2006)

There were so many interesting hands from the FT, and I'm sure there will be more now that they are heads-up.. It will be interesting to see how ESPN is able to edit it down to 2 hours. Hopefully they do a better job than last year, where they showed 2 hands HU.


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

mcb08 said:


> There were so many interesting hands from the FT, and I'm sure there will be more now that they are heads-up.. It will be interesting to see how ESPN is able to edit it down to 2 hours. Hopefully they do a better job than last year, where they showed 2 hands HU.


given the guys playing HU, it might not last but 2 hands...


----------



## NatasNJ (Jan 7, 2002)

pjenkins said:


> given the guys playing HU, it might not last but 2 hands...


Can someone post the results? (Spoileize them though)
I can't find that info online and want to know who went out in what order and who is left.


----------



## stujac (Jan 26, 2002)

Cardplayer is your best source for ongoing coverage, imho.


----------



## mcb08 (Mar 10, 2006)

NatasNJ said:


> Can someone post the results? (Spoileize them though)
> I can't find that info online and want to know who went out in what order and who is left.


Pokernews has every hand.



Spoiler



9th - Akenhead 33 < 99
8th - Schaffel AA < KK
7th - Ivey AK < AQ
6th - Begleiter QQ < AQ
5th - Shulman 88 < A9
4th - Buchman A5 < KJ
3rd - Saout 88 < AK


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

I understand why they call the final nine the "Final Table" for a big tournament like this, even though the final ten were all at the same table. But for the official all-time records, do they count making the final ten-player table (or, in the case of stud or mixed games, whatever the usual full table would be for a particular tournament) as making a final table?

Does it work like this for other lower profile WSOP tournaments, particularly the non-TV ones (which is just about everything now)? I'm assuming that like a lot of multi-day tournaments, they break when they get to the final table and play that on the final day, just curious whether they bother eliminating 10th place in those.

And even for the Main Event, have they always done it this way, or did they just start doing it so they could say "November Nine"? I meant to go back and look at the clip they showed a few times of Ivey getting busted by Moneymaker - were they playing with 10 at that table?


----------



## scottjf8 (Nov 11, 2001)

jeff125va said:


> I understand why they call the final nine the "Final Table" for a big tournament like this, even though the final ten were all at the same table. But for the official all-time records, do they count making the final ten-player table (or, in the case of stud or mixed games, whatever the usual full table would be for a particular tournament) as making a final table?
> 
> Does it work like this for other lower profile WSOP tournaments, particularly the non-TV ones (which is just about everything now)? I'm assuming that like a lot of multi-day tournaments, they break when they get to the final table and play that on the final day, just curious whether they bother eliminating 10th place in those.


They don't count 10 as the final table.. they just play 1 table at 10 so they're not doing 5 and 5.



> And even for the Main Event, have they always done it this way, or did they just start doing it so they could say "November Nine"? I meant to go back and look at the clip they showed a few times of Ivey getting busted by Moneymaker - were they playing with 10 at that table?


They started doing the November 9 thing last year. But they've always done the 10 at the same table thing - the Moneymaker year, Ivey busted 10th at a full table with 99.


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

which is why Annie Duke was wrong in her broadcasting by saying more than 1 woman has made the final table at the WSOP ME. there has been only 1. (of course, my prediction is that there will be 2 after the 2010 ME FT )


----------



## scottjf8 (Nov 11, 2001)

pjenkins said:


> which is why Annie Duke was wrong in her broadcasting by saying more than 1 woman has made the final table at the WSOP ME. there has been only 1. (of course, my prediction is that there will be 2 after the 2010 ME FT )


Who was the other she was referring to?


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

scottjf8 said:


> Who was the other she was referring to?


Presumably, herself. She finished 10th in 2000.


----------



## scottjf8 (Nov 11, 2001)

jeff125va said:


> Presumably, herself. She finished 10th in 2000.


Ah yeah. Or maybe she was referring to Annette.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

scottjf8 said:


> They don't count 10 as the final table.. they just play 1 table at 10 so they're not doing 5 and 5.
> 
> They started doing the November 9 thing last year. But they've always done the 10 at the same table thing - the Moneymaker year, Ivey busted 10th at a full table with 99.


It makes sense that they go to 10 since they normally played 10-handed throughout the tournament. But I'm not sure I see why they make the distinction between making the final 10 (at one table) and the final 9, in their official stats and records about how many final tables a player has made.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

scottjf8 said:


> Ah yeah. Or maybe she was referring to Annette.


Yes, possibly, but less likely IMO.


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

jeff125va said:


> Yes, possibly, but less likely IMO.


agreed, i think she meant herself, but she doesn't count


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

Avoid the USA today sports page today if you don't like spoilers, there is a picture of the final 2.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

JFriday said:


> Avoid the USA today sports page today if you don't like spoilers, there is a picture of the final 2.


you might want to stay off of Twitter, especially if you follow people that report/tweet about Vegas stuff.


----------



## mcb08 (Mar 10, 2006)

jsmeeker said:


> you might want to stay off of Twitter, especially if you follow people that report/tweet about Vegas stuff.


If you're following any of those people, you've already been spoiled


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

I'm not sure I'm going to want to go on Full Tilt or PokerStars for the next two days if I want to be able to watch tomorrow night w/o knowing the outcome. I remember when Phil Ivey won his first WPT event, FTP had a Congratulations message about it on the main screen that was completely unavoidable. Not that I had any intention of avoiding finding out about that for a year or so until it aired, but for just a couple of days I'm hoping to for this. And I know PokerStars also puts up congratulations messages for their players when you first sign on.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

mcb08 said:


> If you're following any of those people, you've already been spoiled


Probably. 

I was, but I didn't care. It's not like I am going to really watch this when it aires.


----------



## mcb08 (Mar 10, 2006)

jeff125va said:


> I'm not sure I'm going to want to go on Full Tilt or PokerStars for the next two days if I want to be able to watch tomorrow night w/o knowing the outcome. I remember when Phil Ivey won his first WPT event, FTP had a Congratulations message about it on the main screen that was completely unavoidable. Not that I had any intention of avoiding finding out about that for a year or so until it aired, but for just a couple of days I'm hoping to for this. And I know PokerStars also puts up congratulations messages for their players when you first sign on.


PokerStars has a spoiler alert in their lobby. You should probably turn off player chat, too.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

mcb08 said:


> PokerStars has a spoiler alert in their lobby. You should probably turn off player chat, too.


Oh, good to know, thanks. I'll plan on playing on PS then.

This is the first time I've ever been even close to caught up on the WSOP broadcasts, so I'd definitely like to avoid finding out. I figured that I wouldn't be able to avoid spoilers for the last 4 months, so I didn't bother avoiding seeing who was in the Nov. Nine. And knowing who all had made it gave away the outcomes of some otherwise exciting hands.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

pjenkins said:


> agreed, i think she meant herself, but she doesn't count


Anyone know why they don't count that? Any time I've made it to a 10-handed final table, no one has ever said anything to the effect that "we haven't officially made the final table yet". I get that people say "final table" when they might really mean "TV Final Table" (especially for something like the Final 6 in the WPT) but I would have expected a 10th place finish to count as a final table finish.

It might make sense if they had played the entire tournament 9-handed, then went 10-handed just to avoid 5-and-5 at that particular point in the tournament. But that's not the case, unless I've misunderstood something.


----------



## stujac (Jan 26, 2002)

I think it has more to do with tradition. A 9 hand table has always been the final table, at least going back to 81 when I was there. In fact, in the "day" they never played 10 hands to a table. It's too crowded.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

stujac said:


> I think it has more to do with tradition. A 9 hand table has always been the final table, at least going back to 81 when I was there. In fact, in the "day" they never played 10 hands to a table. It's too crowded.


Oh, ok. That makes sense. 10-handed has been standard in casinos for the few years I've been playing.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

jeff125va said:


> Oh, good to know, thanks. I'll plan on playing on PS then.
> 
> This is the first time I've ever been even close to caught up on the WSOP broadcasts, so I'd definitely like to avoid finding out. I figured that I wouldn't be able to avoid spoilers for the last 4 months, so I didn't bother avoiding seeing who was in the Nov. Nine. And knowing who all had made it gave away the outcomes of some otherwise exciting hands.


This is the second year in a row that I didn't know the Nov 9 until the final hand was shown on ESPN:up: I think it really does make viewing the weekly broadcasts more fun.


----------



## scottjf8 (Nov 11, 2001)

Do NOT watch any ESPN channel tomorrow. Last year during PTI they spoiled the winner in the bottomline crawl.


----------



## LifeIsABeach (Feb 28, 2001)

Just went to Yahoo.com and a big picture of the winner poped up. Damn you all to H-E-double hockey sticks!!!


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

FullTiltPoker Facebook update got me.


----------



## eMarkM (Apr 28, 2003)

Yeah, Yahoo got me, too..really can't help to get it spoiled with a huge picture of the guy. Just avoid the internet today if you don't want to know


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

eMarkM said:


> Yeah, Yahoo got me, too..really can't help to get it spoiled with a huge picture of the guy. Just avoid the internet today if you don't want to know


Avoid newsradio too. The sports reporter announced it with no warning. And then said, "Is poker even a sport?"

*****.


----------



## FourFourSeven (Jan 3, 2003)

I got the final two spoiled by the back page of the sports section the other day. Now I'm freaking out trying to avoid anything else.

I'm usually not a member of the "spoiler police", especially when it comes to sports, but when the event hasn't even been broadcast yet, and will be broadcast less than two days later, you'd think people would be a little more careful...


----------



## scottjf8 (Nov 11, 2001)

FourFourSeven said:


> I got the final two spoiled by the back page of the sports section the other day. Now I'm freaking out trying to avoid anything else.
> 
> I'm usually not a member of the "spoiler police", especially when it comes to sports, but when the event hasn't even been broadcast yet, and will be broadcast less than two days later, you'd think people would be a little more careful...


Nobody cares.. it's a breaking news thing, so they want to make sure it gets out.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Even ESPN doesn't care, and they are the ones carrying the event on TV. 

People DO need to be careful. Stay off the Internet. Don't read a paper. Don't turn on a TV.


----------



## scottjf8 (Nov 11, 2001)

jsmeeker said:


> Even ESPN doesn't care, and they are the ones carrying the event on TV.
> 
> People DO need to be careful. Stay off the Internet. Don't read a paper. Don't turn on a TV.


Or realize that loggers from Maryland have no clue how to actually play poker.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

scottjf8 said:


> Or realize that loggers from Maryland have no clue how to actually play poker.


More of a clue than you.


----------



## scottjf8 (Nov 11, 2001)

jsmeeker said:


> More of a clue than you.


hahahahahaha


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

busyba said:


> Avoid newsradio too. The sports reporter announced it with no warning. And then said, "Is poker even a sport?"
> 
> *****.


poker isn't a sport - and no one cares about spoiler things in the news, the news is all about getting out first/with the story, they aren't going to wait for broadcast/dvr dweebs.


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

jsmeeker said:


> More of a clue than you.


blast from the past...


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

His one shining moment!


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> Even ESPN doesn't care, and they are the ones carrying the event on TV.
> 
> People DO need to be careful. Stay off the Internet. Don't read a paper. Don't turn on a TV.


I wonder if ESPN is going to be smart enough to keep the result off of the crawl while they're broadcasting the final table.

-- Don


----------



## pjenkins (Mar 8, 1999)

That Don Guy said:


> I wonder if ESPN is going to be smart enough to keep the result off of the crawl while they're broadcasting the final table.
> 
> -- Don


i'd bet$ on no LOL


----------



## scottjf8 (Nov 11, 2001)

pjenkins said:


> blast from the past...




I'm playing the Mil this week too. 2.5M gtd.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

pjenkins said:


> poker isn't a sport


I'm not arguing that it is, but if the radio guy doesn't think it's a sport, then don't run the story during the _sports report_, as opposed to running the story anyway and then making a snide comment.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

I just finished watching the 2 hours ESPN scheduled for the FT, and they aren't even to the final 2 yet. Guess they are just going to keep going to show the heads up. Maybe the programming info got updated and my TiVo missed it?


----------



## Snappa77 (Feb 14, 2004)

hummingbird_206 said:


> I just finished watching the 2 hours ESPN scheduled for the FT, and they aren't even to the final 2 yet. Guess they are just going to keep going to show the heads up. Maybe the programming info got updated and my TiVo missed it?


Yeah it runs 1/2 late.

Some ppl have a horseshoe in their butts. The hands played at this table and the outcomes makes it well worth watching.


----------



## eMarkM (Apr 28, 2003)

Yeah, it ran 1/2 hour late, and that sucks for DVR users, but kudos to ESPN for extending the coverage to show that last 1/2 hour of mostly heads-up play. For awhile there I thought they were gonna blow through the last 5 players in the 15m that was remaining in it's allotted time, but the extended coverage showed us some pretty decent heads up play. 

Moon played HU better than I expected after donkin it up in the early going and then sucking out later to get back in it. People will look at Cada's suckouts, but given the circumstances and short chips, I can't blame his early pushes. Though the late move with deuces was a bit suspect.


----------



## scottjf8 (Nov 11, 2001)

Nice call with the QdJd. Jebus.

I'm gonna play in the Main next year, I swear.


----------



## danielhart (Apr 27, 2004)

scottjf8 said:


> Or realize that loggers from Maryland have no clue how to actually play poker.


Neither do consultants from Plano......


----------



## danielhart (Apr 27, 2004)

eMarkM said:


> Yeah, it ran 1/2 hour late, and that sucks for DVR users, but kudos to ESPN for extending the coverage to show that last 1/2 hour of mostly heads-up play. For awhile there I thought they were gonna blow through the last 5 players in the 15m that was remaining in it's allotted time, but the extended coverage showed us some pretty decent heads up play.
> 
> Moon played HU better than I expected after donkin it up in the early going and then sucking out later to get back in it. People will look at Cada's suckouts, but given the circumstances and short chips, I can't blame his early pushes. Though the late move with deuces was a bit suspect.


I can't ever give any kudos to ESPN - their coverage is awful IMO. I listened to the audio webcast live and there were so many more hands they could have shown in a 2.5 hour slot, but instead all that lame ass time wasting they do with The Nuts and endless profiles and showing old hands from previous tourneys.

Anyways, I recorded it on ESPN, but got interrupted, and so I missed the last half hour. Now I have to watch the ESPN 2 feed cause I want to see what Cada and Moon had in the hand where they were heads up and Moon folded after Cada reraised 35 million last night.

All of that said, pretty much the whole final table was pretty much a complete donkfest. Cada sucks, Moon was awful, Buchman with the AQ was really stupid (rule number one - never go out of a tourney holding AQ when u have chips), even The Best in The World (Not!) Ivey made an idiotic laydown with JJ....

The French dude and NY Steve played the best.


----------



## danielhart (Apr 27, 2004)

scottjf8 said:


> Nice call with the QdJd. Jebus.
> 
> I'm gonna play in the Main next year, I swear.


I came close to entering in 2004 and 2005, but tourneys have just gotten so sickly stupid for the most part.

I think it was 2005 when I played at a final table at the Bike at a 500 buy in NLHE and if I won enough I was gonna roll it into the WSOP main event. We agreed to a chop that would have given me enough to cover the buy in when one guy objected at the last second, and I cracked out on the very next hand and only won like 1500...

The guy who objected was Kelly Kim (from last year's November Nine...)


----------



## LifeIsABeach (Feb 28, 2001)

eMarkM said:


> People will look at Cada's suckouts, but given the circumstances and short chips, I can't blame his early pushes.


If only Yahoo had not ruined it for me I could have been amazed at his comeback from having only 1% of the chips. Did he get extremely lucky? Of course (has anyone ever won a tournament without a good deal of luck?). Does he suck just because he got lucky? Certainly not. He seems to be a much better player and much more deserving of a main event title than Moneymaker or that idiot Gold. Speaking of those two, while it would have been cool to see everyman Darvin Moon win I am glad he didn't.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

The final table was fun to watch, but that's pretty much the only piece of the WSOP I saw.

The biggest reason for that is Norman Chad. I hate him with the intensity of a thousand suns. His inane sixth grade level jokes literally put me in a bad mood while watching something I would otherwise enjoy.

I will never ever understand why anyone puts him in front of a microphone.


----------



## mcb08 (Mar 10, 2006)

scooterboy said:


> The final table was fun to watch, but that's pretty much the only piece of the WSOP I saw.
> 
> The biggest reason for that is Norman Chad. I hate him with the intensity of a thousand suns. His inane sixth grade level jokes literally put me in a bad mood while watching something I would otherwise enjoy.
> 
> I will never ever understand why anyone puts him in front of a microphone.


To each his own....I think that Norman Chad does a great job.


----------



## mcb08 (Mar 10, 2006)

danielhart said:


> I can't ever give any kudos to ESPN - their coverage is awful IMO. I listened to the audio webcast live and there were so many more hands they could have shown in a 2.5 hour slot, but instead all that lame ass time wasting they do with The Nuts and endless profiles and showing old hands from previous tourneys.
> 
> Anyways, I recorded it on ESPN, but got interrupted, and so I missed the last half hour. Now I have to watch the ESPN 2 feed cause I want to see what Cada and Moon had in the hand where they were heads up and Moon folded after Cada reraised 35 million last night.
> 
> ...


Considering they had less than 48 hours to turn the whole thing around, I thought that ESPN did a good job. Much better than last year. Sauot had a pretty tight image up to that point, and Ivey didn't want to be flipping for all his chips. It's easy to call the laydown idiotic when you can see the hole cards.


----------



## brettatk (Oct 11, 2002)

I don't think they needed to stretch it out to 2:30 hours only to add a ton of filler. Also on several occasions they would come back from a commercial break and take us to the middle of a hand. I could understand that if it was live coverage. Moon was just having fun out there. He was fine if he won or not. Congrats to Cada. Nobody has ever won a tournament without getting lucky many times.


----------



## Paperboy2003 (Mar 30, 2004)

I was happy they played around with the timing. Every year I always hate the fact that you can pretty much forecast what the last hand will be (since the time was running out). The open ended time made it much more enjoyable for me...

Cada got lucky a bunch of times, but I think Moon had such momentum and got very lucky catching over the first 8 days. That's poker....


----------



## midas (Jun 1, 2000)

It looked like Moon was getting tired. Early on the FT it looked like he was intimidated. He was making some calls just because he was afraid he was getting run over. I think that wore him down. At the end he was just happy to get it over with. Cada had youth on his side and still seemed fresh.


----------



## Paperboy2003 (Mar 30, 2004)

Anyone know what the time of the final table was? I know they played pretty late into the night Saturday, but I was curious what time they started and finished....


----------



## Savafan1 (Mar 21, 2003)

Paperboy2003 said:


> Anyone know what the time of the final table was? I know they played pretty late into the night Saturday, but I was curious what time they started and finished....


The blog on ESPN shows that it started at 1pm on Saturday and they got to heads up at 5:51 am. The heads up on Monday went from 11:30 pm to 1:18 am.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

jsmeeker said:


> More of a clue than you.


Obviously Scott is better than God. Two of them.

-smak-


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

brettatk said:


> I don't think they needed to stretch it out to 2:30 hours only to add a ton of filler. Also on several occasions they would come back from a commercial break and take us to the middle of a hand. I could understand that if it was live coverage. Moon was just having fun out there. He was fine if he won or not. Congrats to Cada. Nobody has ever won a tournament without getting lucky many times.


I didn't see a problem with that. Both times it was AA vs KK all-in pre-flop. The first time, they came in after the turn, because nothing happened, and the 2nd time, they came in before the flop, because he flopped a K.

Not much reason to show, raise, raise, raise, raise pre-flop unless somebody else was involved. If it got in an extra hand or two, i think it was worth it.

-smak-


----------



## scottjf8 (Nov 11, 2001)

smak said:


> Obviously Scott is better than God.


She plays poker?


----------



## brettatk (Oct 11, 2002)

smak said:


> Not much reason to show, raise, raise, raise, raise pre-flop unless somebody else was involved. If it got in an extra hand or two, i think it was worth it.
> 
> -smak-


I just meant with all the "filler" they added to the coverage they could have easily showed the beginning of those hands plus many more hands. They had over 24 hrs worth of hands to choose from (just an estimate, not sure exactly how long final table took).


----------



## mcb08 (Mar 10, 2006)

brettatk said:


> I just meant with all the "filler" they added to the coverage they could have easily showed the beginning of those hands plus many more hands. They had over 24 hrs worth of hands to choose from (just an estimate, not sure exactly how long final table took).


If you factor in the breaks, there was less than 16 hours worth of hands.


----------



## eMarkM (Apr 28, 2003)

danielhart said:


> I can't ever give any kudos to ESPN - their coverage is awful IMO. I listened to the audio webcast live and there were so many more hands they could have shown in a 2.5 hour slot, but instead all that lame ass time wasting they do with The Nuts and endless profiles and showing old hands from previous tourneys.


Yeah, I used to be a pretty hardcore player too, and if you go on the twoplustwo poker forums it seems that crowd wouldn't be satisfied with anything less than coverage of the full 20+ hours of every hand; blind steals, walks and all .

But it is ESPN and they do have to appeal to more casual fans, not just the hardcore. So they're not going to ditch their little side segments for the final table. Player profiles kill the most time, but I don't ever see them getting rid of that. People do want to get to know these players to some extent. Did they even have a Nuts segment for this? I can't remember. So expanding the time so we get to see more HU than we did last year (which was like one or two hands in what was a very long struggle) was a step in the right direction.

I can't remember which network did this, but for one tourney a few years ago they did show a heads up between Ivey and D'agostino (IIRC) where they literally showed every hole card of every single hand. While it was fantastic for the hardcore player, it would probably get a bit old for your average ESPN viewer. Though it would be cool if they arranged it to have actual live coverage of the final two like that.


----------



## scottjf8 (Nov 11, 2001)

eMarkM said:


> Yeah, I used to be a pretty hardcore player too, and if you go on the twoplustwo poker forums it seems that crowd wouldn't be satisfied with anything less than coverage of the full 20+ hours of every hand; blind steals, walks and all .
> 
> But it is ESPN and they do have to appeal to more casual fans, not just the hardcore. So they're not going to ditch their little side segments for the final table. Player profiles kill the most time, but I don't ever see them getting rid of that. People do want to get to know these players to some extent. Did they even have a Nuts segment for this? I can't remember. So expanding the time so we get to see more HU than we did last year (which was like one or two hands in what was a very long struggle) was a step in the right direction.
> 
> I can't remember which network did this, but for one tourney a few years ago they did show a heads up between Ivey and D'agostino (IIRC) where they literally showed every hole card of every single hand. While it was fantastic for the hardcore player, it would probably get a bit old for your average ESPN viewer. Though it would be cool if they arranged it to have actual live coverage of the final two like that.


I thought ESPN's coverage was great... last year they showed 2 hands of HU play.. this year they showed a full half hour.. they really showed the majority of hands the guys played, other than the raise, fold hands.


----------



## mcb08 (Mar 10, 2006)

eMarkM said:


> Yeah, I used to be a pretty hardcore player too, and if you go on the twoplustwo poker forums it seems that crowd wouldn't be satisfied with anything less than coverage of the full 20+ hours of every hand; blind steals, walks and all .
> 
> But it is ESPN and they do have to appeal to more casual fans, not just the hardcore. So they're not going to ditch their little side segments for the final table. Player profiles kill the most time, but I don't ever see them getting rid of that. People do want to get to know these players to some extent. Did they even have a Nuts segment for this? I can't remember. So expanding the time so we get to see more HU than we did last year (which was like one or two hands in what was a very long struggle) was a step in the right direction.
> 
> I can't remember which network did this, but for one tourney a few years ago they did show a heads up between Ivey and D'agostino (IIRC) where they literally showed every hole card of every single hand. While it was fantastic for the hardcore player, it would probably get a bit old for your average ESPN viewer. Though it would be cool if they arranged it to have actual live coverage of the final two like that.


I doubt that we will ever see live coverage of the final table or HU. There's too much money on the line to risk the outcome being compromised by cheating. I think that they should bring back the PPV coverage that they did for a couple of years (2006 & 2007 IIRC). You didn't see the hole cards, but at least you could see every hand that was dealt if you wanted to.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

danielhart said:


> I can't ever give any kudos to ESPN - their coverage is awful IMO. I listened to the audio webcast live and there were so many more hands they could have shown in a 2.5 hour slot, but instead all that lame ass time wasting they do with The Nuts and endless profiles and showing old hands from previous tourneys.


My problem was all the downtime they had during the hands. They'd sit there with dead air for 60-90 seconds while a player was deciding whether to make a call or not. I can understand adding some time to heighten the suspense, but when you've got 16+ hours of footage to show, you'd think they'd edit the dead time out of some of those hands in order to get more in the telecast.

I can't believe how lucky Cada got, but that's the only way you get that far in a tourney like that. To go from 1% of the chips to winning the whole thing is an amazing feat, whether done with luck, skill or some combination of the two.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

scottjf8 said:


> She plays poker?


Look who was 4th and 5th in your 3rd place Sunday million.

-smak-


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

eMarkM said:


> Yeah, it ran 1/2 hour late, and that sucks for DVR users, but kudos to ESPN for extending the coverage to show that last 1/2 hour of mostly heads-up play.


But I'm not sure what they're doing on the reruns.. They're still in 2 hour timeslots.. Last night (when I was out), I recorded the last 5 minutes of the 2 hour slot, then the next (I think) half hour as a manual recording.. It really only got I guess the last 5 minutes of play..

So I'm not sure if I will forever have missed some of the original airing -- which cut out at 3 people (I always record 1 minute late, but got practically just the orig 2 hour show). I'll next record an *hour* from a half hour before the end of the "2 hour" show, to a half hour more.. on Monday.

BTW, except for this chunk in the middle I missed -- I DID manage to avoid spoiling the results for myself. I basically avoided the twitter feed on my phone for several days.



mcb08 said:


> I doubt that we will ever see live coverage of the final table or HU. There's too much money on the line to risk the outcome being compromised by cheating. I think that they should bring back the PPV coverage that they did for a couple of years (2006 & 2007 IIRC). You didn't see the hole cards, but at least you could see every hand that was dealt if you wanted to.


Seems like if they really wanted to, they could *somehow* do something vaguely like what that (not very good) FSN speed poker show from a few years ago did -- they showed hole cards, but prevented the players from seeing the audience. Maybe there's a somewhat less obtrusive way of doing that.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

mcb08 said:


> I doubt that we will ever see live coverage of the final table or HU. There's too much money on the line to risk the outcome being compromised by cheating. I think that they should bring back the PPV coverage that they did for a couple of years (2006 & 2007 IIRC). You didn't see the hole cards, but at least you could see every hand that was dealt if you wanted to.


The PPV didn't do so well. What they should do is just release the whole final table on itunes.

I don't really care about the LIVE aspect of the PPV. It's more that I want to see the whole thing take place, raise and folds included.

Seems like it'd be easier to have it on itunes where you can keep it rather than on a DVR where you are taking up a big chunk of your space.

-smak-


----------



## Eddief66 (Oct 24, 2009)

It looks like ESPN2 will be re-running the final table on Monday night. There's one half hour airing at 8:30pm then a 2 hour airing starting at 9pm. The question is whether or not the half hour is the part that we missed. Zap2it says that it was first aired 11/3 but if that's true then why only a half hour?


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

mattack said:


> Seems like if they really wanted to, they could *somehow* do something vaguely like what that (not very good) FSN speed poker show from a few years ago did -- they showed hole cards, but prevented the players from seeing the audience. Maybe there's a somewhat less obtrusive way of doing that.


I remember this being discussed before... I think the "somehow" would have to involve changing NV gaming regulations. I seem to recall something about that show not being done in Nevada. I'm not 100% certain though.

I remember watching the PPV a couple years ago, and IIRC it wasn't just that there weren't hole cards, but I seem to recall it being like watching a single camera view from a distance. It wasn't like watching the usual coverage, just without the hole cards. I watched all of it and knew that I wouldn't get it again, and probably wouldn't sit through it like that even for free. I thought I'd be able to remember how certain hands where there were no showdowns played out, so that I could see what happened when the hole cards were shown, but it was just too hard. 13 or so hours worth of hands was just too much to remember, and so few hands actually shown.

It would be cool if they did a version of the entire final table and showed it online, preferably with all the features stripped out.


----------



## mcb08 (Mar 10, 2006)

jeff125va said:


> /snip
> It would be cool if they did a version of the entire final table and showed it online, preferably with all the features stripped out.


Not sure what you meant by this, but there was an online site that showed every hand played (only the community cards, obv). There was just 9 boxes that represented each player, with their position, chip counts, bet amounts, etc.


----------



## Magister (Oct 17, 2004)

mcb08 said:


> Not sure what you meant by this, but there was an online site that showed every hand played (only the community cards, obv). There was just 9 boxes that represented each player, with their position, chip counts, bet amounts, etc.


I watched about an hour of it. Chris Ferguson was even chatting in it during the game. I don't think I could watch that for hours. It felt like I was watching a regular online game.

The updates were odd, it appeared to be very manual. There would be corrections and spurts of updates. But cool, better than nothing.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

mcb08 said:


> Not sure what you meant by this, but there was an online site that showed every hand played (only the community cards, obv). There was just 9 boxes that represented each player, with their position, chip counts, bet amounts, etc.


I was thinking just like what they put on TV, with hole cards and commentary, except they'd have every hand, not just the ones they can fit into 2.5 hours. I'm guessing that was really more like 1.5 hours worth of actual play when you take out the commercials and little features that they do.

So basically a hybrid of the PPV and the regular ESPN broadcast.


----------



## Mispelld (May 6, 2009)

I'd love to see a complete DVD package of the final table. They've got the footage and, I think, the market. Maybe I'm crazy, but I'd buy it. I'd love to see every hand, with cards revealed, for everybody.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

Mispelld said:


> I'd love to see a complete DVD package of the final table. They've got the footage and, I think, the market. Maybe I'm crazy, but I'd buy it. I'd love to see every hand, with cards revealed, for everybody.


They have the footage, I'm sure, but I'd have to guess there's a good bit of production work that goes into incorporating the hole cards with the camera footage, plus adding the commentary. I'd watch it online, DVD, or whatever, but I'm not necessarily sure that there is a market for people who would watch every hand like that.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

jeff125va said:


> They have the footage, I'm sure, but I'd have to guess there's a good bit of production work that goes into incorporating the hole cards with the camera footage, plus adding the commentary. I'd watch it online, DVD, or whatever, but I'm not necessarily sure that there is a market for people who would watch every hand like that.


Yah, there's at least a dozen cameras, and if they are showing the folded hole cards, that is tons of production work, for 16+ hours.

-smak-


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

smak said:


> Yah, there's at least a dozen cameras, and if they are showing the folded hole cards, that is tons of production work, for 16+ hours.
> 
> -smak-


An "extended version" would be nice, and probably feasible from a production standpoint. Maybe 3-4 hours worth (w/o commercials, probably with the features since they already did those anyway). I'm guessing that for every hand they showed, there was at least one that they would have liked to include, and probably even more that were easy choices to edit out.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Eddief66 said:


> It looks like ESPN2 will be re-running the final table on Monday night. There's one half hour airing at 8:30pm then a 2 hour airing starting at 9pm. The question is whether or not the half hour is the part that we missed. Zap2it says that it was first aired 11/3 but if that's true then why only a half hour?


I'm not sure what they did.. but while at first I was going to say I suspected you were wrong, upon rethinking it I think you were right..

I did a manual recording from 7:30-8:30, and only 7:30-8pm had the poker coverage.. and it started in the middle of the hand when the 3rd place player was knocked out.. Was that when the original airing cut out?

I'm going to record again this weekend to make absolutely sure I've seen it all. (I wish they would just do a REAL 2.5 hour timeslot for one of these, so I could be sure I'd seen it all.)


----------



## Eddief66 (Oct 24, 2009)

I'm not sure what they did, but I have it recorded and when I fast forwarded through the 2 hour show to check at the end there were two players with the prize money on the table so I assume it contains the missing footage.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Eddief66 said:


> I'm not sure what they did, but I have it recorded and when I fast forwarded through the 2 hour show to check at the end there were two players with the prize money on the table so I assume it contains the missing footage.


Not necessarily. IIRC, they brought out the prize money pretty early in the game, even before they were down to heads up.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> Not necessarily. IIRC, they brought out the prize money pretty early in the game, even before they were down to heads up.


Yeah, I don't think they waited like they do on WPT.

Fortunately I was watching it quasi-live and didn't miss anything. Even though I knew it didn't start late, I have been burned before and added 1/2 hour just in case. Then as the 2-hour mark approached and I knew there was no way they'd be done in time, I added even more time.

I also have my ESPN2 SP padded by an hour since there's often live sporting events on preceding the late-night re-airings, so I would have caught it all there.


----------

