poker superstars invitational 2?

[jcmack13]

Just saw an ad on FSN during a Tivo'd rerun of the J. D'ags-Phil Ivey heads up match (which i watch again and again. Watching Ivey here is like taking a master class in poker. and having Lederer do commentary? Definitiely +EV.) for the Poker Superstars 2. Voice-over says in a gravelly voice "weekly tournaments between poker's best..." and the photos flash up on the screen: Doyle. Chan. Greenstein....Moneymaker???!

Is this for real? First of all, if you're gonna get a WSOP winner, why not the current world champion? Second, isn't Moneymaker just going to get destroyed by these guys, unless lighting (in the form of a turned 8 against Brenes, a rivered Ace against Ivey, etc. ad infinitum) strikes twice? I mean, if it's structured the same way as the last poker superstars invitational, where the same guys play week after week, doesn't watching Moneymaker getting eaten alive on national TV qualify as cruel and unusual punishment for our 2003 champ? And therefore, isn't it expressly banned by our beloved Constituion?

Final thought to end the tirade. Isn't saying "Doyle, Chan, Greenstein, Moneymaker" like saying, "Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Gates," and then some lotto winner? oh, oh, or howabout, "Ruth, Gehrig, Mays, Buckner."??

Well, maybe FSN is shrewder than I give em credit for. I mean, I definitely want to watch him play now.

[Hold'me]

It's structured differently this time. Mike Sexton wrote a column on this event specifically in an older issue of CardPlayer. Here's the link to that, it talks about the new stucture of the event, which I personally dislike. http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/archives/?a_id=14491&m_id=65554

[__Q__]

[ QUOTE ]
oh, oh, or howabout, "Ruth, Gehrig, Mays, Buckner."??


[/ QUOTE ]

No thanks, this part of your argument doesn't work nearly as well as:

[ QUOTE ]
"Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Gates," and then some lotto winner?

[/ QUOTE ]