PDA

View Full Version : First day's show on ESPN- 2003 WSOP


Easy E
07-08-2003, 11:19 PM
Day 1 of the 2003 WSOP
WARNING- there are several spoilers in here. If you haven't seen the ESPN show yet, or if you flew in from another planet and don't know anything about the 2003 Series results, do NOT continue!

Did Robert Varkonyi give a mini-clinic on how NOT to play AA on that first hand, in early position? Sure seemed as if he gave up some possible equity on the turn with the flush out there… and the 4-flush that no one took a shot at on the river.

Not sure, but I think I like the deck shuffling graphic as an action break. May get monotonous, may not

Is RV holding AA up his sleeve? Wow…. The pro player commentator's "Varkonki is treating Aces like diseased cards" was a good one- Vince van Patton! Start taking some notes! However, neither one commented on Robert smartly raising, using his previous AA play to allow the raise to be called.

What the HELL was Robert V checking his Aces for when the 3 diamonds were on the board? Is this 1st round tight play or incredibly wimpy NL poker?

The hand suits in the graphic were a little hard to read on my TV- anyone else? Or am I just old? The changing "percentage favorite" graphic was an interesting one, but didn't get enough of an explanation (as to how hand values can change)…. But I guess, much like the WPT, the show is geared towards non-players.

After those two AA hands with the four-flush boards that RV was in, WHY did the guy call Robert's bet with AKoff and 4 diamonds on board? Had we seen him bluff at one yet?

RV made a nice bluff-inducing check on the river with one hand against Tom H. If Tom goes all in earlier, can RV call him?

Robert Varkonyi's bio- getting a LITTLE cocky there, Phil H wannabe? JP Massier is Robert's coach, eh? Anyone have a good/bad ranking on that? Also, I couldn't make out the title on the spiral notebook they were using- what did it say?
Well, the bio proved Robert is a major computer nerd. Does it detract from his image? Or can't it, after the WSOP win last year?

STILL no hand count graphic or clock/time info? Occasional comments, such as the "about an hour" comment during Phil H's dramatic (and planned) entrance, are our only indication of time passing…. Hopefully they'll bring the hands/time back for the final table!
Anyone think Phil H's late entrance tradition is more about attention than any true strategy gain?

No ranting about the announcers yet. The ESPN guy is… a typical ESPN guy, out of his depth, if he IS an ESPN guy. The player/reporter wasn't bad.

If they had cameras under the table, why didn't they show all of the cards like WPT? Deliberate differentiation from WPT? Time editing? And I assume they only had rail cameras on the TV table, but they did bounce around to grab some of the "famous" player bustouts.
Speaking of which, did they arrange the makeup of the TV table, or was that the random draw that was moved to that table? Lot of heavy hitters there…. could be an action TV table arrangement! Audit the code!

Robert V bets A2d into J34 board…. Zimmerman calls with pair. Flush draw and Zimmerman DOESN'T bet to put pressure on?

Doyle's bio- he didn't come off as arrogant to me (good thing)- you'd think he'd be SICK of his book by now, since he complains about writing it. Well, guess he can make money by promoting it….

R Zimmerman has ANOTHER 77? What, everyone gets to pick a hand and get it back X times a day?

Did anyone NOT see Doyle's raise with T2off coming? TV move, or strategy? How could Mr. Aggressive NL Master NOT bet the 5c turn, if not the JAT flop? And NO one takes a shot on the river? Is the first round ALWAYS this tight? Or maybe that's just the pros, since 200 people were out the first hour or so (wow!)

9:20- 3rd set of commercials…. Arrrghhhhh… guess I should just get used to it,

Oh god, the bio of my least favorite celebrity poker player…. Phil only berates people "sometimes"??? There's Phil, trying desperately to appear modest… but he JUST CAN'T HELP HIMSELF! My friend's comment, later in the show- "Phil LOOKS like a dick- I could just SLAP him!". Couldn't have said it better myself….
I have a new poker goal- win my way into the WSOP and be the person who knocks Phil H out! Preferably with a junk hand! I'd probably just dump all of my chips into the board and leave then- I'd have MY title!!!
Doyle's comment was amusing- "Doyle, is Phil as good as he thinks he is?" "No… but he's pretty good"

QJ6J board and RV and RZ both dump when Doyle bets after checking the flop…. wimpy wimpy WIMPY!

The production has an interestingly informal atmosphere- cozy, even, in direct contrast to the "Who wants to be a Poker Millionaire?!?" phases of the WPT shows. I think it fits in well with the first day of the 5-day tournament…. though I'm sure it doesn't capture the chaos of 800 players very well.

Robert doesn't raise two limpers with his KQoff… then lucks out with the 2-pair flop. And the show seems to skip a LOT of the "how much was the raise?" info that they should have. Doyle- you DESERVED to get sucked out on with the 4-flush river, when you let RV hang in there on your made turn flush. Of course, I don't know what the CHIP STACKS WERE, so I can't make a guess as to whether an all-in move by DB would have been enough to get Robert's 2-pair, flush-draw out of the pot….. Probably not, but RV was playing pretty cautiously.

9:30- ANOTHER commercial break… sigh…

I missed the Yoshi bustout with the 55 until the end- how did he and the AKs play that hand, quality-wise?

Show more women players besides Jen H and Anne Duke!

Now I'm starting to wonder about the atmosphere- a little TOO folksy?

Should people be allowed to talk to a poker coach during the tournament play? I know, RV was out of the hand, but still- most people can't afford to have a poker coach.

Doyle's all in call with K9h against Padrig's T$6K raise of AKs- bad play or chip stack problem by Doyle?

Now I'm thinking that the lack of a clock isn't a big deal for day 1, given the volume of players and the bounce-outs.

Hey, a chip count graphic when Phil Ivey is shown again! But it's too small….

Anyone get the first thought, similar to mine, that the Chris Ferguson bio should have been titled "Jesus- Trained Poker Monkey"? Can't decide if I liked Chris spoofing himself a little, or disliked the image that I reacted to when he did his parlor tricks (neat though those tricks were)…. I think poker has made me WAY too cynical!!

Kim CHECKS the AQT flop with a set of Queens, after raising pre-flop? Then only calls Scotty N's raise on the turn with AcQT9c? And then CALLS on the river when the flush comes for Scotty? Is it just me, or did we just see ANOTHER badly misplayed big hand? Don't you HAVE to make an aggressive move on the turn? Or am I again not appreciating the Zen of the First Day?
The pro/writer's "digging own grave" comment was either very apropos or misleading, depending on what you see the turn move as being.

I was REALLY surprised by Scotty's play and eventual fold to Robert with AJoff vs. RV's 97c. Scotty only calls on the Jc2sKd flop? Good brief "drawing dead" explanation by the pro/writer (what was his NAME?). And Robert's T$3K river bet when the 4 came and the board was J2KQ4 gets Scotty to fold, when he should have taken the pot on the flop! Great bet by Robert- or was it desperation bet by RV?

500 players eliminated on the first day… wow. I guess all of the harsh "dead money" comments during that "Dead Money Walking" piece were more on than I thought! Does anyone think that the dead money comment about Maureen, a WPT final table player, was a shot at WPT? His comment about Chris Moneymaker as dead money was amusingly ironic, don't you think?
NICE tattoo on the air traffic controller- liked the King, especially.

I missed the comment, but thought I heard the pro/writer say Johnny Chan has a tell?

Did the 88 underbet the pot when the 976 flop came? Or was RV unlucky that the straight came, since the river Ace would have made him a winner?

Hey! It's the ESPN version of the WPT's 10:58 rule! Guess Robert's going out with KK vs. AA. And if Robert was SO smart to read Scotty for an American Airlines, why the HELL wasn't he folding? My friend's comment "Did you forget about that thing called a FOLD?".
Robert's exit comment "I was hoping (he) had something else" was a perfect epitaph- when you HOPE at poker, you're a DOPE at poker!

My friend thought Scotty N looked sick at that table. So did I, as if SN was suffering from cancer therapy or something. Was SN okay?

Well, interesting first show. WPT has it beat for the amount of poker shown and showing all of the hands. ESPN's production has more interest stories without being smarmy (at least to me), and the pro/writer's comments weren't bad. Other than the harsh "dead money" segment, nothing incendiary that I picked up on.

Well, on to next Tuesday!

Easy E

Miah
07-09-2003, 12:28 AM
His notebook said something to the effect of "robert varkony 2003 wsop" Not quite sure, but that’s close.

I liked it, but WPT blows it away without a doubt. Many of the camera angles leave much to be desired, and not announcing/displaying the bet/raise/pot amounts got me really angry as that is such a relevant factor in NL (which unlike limit you can't figure out by commentators "blah raises the pot" etc)

Entertaining it was, but it was no WPT. I'm also, or should I say my wallet is very disappointed that there were no commercials for some *cough* pokerstars *cough* online poker rooms. I'm extremely surprised paradise didn't take a stab at it as we can all see how well Party's advertising has paid them off. I was really expecting to see a strong presence from them tonight, I figured they would try to win back their market share by advertising on what is undoubtedly the larger broadcasting network.

In summary, WPT has set the standard and while ESPN's coverage is entertaining and provides a slightly more robust commentary, it is not much better than their previous coverage of the WSOP, just has some more "frills" (in regards to their prior WSOP coverage). The WPT provides much more information to the viewer and has many more "newbie" friendly attributes.

pauly2x
07-09-2003, 12:46 AM
Is it possible that ESPN won't accept ads by online gambling, seeing as its owned by Disney?

Abagadro
07-09-2003, 12:48 AM
Re: the "harsh" dead-money segment. I think that is a set-up piece, especially since they specifically mentioned Moneymaker. I expect them to play it up even more leading up to the final table and then talk ad naseum about it being his first live tourney during the final show.

Ed S.
07-09-2003, 05:05 AM
I'm sorry but is tight-bad play the "in thing" for the first day of the WSOP? From what I saw at that table, people were afraid to play the cards and play them properly. It was like, "I don't want to bet and scare the other players off, but I don't mind them drawing to the nuts cheaply and then taking the worst of it". Is that the mentality of Day 1 play at the WSOP???

I know this was one of many tables. But they did say Phil H., Phil Ivey and I forget the other poker pro that was doing very well. All I know is that these type of players are not afraid to mix it up and pushing hands when needed and then trapping. They were having 30k-55k stacks at the end of Day 1. So someone was doing something right. Unlike the table we saw tonight on ESPN Day 1 coverage.

Ed S.

mrbaseball
07-09-2003, 10:15 AM
The problem with WPT is it's just final table, final 6. The early rounds are where more interesting poker often takes place in my mind. The WPT is like a rerun. They are all the same but seeing earlier round play is much more interesting to me. So far I like this telecast much better than WPT.

As far as commercials go I would suspect prime time ESPN advertising rates are waaaaaay higher than those of the Travel Channel. Besides I have a feeling stars is gonna get a boatload of free advertsising from this /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

eMarkM
07-09-2003, 10:38 AM
I liked the ESPN coverage last night. Certainly better than coverage of past events. This is done in that ESPN film documentary style--think SportsCentury biographies--and they do that very well. They'll do a good job building up the suspense and final table climax and make it a good poker soap opera. All the biographical pieces on the names in the game is good for the poker newbie, though it may be irratating to us poker nut cases. The play-by-play guy, while probably not super knowledgable about the game, didn't embarass himself like VVP does every week and the color commentator was fine, too.

However, I did have some problems with the "feature" table coverage itself. While I loved the "% favorite" graphic, it was the only graphic they really showed. How about the size of the pot? How about the stack size of the players in the pot. Or show a list of who the chip leaders are periodically. At least give me what the leaderboard is after the end of day one. I mean give the score for crying out loud. But I knit-pick as a poker player. For the most part the coverage was very good, I still like the WPT better, but I look forward to the rest of the series.

Aces McGee
07-09-2003, 12:51 PM
The "tell" that the announcer referred to was, I believe, Chan removing the swizzle stick from his mouth.

Whether or not that is really a tell, I have no idea.

Aces McGee

microlimitaddict
07-09-2003, 11:40 PM
While agreed with some of the nit-pick comments (no clock or hand-count or leader board, etc) I think the show was far more enjoyable than WPT....and I really like WPT.
The lighting and set wasn't WPT slickster sharp...but that was partly because they were covering more than one table.

There's no doubt that ESPN is taking it far more seriously then they did previous WSOP's. Lon McEachern is a pretty good play-by-play guy...but he's done the past couple of WSOP's so I kind of expected that. He doesn't try to be amazing or dominate the broadcast...he just steers things along as a good PBP guy should.
Norman Chad is a pretty good addition as analyst. He's been on Sportscenter and ESPNClassic before but I didn't know that he was poker knowledgeable. As I had stated previously, I would prefer a couple of semi-knowledgeable poker guys...who know how to carry a broadcast without awful exaggeration or over-excitement on fairly trivial matters ("We're going to see a flop Vince!!!")

The features on Ferguson, Brunson, Hellmuth and Varkonyi were all good (although in a couple of instances I thought the players didn't represent themselves very well or professionally). Shana's WPT features on Andy Bloch or Howard Lederer and others all come from some "Wow...he's a lawyer with an MIT degree...and players fear his every move!!"

Most importantly...I absolutely love the early-table action and the idea of presenting the WSOP in a series of episodes. Sadly, I think more novices will actually learn a bit more about the game from these shows then from the WPT...where half of the episodes are nothing but Gus Hansen playing J2o over and over. Norman Chad's analysis of how the various hands were played was pretty accurate in my opinion. None of that "J-10 is many player's favorite hand" type stuff.

As far as the Moneymaker coverage...interesting stuff....one can't tell if they threw it in the dead-money segment because he wound up winning it...or if perhaps it was something of a coincidence that they included him because of his rather prophetic moniker. Strikes me that the latter is a distinct possibility.

And I agree with the previous assertion that most of the poker websites probably learned of ESPN's advertising rates and ran for the hills....although maybe we'll see more advertising out of them in future episodes...and maybe the Disney connection has a little something to do with it as well.

In short, I enjoyed it far more than I expected to...and I'm glad it's so much improved over previous WSOP telecasts. I look ever-so-forward to the next installment. Someone please keep us posted as to the planned broadcast schedule and I'll be forever grateful.

Tyler Durden
07-10-2003, 12:19 AM
I think overall you're being too picky. I'm just happy this thing is being shown at all, esp. only six weeks after it occurred.

I think RV was getting too cute with those Aces, or maybe he learned a lot in the past year that we don't know about.

The suits are tough to read, you're right.

I don't think they need a clock/hand # info counter on the first day.

The ESPN guy is Norman Chad, he used to write a really funny column for the Washington Post's Sports section.

I wish they'd show more of Jennifer Harmon--she's hot, and she's bangin' for a poker player. I'd jam her.

It seemed like Doyle just wanted to get out of there--he was shortstacked, he knew he wouldn't have much of a chance this year.

The feature on Jesus was very cool. He can throw a card 78 mph! Amazing!

Scotty Nguyen did look a little sickly. I thought it was unsportsmanlike the way he didn't stand to shake RV's hand after he put the final nail in the proverbial coffin.

anatta
07-10-2003, 03:06 AM
I'm watching the rebroadcast right now. Did Scotty N. make a mistake with his AJ? Robert V had 97 and bluffed him on the river. The flop was KJX, and the flop bet from Robert sounded like $16000 (maybe I am wrong on this). The turn was a queen and went check-check. The river was $3000.

Roy Munson
07-10-2003, 08:44 AM
Norman Chad is one of the funniest sports journalists. He is a semi regular guest on Tony Kornheiser's radio show as a TV sports critic.

I remember one instance when Tony asked him to comment on a TV sporting event, Norman stated that he didn't see much of it because he was in a poker game at one of the LA casinos.

Norman is also a big fan of 7 Card Stud 8. I have heard him lament about the preponderance of Hold'Em on the West Coast with very little to choose from in the way of this very underappreciated great game.

pokerlover
07-10-2003, 09:13 AM
The flop bet was t1600

pokerlover
07-10-2003, 09:15 AM
The best part of the broadcast on ESPN is that there is no "Vinnie the Mook"!

anatta
07-10-2003, 12:18 PM

Easy E
07-10-2003, 12:19 PM
*I think overall you're being too picky.
critic...

*I'm just happy this thing is being shown at all, esp. only six weeks after it occurred.
AMEN! Especially the speed at which they turned this over.

The Chris F. bio is growing on me. As long as it was in character, I can be down wit dat.

Easy E
07-10-2003, 12:23 PM
*I liked it, but WPT blows it away without a doubt.

I don't know about "blows away", but we get more poker out of the WPT (with longer format and only a few players). I think the ESPN production has good points as well.
Hopefully the WPT will improve as a result and they'll drive each other to greater heights.


* Many of the camera angles leave much to be desired, and not announcing/displaying the bet/raise/pot amounts got me really angry as that is such a relevant factor in NL (which unlike limit you can't figure out by commentators "blah raises the pot" etc)

AMEN, sistah!

*In summary, WPT has set the standard and while ESPN's coverage is entertaining and provides a slightly more robust commentary, it is not much better than their previous coverage of the WSOP, just has some more "frills" (in regards to their prior WSOP coverage). The WPT provides much more information to the viewer and has many more "newbie" friendly attributes.

We'll see- I'm waiting for the final few shows before doing a "winner" comment.

Easy E
07-10-2003, 12:31 PM
* Someone please keep us posted as to the planned broadcast schedule and I'll be forever grateful.
Every Tues at 9 pm on ESPN. I post "Poker on TV" threads every week or so, in this forum, so that should help you out as well.

Or, check TV Guide Online and search for "poker"

*While agreed with some of the nit-pick comments

" Nit-pick"?! Those are serious, world-shaking analysis conclusions, boyo! Don't bring down the Wrath of Easy on your feeble soul...

* I think the show was far more enjoyable than WPT....and I really like WPT.
I enjoy different aspects of both of them. I consider this "Year One" of televised poker- we'll see how we go from there.

*There's no doubt that ESPN is taking it far more seriously then they did previous WSOP's. Lon McEachern is a pretty good play-by-play guy...but he's done the past couple of WSOP's so I kind of expected that. He doesn't try to be amazing or dominate the broadcast...he just steers things along as a good PBP guy should.
*Norman Chad is a pretty good addition as analyst. He's been on Sportscenter and ESPNClassic before but I didn't know that he was poker knowledgeable. As I had stated previously, I would prefer a couple of semi-knowledgeable poker guys...who know how to carry a broadcast without awful exaggeration or over-excitement on fairly trivial matters ("We're going to see a flop Vince!!!")

AMEN!

*Most importantly...I absolutely love the early-table action and the idea of presenting the WSOP in a series of episodes.
I like the extended coverage idea a lot too.

*Sadly, I think more novices will actually learn a bit more about the game from these shows then from the WPT...where half of the episodes are nothing but Gus Hansen playing J2o over and over.
Possibly, but watching one show is not going to make them Godzillas, so it can't hurt to make them more comfortable about playing.

*As far as the Moneymaker coverage...(snip) Strikes me that the latter is a distinct possibility.
I presumed so also- or they were being really clever (i'd rather it be ironical, but we'll never know)

* In short, I enjoyed it far more than I expected to...and I'm glad it's so much improved over previous WSOP telecasts.
Seconded! Although I did like the original WSOP broadcasts, we're in much better shape now.

ElSapo
07-10-2003, 12:35 PM
Well, a few days late but I'll post my thoughts on the ESPN WSOP 2003 show. There aren't that many of them (thoughts) anyways...

1. I really enjoy seeing the early rounds, as opposed to final table all-in-fests that go fold-fold-fold-raise-fold-all-in-fold-fold. Much more limping with pocket pairs...

2. Much more limping with pocket pairs, including aces. I'd never really paid attention to Varkoni before, and I obviously don't know the man. But I have to say, I thought he was kind of annoying. Some of the comments he made to other players "let's just out it all in the middle" just irritated me. Loved how ESPN noted no one gave him any respect.

3. This was also the first time I've seen Brunson play. Sure, the man is a legend and I've seen opinions on way or the other on him, but I have to say I found him tremendously... likeable. Maybe that's the word. When he flipped up T2 and told the table "I just couldn't resist," well, I dunno. I just liked him for it.

4. WPT is far better at showing the poker. Far more features than hands tonight. I'm less interested in seeing varkoni go out KK v. AA than I am in seeing the more mundane looking, average hands. But then, I guess that doesn't make good production value.

5. Anyone note ESPN seems to have sepia-toned the whole deal?

Mike Gallo
07-10-2003, 04:57 PM
Anyone get the first thought, similar to mine, that the Chris Ferguson bio should have been titled "Jesus- Trained Poker Monkey"? Can't decide if I liked Chris spoofing himself a little, or disliked the image that I reacted to when he did his parlor tricks (neat though those tricks were)…. I think poker has made me WAY too cynical!!

I enjoyed watching him throw a normal playing card into his hat from 50 feet away.

It also amazed me to see him throw a playing card at 78 mph. I wonder if he also throws Cinese throwing stars.

Schmed
07-11-2003, 10:38 PM
agreed, I love the guy. He also does a "picks" column during the football season. He's too funny. He's a hilarious tv sports critic.