PDA

View Full Version : TOC


wins_pot
12-26-2005, 02:04 PM
I haven't posted in awhile, but here are my thoughts on the TOC coverage.....

--i thought the production quality was very high. espn did an incredible job of summarizing the action and making the telecast entertaining.

--the editors were relatively kind to me (brandon adams). perhaps surprisingly, they were also kind to steve dannenmann.

--i'm surprised that tony bloom didn't get more airtime. he's an incredible player --- the only reason you don't hear more about him is that he makes so much $ doing other things that poker is often a waste of time for him. unlike steve d and hoyt c, tony is completely unreadable at the table. at the first hand of the final table, i laid down QQ pre-flop against tony's AA --- i thought that would make the coverage but it didn't.

--IMO, phil h and mike m are nice guys and there's no question that they're incredible poker players. my theory on mike m is that he's extreme ADD and he'll sometimes go on crazy tilt online or in boring tourney situations, but when the cameras are on, he's a focused guy and he plays just an incredible game of poker. btw, i have five or six diff names online, but when i won the 40k off matusow, i was playing under "brandonadams" on the short-lived site www.pokershare.com. (http://www.pokershare.com.)

--a few people picked-up a tell on hoyt, but in general he played very very well at the final table. he picked-up a lot of pots with raises and re-raises pre-flop once the table got short-handed. the criticisms that phil h had of him were clearly unjustified. phil h has unparalleled reading ability and he's clearly among the best in the world, but sometimes you sense that he doesn't appreciate the mathematics that favor the aggressive style of matusow or corkins. matusow won the tournament by making a lot of moves with hands that were huge dogs to a call.

--david levi should have gotten more coverage but his tight playing style works against tv coverage. david's extremely pleasant at the poker table (which i guess also works against tv coverage) and his tournament results this yr have been excellent.

Brandon
---

HiatusOver
12-26-2005, 02:17 PM
Brandon u came off great on TV. You deserved to be in there at the end. I am seriously proud to have had a piece of u in that event.

The coverage of the TOC was very good, but I was depressed watching it for many different reasons.

1. I busted like 35th after building a real nice stack early. I didnt realize they started filming at 28, but that was a bummer.

2. the sponsor exemptions were still a huge joke and could have cost people like Brandon, David Levi (a great guy as Brandon said) and even myself a shot at bigger money and more exposure. All it did was give Hellmuth more of a chance to whine on TV...I really hate him as a top representative of poker.

3. I love Hoyt, I have played with him many times and even formed a friendship with him. That being said this was Brandons time to shine. Hoyt has sucked out enough on TV. Brandon was playing his best poker this tournament and was extremely focused on winning. It would have been great to see him mix it up with a bunch of chips going down the stretch.

Oh well, I guess thats XXXX poker

guns4show
12-26-2005, 07:35 PM
Any chance you'll share Hoyt's tell? No pressure, but I'm curious...

Angelic_Ace
12-26-2005, 08:08 PM
Thanks for the post, Brandon. What hands they showed of you were played well - what did you think of Norm's commentary about you? I liked the line about how you probably can't change a flat tire at a bowling alley /images/graemlins/grin.gif I thought Mike played excellently and deserved to win - he seemed more willing and able to go 'out of the box' in order to have an edge on a table of excellent players.

12-26-2005, 08:12 PM
Why was Hoyt wearing the earplugs? Just wondering.

Angelic_Ace
12-26-2005, 08:17 PM
[ QUOTE ]



2. the sponsor exemptions were still a huge joke and could have cost people like Brandon, David Levi (a great guy as Brandon said) and even myself a shot at bigger money and more exposure. All it did was give Hellmuth more of a chance to whine on TV...I really hate him as a top representative of poker.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you like money, and the success of poker, I don't understand why you would have a problem with the exemptions OR Hellmuth's act. The exemptions brought 3 of the big names of poker in - how many more people watched because these 3 were in the field? How much more sponsorship money did ESPN receive? How many people love watch Hellmuth, and stayed tuned in because of him? Bringing in the fringe audience is vital to the continued success and marketability of TV poker. Am I incorrect that TOC was basically a freeroll? The prize money and fees of production are all partially paid by the money and ratings that 'big stars' draw to the event. And considering it was 3 additions who are all great players out of a field of 100 - I see it as a worthy addition.
Specifically concerning Hellmuth being a rep of poker - the fact is that many people find him entertaining and tune in just to see him. A lot of these casual fans also find their way online or to the local card room and replenish the fish pond. How is this a bad thing? We have several 'gentlemen' of poker like Greenstein, Doyle, Raymer etc - but the 'bad boys' are equally good for the state of the game.

Hass
12-26-2005, 08:50 PM
Why was Hoyt wearing the earplugs? Just wondering.

Tell me that if you had to play against Helmuth and Matasow that you could go with out ear plugs. Those guys would better serve Television by apearing on an episode of Jack ass.

HiatusOver
12-26-2005, 09:23 PM
I read your argument I understand your point and I have heard the point before. I am not interested in a long winded discussion here. Basically I wish I knew that Harrah's was lying to us and the rules they set out were not set in stone when I was making decisions for thousands of dollars in real money on the bubble of the San Diego Rincon event. I still think what they did was wrong. I guess I am over it though, seeing the broadcast I guess was the end of it for me.

About Hellmuth, I agree that in the short term he is good for poker. Maybe even in the long term, although at some point people are gonna get sick of watching this guy whine.
I still am allowed to hate the guys personality right?
I have met him away from the cameras, he is the type of person I cant stand.

Anyways, I am not saying u are completely wrong here because u are not. Just wanted to state my reasons for what I wrote.

octop
12-27-2005, 12:53 AM
I think harrash should have exepmtions buts its not fair to add them if they werent announced in advance.

wins_pot
12-27-2005, 01:33 PM
I like Phil H and Mike M. They've both been nice to me away from the table, and Phil H has even given me a blurb for my poker novel (Broke: A Poker Novel, coming out mid-06)....

"Excellent, entertaining, and extremely well-written... I couldn't stop reading!"
-Phil Hellmuth

So Jesse mentioned the TOC bubble/$ bubble in the WSOP Circuit events....
I had a weird hand from the bubble where I laid down QQ to a pre-flop re-raise against, of all players, dave williams. i knew he was strong --- he showed AK. if i move in, i have no doubt that he calls.
folding that hand got me to the TOC, but it might have prevented me from going very deep in New Orleans.

Brandon