Armchair critics vs. FInal Tablists. A poll and a rant.

[shaniac]

I wrote this post in response to a thread in the Interntet Forum. The thread really didn't belong there in the first place, so I have replicated my reply (with some revisions) as a new thread in this forum.

The thread was a total top-to-bottom critique of the players at the final table, at least the final 6. And this was my reply:

It's great how people see a clip on tv, a fraction of the play involved in a 5-day tournament and feel confident writing off the players who made it that far because of isolated weak plays and outright mistakes. The basic fallacy in all these posts usually involves a criticism of the player who folded the best hand, because, although he couldn't see his opponents holding, it was obvious by the way Sam Farha looked at his cards that it was the best hand.... or a player who moronically bluffed, when it was obvious his opponent was going to call. Get real.

Jason Lester is rumored to be one of the greatest all-around pro gamblers. Harrington won the WSOP before and is a brilliant poker player. Vahedi is not a one-hit wonder by any stretch. Samd Farha is, at least according to Ray Zee, a fierce live Pot-Limit player. Chris Moneymaker had what it took--including luck--to make it as far as he did.

I wonder how many of the armchair critics here and on other poker sites will ever get to see the kind of money in a tournament that the final 5 players at this year's WSOP saw.

Let's take a poll: who would 2+2ers rather stake in a big time tournament: the current CardPlayer of the Year leader (Vahedi) or any one of the other final table winners OR the field of RGP and 2+2 armchair critics who feel confident breaking down the weakness in his and other champions' games.


shaniac

[Rushmore]

I remember feeling similarly when everyone was crucifying Bill Buckner.

Seeing as poker has recently become a form of ENTERTAINMENT, the players have become something like ENTERTAINERS. Buckner was a substantial baseball player, clearly to be respected; he should not have been held up to ridicule and judgement by millions of people who couldn't find which end of the glove to put on.

But that's what he bargained for.

We are not children; we acknowledge the shortcomings of the herd. The bloodlust, the hypercritical way we look at one another, etc.

Simply BEING on television opens you up to scrutiny. That's the point of television ("tele," meaning from a distance, and "vision," meaning to see)--to be viewed by those who might not otherwise have had the opportunity. What the brainless, brutal masses decide to do with what they see on television is never easy to predict, but it usually falls somewhere between the saccharine ("The Oprah Winfrey Show," "Touched By An Angel"), and the desperately abject ("The Jerry Springer Show," "Joe Millionaire," "The Oprah Winfrey Show").

We shouldn't be surprised by the reactions these stimuli produce.

If a player does not want be the chum in the water in the feeding frenzy called Celebrity, he should stay away from any tournament which will involve television.

Otherwise...

[shaniac]

I wasn't really concerned for the players' feelings here, Rushmore. Trust me, Amir Vahedi is probably enjoying his 6-figure payday and doesn't look at 2+2. I was more just commenting on the near-total level of delusion displayed by 2+2 and RGP know-it-alls.

The one thing poker players seem to forget is that this is a GAME and that despite the odds and the strategy there are innumerable strategic subtelties that go into every decision and (to quote Jason Lester's interview) "an incredible amount of luck" involved.

Anyone who looks at Vahedi's 64s move and writes him off as a moron player is really missing something. He didn't play that hand optimally--or even well--but he didn't make the play based on cluelessness. I believe he planned a big bluff with his hand and simply didn't carry out the bluff effectively (a more fruitful exercise for us critics would be to speculate on other ways of playing the hand that WOULD force Farha to fold). Jason Lester laid down top pair when to the omniscient observers it was obvious that Farha was bluffing (could it be that it was so obvious because, um, WE get to see his hole cards?!) but what the critics don't realize is that you simply have to be able to lay down a winning hand once in a while to go the distance in a tourney, just like you're gonna have to pull off a monumental suckout or two.

shaniac

[Rushmore]

My only point is that you shouldn't seem so flabbergasted at the manner in which people conduct themselves.

Don't you drive on the highway?

P.S. At the top of this page, you'll see the word forum. This word means, simply, "public discussion." We might infer that the point of this public discussion is the free exchange of differing ideas and opinions. Otherwise, this site might be called "Two Plus Two Diatribes," Two Plus Two Monologues," or possibly even "Two Plus Two Manifesto."

Fortunately, it is not.

[pokerlover]

[doshin]

I think it's a little of both.

While most of the armchair criticisms are overly harsh and unfair since we are only exposed to minutes of a multiday tournaments (and even then sometimes heavily edited and dramatized), just getting to the final table hardly makes anyone infallible.

In regards to Moneymaker and new winners, I think the prevailing judgement (that he was purely lucky) is unfair. I feel as though he should be given the benefit of the doubt. If next year he busts out the first day, then everyone can rightfully call him a flash in the pan or a one hit wonder. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

But whatever, it's the internet, right? If everyone was telling the truth, he would all have tournament bracelets and 12 inch penises.

[risen]

nah, 10.5". 12 would be freakish.

[oddjob]

are you saying you're not allowed to criticize or critique a professional athlete if you can't compete? or a singer? band? actor? movie director? etc... etc...

[shaniac]

No oddjob that's not what I am saying.

But there is a difference between saying (for instance), "I didn't like Gangs of New York" and saying "Martin Scorcese is an incompetent director and he's lucky to have a job."

shaniac

[Rushmore]

What if I were to say that The Godfather III was nearly singlehandedly ruined by one person, and that one person was the director's daughter, and that I hold the director, Francis Ford Coppola singularly responsible for the failure of the film, and that his poor judgement in employing his daughter as an actress in a major motion picture when she has no credentials is utter and total incompetence, and that by this equation, Francis Ford Coppola is incompetent?

What??!! I want to know!

[oddjob]

[ QUOTE ]
No oddjob that's not what I am saying.

But there is a difference between saying (for instance), "I didn't like Gangs of New York" and saying "Martin Scorcese is an incompetent director and he's lucky to have a job."

shaniac

[/ QUOTE ]

c'mon which one of us didn't say that we could have made a better SW: episode 1 and 2?

let's see lucas made some good choices, and took some risks, and got lucky a few times with the first 3 movies, but then he moved to the final rounds, and as everyone was really paying attention, he made some horrible plays and still lucked out.

let's just hope he does better at the final table.

[shaniac]

Well no, Rushmore (is your handle inspired by the movie?), I wouldn't say that the complete and utter dreck that was the Godfather III makes Coppola any less of a great director, because you can't take away what he acheived with the first 2 Godfathers.

Similarly you can't take away Amir Vahedi's acheivement at the WSOP 2003 because he made a fatal mistake at the final table.

And oddjob, George Lucas' last two movies did suck, but he was only in the position to make those movies because he is a brilliant filmaking force. You can't write of his accomplishment with the Star Wars movies (dating back to 1977) just because he fumbled with the last two. His greatness put him into the position of being able to make a stone-cold bluff with Episodes I and II and that greatness cannot easily be dismissed.

shaniac

[oddjob]

of course, but does that mean that we're not allowed to criticize or critique him as a director? it's the same as being a fan and criticizing a football player, or a poker player, so get off your high horse.

[Rushmore]

I wouldn't say that the complete and utter dreck that was the Godfather III makes Coppola any less of a great director, because you can't take away what he acheived with the first 2 Godfathers.

If he made 16 more, and they were all worse than III, would he THEN be held accountable?

If so, he should be held accountable for the one misstep as well.

If I am a good, God-fearing type who, at the age of 75, decides to break from tradition and become a child molester for a day, am I not a child molester?

Of course I am. And if I am a movie director who is incompetent for the two years (or whatever) that it takes me to make a movie, then, yes, I am incompetent.

And if I am a great poker player who performs ineptly, then yes, I am inept.

Perhaps not entirely or generally inept, but inept nonetheless.

Maybe this is all just a question of degree.

But I'm enjoying it anyway.

[youtalkfunny]

I can't believe anyone is disagreeing with Shaniac here.

He's not talking about intelligent players analyzing the play.

He's talking about clueless people who say things like, "How can he bet all that money on a hand like K4? I never play K4. How did someone that dumb get to the final table?"

Now if someone is that dumb, that's OK with me. But when they feel compelled to stand up and shout dumb things, it gets a little annoying.

You guys beat the "director analogy" into the ground, so here's another analogy to chew on:

Watching poker tournaments on tv is like watching football highlights. You don't see the sustained drives, you only see the highlight plays.

But when you watch football highlights, they always make clear the score, time remaining, yard line, and down and distance. "Late in the third quarter, down by 3, 2nd and 9 from midfield, Favre airs it out..."

Imagine you don't know the down, nor the score, nor the yardline, and the guy sitting next to you stands up, points to the tv, and cries, "WHAT IS FAVRE DOING???"

That's what I hear in the cardroom, night after night, from people who see two cards, yet don't know the stack sizes, the blinds, the flow of the game, nor even where the button is.

[Easy E]

First, don't knock armchair quarterbacking- it's one of our more democratic and largest-participation sports! Heck, they built a whole professional league to support that! (NFL, if you were wondering)

Second, while some of the replies that you see (possibly mine as well, though I hope not!) are idiotic, I believe a lot are as much about looking for input/correction/clarification as they are about "WTF?" comments...

"Anyone who looks at Vahedi's 64s move and writes him off as a moron player is really missing something. He didn't play that hand optimally--or even well--but he didn't make the play based on cluelessness. I believe he planned a big bluff with his hand and simply didn't carry out the bluff effectively (a more fruitful exercise for us critics would be to speculate on other ways of playing the hand that WOULD force Farha to fold)."
I agree, and on my part, at least, that's part of what I'm looking to trigger- a discussion about what happened, why it happened and how it could have been done differently.
However, after a year of WPT and WSOP, I'm beginning to wonder if we're not missing SO much from these telecasts that we can't make ANY informed comments....

By the way, I didn't find the thread that you mentioned here- did you respond in that thread and I just missed it?

[Easy E]

"Watching poker tournaments on tv is like watching football highlights. You don't see the sustained drives, you only see the highlight plays.

But when you watch football highlights, they always make clear the score, time remaining, yard line, and down and distance. "Late in the third quarter, down by 3, 2nd and 9 from midfield, Favre airs it out..."

Imagine you don't know the down, nor the score, nor the yardline, and the guy sitting next to you stands up, points to the tv, and cries, "WHAT IS FAVRE DOING???"

That's what I hear in the cardroom, night after night, from people who see two cards, yet don't know the stack sizes, the blinds, the flow of the game, nor even where the button is. "

While not 100% applicable, it's a very good point.

[Easy E]

search is a wonderful thing, if you USE it properly, you moron