WSOP final table quality of play
 

That was almost unwatchable. Kanters K4 reraise and all-in made Tiffany Williamson look like a genius by comparison. Only Tex Barch played solid poker. If this trend continues the main event will fade into oblivion.

Re: WSOP final table quality of play
 

[ QUOTE ]
That was almost unwatchable. Kanters K4 reraise and all-in made Tiffany Williamson look like a genius by comparison. Only Tex Barch played solid poker. If this trend continues the main event will fade into oblivion.

[/ QUOTE ]

that's a nice conclusion. Do you honestly think poker has become this big because everyone thought Moneymaker played fantastic poker?

Re: WSOP final table quality of play
 

Big is not necessarily better. Harrahs Corporation will do quite well but as far as a viewing audience it is not a great product. The WPT is much better.

in 2003 and 2004 we had pros and good amatuers playing with the cinderellas. 2005 was a joke.

Re: WSOP final table quality of play
 

This should probably have been posted in the official final table thread. If we had a better mechanism to merge threads, I would, but since I can't, I'll let it be, but let's try and keep the final table discussion in one place, as per established policy.

Also, I think the OP is pretty out to lunch.

A- there's like literally 8 hours we didn't see, and making any judgements without more context is really hard.

B- Dannenman, Hachem, Black and Barch all seemed decent.

C- I can't see how this final table lineup is anything but a good think for the image of poker.

Re: WSOP final table quality of play
 

Was unaware there was an "official" thread. Yes, we are all aware that there is alot going on we dont see. IMO it didnt make for good TV this year and that is bad for ESPN and viewers like me. Thats all.

Re: WSOP final table quality of play
 

There were 232 hands played at the final table and we only saw 20-25 of them. And most of those were the hands that knocked out someone. It's very hard to get a feel for how good the play was when all you see are the mistakes people make.

Re: WSOP final table quality of play
 

[ QUOTE ]
Big is not necessarily better. Harrahs Corporation will do quite well but as far as a viewing audience it is not a great product. The WPT is much better.

in 2003 and 2004 we had pros and good amatuers playing with the cinderellas. 2005 was a joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

odd, i too feel that the wpt is somehow "better than" the wsop. like, not counting money considerations, i'd much rather be on a wpt final table than a wsop final table for some reason... even though i'd rather have a wsop bracelet than a wpt championship. weird.. maybe i just like the show better.

Re: WSOP final table quality of play
 

[ QUOTE ]
That was almost unwatchable. Kanters K4 reraise and all-in made Tiffany Williamson look like a genius by comparison. Only Tex Barch , Daniel Bergsdorf, and Mike Matusow played solid poker. If this trend continues the main event will fade into oblivion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bergsdorf and Matusow were only shown in 2-3 hands each, but they are both extremely good players. I think Hachem is solid as well.

Re: WSOP final table quality of play
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That was almost unwatchable. Kanters K4 reraise and all-in made Tiffany Williamson look like a genius by comparison. Only Tex Barch , Daniel Bergsdorf, and Mike Matusow played solid poker. If this trend continues the main event will fade into oblivion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bergsdorf and Matusow were only shown in 2-3 hands each, but they are both extremely good players. I think Hachem is solid as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah ... 5600 participants ... record ratings of the show ... record number of people observing the event ... and you conclude it will fade into oblivion. The arrogance that is this list is sometimes difficult to comprehend.

NCAces

Re: WSOP final table quality of play
 

Yeah except there are over 200 posts now in the final table thread. If this is the only topic I want to read about, then I'm certainly not going to wade through 200 posts to find it.

"The final table" is too broad of a topic to have one thread about imho. It's only natural that these sub-topics would break off from the official thread, and result in a more focused discussion going.

Re: WSOP final table quality of play
 

Wading through one thread > wading through a whole forum with 20 threads that end up being the same basic premise.

Re: WSOP final table quality of play
 

[ QUOTE ]

odd, i too feel that the wpt is somehow "better than" the wsop. like, not counting money considerations, i'd much rather be on a wpt final table than a wsop final table for some reason... even though i'd rather have a wsop bracelet than a wpt championship. weird.. maybe i just like the show better.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am the exact opposite. I would much rather be at a final table where the calibre of talent on average is lower, and the money we are playing for is higher.
There are only so many players above a certain level. Those same players play both WPT and WSOP, however the WSOP is filled with several thousand extras. Of course there will be more unknowns at the final table, but thats why the draw is so big, it encourages the average player to play, not discourage.

Re: WSOP final table quality of play
 

I only look through the first 2 or 3 pages of topics, so that doesn't really apply to me. The first time I looked at the final table thread was today and it had 21 pages of posts.

2 min finding a thread with the right topic > 10 min trying to skim/read through the long thread for a subject I want to read or talk about.

edit: I'm not trying to be a nit, just trying to give you another perspective on why this seems to be still happening.

Re: WSOP final table quality of play
 

FWIW, I agree 100%. There are numerous "subtopics" within the very broad topic of "WSOP final table". One thread with hundreds of posts about everything from Kanter's donkey plays to Matusow's play with KK to Dannenman's call on the final hand is just silly. That's the whole point of having a threaded message board. Sure, delete/lock duplicate threads, but forcing numerous different topics into one massive thread is ridiculous.

Re: WSOP final table quality of play
 

[ QUOTE ]
That was almost unwatchable. Kanters K4 reraise and all-in made Tiffany Williamson look like a genius by comparison. Only Tex Barch played solid poker. If this trend continues the main event will fade into oblivion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd just like to emphasize how impressed i was with Tex's play. Granted, we see 20 isoldated hands out of god knows how many, but he came off as a smart player.

One Thread for WSOP is beyond lame.
 

Locking threads to force people over to one MAIN thread is really ludicrous. Does it really make sense to you that somebody should move to a different thread to talk about something started in another thread?

If this is the correct thinking there should be one FORUM section for WSOP. One thread for Final Table and all of the various comments is absurd.

You are just limiting the discussion by burdening people with a ridiculously long thread to discuss something. I thought the forum was to discuss a wide variety of topic, so why pigeon hole ideas?

Re: WSOP final table quality of play
 

3 words: Vince Van Pelt

What a cool dude. Told me he'd lay me 200-1 in one game of tennis.

Re: WSOP final table quality of play
 

Strassa, please report to the HULA thread in general post haste!

Re: WSOP final table quality of play
 

[ QUOTE ]
3 words: Vince Van Pelt

What a cool dude. Told me he'd lay me 200-1 in one game of tennis.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm....




http://artroots.com/art2/vangogh3.jpg + http://www.stripovi.com/images/meet_LINUS_big.jpg

Tell you what, I'd take even $$$ from EITHER or these guys. One guys' dead, and the other can't hold a racket between the thumb sucking and the blanket.

Re: One Thread for WSOP is beyond lame.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Locking threads to force people over to one MAIN thread is really ludicrous.

You are just limiting the discussion by burdening people with a ridiculously long thread to discuss something. I thought the forum was to discuss a wide variety of topic, so why pigeon hole ideas?

[/ QUOTE ]

Couldn't ... agree ... more.

One long thread is a terrible terrible idea.

Let's carry this "logic" out and just make one 50,000 post thread on 2+2 under one forum called "Poker + Other".

Re: One Thread for WSOP is beyond lame.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Locking threads to force people over to one MAIN thread is really ludicrous.

You are just limiting the discussion by burdening people with a ridiculously long thread to discuss something. I thought the forum was to discuss a wide variety of topic, so why pigeon hole ideas?

[/ QUOTE ]

Couldn't ... agree ... more.

One long thread is a terrible terrible idea.

Let's carry this "logic" out and just make one 50,000 post thread on 2+2 under one forum called "Poker + Other".

[/ QUOTE ]

Amen brother.

Good luck convincing tho.

Multiple threads on exact same thing=bad
Multiple threads on different sitations and perspectives on one specific subject=good

Re: One Thread for WSOP is beyond lame.
 

As evidenced by this and other threads still existing, what you're suggesting is what I'm aiming for. The threads that I've killed have all been ideas that weren't new, or that would warrent another topics worth of discussion.

The fact is that there's plenty of "Lazar WTF" posts in the official thread, and a "Lazar WTF" thread doesn't really bring anything new to the table.

Re: One Thread for WSOP is beyond lame.
 

[ QUOTE ]
As evidenced by this and other threads still existing, what you're suggesting is what I'm aiming for. The threads that I've killed have all been ideas that weren't new, or that would warrent another topics worth of discussion.

The fact is that there's plenty of "Lazar WTF" posts in the official thread, and a "Lazar WTF" thread doesn't really bring anything new to the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is stupid. No other forum i've ever been a part has operated like this. If i want to talk about Lazar for ex, i had wade through multiple "Kanter is donkey" posts (or whatever) Here's a compromise: Why don't you do this:

The official "Is Kanter a donkey?" thread
the official "Did Black misplay his set of 5's" thread
The official "Lazur- meldown of the year" thread
The official "Final hand" Thread
The official "Matusow KK hand " Thread
The offical "Tex Barch all in hand" Thread

I'm sure there are others I can't recall at this moment.

Re: One Thread for WSOP is beyond lame.
 

I CALL! I'LL GAMBLE WITH YA! *SHOWS Q/10 OFFSUIT*

http://www.lasvegasvegas.com/photogallery/2397-lg.jpg


TIIIIIIILLLLT! (I CAN'T BELIEVE I FOLDED A/5 TO A PRE-FLOP RAISE!)

Re: WSOP final table quality of play
 

[ QUOTE ]
If this trend continues the main event will fade into oblivion.


[/ QUOTE ]

Don't kid yourself. Just the opposite is true. Pro's might not watch or watch and laugh but the public will love it.

Vince