Who do You Believe, Phil Hellmuth or ESPN?
 

This afternoon at the bookstore, I began skimming through "Bad Beats and Lucky Draws" by Phil Hellmuth. First, let me say if you enjoy reading trip reports and hand analysis from top players as I do, this book seems worth the $15 cover price. It may not improve your game at all, but seems like an enjoyable read.

In one section, Hellmuth describes his down fall at the 2003 WSOP Main Event. He describes the hand thats was shown on ESPN away from the feature table were Sammy Farha's QJ of diamonds made a flush on the turn. Hellmuth says he had KQ, ESPN shows Phil's cards as AK (the actual cards were never shown).

What Phil's kicker was is meaningless in this hand as he flopped top pair, good kicker with the King. I just point out this hand to add to the theory that ESPN's hands aren't always 100% accurate, especially away from the feature table.

One hand in this years main event that I am really curious on was between Marcel Luske and Josh Arieh. I don't remember the hand details, but Luske made a set of Aces on the river and showed them. The part that made me scratch my head was Arieh supposedly had 2 pair, and folded immediatley when Luske bet the river ace.

Re: Who do You Believe, Phil Hellmuth or ESPN?
 

[ QUOTE ]
What Phil's kicker was is meaningless in this hand as he flopped top pair, good kicker with the King. I just point out this hand to add to the theory that ESPN's hands aren't always 100% accurate, especially away from the feature table.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know from multiple first-hand experiences that phil's recollections of hands aren't always correct. No way to know who to believe on this one; it's like flipping between networks searching for the least biased evening news.

[ QUOTE ]
One hand in this years main event that I am really curious on was between Marcel Luske and Josh Arieh. I don't remember the hand details, but Luske made a set of Aces on the river and showed them. The part that made me scratch my head was Arieh supposedly had 2 pair, and folded immediatley when Luske bet the river ace.

[/ QUOTE ]

That hand has all the earmarks of having been falsified. Josh folded way too quickly to a relatively small bet. In fact that's the only hand I remember from the 2004 WSOP that instantly felt wrong to me, so at least they're moving in the right direction.

Re: Who do You Believe, Phil Hellmuth or ESPN?
 

I've found 2 instances so far of hand splicing for wsop04

-Mattias Andersson's black aces hit a flush on turn to knock out some other guy who made a queen-high flush on flop. The footage of the closeup of Andersson before he gets his cards is taken from another hand.

-(I think) The hand where Annie Duke makes her two-pair "Nuts", forcing Seidel to fold his hand when it's down to three at the PLO/8 final table taped simultaneously with the women's limit holdem. When the camera is over Duke's shoulder the board shows mostly rags, but when the camera goes back over Seidel's shoulder, the board shows some paint.

Not sure about #2

We should ask Arieh if he really folded 2-pair on the river, since we know Luske had aces.

(And I trust Hellmuth over ESPN at this point)

Re: Who do You Believe, Phil Hellmuth or ESPN?
 

[ QUOTE ]
That hand has all the earmarks of having been falsified. Josh folded way too quickly to a relatively small bet. In fact that's the only hand I remember from the 2004 WSOP that instantly felt wrong to me, so at least they're moving in the right direction.

[/ QUOTE ]
Folding two small pairs to a river ace would not be too ridiculous because Luske seemed like the type who would play Ax, but the speed with which Arieh mucked the hand was supsicious. If there was an inaccuracy though, I don't think it was intentional becuase ESPN's final table coverage proved that they could care less about showing interesting hands.

Re: Who do You Believe, Phil Hellmuth or ESPN?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If there was an inaccuracy though, I don't think it was intentional becuase ESPN's final table coverage proved that they could care less about showing interesting hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think any of it was ever "intentional" the way you're implying, as if they'd set out to invent hands for dramatic value. It was only intentional in the sense that in some cases they found themselves with no video record of a player's cards, and they figured that asking the player (or failing that, just making something up) was no big deal.

Re: Who do You Believe, Phil Hellmuth or ESPN?
 

Having to choose Hellmuth or ESPN? I think some heads just exploded here.

Re: Who do You Believe, Phil Hellmuth or ESPN?
 

I'll believe ESPN here.

They have no reason to lie on this particular hand. Phil doesn't either, but as Paul Phillips said, he could've forgotten.

Re: Who do You Believe, Phil Hellmuth or ESPN?
 

[ QUOTE ]
This afternoon at the bookstore, I began skimming through "Bad Beats and Lucky Draws" by Phil Hellmuth. First, let me say if you enjoy reading trip reports and hand analysis from top players as I do, this book seems worth the $15 cover price. It may not improve your game at all, but seems like an enjoyable read.

[/ QUOTE ]

I enjoy reading Phil for all sorts of wierd reasons. Is this book fresh material or just a reprint of his Card Player columns?

~ Rick

Re: Who do You Believe, Phil Hellmuth or ESPN?
 

I would be willing to believe that the hand is real as we later saw Arieh for a K high flush when he sniffed a boat (at least I think we saw his cards on that one). On this one he was playing lower two pair against someone who could play A-x so it doesn't seem that odd.
I've seen the other two a I would agree, something "just ain't right".

Cody

Re: Who do You Believe, Phil Hellmuth or ESPN?
 

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
One hand in this years main event that I am really curious on was between Marcel Luske and Josh Arieh. I don't remember the hand details, but Luske made a set of Aces on the river and showed them. The part that made me scratch my head was Arieh supposedly had 2 pair, and folded immediatley when Luske bet the river ace.

[/ QUOTE ]

That hand has all the earmarks of having been falsified. Josh folded way too quickly to a relatively small bet. In fact that's the only hand I remember from the 2004 WSOP that instantly felt wrong to me, so at least they're moving in the right direction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it perhaps possible that they cut out some of the time spend deliberating so as to make the fold seem quicker than it actually was?