Great Quote by Vince on the WPT - Page 3

JTG51 · #21 06-05-2003, 04:07 PM

Ah... It all makes sense now! [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

I guess I can see how my original post could be midunderstood.

Really, this whole debate is just a cheap attempt to get myself to Pooh-Bahness a little faster.

JTG51 · #22 06-05-2003, 04:09 PM

VVP was not making a value judgment or endorsing the statement.

Did you watch it on TV? He sure seemed to be endorsing the statement to me. He sounded shocked that Men folded.

Jimbo · #23 06-05-2003, 04:33 PM

"He sounded shocked that Men folded." You are right JTG51, I thought if they showed him on camera at that moment he would be falling out of his chair. Which is a matter of fact exactly what I was doing when I heard his comments. At least this guy is entertaining to AndyFox and others.........

JoeU · #24 06-05-2003, 04:37 PM

I agree 100% Rushmore.

How can he consider playing JTs in this spot? Lets say the flop hits his suit; hes dead to QXs, KXs, and AXs. If the raiser has a decent hand, the caller probably has a BETTER hand. I've heard it said before that you usually need a better hand to call a raise than you do to open raise.

VVP better pick up a book or two (preferrably not Phil H's book)and do some reading before the next season [img]/forums/images/icons/grin.gif[/img] .

Joe

Kurn, son of Mogh · #25 06-05-2003, 05:21 PM

Part of an announcer's job is to create excitement and/or controversy. The fact that we're talking about him is proof he's doing his job.

TimTimSalabim · #26 06-05-2003, 05:25 PM

I think this is the crux of VVP's problem -- he's not able to adjust his evaluation of hands based on the game that's being played. JTs is a strong hand in a loose limit game with lots of multiway pots (heck, even Sklansky puts it in group 3). But in a shorthanded, nolimit game, as you point out, its value drops dramatically.

J.Brown · #27 06-05-2003, 06:55 PM

andy fox once again hitting the nail on the head!!

i can't stand vvp, but if you knew nothing and i mean nothing about poker, i think he does a good job.

crazy to say that, but true.

this is about expanding poker's parameters not keeping us hardcore poker people happy with every nuance of a broadcast. just my 2 cents. J.Brown

Phat Mack · #28 06-06-2003, 02:01 AM

If anyone decides to tell me that the call after the raise makes TJs MORE playable because of the implied odds if he flops a monster, I think I'll just hang up my spurs.

I may volunteer, but didn't see the show. Does anyone remember the size of the raise and the stack sizes?

Bob T. · #29 06-06-2003, 05:05 AM

I don't remember exactly, but I do remember that it was a significant raise, maybe about 1/3 of the stack of the players involved. As I was watching, I couldn't believe that Men took as long as he did to muck.

microlimitaddict · #30 06-06-2003, 11:14 AM

More thoughts on the whole WPT thing.

"Part of an announcer's job is to create excitement and/or controversy. The fact that we're talking about him is proof he's doing his job."

i have to take exception to this. An announcer's job indeed does revolve around creating and generating excitement. But it also needs to be done via factual information. controversy isn't necessarily the best route to this in most circumstances...and the fact that we are indeed talking about the idiocy of the statement is not indicative of quality broadcasting, it merely indicates that a lot of people here watch the show.

If he had said that 2-6 is a great hand in a situation like this then he would have successfully been generating controversy...but that does not make it quality broadcasting. It makes him an idiot.

Advocating playing a J-10 there was just strange and inaccurate commentary.

Someone mentioned Joe Morgan (whom I also dislike). In his first year of baseball on tv in Cincy he was stuck on how bad the manager was for not intentionally walkking such-and-such batter. He wouldn't get off the topic no matter how much play-by-play announcer Ken Wilson kept trying to slide in the fact that the bases were indeed loaded. Joe just kept rambling and didn't really hear him. Extremely poor and unprofessional because he wasn't watching the game.

Overall, I think the announcers do a decent job considering that a huge percentage of their audience has very little clue about HE. A guy I know watched part of it the other night and really dug it even though the concept of BB and SB and all-in protection are a bit foreign to him. He had a tough time seeing that a 58 becomes decent after that 67 hits the flop. He just saw that the other guy had the higher cards. But he's picking it up.

I think the show would be a little bit better if they had a straight play-by-play announcer and a straight expert commentator as most sports do. In other words, you don't hear Marv Albert give too much analysis during the course of the game...he calls the action and provides the drama...and lets Bill Walton provide the commentary ("for better or for worse," he said tongue firmly implanted in cheek).
But overall, the two work decently together and lend excitement to the game rather than taking away from it...which is the most important aspect.

Agreed that Sexton needs to lose the "this is the kind of hand you want to see the flop with". But again, he is attempting to simplify the game for those who don't know a whole lot about it so I don't see much problem with this.
Amusingly, I heard that phrase in my head on a couple of recent hands I played...on or near the button, everyone folds, 89d...yup, "this is the kind of hand I want to see the flop with!!" aiiiiiiigh.....get him out of my head, please.

The production of the show is slick...and the music (in and out of the breaks) and lighting really make the show much better than I would have expected. I especially like the slow-motion and stop-frame drama of the individual players walking up to the table and pushing in their chips (during their mini-bio's) which of course is the most physical action one can film at a poker tournament.

They did stay with the Layne vs. Jerry heads-up more than I would have liked. I too would have preferred to see more of the earlier action. But I suspect we would not have seen so much of the heads-up action if it wasn't Jerry Buss. They seemed to really go overboard on the celebrity angle and did quite the suck-up job to Jerry (which was somewhat warranted considering that he made it to the final table...in spite of his odd plays at the end).
One must also remember that the owner of the Lakers is a pretty powerful guy and that making him happy by giving him all kinds of exposure (everyone loves to see themselves on TV) on the show may work out as something of a long-term benefit for all they know.
Partypoker.com billboard courtside at the Staples Center?? Van Patten with a couple of gratis tix next to Jack Nicholson?? The Laker Girls showing up at the Bellagio for the WPT championship??
Good things can happen when you please people with money and power....so why not show their big celebrity-underdog for a little while more than they normally would?? who's it going to hurt??