ESPN faked Set of Tens Laydown

[pokergripes]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've been reading all the speculation about ESPN faking this hand, as well as theories that they faked Lisandro's laydown of 10 10 against Ivey's 99.

ALL of this speculaton is ABSOLUTELY FALSE.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't speak for others but as I wrote in my blog, I never questioned the laydown of the set of tens.

[ QUOTE ]
As for Lisandro's laydown of 10s against Ivey's 9s, that was a very intense, exciting hand to watch.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's it? That's your evidence that this speculation is ABSOLUTELY FALSE? That you were there and it was exciting? I'm not sure how that puts you ahead of anyone else in analyzing what jeff might have had.

[ QUOTE ]
I hope this deters the conspiracy theorists who are dissecting TIVO looking for continuity problems. It reminds me of the reaction to the old Alien Autopsy footage!

[/ QUOTE ]

"Conspiracy theorist" is a phrase used by people who are afraid of openly examining the facts. You do understand that we know for sure they have faked hands in the past, right? In that light it does not require any sort of conspiracy for them to do it again. It only takes one command decision from someone who cannot see lisandro's hole card footage clearly.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you say "they have faked hands in the past", are you saying that they've got them wrong (that is, acted more sure than they actually had reason to be about the facts), or that they've deliberately changed facts to create more interesting situations?

I'd be surprised if the former didn't happen now and then (mistakes happen all the time in media), but I'd be pretty troubled if there are clear examples of the latter (which feels more like "professional" wrestling to me)...

[Paul Phillips]

[ QUOTE ]
When you say "they have faked hands in the past", are you saying that they've got them wrong (that is, acted more sure than they actually had reason to be about the facts)

[/ QUOTE ]

That. You can (and they did) argue the semantics of "fake" but when they put those graphics on screen they are telling us that a camera recorded the cards. In multiple cases that has not been true, and they have (at best) relied on the word of the player(s). In my view there's no sliding scale of truthfulness on this; if they don't have video evidence of what the hand is then they don't know and never will. Using the player's after-the-fact claim is fake.

[pokergripes]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When you say "they have faked hands in the past", are you saying that they've got them wrong (that is, acted more sure than they actually had reason to be about the facts)

[/ QUOTE ]

That. You can (and they did) argue the semantics of "fake" but when they put those graphics on screen they are telling us that a camera recorded the cards. In multiple cases that has not been true, and they have (at best) relied on the word of the player(s). In my view there's no sliding scale of truthfulness on this; if they don't have video evidence of what the hand is then they don't know and never will. Using the player's after-the-fact claim is fake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, there's probably some incremental informational value from them doing an immediate post-exit interview with the player since, assuming they don't actually tell the guy "umm, we can't tell anything from the video at all", he's got to worry that a later slow-mo viewing will reveal that he lied about it...

But that being said, it definitely would be better if they indicated in some way that they used an outside "source" like this to check when the camera got a bad shot. Of course, we can all see the bad shot anyway on tv (and can usually rewind and look again slowly as well), so it's not like they're really putting anything past a viewer who bothers to check it out himself...

Besides, I'm generally too distracted by the inane color commentary, and failure to correctly verbally describe hands and situations as they're occurring, to even notice the graphics [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]