Is it a disadvantage to be at the featured table?

betgo · #1 10-26-2005, 05:59 PM

The TV people seem to pick the players for these and they usually put some big names there. With such a small percentage of big names early in the WSOP, that would seem to make the featured tables tougher.

Dynasty · #2 10-26-2005, 06:04 PM

The seats and tables are generated by the tournament direcotor. ESPN simply looks at the lineups of all the tables and selects what they think is the best for their purposes as the feature table.

otnemem · #3 10-26-2005, 06:06 PM

I think what he's saying is that because the pros are so widely dispersed in the early rounds, wouldn't that mean that the tv table was probably picked because it had the most household names at it, therefore you'd be at a disadvantage if you were an amateur at this table. Is that right? But even in this case, you'd have the table even if it wasn't the featured table, so I can't say that there's any disadvantage to the fact that it's the featured table.

UATrewqaz · #4 10-26-2005, 06:09 PM

THe really good question is how does being at the featured table affect the play, since you know you are going to be on TV.

My hypothosis is that people try more "fancy" plays on the TV table (bluffs, check raising, "big laydowns", etc).

lonn19 · #5 10-26-2005, 07:00 PM

Tables are already set by the tourney director, not ESPN. So if you have some pros there, its gonna be tough anyway. I agree with the last poster. Some people may be affected by the audience and cameras.

Greg (FossilMan) · #6 10-26-2005, 07:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
THe really good question is how does being at the featured table affect the play, since you know you are going to be on TV.

My hypothosis is that people try more "fancy" plays on the TV table (bluffs, check raising, "big laydowns", etc).

[/ QUOTE ]

Your hypothesis is quite reasonable, but, in my experience, the opposite is true. People try fewer fancy plays, because they are afraid of looking foolish. It may be that I have the evidence that you're bluffable on a given hand, and I should try to bluff you when I have no hand and no draw. However, if I know I'm going to look foolish on TV if it doesn't work out, I might choose to forego the play.

This year, on day 1, I was with a group of players on an outer table. At the end of level 2, they moved us to the TV table. You never saw a game tighten up so fast. No more calling raises preflop with 1-gappers and such. These guys, at least most of them, became very tight and very predictable postflop, and it made it much easier for me to control the table.

It didn't hurt that I caught a rush of cards and flops, either.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

MeanGreenTT · #7 10-27-2005, 10:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
It didn't hurt that I caught a rush of cards and flops, either.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the continued work here and no doubt those run of cards helped TREMENDOUSLY!

Curious, as from how it was portrayed on tv, when you got to the tv table, you had a tough all-in call to make against pocket queens, you held AK if I recall. You debated, then made the call and spiked an Ace.

Had you not hit, you would've been severly crippled. Any insight into this one, thanks!

el kang · #8 10-27-2005, 01:36 PM

The only thing I can add is that play at the TV table also tends to slow down and you get less hands per hr. Either because people are trying for TV time, or the before mentioned fear of looking stupid and people posture as they fold their hands.

scrapperdog · #9 10-27-2005, 03:07 PM

Yes it is a disadvantage to be thrown into a feature table with a bunch of known players instead of being in a randomly selected seat that might have 1 other pro at the table.

TAR · #10 10-27-2005, 03:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
THe really good question is how does being at the featured table affect the play, since you know you are going to be on TV.

My hypothosis is that people try more "fancy" plays on the TV table (bluffs, check raising, "big laydowns", etc).

[/ QUOTE ]

Your hypothesis is quite reasonable, but, in my experience, the opposite is true. People try fewer fancy plays, because they are afraid of looking foolish. It may be that I have the evidence that you're bluffable on a given hand, and I should try to bluff you when I have no hand and no draw. However, if I know I'm going to look foolish on TV if it doesn't work out, I might choose to forego the play.

This year, on day 1, I was with a group of players on an outer table. At the end of level 2, they moved us to the TV table. You never saw a game tighten up so fast. No more calling raises preflop with 1-gappers and such. These guys, at least most of them, became very tight and very predictable postflop, and it made it much easier for me to control the table.

It didn't hurt that I caught a rush of cards and flops, either.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[/ QUOTE ]

Greg has far more experience than I in this situation, but I wonder if it would be different later in the tournament or in a tournament with a smaller field / higher proportion of pros.

I recently played in my first 10K event and over the course of 4 days spent about 9 hours at tv tables. Much of the time was spent with Men the Master at the table. I'm curious Greg, if you think people play you differently on a tv table? It seemed to me that at least a few of the players wanted to play big pots against Men. Some got their wish and came out of it on the wrong end. It will be interesting to see some of these hands on tv.

I think the main disadvantage was that we saw a lot fewer hands on the tv table. Not only were the players slower but the dealer was slower too. As a medium to short stack, I would have been better off at a quicker table.