WSOP final table quality of play

[Enecoman]

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.

[Fallen Hero]

[ 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?

[Enecoman]

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.

[B Dids]

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.

[Enecoman]

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.

[JimHammer]

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.

[daryn]

[ 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.

[ 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.

[NCAces]

[ 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

[Benoit]

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.