World Series of Poker

[aikoaiko]

Wow. Did anyone watch the final table?

I really like the new televised format of seeing every hand played out and the cards aren't revealed until after the hand is over. Its a totally different spectator experience than the edited versions of previous years.

One could see the blowouts better and just how strategic the final 2 players were for six hours of heads up play.

Congratulations to Pius Heinz of Germany (1st place) and Martin Stazko of Czech (2nd). I was rooting for Stazko.

[HopeHoops]

1. When they turn it into a full-contact sport, then I'll watch.

[aikoaiko]

3. Sure, but when you outplay me and it costs me 3 millions dollars -- thats a body blow.

A high end poker tournament is like a mental multi-gladitorial melee where, in the end, there can be only one.

[HopeHoops]

4. Oh bullshit. It's just mathematics.

[aikoaiko]

5. Sure, expected values, pot odds and other calculations are very important

But by and large, purely mathematical players are easily outplayed. In no limit games a mathematical player can easily be made to fold by raising a hand.

Its not a physical game (except for the endurance part), but players have to watch other players, look for patterns, exploit weaknesses, and, yes, bluff when it makes sense to even with losing hands.

But on the other hand, its not as awesome as rugby or SEC football.

[HopeHoops]

8. None of those compare to coed naked jello wrestling.

[aikoaiko]

9. You got me there.

:hi:

[HERVEPA]

2. Held out to about 12:30 AM EST

They should start it at least an hour earlier.

[madinmaryland]

6. I prefer watching chess. For the latests updates from DU's Jack Rabbit see this...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=215x189581

I think he is providing updates on a monthly basis.

[Iggo]

7. I quit watching at eight (when my DVR records two shows at once)...

...but what I saw of it was intense.

And not for nothing, and I don't really swing that way, but I could stare at that Pius dude for hours. He's dreamy!!!

[gratuitous]

10. I finally gave out when Stazko was up about 150M to 50M

From the account I read online, Heinz induced Stazko to go for the knockout blow, and turned things around to win. I thought Stazko made a big blunder when he had the full house of Aces over Nines. Heinz had been the aggressor through the hand, betting with nothing. Stazko, in first position, got his full house on the turn and checked. Heinz bet and Stazko called, which was the proper bet, I thought. Then on the river a third diamond came up, Stazko put out 10 million chips, and Heinz folded.

I wonder what might have happened if Stazko had either checked or made a small bet, signalling a weak hand? Would Heinz have continued to be aggressive, and tried to chase Stazko off of a pretty good pot? I think Stazko should have checked the river and let Heinz put his own head in the noose, representing a diamond flush with a big bet. If Heinz checked back, Stazko wins the pot, but Heinz didn't have anything, after all, and the only way for him to win the hand would be to intimidate Stazko. Stazko's full house would win the hand regardless, but inducing a bet on the river from Heinz might have ended the tournament right there.

[pokerfan]

11. I was just about to give up on it and go to bed

when Stazko made the one misstep. All the careful methodical chipping up and he decides to just say fuck it, I think I'll risk it all a flush draw. I know he wasn't all in but losing that hand definitely crippled him as he didn't have that big a lead. That's a play you can make when you have a 4:1 chip lead, not a 3:2 lead.

I do like the format (seeing the cards at the end) rather than seeing the hole cards throughout the hand but I wonder what it does to the integrity of the game. I guess both players have the same opportunity to exploit that information but I hate that instead of one player per hand, it has now become more of a team sport and whoever has the best team analyzing the play in light of the revealed cards has a better chance of winning. Being able to see every single folded hand, even fifteen minutes after the hand, really changes the nature of the game.

[gratuitous]

12. The "team" aspect bothered me a bit, too

But if you're going to provide any meaningful coverage, you have to show what the players were holding. The 15-minute time delay seems too short, though. Move the starting time back a half hour or even an hour (Hell, you're indoors at a casino with no clocks, what meaning does time have in that environment, anyway?) and run on that kind of a delay. Even in heads-up, a player who doesn't change his style or tactics from time to time is going to present a stationary target sooner or later. A one-hour delay would make a player's current tactics quite a bit distant from what he was doing an hour ago.

In defense of the "team" tactics, the same information is available to all the players, so any "advantage" really comes down to who uses that information better. What really irked me was the endless, loud demonstrations after every. Fucking. Hand. Shut the hell up, you bunch of idiots. Pushing 2 million chips in pre-flop and watching your opponent fold isn't exactly the Greatest Most Brilliant Strategem Ever.

[pokerfan]

14. TV ruins everything

I don't think the rail would have been quite that boisterous if they didn't know that they were on national TV. But that's what ESPN wants and what ESPN wants ESPN gets.

I watched a webcast of the final nine a couple of years ago. I think it was sponsored by Cardplayer magazine. In any case, there were no hole cams at least not live. They were there (for the later ESPN broadcast) but Cardplayer didn't have access to them. What they did have was terrific commentary proving that you don't need hole cams. It was much like Sunday's show where they played from nine down to three except no cards were revealed at all.

I'm concerned that ESPN is going to be tempted to screw with the game even more after last night's debacle. And it was a debacle from their point of view. They allocated two hours for the broadcast which wound up lasting 6.5 hours and finishing at 3:30 AM Bristol time. I hope that (as they have done with other sports) tweak the game to make it more TV friendly such as reducing the length of the levels from two hours to one hour or even less.

[gratuitous]

16. I did like the professional's commentary

I think it was Phil Hellmuth who provided a lot of insights during the first session Sunday regarding what the players were doing and the why as the hand was being played. Antonio Esfandiari's commentary on Tuesday I thought was less informative, but pretty good. Esfandiari seemed to guess more, while Hellmuth impressed me as being a better reader of the players and their play. I like the way Lon McEachern and Norman Chad play off of each other, but neither of them really conveys the insider's view of the game the way the pros do.

[pokerfan]

17. A lot of people hate on Hellmuth

but I've always liked his commentary. I just don't think he's a very good sportsman. He plays a tight-passive trapping style and likes to harangue players for sucking out on him, when in fact he gives the right odds to continue with their draws especially when you consider the implied odds he's willing to pay off when his hand gets beat. But, as a person, away from the table, he seems to be an alright guy.

Esfandiari's approach to commentary is pretty much a shotgun approach. Throw all the possibilities against the wall, hope one hits (sticks) and that's the one everyone remembers. It reminds me a lot of Negreanu, who will often call the opponent's hand exactly and still make the crying call. If his read was correct, he gets credit for the read despite losing the pot. If he's wrong, then he gets credit for making a hero call. It's all for television.

Lon and Norm are fine, though I think Norm is funnier when he has time to prepare rather than live. Lon, I suspected might have been drinking, as he was having trouble reading the board. "Sorry, I thought there was an Ace on the board..." Really? But they all have their roles... Lon does play by play and asks the everyman type questions. Norm does color and humor and the poker expert provides the in depth analysis. It works for me.

[gratuitous]

19. He IS kind of a jerk when he plays

But away from the table, Hellmuth seems to be a personable, almost likeable guy. I guess that goes hand-in-hand with being the "Poker Brat" and self-proclaimed greatest player in the world. There is a showmanship angle to it, undoubtedly, but I recall a year or two ago when Hellmuth made some kind of grand entrance at a tournament, Roman emperor style. One of the other professionals at the table gave him some grief about it, and Hellmuth appealed to Doyle Brunson, who was also at the table. Brunson didn't exactly say Hellmuth was acting a fool, but in his taciturn way said that he thought the game didn't need that sort of thing.

It was instructive, because I think Hellmuth respects Brunson (everyone does), and that gave him something to chew over. I have noticed that while Hellmuth is still a showman, he's dialed it back a notch maybe.

One other area of the commentary I found intriguing was when Hellmuth and Esfandiari were talking about being a high-stakes poker professional and the toll that takes on your personal life. Relationships and the seductions of the casino made me think that Norman Chad's running gag about his multiple wives isn't always in fun, and Esfandiari made a rueful comment about the dangers of getting the VIP treatment (sounded like the free drinks had a hidden cost).

It's interesting entertainment, that's for sure. The more I understand, the better I like it. But I'll confine myself to playing online for worthless "chips."

[pokerfan]

20. Yeah, that was the 2009 Main Event

That's just Phil being Phil...



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=II7KOU0QUoM

I play a couple of regular tournaments a month and one big one every year. My online play has been reduced to play chips for the time being. I do have a friend who lives in vegas and is a pro in that he makes a living from the game. I don't think I could live like that - the swings are too much. I like a steady paycheck.

[jakeXT]

13. I missed it because I thought it starts today, November 9 and so

It's a stupid idea with that break

[blueknight]

15. i play in the WSOP every year

and the tourney has gotten so big, you HAVE to get extremely lucky to even finish in the money now

[jakeXT]

18. I wonder how many more players 2011 would have had with online qualifiers

more than the Jamie Gold year, when he won like 12 mil

[Blue_Tires]

21. eh...I'm waiting for a World Series of Cribbage

then I'll clean up

[aikoaiko]

22. good cribbage players move so fast its like watching speed chess.

I can't keep up.