OT - ESPN coverage of World Series of Poker

[QuikSand]

I see that ESPN has decided to air its coverage of this year's World Series of Poker. So far, I have now seen the first hour-long broadcast twice - where they spend some time introducing some of the better-known players, and show the field narrowing down through the first day of play.

I see that tonight, at 9PM ET, they are listing this again.

What i want to see, of course, is the second installment. I know that Dolly gets eliminated from the feature table in the first day, and that the defending champion gets a bad beat with pocket kings (he goes "all in" to a pair of aces)... but now I want to see how it plays out from here. (I know how the event ended, when it was reported a few weeks ago... but I'm interested to watch the play)

Does anyone know how I can tell whether tonight's airing will be the second episode, or just another showing of the first? And, are there more than two - how far did they stretch the coverage out?


Thanks in advance...

[MJ4H]

its the second episode. they are airing one episode per week on tuesday nights. i dont know how many episodes there are.

[QuikSand]

Thanks... I know there was a repeat showing of the first episode last Friday night. Mrs. Q and I saw it on the listings, and were locked in... only to see that it was the same one we had seen before.

[Radii]

I think there are going to be 5 episodes. I'm not sure if there is one episode per day of the tournament or if they're going to cover Day 2 and day 3(or day 3 and day 4) in one episode and commit two days to the final table.

[sabotai]

Hmm. Are you sure these are new shows? I just saw not too long ago coverage of the World Series of Poker that was 2 episodes. And it was the final table (2 episodes covering the final table). Maybe what I saw was repeats of last years coverage...I dunno.

[RPI-Fan]

Yes, I'm 100% sure these are new shows. They're covering this year's event a lot different from previous years. Its sort of an extended miniseries this go around.

[sabotai]

I must have saw repeated overage of last year's then.

[panerd]

Maybe I am just spoiled by the Travel Channel's WPT coverage, but Norman Chad just doesn't do it for it me. In print I think he is quite funny, but they just don't seem to have the same knowledge as Van Patten and Sexson. (It doesn't mean I still won't be watching)

[MJ4H]

I will definitely assert that ESPN's coverage would improve 29834980983409% with the addition of

SHANA HIATT.

[Esquared1]

I am surprised that ESPN never promoted a tourney like WPT. It seems like it would be perfect for ESPN 2. At least they could launch Women's Pro Bowling on Sunday afternoons. . .

I would watch a show called "a few guys playing poker" with expert commentary over it.

[sterlingice]

With all the poker dyansty's here, I've checked it out and learned some stuff. One night I watched it and went to play some poker out on Yahoo. I found out that I'm not very good

SI

[tucker342]

I read that they were showing one per week

[digamma]

sterlingice,

i wouldn't use yahoo as an indicator of your performance. i've played over there a bit and it is generally just people staying in regardless of what they are dealt. you don't get a feel for the strategy of the game and what hands are strong and typically win. other sites people mention on here are much, much better for trying out your new skills.

[BishopMVP]

Certainly was an interesting table there with Phil Hellmuth and that old guy talking the whole time.

I don't think for beginners the WSoP is a good place to pick up on strategies because everyone there is a great player, and because of this you have tons of players doing things like soft-playing and trying to draw people into a pot.

[sterlingice]

Originally posted by digamma
sterlingice,

i wouldn't use yahoo as an indicator of your performance. i've played over there a bit and it is generally just people staying in regardless of what they are dealt. you don't get a feel for the strategy of the game and what hands are strong and typically win. other sites people mention on here are much, much better for trying out your new skills.

While I understand that, it's free and I'm a starving college student so it fits my needs. Most of the other sites mentioned cost money, unless I am mistaken.

SI

[Bee]

Most sites have free play with fake money, but you have the same problems with that as you do with yahoo (people raising with a 8, 2 offsuit before the flop everytime for example). If you don't want to spend money and get the best experience, I'd suggest the free tournament play at one of the poker sites. People in the tournment play generally take it a little more serious (although you usually still get 2 or 3 players on a table that don't have a clue). When I can (which is not very often) I'll play the free multi-table tournament at pokerroom.com. I've only played it a couple times, but I think the overall winners actually get a little real cash.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by BishopMVP
Certainly was an interesting table there with Phil Hellmuth and that old guy talking the whole time.

Agreed.

Watching from last night, I have a question - for anyone who's following this (whether you saw the telecast or not).

Phil and Sam (?) are in for a hand, while Sam is pretty low in his chip count. Phil had two high cards, including the ace of spades. The table cards included four spades, giving Phil the top flush.

Sam is nearly out of chips, but bets with his decent pair. Phil, with the top flush, labors and then decides only to call the bet. Presumably, he was actualy worried that Sam might have had two lower flush cards to make the straight flush (the only thing that would have beaten his ace-high flush).

In my mind, this seemed too conservative. Phil was sitting on something like $60,000 while Sam had maybe $8,000 more in his stack. To just call the $3,000 with that ace-flush seemed ridiculous to me-- even if Sam had the straight flush, there was a very modest loss associated with that risk, in my mind.


Anyone care to correct me here? I'm hardly a good enough player to go out and jab at world champions... but that seemed like a lamebrained play.

[Bee]

I'm no expert either, but I have watched a lot of the WT on tv.

Often times, the championship players will do something similar in an effort to come off as "ultra conservative" and then later use that to their advantage by playing a lesser hand aggressively and buying pots. At that level, it's usually more of a marathon than a sprint so a player will do a lot of positioning to set up players later in the game.

At least that's the only reason I can think he'd have played it that way.

[lcjjdnh]

I think one of the announcers said it may have had more to do with rivalry than anything else. Phil may not have put Sam out right then and there just to draw out the pain a little more. I mean I really don't know what he was thinking but the way he had been playing, Phil was out to get Sam so you have figure he would have taken him out when he could of. Since he didn't, I'm going to guess he was hoping to keep him in for a slow death rather than end it right there.

[albionmoonlight]

I agree with lcjjdnh--I think he just wanted to bat around the mouse a few more hands before he killed him.

Having watched last night, I have a couple of questions for people who have seen a bit more poker than I have.

Do all casino games involve that much trash talking? Am I correct in assuming that the $1/$3 game at the local card room is a bit more civil than those guys?

Even at the big no-limit tournaments, are the players that vocal, or were they just hamming it up for the cameras (either with or without the prodding of ESPN)?

I think every hand that they showed ended up with just two players in the pot post-flop. Was that because 1.) That is how no-limit generally works 2.) That is how great players normally play or 3.) That makes for the most complelling TV, so those are the only hands that ESPN showed?

[QuikSand]

alb,

I think I agree with that disgnosis for Phil's move, too-- it's the best explanation I could come up with, also.


As for the trash talking - there's very little at regular casino tables. Typically people don't kno one another, so there's a lot less "connection" anyway. But the sizable majority of the tables I've played have been pretty civil, sometimes chatty, but rarely hostile at all.


I think it's the nature of no-limit that you see a lot of two-player showdowns. Yes, ESPN is focusing on the hands where someone goes "all in" because those are obvious drama points. They are skipping lots of hands where all that happens is three or four people play (call the first bet) but nobody raises to try to push it - that's just not good television. But in no-limit, you win and lose by going "all in," and those are clearly the best TV moments, as well as the biggest moments for the table. And with that much money at stake - it's pretty uncommon to have three or more people confident enough to risk it.

[Radii]

Originally posted by QuikSand
Agreed.
Sam is nearly out of chips, but bets with his decent pair. Phil, with the top flush, labors and then decides only to call the bet. Presumably, he was actualy worried that Sam might have had two lower flush cards to make the straight flush (the only thing that would have beaten his ace-high flush).

IIRC, the board had paired 5s as well, so Phil could have also been beaten by a full house(Am I wrong on that? Coulda sworn there was a full house possibly). Perhaps Phil thought he had some legitimate reason to think that Sam had made the full house.

I have two other guesses aside from what the announcers said. The first is that Sam had been running all over Phil whenever they got heads up, at least that is the impression given by the broadcast, so Phil might have become a little timid against him.

The second is that maybe he thinks with a four flush on the board, and with him having the nut flush, if he re-raises over the top of Sam, the only way he's going to get called is if he's beat, so there's no point risking the extra chips.

Dunno, it was certainly an interesting broadcast. I can see why so many people dislike Phil.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Radii
IIRC, the board had paired 5s as well, so Phil could have also been beaten by a full house(Am I wrong on that? Coulda sworn there was a full house possibly). Perhaps Phil thought he had some legitimate reason to think that Sam had made the full house.

Hmmm... if so, then I confess I completely missed it. I thought that there were five fairly disparate low cards, but four in suit. Draws to flushes and straights possible, but no pairs on the board. Certainly if there was a pair, then I'm totally wrong about the reasoning.

[BishopMVP]

Originally posted by albionmoonlight
Even at the big no-limit tournaments, are the players that vocal, or were they just hamming it up for the cameras (either with or without the prodding of ESPN)?

I think every hand that they showed ended up with just two players in the pot post-flop. Was that because 1.) That is how no-limit generally works 2.) That is how great players normally play or 3.) That makes for the most complelling TV, so those are the only hands that ESPN showed?

If you ever watch the World Poker Tour on the Travel Channel, it gives a better feel for the game because they only show the final table, so you're seeing more hands instead of just the all-ins. They showed it on Wednesday nights and probably still do, but it would be re-runs right now.

There was definitely some bad blood there between Phil and Sam. Does anyone know why this started? Is it just because Phil is cocky and arrogant or were there some big hands back in previous tournaments?

[RPI-Fan]

The second is that maybe he thinks with a four flush on the board, and with him having the nut flush, if he re-raises over the top of Sam, the only way he's going to get called is if he's beat, so there's no point risking the extra chips.

I have to think that's the best assessment. It indicates a pretty advanced thought, and that's what these guys do. Phil had little to gain by re-raising.

[RPI-Fan]

Oh, and also, when that guy talked about his hand during play, and TJ later said something, you could see him shaking in his boots.

Was pretty funny to see an amateur like that get shown up by the professional, as it should be.

[SirFozzie]

Originally posted by BishopMVP
There was definitely some bad blood there between Phil and Sam. Does anyone know why this started? Is it just because Phil is cocky and arrogant or were there some big hands back in previous tournaments?

They mentioned early in the show that Sam and Phil had taken it outside at a previous tournament in the past, and that Sam had kicked his butt. From the poker message boards I'm reading, neither of them are really well-liked in the poker community

[RPI-Fan]

Would you mind sharing links to these poker message boards?

I haven't really been able to find them...

[SirFozzie]

usenet group rec.gambling.poker

and pokerroom's online companion www.pokah.com