WSOP Spoiler Thread.

[SirFozzie]

Wow. What a week at the WSOP.

Johnny Chan wins his 10th.. and Doyle Brunson, Texas Dolly himself, also wins his 10th (in the six-handed NL Holdem event, $3000 Buyin) , and also becomes the first ever father son combo (his son Todd also won one this year, the $2,500 Omaha H/L event) to ever win events at the same WSOP.

Considering the ME's going to have something like 6600 players, and a first prize of $16-17 MILLION.. a great year for Poker.

[Comey]

Rumor is that winnings are capped at $10M. So, if this is true, then others will get more money due to it.

If I can find where I read/heard this, I'll post it.

[Leonidas]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

.. a great year for Poker.

Except for that whole Jennifer Tillie thing. My respect for the game dropped at least 40% when that happened. If Ben Affleck ever wins one of these things I'll stop watching altogether.

[Comey]

It was a ladies event, and she's dating Phil Laak. I've seen her play a lot of events before...so it's not that far-fetched.

Some pros also say Affleck is "world class". I don't know if he's there, not having played with him...but he did win the California Poker Championships, or whatever it was...it was a pretty decent tournament.

So, in short, I don't understand your basis for your comments at all.

[Leonidas]

Originally Posted by Comey

It was a ladies event, and she's dating Phil Laak. I've seen her play a lot of events before...so it's not that far-fetched.

Some pros also say Affleck is "world class". I don't know if he's there, not having played with him...but he did win the California Poker Championships, or whatever it was...it was a pretty decent tournament.

So, in short, I don't understand your basis for your comments at all.

If poker is a world class competition requiring special talent and skills to compete in then Hollywood stars coming in and winning cheapens it and proves otherwise. To me someone like Affleck winning one of these would be like Kevin Costner or Garth Brooks coming in for one of their Spring training flings and actually making the team. Maybe I'll eventually get over this, but clearly poker is a competition where the drop off from the pros to the amateurs is not as great as golf or even bowling. I want to respect and admire the skills of folks like Brunson, Lederer, and Negraneu, but this makes it a lot harder.

[Comey]

How, exactly? Your argument has no bearing. Just because they're actors doesn't mean they can't play cards. Tobey Maguire has placed in a lot of tournaments, and people like Gabe Kaplan (Mr. Kotter) is a top player. Your analogy doesn't fit whatsoever, because people put up their own money. Those guys aren't getting staked...they ante up, just like everyone else.

A person's occupation has absolutely zero bearing on how they can play cards (unless you're a poker pro, of course). Sure, someone from Hollywood may get more press, because they're already in the media...but what you're saying isn't valid. I respect your opinion, but on an argumentative level, I don't get it.

[Comey]

Dola--

I missed this before. Poker is NOT a world class game; there are people that are considered to have world class talent, but overall, that's not what it is. Yes, you need special skills to be a CONSISTENT winner. But any idiot luckbox can win a tournament. That's the special thing about the game...anyone can sit down and play, and anyone can win.

[Leonidas]

I suppose we just disagree on what we want from the competition. I like seeing the top stars on top of their game winning with bold plays at the big tournaments. I want to see Johnny Chan, Doyle Brunson, and Phil Ivey every week, not some guy who once had a bit role on ER show up for his two minutes of poker glory. Now Kaplan is the real deal. I've seen him play several times and respect his game. I also think he was great broadcasting the Head's Up tourney and would like to hear more from him in that role. But frankly, the thought of Ben Affleck infecting the world class poker world (as though his acting weren't bad enough) is kind of nauseating to me. If you like seeing guys like him do well then more power to you. I don't need Hollywood star power to be entertained though. I'd just prefer to see the pros go head to head and learn from them, which is why I really like the special invitationals that Fox does.

[henry296]

Leonidas,

I can't remember the guy's name but he was on the final table of the WPT Championship, who used to be a top computer executive who decided to play poker pretty much full time and become successful. He practiced and improved his game so that he was at a world class level. IMO, that is the same as Affleck, Tilley, etc. They practice and play alot of poker to improve their game. Much like the internet amateurs. Do you have a problem with Moneymaker or Raymer winning the main event?

[Comey]

Originally Posted by Leonidas

I suppose we just disagree on what we want from the competition. I like seeing the top stars on top of their game winning with bold plays at the big tournaments. I want to see Johnny Chan, Doyle Brunson, and Phil Ivey every week, not some guy who once had a bit role on ER show up for his two minutes of poker glory. Now Kaplan is the real deal. I've seen him play several times and respect his game. I also think he was great broadcasting the Head's Up tourney and would like to hear more from him in that role. But frankly, the thought of Ben Affleck infecting the world class poker world (as though his acting weren't bad enough) is kind of nauseating to me. If you like seeing guys like him do well then more power to you. I don't need Hollywood star power to be entertained though. I'd just prefer to see the pros go head to head and learn from them, which is why I really like the special invitationals that Fox does.

Ah, so you're a TV fan. I see where you're coming from, then...I think. I don't really know if you're a true fan of poker or not, though. I could easily be wrong, but I like seeing anyone who has game play...different styles, different hands (the WPT that had Gus vs Hoyt vs Daniel Negreanu is amazing, as is the one with Barry Greenstein vs Chip Reese vs Randy Jensen vs James Tippin). I don't watch just to see the "great players make the great plays" (which happens so infrequently, anyway).

That said, I think you'll be VERY, VERY happy with this year's WSOP. But, as far as what you're looking for out of poker in general...that's not how the game works (I'm assuming you know this, though).

Also, I don't really care if Affleck does well or not. I was just taking the side that any player who feels he's up to the challenge CAN succeed...and that IS good for the game. It's what makes the game work.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Leonidas

I'd just prefer to see the pros go head to head and learn from them ...

So, just out of curiosity, do you hate seeing amateurs compete in events like the U.S. Open (golf), and such?

[kcchief19]

Leonidas' complaint is that far removed from every other sport. He likes to watch poker when there are players he knows and is familiar with. No different than ratings soaring when Tiger Woods is playing in a PGA tournament.

Obviously the biggest difference is that whereas very few people can roll out of bed and win the US Open, the pool of people who can play in a poker tournament is much larger, and because of the nature of the game if you get lucky you can ride the wave for a while and suddenly you're watching a final table on the WPT with an internet donkey, overrated donkey, tournament donkey and Andy Bloch.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

internet donkey, overrated donkey, tournament donkey and Andy Bloch.

They were all at my table yesterday.

[timmynausea]

Andy Bloch, who is literally a donkey.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

So, just out of curiosity, do you hate seeing amateurs compete in events like the U.S. Open (golf), and such?

Maybe Leonidas will say differently, but I think the difference is that one is an extremely rare accomplishment while the other has almost become commonplace. Look at this year's women's U.S. Open. Normally that tournament draws as much attention as a flea circus, but this year it was very compelling with three amateurs making runs at the title. The World Series of Poker was not much more than an after thought until Moneymaker showed someone other than a tourney pro could win.

Now, amateurs and no-names winning poker tournaments is so commonplace that it's no longer a big deal. Likewise, if amateurs placed or won every year at the U.S. Open, it wouldn't be story after a while either.

I'm like Leonidas -- if I'm watching poker on TV, I'm much more likely to watch if players that I like (or are entertaining) are playing. But if it's a computer programmer from Long Beach, a retired railroad manager from Denver, a college dropout, a CPA and Barry Greenstein, I probably won't watch.

Where I'm different is that if Jennifer Tilly is playing, I'm there. Nice rack.

[QuikSand]

A friend of mine was at Jennifer Tilly's table when she (Tilly) called an all-in (fairly substantial, maybe 7-8 big blinds) with T8s. It's one thing to be aggressive and be the one making bets and raises with marginal hands -- but calling someone else's all-in with trash is just tough to justify.

I happen to agree with Leonidas's observation... there is enough luck in poker, especially in the short-run environment of a single tournament event, that a complete outsider has a far, far greater chance of winning than a comparable outsider would in any other sports or games mentioned. I don't think that cheapens the game necessarily, but I think it's supported by the facts.

[timmynausea]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

The World Series of Poker was not much more than an after thought until Moneymaker showed someone other than a tourney pro could win.


Where I'm different is that if Jennifer Tilly is playing, I'm there. Nice rack.

Don't forget that 2003 was also the first year that they put the lipstick cameras in the table so we could see what cards everyone had. The Moneymaker thing was a great story, but the World Poker Tour already had been a surprise hit as soon as they put those cameras in.

As to Jennifer Tilly - did anyone realize she's half asian? Her real name was Jennifer Chang. I had no idea. After she won that lady's tournament I read the trivia on her IMDB page.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

Don't forget that 2003 was also the first year that they put the lipstick cameras in the table so we could see what cards everyone had. The Moneymaker thing was a great story, but the World Poker Tour already had been a surprise hit as soon as they put those cameras in.

The only difference in that regard was that they now had cameras that showed you the cards as the players saw them. Before, you would know the cards because it was taped and the commentary was added afterwards. You still knew what everyone had.

Here's a tangent -- does anyone know for certain how the play-by-play commentary for tournament's are handled now? Travel Channel's coverage appears live to tape, but I'm think that ESPN and Fox PBP is taped afterwards. Any idea?

[Comey]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

A friend of mine was at Jennifer Tilly's table when she (Tilly) called an all-in (fairly substantial, maybe 7-8 big blinds) with T8s. It's one thing to be aggressive and be the one making bets and raises with marginal hands -- but calling someone else's all-in with trash is just tough to justify.

I happen to agree with Leonidas's observation... there is enough luck in poker, especially in the short-run environment of a single tournament event, that a complete outsider has a far, far greater chance of winning than a comparable outsider would in any other sports or games mentioned. I don't think that cheapens the game necessarily, but I think it's supported by the facts.

He didn't make that observation; I did (re: short-term luck in a tournament). He argued that he wanted to see the pros and pros alone "make bold plays in the tournaments", rather than someone from Hollywood come in. And it's supported by the facts because there's only one "league" going around, and that just started (The Professional Poker League, or whatever it is).

As I wrote before, anyone who has the money can buy-in and win, which goes far to the appeal of the game. That's what is supported by the facts. It doesn't cheapen poker...rather, it adds to it. People don't get to show up and play LeBron James 1-on-1 after a Cavs game, or pitch to ARod after a Yankees game. But they can sit down with Phil Ivey or Doyle Brunson and try to win. What they do for a living is irrelevant.

(And yes, I saw some odd things with Tilly calling with junk. But she was also a huge chipleader, and it IS possible that it was the correct play in a tournament setting...you knock someone out, if you don't have to put anymore chips in, ie last to act to see all five...I am not defending her, and I think she's rather annoying from the minimal exposure I've had to her...but as big a chip lead as she had, I'd at least want to get all the information on those hands before I pass judgment.)

[QuikSand]

Thanks for the lesson.

[Comey]

That wasn't my intent; I know you play and are good. But of course I'm going to throw out my reasoning when I make a claim.

[Airhog]

I think actors have a natural talent for the game. Playing at a live table requires some acting, and there isnt anything they do better...

[larrymcg421]

A friend of mine was at Jennifer Tilly's table when she (Tilly) called an all-in (fairly substantial, maybe 7-8 big blinds) with T8s. It's one thing to be aggressive and be the one making bets and raises with marginal hands -- but calling someone else's all-in with trash is just tough to justify.

This really depends on alot of factors. Waht were the pot odds, chip positions, etc.? Gus Hansen had made crazy calls like this, and then people call him a genius. Once he called Esfandiari with T8. Gus had correctly read him for a low pocket pair and knew he had a heads up situation. Another time was when he called with QT against Freddy Deeb. Again, this was a correct call because of pot odds and chip position (even if he lost, he still has Deeb outchipped, and the pot odds more than favored him given Deeb's range of possible hands).

Robert Varkonyi's call with QT against Phil Hellmuth was also the correct call. I'm just gonna throw that out there and see what people think.

[Lathum]

http://www.pokerpages.com/tournament/result9613.htm

[timmynausea]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

The only difference in that regard was that they now had cameras that showed you the cards as the players saw them. Before, you would know the cards because it was taped and the commentary was added afterwards. You still knew what everyone had.

Not true. I downloaded and watched the 2001 WSOP. At that point it was shown on Discovery and the coverage consisted of an hour long episode recapping the main event. There was basically no "live" style coverage of the event. It's narrated rather than announced like a sporting event. On top of that, in any hand that isn't shown down, the viewer has no idea what the player had unless he shows or tells later.
It is completely different than the coverage that got popular in the 2003 WSOP and WPT.

[kcchief19]

Hmmmm ... perhaps that was a special documentary version. I thought the WSOP had been on ESPN for many years. I've also seen the clips of the 1988 WSOP ESPN aired with Johnny Chan and Erik Seidel and in that coverage they displayed the whole cards, you just obviously didn't see them through the camera. Or maybe Discovery did have the rights and decided to air it in a rather dumb way, since obviously it's not live and they could have recorded the narration afterward when they knew what the cards were.

I'm thinking that may have been a documentary, not the "real" coverage.

[Subby]

Poker is for homos.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Hmmmm ... perhaps that was a special documentary version. I thought the WSOP had been on ESPN for many years. I've also seen the clips of the 1988 WSOP ESPN aired with Johnny Chan and Erik Seidel and in that coverage they displayed the whole cards, you just obviously didn't see them through the camera. Or maybe Discovery did have the rights and decided to air it in a rather dumb way, since obviously it's not live and they could have recorded the narration afterward when they knew what the cards were.

I'm thinking that may have been a documentary, not the "real" coverage.

They asked them what they had in each hand, which made for poker players covering up/blatantly lying about what they had.

[Honolulu Blue]

There are lots of prop bets for the WSOP Main Event at the online sin bins. This post is going to get a bit long, so if you want to hit the page down key to get to more dissing of my girl Tilly, I'll understand. For the rest of you, here are some of the highlights:

* Most everywhere you can bet on your favorite to win the whole thing. As expected, the bookies aren't offering the best odds - mostly between 200-1 and 1000-1. If you knew your favorite pro had cut a deal with Harrah's, you might be able to take 1000-1, or even 200-1. Otherwise they're sucker plays.

* A little better are the final table odds. Here the range is generally between 25-1 and 200-1. Shop around because they can vary a lot from book to book. I found Humberto at 150-1 at Stan James, which is almost playable.

* Better still are the in the money odds, which I only found at Stan James. Jesus and Negreanu are at 9-4, along with a few others. Five others are at 5-2. About 100 mostly familiar names are at 3-1, including Dan Harrington, who would be worth a flyer at that price. No, I don't think he's going to make the final table again. The rest of the familiar names are at 4-1, 5-1, and 6-1. Considering that about 10% of the field should cash (9-1 odds), getting 3-1 or so on a world-class pro isn't that bad. It's not, of course, the world-changing score a 500-1 flyer would be.

* The only prop bet I'll repeat in its entirety came from BetRoyal. This is the rank of the final hand:

- Pair +200
- 3 of a kind +300
- 2 pair +450
- Full house +600
- Straight +700
- Flush +900
- High Card +1200
- 4 of a kind +7500
- Straight flush +15000
- Royal flush +25000

In my opinion, the 2 pair hand is the best bet here. The straight & royal flushes are obviously bad bets. Trips & the full house are a bit overrated.

* Bodog has a bunch of head-to-head matchups as to who will finish better. You're giving about 8% to make these bets, but considering the odds on the other WSOP bets, that's pretty good. Here's a few that I thought were good enough to spotlight with some commentary that's worth about what you paid for it:

- Josh Arieh (Even) over Erick Lindgren - Arieh may be a jerk, but he's a jerk who can play. I assume Mr. Lindgren can play a little too; don't know a lot about him.
- Clonie Gowen (Even) over Annie Duke - Annie's pretty good, but I think she's wildly overrated. You'll see a lot of these bets where I took a stand on players who are a little to a lot better values.
- TJ Cloutier (-120) over Todd Brunson - I think Todd would rather be at the cash games, though he's had some good results so far.
- Scott Fischman (-140) over Dutch Boyd - Dutch might be The Crew's founding father, but we know who its real star is.
- Arieh (-120) over David Williams - Williams seems nice enough, but I think another early bustout is in his future.
- Daniel Negreanu (-130) over Duke - Negreanu is at or near the favorite list on nearly every bet you can make. Hasn't done much so far, but I think he'll do good things starting Thursday.
- Howard Lederer (-120) over Duke - I still think The Professor is better than his most famous student.
- Cyndy Violette (-120) over Clonie Gowen - Violette's been sizzling over the past month, and I expect it to continue in the Main Event.
- Chip Reese (-120) over Greg Raymer - Raymer's luck has to run out sooner or later. My pick is sooner.
- Chris Moneymaker (-120) over Robert Varkonyi - The 2003 champion hasn't done much since then, but the 2002 champ has done very, very little.
- Antonio Esfandiari (-120) over D. Williams
- Mike Matusow (-105) over Raymer - I'd take the devil himself if the odds were right.
- Jennifer Harman (Even) over Duke
- Phil Hellmuth (-120) over Duke - This is the best bet I found. It's almost a mortgage-the-house lock, but (a) I can't tell you that, since this is for entertainment purposes only, and (b) poker is a funny game that sometimes rewards the weaker over the stronger.

CYA DISCLAIMER: Bets researched as of yesterday afternoon; lines may have changed in the meantime. And mentioning of any online book is neither an endorsmeent or a statement of its legal status.