[freekobe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who cares?

Ali Nejad is anti-growing on me. It's unbelievable how much stupid crap comes out of his mouth regarding poker. I don't understand, I've been playing the game for about a year and a half, and I can talk much more intelligently, and have much deeper insights into the game than this guy, his partner, Konik, seif, etc etc. Gabe Kaplan is the only one who isn't a douche.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm an interested party, but I'm curious to hear examples of what you're referring to. Obviously, if he says so many things that are considered "stupid crap," it should be easy to link to / quote a few of them (all episodes are available on nbcsports.com/poker, i think). Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

How are you an interested party?

To answer your question, the whole business about Wasicka "sucking out" when he got all the money in w/ a pair vs. 2 overs was awful. If any analysis was need there, it was to explain why that is not a suckout at all.

[/ QUOTE ]


Some people equate bad beat and suckout. Some people believe there is a nuanced difference.

Some people think that a suckout is when a miracle card hits, no matter when the money went in. That is not "wrong." It is a different way of looking at the same scenario.

Others think whether or not a situation is a "suckout" matters entirely when the money went in.

I can see arguments for both.

No one is saying Paul didnt deserve to win the hand (he was a statistical favorite when the money went in). But, the fact of the matter is, he did "suckout" on the river.

Shannon shouldn't have viewed it as a bad beat, since the money went in preflop, but, technically, it can be correct to call it a suckout. There isn't, as you posit, one way to look at it.