[Moneyline]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.



[/ QUOTE ]

From the way you so vigorously defend him, I get the feeling you are related to Ali or something. Again, how are you an interested party?

Anyway, the only people I've ever heard of who subscribe to the "nuanced" version of the term are unskilled mopes at B&Ms who find any excuse to blame luck for their consistently awful results. Regardless, even if you are correct (which I don't think you are) about the term, it was bad commentary for Ali and Matt to keep dwelling about how lucky Wasicka was on that particular hand. It doesn't matter what order the cards come once the money goes in, it only matters what the final board is. From your comments here I think you know this, but that certainly wasn't the impression the announcers gave.

And as long as I'm critiquing the announcers, some of the jokes were incredibly lame. I don't have the inclination to link to the corresponding video on NBC.com, but I hope they tone that down on any future broadcasts. It's okay when Gabe does that kind of stuff, because Gabe is a comedian and knows what's funny. I could be wrong, but I don't think Ali and Matt come from a comedy background, and their jokes tend to fall flat.

These guys aren't the worst announcers I've heard, but there is major room for improvement here.