NBC HeadsUp Poker Championship - Semis and Finals - Sunday, May 20

[DRRPoker]

This will help. Paste this on your tv screen.

Shannon Elizabeth Photo

[Rottersod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Good thing they are because the !@#$%^! Ducks/Redwings game is going long so it looks like we'll miss this weeks here in LA. Hockey, feh.

[/ QUOTE ]

NBC can pre-empt the HUPC all day, every day as far as I'm concerned. This year's HUPC has been horrible in almost every aspect. The stanley cup playoffs are far more entertaining to watch than Humberto Brenes being a douchebag. The commentary has been sub-par at best. The structure was horrible. Pretty much unwatchable.

- T

[/ QUOTE ]

I was about to snap off a reply and then I saw it was you Tony. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[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 ]


No.

Well, send me a check for $100.00 and I'll do it. No joke, I really will. Otherwise, no.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was just asking you to substantiate a claim you apparently feel very strongly about. I didnt think supporting a blanket statement like that would require payment. I'll pass on that.

I just think it's more constructive to actually support a statement, rather than state it and leave the support to our imagination. Apparently we disagree on that.

[Moneyline]

[ 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.

[Rottersod]

[ 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 ]

Because his TT turned into a draw after the turn (his T would have made Elizabeth's nut straight) his river was technically a suckout.

Poker Glossery

Suckout: It means someone hit a draw against you to win the hand.

[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.

[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.

[Admo]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm an interested party...

[/ QUOTE ]

Constructive criticism unrelated to announcing.

If you've just broadcast an entire hand from start-to-finish, is it really necessary to show an abbreviated version of the same hand before going to commercial? I mean, it just aired like two seconds ago.

Then, when coming back from commercial, is it again necessary to recap the same hand again?

Couldn't believe I was watching three versions of the same hand within five minutes of each other.

I've liked the HU coverage in past years-- this year was unwatchable and I didn't make it through a few of the broadcasts.

ps. Ali Nejad is horrible for many of the reasons stated here. Not Brian Mollica bad, but bad nonetheless.

[freekobe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm an interested party...

[/ QUOTE ]

Constructive criticism unrelated to announcing.

If you've just broadcast an entire hand from start-to-finish, is it really necessary to show an abbreviated version of the same hand before going to commercial? I mean, it just aired like two seconds ago.

Then, when coming back from commercial, is it again necessary to recap the same hand again?

Couldn't believe I was watching three versions of the same hand within five minutes of each other.

I've liked the HU coverage in past years-- this year was unwatchable and I didn't make it through a few of the broadcasts.

ps. Ali Nejad is horrible for many of the reasons stated here. Not Brian Mollica bad, but bad nonetheless.

[/ QUOTE ]

All points are well-taken (both from you and the poster above). There are some who like to see replays - very often, you'll see a dunk or a TD multiple times, both in and out of break.

Re: Ali - I'm not defending him (or Matt Vasgersian) - I was simply curious as to what people considered to be "bad" or "stupid" commentary. Often, people post things on these boards without backing them up. Now that I know where people are coming from, I have a better understanding of what the issues are.

[iswimbettor]

Agree with most of the posts that this show's format was hard to watch (re-plays of the hand before and after the commercial, etc.).

I also like the post about Ali's analysis seems to be results oriented based on him viewing the cards, that seems to be dead on and any donk who watches this as a spectator views play based on results which is always hilarious to me.

(Like the guy at the B/M who beats himself up mentally for laying down Q5 before the flop when 2Q's hit the flop, I die of laughter everytime inside). I get the feeling that if Ali plays that's how he views his game like it was a bad fold because he woulda made a monster on the flop.

Paul Wasicka was great on the other hand, and I really like his play. No flash, good reads, and just seems to make a lot of high percentage plays. He is a breath of fresh air in the poker world compared to all the other fist pumping jocko's that lately have been representing poker lately.