Norm Chad Keep It Up

[eclinchy]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't mind Chad that much. Gape Kaplan is the man though. It's pretty clear he knows what he's talking about when it comes to poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kaplan's pretty good, but he's a really tight player. When he announces, it always seems as though he expects the players to play just as tight as he does... saying things like "he should fold this hand in this position..." when the player in question actually ends up raising. I guess it's just a personal preference thing, but sometimes Kaplan's analyses aren't really at my speed. He's a smart guy though, and he knows the game.

As for ATH, I actually like Reali... he's a knowledgeable guy, and like me, he's got a good head for stats. PTI though, is terrible unless the A team is on. Jason Whitlock is a moron, and Lebatard, while he's not that bad a sportswriter, is annoying as a TV personality. On the other hand, Wilbon is absolutely brilliant -- the best sportswriter in the world right now, if you ask me -- and Kornheiser makes a great sidekick. PTI's A-team can't be beaten.

[MCS]

To chime in on the talk show discussion, I love PTI when Wilbon and Kornheiser are there. I like it when exactly one is there. I generally don't watch it when neither is there. These last few days with Whitlock (who I can't stand) and Le Batard (who I kinda just dislike a little) have been pissing me off.

I used to watch ATH, but it grew old since it always just feels like a less sophisticated PTI. I still watch it about once a week.

I like Tony Reali a lot.

[DRB70]

Funny, I dislike Norman a lot. To me he comes off as a bully of sorts looking for unknown players to simply make fun of the way a school bully looks for weak kids to pick on and boost their self esteem. He even seems to want to make fun of anything he can, their clothes, glasses as well as their play. I don’t find it funny; I seem to want to defend the players he picks on. I do find Kaplan funny as his joking comes off as teasing with no harm intent.

When I first saw how nerdy Norman looks, I imagine he was probably picked on growing up and that is what he learned.

Of course I’ve only seen his TV personality, so what do I know.

[eclinchy]

I'm not sure about ATH being the less sophisticated one. There are a few guys on there (Michael Smith, Mariotti, Bob Ryan) who are just as good as, if not better than, Kornheiser. I wouldn't say either one is that sophisticated. They're both informative though.

[CaryDarling]

Not poker related, but sports caster related...Bob Costas...nuff said.

[mephisto]

the USPC is now playing played on Canadian TV and I think norm chad really handles himself well. As compared to Kaplan's HSP crappy comentary, Norm Chad actually analyzes the hands and situations based on the fact that the other player doesn't know what he has. Kaplan on the other hand commentates and analyzes the situation based almost entirely by what the other players holdings are. Weak.

[eclinchy]

Very interesting point. I don't think Kaplan is quite as bad as you make him out to be, but I definitely see where you're coming from here.

[legend42]

I disagree, and think it's actually the opposite. Chad will often call a play one way, and the near-exact same play another way, based on the results. Of course, they're both a little guilty of it, which is natural.

But mainly, Kaplan's analysis is just worlds deeper than Chad's. Kaplan actually seems to be inside the players' heads on some levels thinking things out from their POV, and then adds his own thoughts.

Look at the hand where Antonio falsely agonized calling with his QQ after Matusow re-raised him (asking him to show him one card and such), in order to set up a flop check-raise. Kaplan read the situation precisely, and even lightly questioned the ethics of it, noting Matusow would probably be angry when seeing the hand on TV. Would Chad have perceived ANY of that? Likely he would have just criticized Antonio's hesitation ("He has QQ against a loose aggressive player who might be tilting. I don't know what he's thinking about...") or maybe commented that Antonio was scared of AA-KK ("When you get re-raised like that Lon, you have to consider your queens might be beat...").

Basically, Chad just alternates between complete awe (of the "great" players), cheesy mocking (of the not great players), and superficial 1st level analysis that's usually heavily results-based.

[TonyLA]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree, and think it's actually the opposite. Chad will often call a play one way, and the near-exact same play another way, based on the results. Of course, they're both a little guilty of it, which is natural.

But mainly, Kaplan's analysis is just worlds deeper than Chad's. Kaplan actually seems to be inside the players' heads on some levels thinking things out from their POV, and then adds his own thoughts.

Look at the hand where Antonio falsely agonized calling with his QQ after Matusow re-raised him (asking him to show him one card and such), in order to set up a flop check-raise. Kaplan read the situation precisely, and even lightly questioned the ethics of it, noting Matusow would probably be angry when seeing the hand on TV. Would Chad have perceived ANY of that? Likely he would have just criticized Antonio's hesitation ("He has QQ against a loose aggressive player who might be tilting. I don't know what he's thinking about...") or maybe commented that Antonio was scared of AA-KK ("When you get re-raised like that Lon, you have to consider your queens might be beat...").

Basically, Chad just alternates between complete awe (of the "great" players), cheesy mocking (of the not great players), and superficial 1st level analysis that's usually heavily results-based.

[/ QUOTE ]

Spot on.

All that's missing from Kaplan (and pretty much every other poker commentator on TV) is proper emphasis on big hands, big draws, etc. Many poker commentators come across as too monotone - not really providing the audience with what I would consider to be useful and constructive emphasis on particular hands.

Personally I think that's the by-broduct of edited poker, and the fact that most or all of the analysis is done in post-production - long after any drama of the moment has worn off. It's hard to re-manufacture that drama in an editing booth. It's one of the reasons that live cash games (particularly L@TB) can be so much more interesting - because the commentators can react to the hands in real-time, and you also gain the insight as to why players may make the moves that they do along the way.

- T

[synth_floyd]

I just hate the World Poker Tour people. Ugh.