HSP 9/04

[Clovis8]

It makes me laugh all these HSP threads about how Daniel is a pay-off wizard. Of course he is on this show he is on tilt. But before this show nobody ever called him that and his other TV appeances make it pretty clear he is no pay-off wizard. Poker has a little thing called context.

[doc_1982]

This is the first time his cash game has been televised. There is a very fine line between amazing hand reader and calling station.

Also, the more i watch DN play and think of this, the more i'm reminded of Doyles quote about Stu Ungar and "if he ever got top pair cracked....".

[Rottersod]

[ QUOTE ]
just a question, I don't get HSP over here. Is Benza the same guy that got in a fight at the howard stern show?
http://www.yourdailymedia.com/media/...ard_Stern_Show

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[SpeakEasy]

[ QUOTE ]
The props are becoming very annoying and distracting. ... I get more enjoyment from seeing people gamble for huge $$$ when there is some skill involved rather than something that is total dumb luck. Ideally the players would just quit playing props during the show, but that's probably not going to happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

My understanding of the props is that the players need to call out a winner on the flop in order to get credit and get paid, so its not quite "total dumb luck." Its a method of making the players pay more attention to the game, rather than less. Its distracting for us viewers, for which the prop bets are not explained, but it keeps the players more focused on the action and requires their active involvement.

[Warning -- possible hijack in progress..]

The prop bets are 'luck' in the sense that the outcome is determined by the random order of the cards, but to significant degree the random order of the cards determine the outcome of every poker hand (your starting cards are random, the flop is random, etc.). The players' reaction to the randomness determines the outcome.

[Rottersod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The props are becoming very annoying and distracting. ... I get more enjoyment from seeing people gamble for huge $$$ when there is some skill involved rather than something that is total dumb luck. Ideally the players would just quit playing props during the show, but that's probably not going to happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

My understanding of the props is that the players need to call out a winner on the flop in order to get credit and get paid, so its not quite "total dumb luck." Its a method of making the players pay more attention to the game, rather than less. Its distracting for us viewers, for which the prop bets are not explained, but it keeps the players more focused on the action and requires their active involvement.

[Warning -- possible hijack in progress..]

The prop bets are 'luck' in the sense that the outcome is determined by the random order of the cards, but to significant degree the random order of the cards determine the outcome of every poker hand (your starting cards are random, the flop is random, etc.). The players' reaction to the randomness determines the outcome.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that they pick their cards before the game starts so it is total luck. It doesn't have anything to do with making them pay more attention to the game. For example I'll lay a bet that on any flop a 2, 4 or 6 come. That's a prop. Their props are more advanced as they seem to include winners from previous props, etc.

[TomHimself]

yes but he is correct u have to call out ur props when u hit, etc then for doubles, triples etc

so it might make players pay more attention atleast to the flop

[Admo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
just a question, I don't get HSP over here. Is Benza the same guy that got in a fight at the howard stern show?
http://www.yourdailymedia.com/media/...ard_Stern_Show

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Scooterdoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ugh, he definitely said that he knew he wasn't holding K-10?

[/ QUOTE ]

He might have said it, but that doesn't make it true. Given the way some of these guys are playing hands, sure he could have had KT -- they raise and call PF with anything and he would have flopped an open-ended which in this game seems to warrant bets and calls.

[/ QUOTE ]

just thinking about the hand again. I guess he ruled out KT because eDog would not have called the flop AND turn bet with only a draw. He might call the flop bet, but not the turn bet with just an OESD, so I do agree with ruling out the KT. But certainly he should have put edog on a full-house. Why? DN was certainly representing strength the entire hand. He also was rarely folding on the river to RR, if at all. So if edog could not beat a full house or straight (both were hands that were represented here by DN) then it would take incredible balls or suicide tendencies to re-raise with less than a full house on the river.

[Sinochick]

I remember reading that if you don't "call" your props on the flop, you have "slept your props" or something like that.

If someone else calls your flops though, do they get the money?

Gus Hansen said on his Cardplayer Circuit radio podcast that he doesn't play props in the Big Game - I think only a handful of them like playing props.

[7n7]

[ QUOTE ]


If someone else calls your flops though, do they get the money?


[/ QUOTE ]

Nope

Edit: It actually wouldn't surprise me though if some gamble-holic like Doyle suggested this.