Why is HSP3 a major disappointment?
 

I've heard this sentiment expressed so much in various threads that I thought it would be a good idea to have a separate thread devoted to this subject. I think the wide consensus is that apart from a couple of moments, HSP3 is a huge disappointment. I'm curious to know what people think were the mistakes made in producing this season.

In my own opinion, I think that the producers invited way too many players. I don't mind having Golds or Ramdins that much, you always need a sucker or two at the table. However, trying to squeeze too many players into too little time breaks up the continuity of the show. We have no idea how most players are really doing, and how their session is going, because we see them play at most half a dozen hands over the two episodes where they appear.

What are other people's thoughts as to the reasons for this season being a dud?

Re: Why is HSP3 a major disappointment?
 

i don't think its a dud at all. i could of lived without the no-names but they all seem to have left, and i look forward to watching the "ultimate" table form.

i don't see how its changed much. i still like it.

Re: Why is HSP3 a major disappointment?
 

The table selection until just now has been pretty atrocious. I think when we get deep into the table forming now it will make up at least alittle bit for the rest of the season.

As you said, too many players as well. I think they should play longer sessions with the same table, maybe switching one or two people if somebody wants to leave.

Having said that, it's still easily my favorite poker show on television.

Re: Why is HSP3 a major disappointment?
 

Seems like the big names are all involved in "group think" this time around. First two seasons everyone seemed to be making plays on each other, now everyone has tightened up somewhat, working off of a tricky image of past episodes.

Re: Why is HSP3 a major disappointment?
 

Why is HSP3 such a major disappointment?

Probably cause you were expecting too much

Re: Why is HSP3 a major disappointment?
 

Yeah, if you invite nobodies, make them entertaining (cannot think of any, actually) or at least someone you can root for (Chamanara, for me).

These Shak and Trincher and what not folks are just so bland.

Re: Why is HSP3 a major disappointment?
 

I agree with the 'way too many players' thing.. Seeing players come and go is kinda lame- we don't see them build up a rhythm- they are just in and out.. The ramdin/gold thing was plain stupid imo- they brought absolutely nothing to the show- just donked around and left.. Ramdin did provide some comedic value with his straight on on double paired board- but that was it [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
Also- whats with all the makeup this season? they all look like boy band panzies.. wtf

Re: Why is HSP3 a major disappointment?
 

I think there's been too much focus on table talk, rather than on the actual hands. Really slow pace at times and even though I think Gabe is pretty funny, I would like to see someone (like Barry) who could do some actual analyzing. I'm sick of the "he should put in a raise to find out where he's at" with TP

Re: Why is HSP3 a major disappointment?
 

I don't think the show is a disappointment at all but i don't think the action has been as good. Part of that is the cards... there haven't been many huge situations and the other part is too many tight players make for a boring game. No one wants to take any risks or look foolish. The game imo is far more interesting when you have some action players or just plain bad players in it. I love having Sam Farha in the game he really opens it up.

The opening lineup was interesting for awhile with Gabe, and Gold, and basically a lot of weak players. Having guys who say like one word the whole time and stare seriously with their shades on like Wasicka are a waste of a seat. The conversation/needling/etc is one of the best parts of the show. The show is at it's best with Matusow / Sheiky / Farha / Doyle / Barry / Negraneau / Elezera. I would love to see some other older players get involved like Chip.. someone with some good stories to tell.

Re: Why is HSP3 a major disappointment?
 

I don't call it a major disappointment. But it maybe hasn't had as many 'signature' moments yet. Season 1 had the BG/Farha AA vs KK hand, as well as Phil's overall donkishness highlighted by his beating BG into the pot with the worse hand.

Season 2 had the sick Quads vs FH hand between DN and Gus, Matusow being paid by the rest of the table not to leave and then obligingly bluffing off his stack. Also some very good and horribly unrewarded play by Esfandiari.

Other than "LOL Donkaments", what have been the memorable incidents this year? I guess Sheiky breaking MM's glasses, and Gold's douchi/donkiness.

Also, remember all the bitching about prop bets last season?

This time next season we'll be wondering why S4 isn't as good as S3.

Re: Why is HSP3 a major disappointment?
 

i feel like any NLHE game played that high is kind of automatically a good show. just based on the "pain threshold" these players have to pass through when losing a big hand is enough to generate great competition and excitement. i can't imagine any other poker show beating HSP out.

having said that, i do think that they could have longer weekly sessions (kind of like the two hour episodes of WPT) and show how players are doing over a longer period of time. i didn't think the problem was too many players (i liked new blood and fresh faces), but not long enough episodes.

-TheMan

Re: Why is HSP3 a major disappointment?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why is HSP3 such a major disappointment?

Probably cause you were expecting too much

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, it's still the best poker show on TV by far. Everyone's expectations were too high. Sure there are lots of little things they could do to make it better, but it's pretty dang good as is. It would be better to have one lineup play longer. (I still wanna see "Live at the Bellagio" GOGOGO)

It seems like everyone is disappointed there weren't any huge cooler hands; obv. the producers can't force that to happen.

Re: Why is HSP3 a major disappointment?
 

For that amount of cash, they need to play HSP at some ultra exotic location/landmark. I don't like the set for some reason.

-TheMan

Re: Why is HSP3 a major disappointment?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why is HSP3 such a major disappointment?

Probably cause you were expecting too much

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly, i wish people moaning on about it being a dissapointment would just stop watching/commenting about it

Re: Why is HSP3 a major disappointment?
 

I don't find it disappointing. If you do I guess you were expecting too much when you heard all the players that were coming.

Re: Why is HSP3 a major disappointment?
 

IMO, a weekly 2-hour episode would solve most of the problems.

-TheMan

Re: Why is HSP3 a major disappointment?
 

[ QUOTE ]
IMO, a weekly 6-10 hour episode would solve most of the problems.

-TheMan

[/ QUOTE ]
FYP [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Why is HSP3 a major disappointment?
 

If they can spot the DPT a two hour show, why can't HSP get a two hour spot, its not like GSN has all that much original programming, I figure they want to spread it out as long as possible, keep us hooked on these little 42min segments (42 minutes without the commercials). I don't know why they don't film for three days, and give us two hour episodes, with more of the "boring" hands, I think that they underestimate what we are willing to watch, I for one would watch the entire sessions unedited, I would also find it interesting if they would show the graphics of what people are folding (didnt they use to do this?) Lets all email GSN with our demands for 2 hour episodes.

Re: Why is HSP3 a major disappointment?
 

Seems like the most common complaint is too many lineup switches. Yet, in the weekly threads, there were numerous gripes along the lines of "this table is getting stale or boring...can't wait until (Ivey/aba/Farha/DN/Antonius/etc.) shows up to get some action in the game."

As far as the no-name/nitty/fishy guys are concerned, they have pretty much always been there- Nasseri, Buss, Amnon, Chamanara, Zeidman- so I don't think there's a big difference between this season vs. the previous ones. How the pros attack the lesser players is one of the things that makes the play interesting.

The big difference this season, which someone has already pointed out, is the lack of interesting hands. And unless you're going to stack the deck, or tape much longer sessions and edit it down, I don't see anything you can do about that.

(Though, with all the people who complain each week about boring HSP episodes, is it any wonder the quiz show scandals of the 50s took place and that even most of today's "reality" shows are scripted and/or heavily edited, and basically conceived, contrived, and manufactured the exact same way fictional shows are?)

Re: Why is HSP3 a major disappointment?
 

I think most people here enjoy and look forward to each episode HSP. We all know it’s not perfect, but it’s the best poker on TV. The players don’t make the right plays every time; we disagree with how a hand was analyzed, that’s all good discussion. Some people think their really cool if they rip the show a new one after each episode. Season 3 is different than 1&2 but just as enjoyable. You can be sure the critics are going to be watching the last few episodes of season 3 and counting the days till season 4 starts, then we'll find out why we shouldn't like it.

Re: Why is HSP3 a major disappointment?
 

I am watching HSP every week and it is obvious that it is a lot different than season 1 & 2. First couple of seasons were specific in some sort of way. The first one was cool because Negreanu on start of the show bought in for cool million $$, lost almost $600k and then won all his money back. That was great to watch.
Second season was also cool because there were some good hands to watch, Matusow was paid to stay and then went broke, Esfandiari was so unlucky and that beautiful $575k pot..
Certainly it was great to watch it.

While reading some posts of Negreanu about how tough table setup was for this season with Antonius, Yukon, Ivey and the rest of them I was expecting to watch great poker, but so far there was not many of it.
Too many switching players, some of them just played couple of hands, but when I saw a preview about next episode where there will be $4,5M$ on the table, I am certainly gonna watch it.

Anyway, HSP 1 & 2 was better in my opinion because it was consistent players and better play then in HSP 3.

Re: Why is HSP3 a major disappointment?
 

I enjoyed watching Gold, Doyle and Mike on the first few episodes of 3. I liked it when Gabe played and Daniel did the announcing, the epidsodes with Townsend, Wasica, Sammy and Eli were great and we're all looking forward to the next few weeks. I didn't like the Harmetz, Shak, Trincher table, too many amateurs. But I still looked forward to the show every week. If you liked 1&2 better, that's a fair criticism. I think there's good and bad stuff every season, mostly good.

Re: Why is HSP3 a major disappointment?
 

I find the show near perfect.

Just invite a few Scandinavian LAG online players (anyone bankrolled for it from, say, Christopher "LuckyULSA" Ulsrud, Johnny "bad_ip" Lodden, Ramzi Jelassi, Mohammad "Fast_Freddie" Kowssarie, Fredrik Halling, ...) and some interesting table personalities (Prahlad Friedman, Ram Vaswani, Roy "The Boy" Brindley, John Duthie, ...) and we're all set. It's getting a little stale with Negreanu, Matusow, Esfandiari, and Laak to be the life of the table.

Kudos to the production team for the current table, though, it looks amazing -- I can hardly wait for Monday's show.

Oh, and yeah, wouldn't mind it being extended to 2 hours, as others have mentioned.

Re: Why is HSP3 a major disappointment?
 

They should do a DVD with all the hands and no commentary (hole cards added in post production though).

Re: Why is HSP3 a major disappointment?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Just invite a few Scandinavian LAG online players (anyone bankrolled for it from, say, Christopher "LuckyULSA" Ulsrud, Johnny "bad_ip" Lodden, Ramzi Jelassi, Mohammad "Fast_Freddie" Kowssarie, Fredrik Halling, ...) and some interesting table personalities (Prahlad Friedman, Ram Vaswani, Roy "The Boy" Brindley, John Duthie, ...) and we're all set. It's getting a little stale with Negreanu, Matusow, Esfandiari, and Laak to be the life of the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

While this would be a great show to watch, it's a marketing nightmare. How do you sell a bunch of people who most people have never seen or heard of before? This is why HSP always has a couple of recognisable faces at the tables.

Re: Why is HSP3 a major disappointment?
 

[ QUOTE ]
and some interesting table personalities (Prahlad Friedman, Ram Vaswani,

[/ QUOTE ]

What ? Ram's a great player, but he barely says a word at the table. And there's nothing wrong with that, nor do I, but I don't know why you call him an "interesting table personality"

Re: Why is HSP3 a major disappointment?
 

[ QUOTE ]
While this would be a great show to watch, it's a marketing nightmare. How do you sell a bunch of people who most people have never seen or heard of before?

[/ QUOTE ]

All of those I listed are obviously not available to play, I would guess the majority doesn't have a sufficient bankroll and couldn't get enough backing. I just listed a few suggestions as to where the producers could look next time they wanted to get some new blood. The no-names and/or amateurs they have used so far has mostly been a rather boring bunch, IMHO.

And also I obviously didn't mean they should introduce a bunch of them at the same time. The HSP producers seems to do this part well already, introducing one or two new names every 2 or 3 episodes, at the most.

Anyway, for me it basically boils down to really wanting to see Johnny Lodden play high-stakes NLHE cash games on TV, especially after seeing him on the recent broadcast of the William Hill Grand Prix Season II.

There have been some rumours that this is a real possibility, BTW: Lodden knows fellow Norwegian Thor Hansen very well, and Hansen is best buddie with Eric Drache, who I've heard is one of the main men behind HSP. I've seen Hansen say that he's able to get anyone into the game due to this connection.

(For those unfamiliar with Hansen, he is a bracelet holder, more recently placed 2nd in Omaha/8 WSOP 2006, and a regular at Larry Flynt's "home-game" along with e.g. Ivey and Reese.)

So it might just be a matter of Lodden scraping together a big enough bankroll.

Perhaps an interesting tidbit at the end: Thor Hansen is playing the EPT Monte Carlo final today, after having his buy-in paid for by Lodden and two of his friends (Tore "Lager" Lagerborg and Gunnar "Gunman" Østerbrød), who are staking a whole bunch of Scandinavian "has-beens" for the EPT final, to see if that pays off.

Re: Why is HSP3 a major disappointment?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and some interesting table personalities (Prahlad Friedman, Ram Vaswani,

[/ QUOTE ]

What ? Ram's a great player, but he barely says a word at the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, bad choice. Strike him from that list. He seems to be playing an action-packed LAG style, though, so add him to the other list. [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

Re: Why is HSP3 a major disappointment?
 

[ QUOTE ]

All of those I listed are obviously not available to play, I would guess the majority doesn't have a sufficient bankroll and couldn't get enough backing.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is incorrect. Several well known high stakes internet players who are rolled to played tried to get on the show and couldn't.

Re: Why is HSP3 a major disappointment?
 

Maybe if the unknowns they brought in were laggy instead of nits? Although that might tighten up the name player's game, so that could have a bad affect.



And This doesn't have anything to do with season 3 in particular but I feel like saying it...

the commentary is soooo much louder than the table talk that I have to have my TV really loud to hear it any of it.

Then AJ will shout "Laak raises to 1800 with AQ" drowning out the table talk, when I can clearly read the graphics and see his action. If you're going to have him call out every play, at least mix it down a bit.

Re: Why is HSP3 a major disappointment?
 

Gabe Kaplan annoys the [censored] out of me. His accents and running jokes are terrible and not very funny, and he really overestimates his own poker knowlege, some of his "the right play here would be..." comments are way off, in my opinion at least. The show is still good but there is too much talk and not enough hands being played.

Re: Why is HSP3 a major disappointment?
 

Everyone says how much they love Kaplan in season 1 so they boost his airtime and now by season 3 everyone hates him for drowning out the players.

ITS AN UNBREAKABLE CYCLE

Re: Why is HSP3 a major disappointment?
 

1) Please make HSP a 5 handed game
2) Make the no-name players super agro internet stars
3) Lower the stakes so that more players can play, and so that there won't be any scared money
4) Get a better host that can be funny and provide good info.

Re: Why is HSP3 a major disappointment?
 

Is anyone as tired as me of seeing Jen Harmens whining,nitty,uncreative,ABC play ?

She seems to be on more than anyone??

Maybe because she is the ONLY woman HSNL player available??

Re: Why is HSP3 a major disappointment?
 

1 - She was barely in any episodes this season.

2 - She tore it up during season 2. Tons of bluffs and other trickery. You have no right to complain if she decides to play ABC at other times. Everyone does it... except for Farha >_>

LDP!

Re: Why is HSP3 a major disappointment?
 

KSOT,

If she tore it up last season(in which i didnt see the whole series),then she certainly has changed that style you speak of to being quite a whining nit now IMHO!

No??

Re: Why is HSP3 a major disappointment?
 

If I understand it correctly, Harman's whining is the result of mood swings caused by some sort of hormone therapy.

As for her being a "nit", Todd Brunson (who plays with her all the time) describes her style as "average to loose, and very aggressive". She's probably trying to take advantage of this image by changing gears and using an ABC style on HSP.

Re: Why is HSP3 a major disappointment?
 

[ QUOTE ]
As for her being a "nit", Todd Brunson (who plays with her all the time) describes her style as "average to loose, and very aggressive". She's probably trying to take advantage of this image by changing gears and using an ABC style on HSP.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or, it could be just that she is more aggressive in limit games (and when she's drunk).

Re: Why is HSP3 a major disappointment?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As for her being a "nit", Todd Brunson (who plays with her all the time) describes her style as "average to loose, and very aggressive". She's probably trying to take advantage of this image by changing gears and using an ABC style on HSP.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or, it could be just that she is more aggressive in limit games (and when she's drunk).

[/ QUOTE ]

Those beers won her a good chunk of money last season. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: Why is HSP3 a major disappointment?
 

HSP3 as a major disappointment speaks to who the audience of the show is. If you step back and think of it as a television series, then you have the cult fans (many of us) and the casual fans (the poker dreamers). No one accidentally watches this show as who in their right mind skims through GSN to see what's on. I agree that too-many-players has reduced the storylines as guys are coming and going. This makes the season more difficult for the casual fan, and even for the zealots it probably comes off as more of a throwing everything on the wall and seeing if something sticks.

IMO, the table we have now is the one we could sit back and watch a dozen hours of play. We're already seeing all of these subplots emerge almost instantly (Benyamine producing an extra $200k when all those monies show up, Negreanu's chat starting to look uncomfortable with all these big guns there, players very familiar with some at the table and unfamiliar with others, etc.).

The last episode makes this season great, just with the big change in dynamics with Booth's bundle and his immediate Ivey play. We basically have half of Bobby's Room now combined with their online equivalents, with Esfandiari and Negreanu thrown in for good measure. If you could go another eight hours with Booth, Benyamine, Ivey, Dags, Brian Townsend, and Antonius, what other two players would you add to complete a solid eight-handed table? I'd suggest Chip Reese and Jason Strasser to further broaden the game or Prahlad and Gus Hansen to LAG the table up some more.