High Stakes Poker thread (9/24) (Spoilers in Thread to come?)

[intheflatfield]

[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


1. If it wasn't for luck, I'd win every time
2. Make insurance bets to eliminate luck
3. ?????
4. Profit !




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Still dying from the underpants episode.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

[KneeCo]

[ QUOTE ]
I personally like the running it twice since it is something we don't see off screen. I want this High stakes show to be closest to the way they handle Bobby's Room,etc...a look inside high stakes poker.

[/ QUOTE ]
1) I can't imagine HSP is anything like a look inside 'the big game', for a number of reasons not the least of which is that HSP is always uncapped NLHE whereas, as I understand it, Bobby's Room almost never is.

2) As mentioned earlier, just cause it's what they would be doing if the cameras weren't there, doesn't mean it's in the best interests of the show. Your argument suggests that they should never have stopped the players from playing props on boards, but anyone who has seen every season knows that the show is way better without them.

3) If we remove running it twice the big pots would be split much less often, which would mean having a clear winner and loser at the end of the story of the hand, which is better from a storytelling perspective and accordingly better tv; also, it would mean people dragging huge pots more often, which is way more appealing for casual viewers and amateur players, and tv poker being as appealing as possible to viewers is way +EV for the game.

4) If we remove running it twice we removed discussions about how many times to run it (although admittedly these have some appeal sometimes) and remove watching dealers peel off extra flops/turns/rivers and instead fill that time watching more hands.

I can't see any reason from a TV perspective to not stop running it twice. From a players advocacy POV however, I can see the argument that they should be allowed to run it twice seeing as they are playing a cash game with their own money. Honestly though the producers are entitled IMO in this instance to do the best for their product and the players should realize that when you're playing in some mediums you can't do everything you might like because of it (e.g. you can't run it twice online, right?) but it's the price you pay for the benefits that medium offers (lower rake, worse opponents, multitabling, playing in your pjs, being on tv, ...).

[shaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
I personally like the running it twice since it is something we don't see off screen. I want this High stakes show to be closest to the way they handle Bobby's Room,etc...a look inside high stakes poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

My understanding is that they didn't even allow it in the big games at the Bellagio until recently. I'm not saying it shouldn't be allowed, since people are playing with their own money and should be allowed to be as pussy-ish with it as they want, more just saying that it makes for terrible tv poker. Otoh, the people who "do business" generally DO waste the time (and time charge) of players who are willing to just play it out one-time, so it's lame even away from the cameras, too.

In any case, HSP is not a real cash game by any means: It's a tv-show where the participants are paid 4-figures an hour to play poker, and I think outlawing insurance and "running it" would be pretty reasonable in that context.

[mikechops]

[ QUOTE ]
I think Helmuth takes insurance, because it insures he doesn't bust, therefore staying on TV.

I'm not sure how much money he brings, but if he only has another buyin, it might make sense that he doesn't want to lose his TV time.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is close, i.e. he want to be on TV, but I don't think he's in any danger of going broke or couldn't borrow enough to stay in this game - he lost 500k playing Chinese poker in one night. No, He's doing it so he can get more face-time. Giving up 3-4k in EV is worth it if he is the center of attention.

[redCashion]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not a huge fan of baxter but i snapcall that A9 against sammy, good call.

[/ QUOTE ]

Without question, the fact that it's being debated is inexplicable to me.

[JDesab]

[ QUOTE ]

1) I can't imagine HSP is anything like a look inside 'the big game', for a number of reasons not the least of which is that HSP is always uncapped NLHE whereas, as I understand it, Bobby's Room almost never is.[\quote]

you are correct about the 4/8k game ... yet i'm sure you will agree that these guys must at one time or another play nlhe, right?

[ QUOTE ]

2) As mentioned earlier, just cause it's what they would be doing if the cameras weren't there, doesn't mean it's in the best interests of the show.

[/ QUOTE ]

in your opinion!! some viewers are willing to simply watch and aren't egocentric enough to think that the show should be changed to accomodate their personal preferences. I happen to like all of the extra stuff. i don't mind the talking about the props that went on 2 seasons ago.. i'd truly like it even more if i could be sure what each players props are ... but so be it. i have played in relatively big games (10/20 with $80,000 on the table) and i can tell you, there's more discussion at those tables about the line in the sunday football games than there is talk about the hand in play.
[ QUOTE ]
3) If we remove running it twice the big pots would be split much less often, which would mean having a clear winner and loser at the end of the story of the hand, which is better from a storytelling perspective and accordingly better tv; also, it would mean people dragging huge pots more often, which is way more appealing for casual viewers and amateur players, and tv poker being as appealing as possible to viewers is way +EV for the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

the biggest appeal of HSP is that it's target audience is not truly the uneducated poker fan. now, you, who wants to be perceived as a knowledgeable poker mind, say that the best thing to do with the show is to dumb it down. that truly makes no sense to me.

perhaps you are studying tv production .. in that case your post makes much more sense.

[fl1p]

[ QUOTE ]
worst episode ever. seeing farha donking off the chips in the dark and playing all kinds of hands was atrocious. the quality of play is similar to any playmoney table.

[/ QUOTE ]
!

[IgorSmiles]

How anyone can not like Sami and Eli is beyond me. They are the guys that drive the game. The game would be a total snooze without them. And you have to allow them to do business which in the long run is definitely good for the game as they happily keep putting their money in.

Way too much table talk going on though. One to a hand...please! These guys know better.

[kypreanus]

LOL @ Phil Helmuth bragging about his history of gambling

LOL @ Mike Baxter destroying the game with the NL50 moves

LOL @ the hour long phill-helmuth-sam-farha run-it-twice discussion

LOL @ this rather actionless episode compared to the the beginning of the season. where is all the action, 2-7 game, phil hellmuth steams etc. rather boring episode in comparison

LOL @ Sammy farha/Eli tightening up the game so much that it becomes boring

LOL @ Phil Helmuth "trapping" with ATo

[IgorSmiles]

[ QUOTE ]
LOL @ Sammy farha/Eli tightening up the game so much that it becomes boring



[/ QUOTE ]

Are we watching the same show? Tightening up the game? Has Helmuth reraised with A/10 in his life?