Phil Gordon vs. Daniel N. commentary

[gummy d]

Couldn't agree more. Still waiting for someone to comment on sirius' coverage. As an aside, i think alan folded to quickly to paul's all in 3bet. Not saying he could've called but he should've thought about it longer.

[DesertCat]

I listened to 30 minutes of Daniel and a coupole hours of Phil, both were good. Daniel's analysis is detailed, incisive, and he gets into the levels of thinking well. Phil is more basic, textbook analysis. So Daniel was overall the best, but Phil was much better at one important aspect of the coverage. Having an opinion! Daniel was too milquetoast. Phil would rage if he thought it was a terrible play. I would like to hear them do it together and see how they play off each other. Daniel would probably challenge some of Phil's simplistic black and white opinions, and Phil would probably coax some more critical comments out of Daniel.

[gummy d]

Thanks desertcat, i needed that.

[TimTimSalabim]

I listened to the Sirius broadcast for most of the night. Daniel's commentary was great, he said from the beginning that Binger was playing really well and predicted he would go deep. He also said Gold was bluffing and that AC knew it and would call, on the hand where AC called with A9. And he called some other hands perfectly as well, and explained his reasoning. The best part about Daniel is he usually tries to find reasons why players are doing things, instead of just being a know-it-all and criticizing everything they do. I didn't listen to Gordon so I can't really compare them.

[JP OSU]

Phil was annoying the [censored] out of me when every single time someone raised pf and didn't c-bet he freaked out...

[snelgrave]

PG may have been too stiff in what he thinks "good" poker is, but he made some really good read on the players and best of all KEPT IT FUN! The guests in the booth really helped too.

[whalekock]

If and only if someone could sync up the Sirius commentary to PPV video.

[benza13]

I listened to Sirius for a while, starting around the time Scotty was on I switched to the PPV for good. The RPS was great, especially when Tech was angle-shooting.

Daniel was definitely more in tune to the table dynamics and reads than Phil and was a little more interesting to listen to. But the Sirius feed was 30 seconds ahead of the PPV feed, so it sucked to watch the PPV with Sirius on and I slowly began listening to Phil more and more after the RPS that I pretty much gave up on Daniel when Tech came on.

[MicroBob]

Phil's commentary was of a more 'text-bookish' nature.
but it still blows away most of the 'analysis' we get on WPT for example.
He is doing this for a general audience afterall (including viewers who e-mail in to ask what 'limping in' means).

It also seemed fairly consistent with his Green Book views on how to play tourney-poker.

As for him being repetitive: Ummm, you try doing a broadcast for 14 hours without repeating yourself a few times.
Some of the limping on the button and constant showing of bluffs really WAS worth repeating because it was so unusual.

The continuation-bet stuff he probably could have slowed-down with a bit. But, again, they had to be a bit punchy after 14 hours so I'll cut him some slack on that.


I think of many baseball radio broadcasts where the announcers will rotate every 2-3 innings. They're doing the same game, just giving a different perspective or a fresh voice to it.
There's no question that the WSOP coverage would be improved by adding 1 or 2 more announcers to the mix and having them rotate throughout (while also continuing to bring in the guests as they did).


I know they were being light-hearted and having fun with some of the jokes, banter and ro-sham-bo and so forth. But I do think they should be able to stay on topic a little bit more than they did at times.


However, this broadcast really impressed me and I really enjoyed listening to Phil and Oli for the most part. I think they did a really nice job for such a long broadcast (note - I only caught the final 4-5 hours or so).

[TStoneMBD]

i hate most of poker's commentators and have made many posts about it. i dont like phil gordon. daniel negreanu and hellmuth are both excellent commentators imo because not only are they both great players but they are also very funny. howard lederer is boring but very good because he knows how to play the game.

yah and phils continuation bet comments were a bit annoying. he sees everything as black and white abc poker and cant analyze table dynamics.