Phil Gordon vs. Daniel N. commentary

[gummy d]

how about it folks...

[Lloyd]

You really need to put some more effort into making a post. How about asking a specific question?

[restrikt]

I totally missed when DN came in. What happened?

[gummy d]

Sorry about the confusion. I was wondering if anyone hear listened to the sirius broadcast of the wsop final table last night and if so what was Daniel N. analysis on some of the key hands in the tournament. Ex. Paul Wastikas bluff on the a j 9 a board with three hears or Golds exposure of the jack of clubs when he bluffed binger off of something.

[Isura]

Gordon's analysis was pretty simplistic and repetitive IMO.

[gummy d]

I would agree. He seemed out of step with the table dynamics always insisting on textbook play. There was very little discussion of the psychological undercurrents of the table. Jen Harmon's comment about people checking big hands or the threat of it was spot on. Gold's use of the check raise had a profound effect on the table i think.

[Enrique]

True. Gordon kept insisting on the bad play of showing a bluff. Very repetitive. Although I definitely enjoyed the broadcast, the Ro-Sham-Bo moments were hilarious.

[Willy]

Gordon's analysis is often you MUST do this here and ALWAYS do this with no analysis of
of the table dynamics or mixing up your play etc.. Very text book for beginners. I did not listen to Danny Boy's broadcast.
I think Gordon pretty much plays this way too.

[gummy d]

Perhaps someone recorded the sirius broadcast. I'm really intersted to hear danny boy's analysis. Did everyone just watch the main event. Surely someone watched and listened to danny on sirius at the same time. I know there are poker nerds like this out there.

[dogdrool]

[ QUOTE ]
Gordon's analysis is often you MUST do this here and ALWAYS do this with no analysis of
of the table dynamics or mixing up your play etc.. Very text book for beginners. I did not listen to Danny Boy's broadcast.
I think Gordon pretty much plays this way too.

[/ QUOTE ]

I tried to make this post in another thread about the PPV coverage. I totally agree.

The fact is that Gordon himself isn't a very good tourny player. I suspect he's way too straightforward. He's capapble of running over total passive donks, but good players probably snap him off constantly. What was his last tourny result of note?

He just needs to stop saying what he would do. What he would do is irrelevant. He needs to ask:

1) why did the players do what they did?
2) what do we think the players might do in this hand?