'93 WSOP--Two Mistakes in First Three Hands

Rushmore · #1 01-01-2006, 06:59 PM

Hand #1:

Bechtel raises preflop, Bonetti calls from the blind.

Flop comes Kc Qc 7h

Check, check.

Turn Jc

Bonetti bets, Bechtel calls.

River Td.

Check check.

Bonetti shows the Kd 2d
Bechtel's cards, shown in closeup, are Kc 9h.

Doesn't this seem odd for the very first hand? Even so, it really doesn't look like an edit job, more like a fouled deck, which I would obviously doubt.

Hand #3:

Mick is allin with A9s vs. Jim's AT.

Board comes KKT, and Albrecht says "That's it--Bechtel wins the pot."

I just thought it was odd that there should be two clear discrepancies in the first three hands.

Anyone else notice any of this?

drewjustdrew · #2 01-01-2006, 08:08 PM

Hand 3 seems like an honest mistake. didn't they analyze these games real-time back then, since they didn't see hole cards? If so, I'm sure if he took a few seconds to think about it, he would have not made the mistake.

I remember the 98 one, I think, hellmuth joined the crew to do some announcing on the spot. He correctly called Dewey Weum's preflop raise, which he showed after everyone folded (again, may be fuzzy memory, but close to correct)

Rushmore · #3 01-01-2006, 10:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Hand 3 seems like an honest mistake. didn't they analyze these games real-time back then, since they didn't see hole cards? If so, I'm sure if he took a few seconds to think about it, he would have not made the mistake.

I remember the 98 one, I think, hellmuth joined the crew to do some announcing on the spot. He correctly called Dewey Weum's preflop raise, which he showed after everyone folded (again, may be fuzzy memory, but close to correct)

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough about hand #3.

But the first hand is odd for several reasons. First, I didn't think they were playing with the editing back then. Second, it's not at all ambiguous--it looks totally legit. Last, I cannot imagine that poker was in such a state that nobody at all would pick up the fact that there were two king of clubs on the table at the same time, not more than two feet away from one another, and on camera.

Just seemed really weird to me.

ZeeJustin · #4 01-01-2006, 11:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't think they were playing with the editing back then.

[/ QUOTE ]

Was this 1993 or 1478?

DZgroundhog · #5 01-02-2006, 05:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't this seem odd for the very first hand? Even so, it really doesn't look like an edit job, more like a fouled deck, which I would obviously doubt.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just popped in my DVD to take a look at this hand and I think the closeups of the K9 and K2 were spliced into the footage. Bonetti's K2 was almost perfectly squared up and they were never like that when he showed them or when the dealer grabbed them to muck them. I'm guessing somebody arranged the K9 at the somewhat correct angles but didn't pay attention to the suits. And if they caught it in editing, they probably figured nobody would notice it for at least twelve years.

DZ

uncleshady · #6 01-02-2006, 05:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
they probably figured nobody would notice it for at least twelve years.

[/ QUOTE ]

ESPN is rigged.

Rushmore · #7 01-02-2006, 01:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I didn't think they were playing with the editing back then.

[/ QUOTE ]

Was this 1993 or 1478?

[/ QUOTE ]

Har har, ZJ. Ok, fair enough.

But my point was more on the order of the fact that the broadcasts were, at that point, in their infancy, and really only catered to a (very) limited audience, so why bother?

P.S. ESPN didn't start broadcasting until like the 80's or something. 1478. Duh.

MicroBob · #8 01-02-2006, 06:53 PM

The close-ups of the hole-cards were very obviously edited in if you ask me.

They didn't have that many cameras swirling around the tables so they took these kinds of liberties to help the show's look.

I didn't notice the Kc duplication bit....but had previously observed that the hole-cards they were showing did not appear to be with original footage.

The chances of everyone at the final-table not noticing that the same card came up twice is pretty slim.

The chances of some random, non-poker-playing editing-crew just saying "We need a shot of K9o" and not even paying attention to repeating the same card is obviously going to be much higher.

There was also a hand later where AK is against 99...flop comes Kxx and DVP wisely observes that he needs a 9.
turn is another K...and DVP unwisely observes that that clinches it.
Jim corrects him and says that he can still win with a 9.
DVP is momentarily confused until Jim points out that a 9 would give him a full-house and DVP then gets it.

Man people were kinda stupid back in the day.
Poker seems to have evolved a LOT with the advent of the hole-card cams.

Example from one of the shows:
Really enjoy DVP's going on about "How can he go all in with A3o??"
Ummmmm...because it's like 3 or 4-handed and he's super short-stacked maybe??

Scott_Baio · #9 01-02-2006, 10:07 PM

Reminds me of a local broadcast of a tournament at a casino around here where 1 man had A4 and the other had AJ,

the flop came A45 and they both got all-in, then flipped over their cards. The announcer says "he needs a jack to stay alive." The turn is another 5, but neither player reacts and the announcer is still insisting he needs a jack to stay alive. The river is a Jack, and the guy with AJ pumps his fist while the other player reacts with disgust. Announcer says "what a lucky river"

I think it myself, lucky indded, if that jack didn't come there would have been a lot of confused people when the dealer shoved the pot to the guy with AJ anyways.

prohornblower · #10 01-02-2006, 11:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Reminds me of a local broadcast of a tournament at a casino around here where 1 man had A4 and the other had AJ,

the flop came A45 and they both got all-in, then flipped over their cards. The announcer says "he needs a jack to stay alive." The turn is another 5, but neither player reacts and the announcer is still insisting he needs a jack to stay alive. The river is a Jack, and the guy with AJ pumps his fist while the other player reacts with disgust. Announcer says "what a lucky river"

I think it myself, lucky indded, if that jack didn't come there would have been a lot of confused people when the dealer shoved the pot to the guy with AJ anyways.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's funny, Scott Baio