Heisenberg Strikes Again

I have been checking out the reports from Tunica as I know a few people out there. Commiserations to Jo who finished 9th in the $1500 NL which is a great result but it must be disappointing to make a final, wait for a day and then bust out first. I'm sure it won't be the last big final for Jo though.

I wasn't very happy, however, to read Mike Paulle's extended diatribe about the previous day's Limit Hold-Em event. You took the shilling to do the job, so like it or lump it. Moan about it off-line if that makes you feel better, but don't moan about it as part of the actual job you're doing. I think I can dub this Alan Green syndrome :-). Limit Hold-em probably isn't very interesting to watch. So what ? Many people find it interesting to play, and it certainly makes a change. This is the way tournament poker could be heading, and I think that would be a shame. The event in question wasn't televised, so wtf difference does it make if limit poker is not TV-friendly ? It might not be poker-reporter friendly either, but that's your problem, not ours. I am reminded of the WPT championship final last year when Linda Johnson announced that it was "boring". Presumably this was because no one was lumping all their chips in on middle pairs, doing wardances while all-ins were being dealt or generally showboating with no respect for their opponents, because the actual poker was as good as you'll ever see, especially from DeKnijff. If I had been playing I would probably have copped 20 minutes for saying that anyone who is bored knows where the fucking door is.

Anyway, MP redeemed himself slightly the next day with his moderately amusing account of the $1500 NL event in question. Had I been in Jo's position I would at least have taken some small consolation from the fact that I wouldn't have to listen to Jac Arama and Davood Mehrmand all day (although I could probably have stuck it out for $130K). Poor old Jac can't even win $70K without losing his dignity it seems :-). I could speculate as to why a sponsored player, who no doubt had also swapped a lot of percentages, was so keen to cut a deal but in the words of Sklansky I will leave that as an exercise for the reader.

Going back to Paulle, he still has to spoil it with a totally asinine comment at the end. Leaving aside for the moment the fact that this event also wasn't televised, if (like most poker shows) you are showing edited highlights, it is completely irrelevant how long the actual event takes. There's no reason why you can't still give the players a decent structure. This is the point Barry Hearn spectacularly missed (probably on purpose) in his defence of the Poker Million in Poker Europa. Look, if an event is televised, then I suppose we can accept changes being made for that reason (though it would be nice if there was actually some tangible benefit for the players). But when someone with such a large reading audience makes these ridiculous statements that non-televised events should be shaped according to the demands of television, well I just don't know what else to say. It's ludicrous.