I Said They Should Do That And Then They Did
A couple of months ago I wrote an article for Gutshot bemoaning the fact that TV poker was bereft of the one factor that adds a genuine edge to the game - someone losing a serious wedge of their own money. One suggestion I made was for them to televise the big cash game in the Bellagio. Well it sounds like they've only gone and done it !
This is poker I'd really like to see on TV, if they showed the good bits. Which would be a certain person going on "stone cold tilt", doing his bollocks and getting the rubdown. 10 to 1 said person was not playing his own money, but close enough :-). It also sounds like the players are being properly paid for their time, and I'm not sure about who's allowed in, but it may well be "anyone who has $100K and wants to play" which is how it should be.
One thing Negreanu touches on here is the American practice of "running the cards twice". When all the money is in the middle, they deal the remaining cards twice for half the pot each, even three times. IMO this is bent. It's like they're saying "Hey, this is the big cash game, we're the big-balled guys who gamble all this money !", except when it's all in they say "Oh boo hoo, can we deal it 8 times with insurance". Obviously no one can bring themselves to just play in a game half the size. Big balls are all very well, but no substitute for big brains.
As for today's other events, perhaps I should stick to predicting poker. As I said, you win some you lose some :-). You should thank me for putting the bok on Chelsea big style. Poker isn't going much better this month, $600 down in double quick time with just one bubble to show for it, i.e. nothing. You know when you're not playing well, and I'm not just at the moment. A few days off might be the ticket.
This is poker I'd really like to see on TV, if they showed the good bits. Which would be a certain person going on "stone cold tilt", doing his bollocks and getting the rubdown. 10 to 1 said person was not playing his own money, but close enough :-). It also sounds like the players are being properly paid for their time, and I'm not sure about who's allowed in, but it may well be "anyone who has $100K and wants to play" which is how it should be.
One thing Negreanu touches on here is the American practice of "running the cards twice". When all the money is in the middle, they deal the remaining cards twice for half the pot each, even three times. IMO this is bent. It's like they're saying "Hey, this is the big cash game, we're the big-balled guys who gamble all this money !", except when it's all in they say "Oh boo hoo, can we deal it 8 times with insurance". Obviously no one can bring themselves to just play in a game half the size. Big balls are all very well, but no substitute for big brains.
As for today's other events, perhaps I should stick to predicting poker. As I said, you win some you lose some :-). You should thank me for putting the bok on Chelsea big style. Poker isn't going much better this month, $600 down in double quick time with just one bubble to show for it, i.e. nothing. You know when you're not playing well, and I'm not just at the moment. A few days off might be the ticket.
8 Comments:
What do you make of this bizarre $250,000 buy-in (not a misprint) competition that's supposed to happen in 2006?
Bizarre is the word I would use too. I don't know much about it. How many players will actually cough up for this ? How many backers/sponsors are there who can be nipped for the necessary ? How much money is there in the game at that level ?
I suspect "less than people think", but I don't know. Maybe the success or failure of this project would tell us. If I had to bet under/over 50 runners I'd definitely be guessing "under", but it would only be a guess.
Andy.
I suspect "fewer than people think", but then you'd just call me a pedant.
Fewer money than people think ?
I would call you something. Not a pedant though :-)
Andy.
"How many players will actually cough up for this ? How many backers/sponsors are there who can be nipped for the necessary ?"
Two questions that 'fewer' answers, a mere one that 'less' does.
The "less" sentence follows directly after the third clause, the clause that it is referencing.
Thus I refute your criticism. I trust I will have to deal with less pedantic interruptions from you in future.
Andy.
In that case, please can you answer the following two questions, which appear not to have been addressed yet?
"How many players will actually cough up for this ? How many backers/sponsors are there who can be nipped for the necessary ?"
On further thought ... I suspect more than people think.
Andy.
Post a Comment
<< Home