theredpill99 0 Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 I'm watching the 2004 WSOP again on ESPN Classic because nothing else good is ever on TV and I like the sound. I was just thinking that 2003 WSOP main event final table and 2004 ME final table blow 2005 away. You got 10 guys on the 2005 final table that are completely uninteresting except for Matusow. I guess 2005 really sucked because Matusow was out so early. 2003 you got Moneymaker, Farha, and Harrington. 2004 , you got Josh Arieh , Harrington, and David Williams. I'm talking about players that are interesting to watch. I don't find Raymer an interesting player to watch although I agree that he is a very good player. Hatchem is boring. He had all the guys screaming "aussie aussie aussie" and all he really did was smile back at the audience when they did this. That's so boring. In my opinion, Hatchem probably didn't need the money that badly judging by the way he was acting. I would have been doing all kinds of nutty things probably. I know that I definitely wouldn't have said "pass the sugah" . You got Dannenman who is like your next door neighbor who is always borrowing the lawn mower. Just didn't have anyone very quirky or entertaining. No one really played mind games. I think Josh Arieh is very interesting player just because he stands up and you can see the emotion on his face. He lets the table know how he feels no matter how much money at stake. Did you see him react to Harrington in 2004 when Harrington raised to 1.2 million with a 6 2 preflop ? I believe he said a cuss word and sat up in his chair. Then you got Arieh whispering that message in Williams' ear about Raymer. Good TV. Not sure about you but after I watched the 2005 WSOP main event final, I haven't watched it again because I don't think I could sit through the dullness. Link to post Share on other sites
pokerplayer24 0 Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 I think the final table was interesting but I agree that the 2004 one was better. Just not that many real personalities at it. But at the same time action leading up to the FT was definitely some of the best WSOP footage i've seen. Link to post Share on other sites
turd ferguson 1 Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 Theredpill99 on tv is definitely +EV. Why can't we get you on any final tables. I hope you win the protege thing. Link to post Share on other sites
Longshanks 0 Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 i say we pool together 10 million to get theredpill99 on TV in the $60 million tourney Link to post Share on other sites
theredpill99 0 Posted December 17, 2005 Author Share Posted December 17, 2005 Theredpill99 on tv is definitely +EV. Why can't we get you on any final tables. I hope you win the protege thing.I hope so too because I'm not even in the running. Link to post Share on other sites
turd ferguson 1 Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 Theredpill99 on tv is definitely +EV. Why can't we get you on any final tables. I hope you win the protege thing.I hope so too because I'm not even in the running.I'm not even a fucking Chartered Member. What a bunch of horse shit. Link to post Share on other sites
theredpill99 0 Posted December 17, 2005 Author Share Posted December 17, 2005 I never enter contests because I know I will never win. God hates me. Link to post Share on other sites
Phillip_339 0 Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 I'm watching the 2004 WSOP again on  ESPN Classic because nothing else good is ever on TV and I like the sound.   I was just thinking that 2003 WSOP  main event final table and 2004 ME final table blow 2005 away.   You got 10 guys on the 2005 final table that are completely uninteresting except for Matusow.   I guess 2005 really sucked because Matusow was out so early.   2003 you got Moneymaker, Farha, and Harrington.   2004 , you got Josh Arieh , Harrington,  and David Williams.   I'm talking about players that are interesting to watch.  I don't find Raymer an interesting player to watch although I agree that he is a very good player.    Hatchem is boring.  He had all the guys screaming  "aussie aussie aussie" and all he really did was smile back at the audience when they did this.  That's so boring.   In my opinion, Hatchem probably didn't need the money that badly judging by the way he was acting.  I would have been doing all kinds of nutty things probably.   I know that I definitely wouldn't have said  "pass the sugah" .   You got Dannenman who is like your next door neighbor who is always borrowing the lawn mower.   Just didn't have anyone very quirky or entertaining.  No one really played mind games.   I think Josh Arieh is very interesting player just because he stands up and you can see the emotion on his face.  He lets the table know how he feels no matter how much money at stake.  Did  you see him react to Harrington in 2004 when Harrington raised to 1.2 million with a 6 2 preflop ?   I believe he said a cuss word and sat up in his chair.   Then you got Arieh whispering that message in Williams' ear about Raymer.   Good TV.   Not sure about you but after I watched the 2005 WSOP main event final, I haven't watched it again because I don't think I could sit through the dullness.I personally, don't understand why you have posted this. I haven't seen the Main Event final table, but i dont think i would ever find it 'dull'. I think there were some quality players at the table, and maybe you are just one of them people who watch it to see players like Matusow go off. Although it is funny to see this, this isn't the reason i watch poker on tv. It is good to see some of the plays, although i feel there is too much editing, and we miss far too much, i enjoy seeing some of the big plays in the tournament. And wtf is this comment. What are you trying to say, because he isn't a struggling business man, who spent his last 10K to enter this tourney, he doesn't deserve to be there? How does this have any relevance? Whether he really needed the money. And you base your assumption on the way he is acting. Does he need to be running around the table with his shirt over his head, for him to look like he needs the money? And maybe you would have been doing 'all kinds of nutty things', but the truth of the matter is that, you will never have the opportunity. You can't even beat the $.50/$1 game, so just stick to your 1c/2c games, and please, don't waste our, and your time, posting on this site. Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedKills 0 Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 Main event wasnt as good as the past years, but it wasnt bad tv. There was some descent poker, and what they showed was good for tv. Link to post Share on other sites
Emptyeye 0 Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 I just have to say that I find it interesting that you mentioned Dan Harrington on a list of "interesting poker personalities". I mean, the 2004 table was cool in that Arieh in particular was kind of in awe, asking him about what it was like to win it all, but "Action Dan" doesn't strike me as a particularly made-for-TV guy.That said, it was great to watch the stereotypically hyper-tight Harrington re-raise all-in with 62o and take the pot in '04. Clearly there's more to his game than most are aware of. Link to post Share on other sites
bigcoled 1 Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 I actually agree that final table coverage was more up close and eprsonal it seemed, with more marketable characters last year...this year was all retards... Link to post Share on other sites
mbreon 0 Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 The 2001 Main Event has a very interesting final table if you are looking for entertainment.....Carlos Mortensen, Phil Hellmuth, Phil Gordon, Mike Matusow, Dewey Tomko (not the most exciting person to watch play, but a great player nonetheless). That would be a good one to look for on ESPN Classic.... Link to post Share on other sites
scottyno 0 Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 looking at the coverage as a whole, not just the final table I think the 2005 ME coverage was much better than 2004 and 2003you had:"he cant even spell poker""i can dodge bullet"the daniel/sammy mini-feudall the random matusow momentsmatusow-sheikanlots of great moments from the main event coverage Link to post Share on other sites
mbreon 0 Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 I just have to say that I find it interesting that you mentioned Dan Harrington on a list of "interesting poker personalities". I mean, the 2004 table was cool in that Arieh in particular was kind of in awe, asking him about what it was like to win it all, but "Action Dan" doesn't strike me as a particularly made-for-TV guy.That said, it was great to watch the stereotypically hyper-tight Harrington re-raise all-in with 62o and take the pot in '04. Clearly there's more to his game than most are aware of.He mentions this kind of play (known as the "Squeeze Play") in his Harrington on Hold Em books....when to execute this type of play and how often. Pretty interesting stuff. Link to post Share on other sites
Golden 2 Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 The 2005 coverage pwned the previous years by far - and as for the final table, they are there to play poker, not to keep redpill in his seat. Link to post Share on other sites
reedmcneal 0 Posted December 18, 2005 Share Posted December 18, 2005 I'm watching the 2004 WSOP again on ESPN Classic because nothing else good is ever on TV and I like the sound. I was just thinking that 2003 WSOP main event final table and 2004 ME final table blow 2005 away.I would disagree. The 2004 table had very few TV friendly personalities outside of Arieh. Raymer and Williams were good stories and had interesting playing styles, but they were hardly dynamic. The rest of the table had zero personality. Harrington is a GREAT player, but he is as boring as it gets to watch at the table. The 2005 final table had Matusow (albeit not very long) who is always great to watch. Danneman may not have been a great player, but he was entertaining. Hachem and Black brought a little fire to the table as well. Aaron Kanter was just a huge donkey who was completely unpredictable. And the Scott Lazar blow-up was epic. It was brutally entertaining.Just my 2 cents... Link to post Share on other sites
AlanBostick 0 Posted December 18, 2005 Share Posted December 18, 2005 Who the fsck cares? The Big Dance at the WSOP isn't about the TV cameras.But then, I'm the sort of guy who is irritated by TV poker in the first place. A week or so ago, I sat down at a poker table, looked up at the video monitors on the walls, and saw that it was WSOP coverage. I told the player next to me, "That makes me feel like we should be playing basketball right now."At the 2003 WSOP, I took a break from the poker action to take a night off by hanging out and chasing hotties at the outdoor bar at the Flamingo. I was having a great time until the monitors over the bar, which were tuned to ESPN, started showing the 2002 WSOP. "Crap! I came here to get away from those guys!" Link to post Share on other sites
Fullhouse7 0 Posted December 18, 2005 Share Posted December 18, 2005 In other words you want to see antics on TV??? Doyle Brunson is as boring as Harrington or Count Chocula/Greenstein---but I learn from all their plays thanks to the mini cams.This OP reminds me of another TV/movie--Charles Brunson in "Hard TImes" when Brunson says "Dumb" to his manager/handler for saying he owes him more to get out of his bad gambling debts.Fullhouse7 Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now