Paul Phillips

i just think it's funny when he tells Ivey, and Ivey remarks, "come on man, you didn't have three tens -- stop it"

(Reply) (Thread)

Actually, Paul reports that Ivy said the same thing during the replay ;)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Funny, the concept of ESPN faking/botching hole cards hadn't been something I considered (or heard about) before reading this post. So, let's just make this the nail in a coffin that should have been buried a long f-ing time ago. Not only does ESPN wait until October to show the final table of the ME, they also hire THE biggest douchebag in the world to call the events (yeah, we get it, your ex-wives hate you. Can't imagine why.). This is becoming tiresome.

(Reply) (Thread)

I prefer McEachern & Chad to Sexton & Van Patten, at least. Van Patten can't shut up.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I'm also kinda tired of hearing Mixe Sexton say, "he's headed for whitewater" etc.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

"well, a four comes off here vince"
"looks like he's gonna raise here vince"
"well I don't see how he can call here vince"

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I like how the WPT has only been around for a few years, but at least once a show you hear Mike Sexton say "This is what these players dream about all their lives, Vince."

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Norman Chad is a god. Anyone who defies his greatness will be smitten come Judgment Day.

He told me at the World Series that he usually has to avoid people who throw things at him. But anyone who has read his book should be thanking him for his insight on sports television. Otherwise, most guys might just be bumbling idiots who watch sports non-stop without anyone telling them it is a bad idea.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

People like you that bemoan about the delay in showing the event months after the fact or idiotic. You do realize that ESPN probably has thousands of hours of coverage of the entire World Series and they have to par that down to about 20 hours of coverage. That is a lot of editing.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Two things:
1) I am an idiot. But not because of what I said about ESPN.
2) They're not cold-editing the World Series. Those "thousands of hours of coverage" do not need to be viewed in real time all over again. So, while the task that lies before them is an enormous one, it surely does not require the length of time they're taking. And, if they are going to take that long, it would be nice if they at least had their shit together, which they clearly do not.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

As having just graduated with a degree in broadcasting and an internship at the philly ABC affiliate, those "thousands" of hours of footage in fact DO have to be viewed again in real time, in fact probably at least 5 or 6 times, and meticulously logged (I know this first hand as it is a frequent intern job due to the extreme monotonousness of it) - and thats before editing even starts! THEN they have production meetings and discuss what they want to use in the show, THEN they rough cut that footage all on to tapes excluding the stuff that definitely won't be used, THEN an editor sits in a cave for 12 hours a day and first captures and logs all that footage onto the hard drive of the system (usually AVID for espn), THEN he cuts the footage together (using a non-linear editing system its about a half hour to an hour of editing time for every minute of cut show if there are a lot of cuts, which the WSOP is, with tons of cutaways for hole cards, player reactions, chips on hands, etc.; with a non-linear system, which theres no way they use, it takes even longer). So I'm actually SURPRISED they get it on when they do. Not to mention that they kinda have to since they have other stuff to air in the weeks leading up to it, and, although I haven't googled it, I think there is still only one tuesday a week.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Fine. Uncle. I give. I still hate ESPN.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I have no real issue with the speed of the broadcast, but your argument seems pretty weak. They can take an entire's day of sports coverage on various networks around the world and have a well-edited, scripted show almost real-time. I know it's not the same thing, but ESPN is in the business of turning sporting events into tv shows in a matter of hours, not months.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Sure you evolutionists call with TT but someone who believes in ID sees the obvious. He folded TT and WON the tournament. Clearly a higher power at work, a much higher power. Can you Prove a 9 was not coming on the river? I thought not. How can one interpret ESPN coverage as anything but literal and perfectly accurate? Guy that folded the TTT, and evolutionist if I ever saw one.

oops sorry wrong thread. Yea, the wine is real good tonight. Back to the topic at hand.

Funny when I watched the Ivey hand (never having bothered to know the results of the event), and saw the flop I said "Man I go broke here too." Then proceeded to fall out of my chair saying no F'in way!!! I really could not believe. Now I dont.

(Reply) (Thread)

There are others they DEFINITELY faked, including the nguyen/hong AK vs. KK on a K-high board

Aha! I was utterly amazed when I saw that one. I ended up just thinking that Nguyen is that incredible at reading.

However, I didn't really see any indications that it was faked other than its implausibility. Was there some weird editing glitch that happened that I missed?

(Reply) (Thread)

It wasn't at the TV table; there were no hole card cameras and the hands were never exposed. This is explained in the first link on this page.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I think what will help this situation is the type of Poker Table's they use for TV footage. It seems the tables that are use on Poker Superstars and Poker Million (I think that is what its called, located in England) on Fox Sports Net are the best for reading accurate hole cards. You can see the cards plain as day. With the small camera tables, there are too many ways that the hole cars can be obstructed, but the glass hole card poker tables are close to flawless.

That Tony D simulation was hilarious by the way

(Reply) (Thread)

Thanks for the post, Paul. I'm an advocate of accuracy in the media and was quite disgusted with some of the coverage at the WSOP. It was extremely unprofessional and not following any standards of news or sports media. To many it was a job - and a job they didn't enjoy. These critiques are for non-TV coverage. I would embarass them with example after example but a) no one would care and b) it would make me look bad. So, I'll let Paul do it since his whistle blowing rep is solid.

That being said, to the masses, I don't have high expectations of ESPN, and they do the job they set out to do - entertainment. If you want better television it will be a long time coming. The WSOP is covered by a outside contractors and there is no accountability on them outside of the TV product and eventually ratings. Maybe they will update their TV table but I have serious doubts that it is on their to do list.

Btw, I like Norman Chad... have little respect for him as a poker professional, but he's a good commentator for the masses and he knows exactly where he stands with the poker community.

(Reply) (Thread)

I listened to the cardplayer audio of the final table broadcast by Daniel, Hellmuth, Lindgren, Raymer, and Harman and made two conclusions:

1. Poker is three hundred thousand times more fun to watch/listen to when it's being commentated by people discussing advanced strategy than listening to Norman Chad's avalanche of puns or Sexton's beginner tutorial style broadcasting.

2. For me, poker is much more fun to watch/listen to when I DON'T know the hole cards. I loved hearing Jennifer and Daniel saying stuff like "I think in this spot Mike has to have it, I don't think he can make this play if he doesn't have it" and then 10 seconds later he shows a bluff and they go CRAZY! Absolutely Classic.

I've thought about approaching some of my TV contacts from my broadcasting internships about an idea where you don't see the cards during the hand, but they are revealed after the hand, so you can ACTUALLY play along with the players, and not just WPT style play-along where you're saying "well since his cards are up on the screen, I think I might want to raise here" and instead you're saying "oh man, if Mike doesn't have this, this is the best play EVER!" So much more suspenseful. However, I think the proletariat prefers the manufactured hole cards and raise/re-raise all-in/call hands.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I really don't understand why they just can't stick to the hands that they know for sure. Creating fake drama is so annoying. People turn into the other tv sports knowing there is a chance that the game or match will not have dramatic twist after dramatic turn, but they tune in knowing this is a possibility. The lure of the dramatic should be enough to get viewers; you shouldn't have to guarentee ridiculous laydowns or supreme reading ability.

this brings to mind something I recall in 2004. There was a hand where Marcel Luske made a big raise with AJ and some player made a large reraise with KK. I dont remember if they showed the kings or not. After the reraise, Marcel folded and said kings were good. I would be suspicious if they didnt show the kings that they placed them there to create more fun tv. "wow Marcel can read an exact hand!" well sure if you have a low range of hands that would make a monster reraise against an opening raise...so guessing KK wasnt that extraordinary. but boy did it make good tv!!!

(Reply) (Thread)

I talked to Marcel's opponent, David Truong, about the hand and he said he did in fact have KK. When I said, "wow amazing read, right?" David just sort of shrugged and said, "well there are only a few hands I can have there."

I made a tv final table in the 1K rebuy in June (I think the air date is 8/30) and there was one hand where Michael Gracz raised in the SB and I pushed allin from the BB with K8o and he folded. After the hand a producer scurried out and told me that I was blocking my hole cards. I said "so you didn't see my hand?" and he replied "No, you'll tell us later." I would have told him later, and I would have certainly told him the truth, however I was never approached about it again. I would tend to doubt it will make the tv coverage anyway, except that on a hand right before or after it, I raised utg with 55 and was bluffed off the hand by Michael Gracz in the BB, who later told a friend of mine that he was holding T3o. The duo might make for good tv, especially since it was Gracz who wound up busting me, making a huge call with ace-high vs my bluff.

I haven't seen the Tahoe episode yet, but I trust Paul's analysis. The thing is, the vast majority of the hands you see on tv are completely true and accurate, so it's a particularly dubious approach for ESPN to fake a handful of hands which, if discovered, would cast doubt on the integrity of the entire broadcast.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

ESPN has an ombudsman now. You should drop him a line.

(Reply) (Thread)

I remember watching this the other night and thinking "Aww dammit, Ivey's gonna go broke on the first hand... WHAT THE HELL???" My mind then immediately switched to you and my hopes that you saw this, because it's too astonishing not to be pointed out. How dumb do they think we are?

On second thought, 95% of the audience probably didn't even think twice.

(Reply) (Thread)

Now, that this has been brought to my attention it really makes me dislike TV poker even more.

I e-mailed Paul a while ago about ESPN missing out on, probably millions not showing the small events and for sure the main event on pay per view. World Poker Tour as well. He agreed with my thoughts on that and I would hyperlink you back to that post but for some reason I can't figure out how to do it on this site.

My point is that for the serious poker player who really wants to improve there game this would be so helpful. The two most exciting TV tournaments for me, were The Turning Stone Live Event and The Full Tilt Poker Live Event at the Wynn. I learned more from watching these tournaments than any WSOP of WPT show.

Relating to Paul's post, they are not only cramming a 12 hour final table with commercials, commentary, and interviews into one hour, they are occasionally showing us false information. This just sucks!

I understand that ESPN is not worried about improving my poker game by showing every hand. Although, isn't a 4 to 10 hour final table like Tourning Stone or Full Tilt more money because of advertising, or wouldn't you guys think lots of people would pony up $30 to $40 to watch a Pay Per View event? They could still show the same event 3 months later like they do now and still get close to the same ratings. Just like HBO makes a ton of money on Pay Per View Boxing and still runs it for free a week later!

They still screwed up a players holdings on the Full Tilt Poker Live Event when they showed Clonie Gowen folding pocket Queens to just an opening raise. Luckily Howard Lederer was there to say that there was no way she had pocket queens there and folded.

So it will never be perfect, but they either need to get to Live events, Pay Per View Events, or longer showings of final tables (at least 4 hours of play). They can show every single point,game, and set when Andy Roddick is playing in a opening round in a small tournament in Washington D.C. that will last 3 hours sometimes but can't do it for a final table of a major event in Poker.

(Reply) (Thread)

I don't agree that Lisandro's decision to overcall was clearly a case of ESPN showing the wrong hole cards. He correctly put Pham on a draw and I'm sure he knew that there was a strong possibility that Ivy's call was based on knowing that Pham was on a draw as well. Therefore, Ivy does not need that strong of a hand to call his all-in raise. He's getting fairly good odds on his overcall and given the circumstances I do think that he should of given some consideration to the call. He made the correct fold as I think most players would but I don't think it's a clear-cut case of ESPN showing the wrong hole cards.

-Tony

(Reply) (Thread)

I think it does. Just like Paul said, if he was willing to call in that situation with David Pham moving all in and Phil Ivey calling the all in, with a J 7, he would would definitely not give Ivey credit for a 4x, JJ, QQ, KK, or AA in the first hand of the tournament. There is just no way.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

The more you think lisandro might really have overcalled (and I'm not disagreeing that it could be considered) the clearer it is that he didn't have TT on the first hand. It doesn't matter whether the overcall would have been a good play or a bad play, the point is that his considering a call there pretty much guarantees he would call in a MUCH, MUCH easier calling spot.

But the real reason he didn't have TT is that he didn't have TT. I'll ask him next time I see him but it's awfully hard to believe no matter what he says.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I understand now and also agree that it's very unlikely he had TT. I had misinterpreted what you were saying - I thought you were saying he didn't have J7 in that hand. I didn't realize you were using the J7 hand as further support for the TT hand.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

The 2004 U.S. Championship coverage featured some really bizarre hands as well. Anybody have good recaps of these? I know there were some weird ones. The only one I remember in any detail was Mickey Appleman going over the top all-in of two guys on a Q-high flop and they both fold top pair.

(Reply) (Thread)

I dont have a link, but the hand where JDags called two all in's, it showed one of the hands as being K7s, but when the cards were exposed, it was shown as AQ. How do you fuck up a hand that badly? I agree with Paul that they don't do it intentionally, but c'mon, have a little competence.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I can't believe I didn't pick that up! I mean, like one poster mentioned, I am one of the 95% who never dreamed that ESPN would LIE! Has reading this blog for over a year been in vain? How could I forget PAUL P's EXPOSURE of ESPN in the past? Shame on me! As soon as I started reading this post, I recalled the blurred camera angle. I recall thinking, "there's only one clear ten exposed to the camera." Since I usually am doing something else while watching the 50 or so hours of poker on tv a week, I didn't even realize the 10-10 laydown was the same hand. Now it all makes sense. I agree, why bother even showing the hand if it's so inaccurate. That said, I still think ESPN has the 2nd-best production of any tv poker show, (behind wpt), while the announcers are a little annoying. As far as pay per view, that's a stretch in my opinion. I don't think there are as many poker nerds like us out there just yet, who can't be satisfied with the 50+ hours already on tv. Finally, I know ESPN has occasionally revealed only ONE card during certain hands in the past. In this case, I think that would have made for better tv, and it would have been accurate.

(Reply) (Thread)

I laughed out loud when that dude folded trip 10s. guess he was looking for quads. ha! at least he realized he made one of the all-time dumbest folds in televised poker history. he looked like he was gonna vomit all over the felt.


What was with Phil calling all-in (or did he raise all-in?) with the open ender against Lisandro heads up? anyone else find this puzzling? worst play i've seen Phil make, especially when you take into account the chip counts.

(Reply) (Thread)

From what I've seen in interviews and heard from a Matasow interview, Phil does admit to losing focus and seemily almost not caring late in tournaments. (first circuit event he was in this year when he bluffed off all his chips and said "yea, I made a couple real bad decisions toward the end there" almost apethetically. The only way he makes bad moves is when he loses focus. I truly believe that anytime Ivey busts out its beacuse of a) bad beat or b) bad luck (monster vs. monster).

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I truly believe that anytime Ivey busts out its beacuse of a) bad beat or b) bad luck (monster vs. monster).

If this were actually the case, he would in fact be playing quite poorly.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

You're absolutely right, I worded the point I was trying to make very awkwardly. Obviously you have to push chips in with the worst hand to be playing well; however, I think 99% of the time he is pushing with the worst hand, he knows it's the worst hand. But yes, the way I worded that you are absolutely correct.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

What do you think ESPN's motive is in all this? Is it purposeful misrepresentation or just them being moronic? Or a bit of both?

Could any of it be done to further ESPN's "promotion" of Phil Ivey? The coverage of that event in no small way praised Ivey on a near non-stop fashion. Certainly Ivey deserves all the praise, but it seemed they went over-the-top on making sure we knew he is the best player around.

Winning with 99 against TT in that situation makes Ivey seem more god-like.

(Reply) (Thread)

I saw a show where they tried to trick the audience into thinking they got the '87 Athletics to play the '05 Yankees by editing together game footage!!! They must have used weird cameras when they shot the A's footage cuz it looked all grainy and the color was weird. I would expect ESPN to have better equipment than that.

Seriously tho, that's what they're doing. We actually had an assignment in my Video Editing class where we had to take a scene from a movie and edit it in a different order so it meant a completely different thing. I might try to take a WSOP broadcast and edit it so the hands are absolutely ridiculous - take a hand where the board is the nuts and Ivey folds to a Danny Nguyen all-in.

(Reply) (Thread)

Paul,

Do you know Jeffrey Lisandro well enough to call him?

(Reply) (Thread)

I agree, it just didn't seem right when Lisandro folded to Ivey's all-in. As I recall, after this hand Lisandro had some bad beats. So, the plot line became centered around L's woes. This may have been the motive, if in fact the TT's were fabricated.
As to the commentators, Chad can be amusing. After L suffered some bad beats, he was all-in with yet another big pocket pair against an inferior hand. On the River, L's opponent was down to a few outs, and Chad said (paraphrasing), "If X (L's opponent) hits his card, Lisandro will embark on a crime spree across the west coast". As for Van Patten, he is only capable of trite expressions and hyperbole; I'd rather lay down a set of tens to a non-threatening board/action then listen to him.

(Reply) (Thread)

Maybe for some of you the push with 99 seemed pretty normal, but I thought it was awful ballsy of Ivey. Most of us would deal a little more carefully with the chip leader.

By the way, was this really the first hand of the final table, or just the first hand of coverage?

(Reply) (Thread)

Hey, Paul, are you in on this?

Poker Video Game:
2K Sports, the publishing label of Take-Two Interactive, announced details of its World Poker Tour video game. The game will include stars such as Erick Lindgren, Phil Laak, Antonio Esfandiari and Evelyn Ng. The game comes out in the fall on consoles and for handhelds.

(Reply) (Thread)