WSOP Live Stream (1 Viewer)

[Chippy McChiperson]

No runners! Jesus this guy ran good.

 

[jbutler]

Love Joe's redneck rail. At least it was a mercifully early night.

 

[BGinGA]

Saving grace for this broadcast? Kara Scott and Antonio.

 

[abby99]

Updates on WSOP.com don't show the players' hands unless all-in...

Ah, I missed that.

 

[jbutler]

Saving grace for this broadcast? Kara Scott and Antonio.

Absolutely. Even with Kara, though, the bracelet presentation is almost as awkward as Josh Beckley's table presence. Let's get a couple guys who evidently have no clue what poker is pronounce the winner.

 

[Trihonda]

Joe. Well I know he seemed to a favorite, not just to win, but I was kinda rooting against him.

 

[luckbox]

why do they wait the 90 days...i can see a week or two but 3 months seems a bit long even if its just to build hype

 

[lnlver]

Suggestions to improve the November 9:

1) no sunglasses, scarves or hoods; all players' faces and necks are to be totally visible

2) 20 second shot clock to declare your intention to play your hand or fold; if playing, establish a reasonable time to bet - 2 minutes(?)

if having to make a call for your tournament life, no time limit (or maybe 10 minutes max)

maybe have a longer time for under-the-gun or 8 or 9 players (as opposed to 3 or 4 player situations)

3) allow talking when heads-up; let a player try to get some information off the other player

4) show the play live and eliminate the 30 minute delay; forget the hole cameras

this takes a lot of creativity out since after 30 minutes, everyone knows what the others have been doing

I think I'd rather watch it live, not knowing the hole cards, and relying on good commentators like Antonio to figure out the hands; the re-runs could show the hole cards. This would allow guys like Neil, who played excellently initially, to extend their play throughout the entire session, instead of being exposed after 30 minutes.

 

[jbutler]

Suggestions to improve the November 9:

1) no sunglasses, scarves or hoods; all players' faces and necks are to be totally visible

2) 20 second shot clock to declare your intention to play your hand or fold; if playing, establish a reasonable time to bet - 2 minutes(?)

if having to make a call for your tournament life, no time limit (or maybe 10 minutes max)

maybe have a longer time for under-the-gun or 8 or 9 players (as opposed to 3 or 4 player situations)

3) allow talking when heads-up; let a player try to get some information off the other player

4) show the play live and eliminate the 30 minute delay; forget the hole cameras

this takes a lot of creativity out since after 30 minutes, everyone knows what the others have been doing

I think I'd rather watch it live, not knowing the hole cards, and relying on good commentators like Antonio to figure out the hands; the re-runs could show the hole cards. This would allow guys like Neil, who played excellently initially, to extend their play throughout the entire session, instead of being exposed after 30 minutes.

All good suggestions, but absolutely no way sunglasses or basically any other clothing short of a full mask will be banned. Also 20 second shot clock is not workable solution imo. You should have a tournament-long time bank.

Mike McDonald/Timex suggested an alternative system that seems interesting, but I haven't thought it through much. He suggests keeping small denom chips in play longer and for every five seconds someone takes on a decision, it costs a quarter of an ante. There are some practical issues working that system imo, but with some refinement I could see it being a good alternative, but probably would only be accepted after a shot clock is in use. It's just too aggressive when until now there has been no regulation of time taken apart from players calling the clock.

 

[lnlver]

The 20 seconds (or so) clock would just be to make the player fold his non-playable hands, as opposed to tanking when it's obvious he doesn't intend to play. I think most people know right away when their hand is playable. Once the player has declared his intention to play, then he gets more time to formulate his bet.

IMO, the sunglasses, ski marks and now scarves take away from the skill set of the game.

 

[jbutler]

The 20 seconds (or so) clock would just be to make the player fold his non-playable hands, as opposed to tanking when it's obvious he doesn't intend to play. I think most people know right away when their hand is playable. Once the player has declared his intention to play, then he gets more time to formulate his bet.

IMO, the sunglasses, ski marks and now scarves take away from the skill set of the game.

So you're proposing the 20 second shot clock for preflop play only?

 

[lnlver]

Kind of. Pre-flop, when the action is on the player, he has 20 seconds to declare his intention - either fold his cards or play. If he declares an intention to play, then he gets to formulate his bet in a reasonable amount of time (2 minutes?). I saw that Stern was taking an average of 34 seconds on each hand initially.

 

[jbutler]

Kind of. Pre-flop, when the action was on the player, he has 20 seconds to declare his intention - either fold his cards or play. If he declares an intention to play, then he gets to formulate his bet in a reasonable amount of time (2 minutes?). I saw that Stern was taking an average of 34 seconds on each hand initially.

That system wouldn't work post-flop, though, and I would rather not have a whole separate set of standards for the time bank/shot clock pre and post flop. I think something like a chess clock would work and would be the easiest to introduce immediately. Then once people internalize the idea that their play is timed, we can adjust the system as desired.

 

[snooptodd]

That system wouldn't work post-flop, though, and I would rather not have a whole separate set of standards for the time bank/shot clock pre and post flop. I think something like a chess clock would work and would be the easiest to introduce immediately. Then once people internalize the idea that their play is timed, we can adjust the system as desired.

I tend to agree. I think the first five, maybe 10 seconds should be free, and after that you have up to five minutes of taking per level. If you run out of time in your bank during a particular hand, you're not folded, but you then have no time bank left and will be folded immediately after your 5/10 seconds are up for the remainder of the level. Players would be able to call the clock after a person's time bank has expired, if necessary.

I think those rules can be changed/relaxed once play gets shorthanded and players will be involved in more hands ... maybe increase bank in each level to 6-7 minutes when play gets to be 6-handed, 7-8 when it gets 4-handed and 10 minutes when it's heads up?

I also think the broadcast would be more entertaining if they didn't show hole cards during the hand (I miss Antonio correctly predicting the players' holdings 85-90% of the time), but revealed them to everyone immediately following the hand. Imagine the reaction Sammy Farha would have had if he had known that Moneymaker had bluffed him as soon as the hand was over!

 

[luckbox]

I also think the broadcast would be more entertaining if they didn't show hole cards during the hand (I miss Antonio correctly predicting the players' holdings 85-90% of the time), but revealed them to everyone immediately following the hand. Imagine the reaction Sammy Farha would have had if he had known that Moneymaker had bluffed him as soon as the hand was over!

100% agree, that was great to hear his thought process and reasoning then see the hand immediately afterward, one year i think i heard Helluth also same procedure, it was a great learning tool for me.

 

[lnlver]

My final table thoughts -

Joe McKeehen - played perfect bully stack poker. Some annoying mannerisms like slamming bets, angry folds, obnoxious staring. Got lucky in several spots, deserved to win, but I wish I could like the guy more.

Neil Blumenfield - best overall performance of the 9 considering his amateur status. Courageous 3 bets, seemed to be well prepared. The 30 minute delay ultimately worked against him IMO.

Josh Beckley - excellent performance. Went all the way to heads up from a shorter stack. Exhibited great patience and great short stack play. Overall good guy.

Max Steinberg - if you don't like this guy, something's wrong with you. He's a class act - classy dresser, excellent player. I was pulling for him to win. Kind of the opposite personality of Justin Schwartz who refused to shake hands after he busted. (In Justin's defense, busting out set-over-set had to be devastating after coming so far.)

Zvi Stern - I wanted to see him in the game as long as possible, because he was the most maniacal player and upped the interest when he was in a hand. Turned off somewhat by his slow play, but he did speed it up after day 1. Would have been an interesting heads-up match with Joe if he had gotten that far. Seems like a decent guy and excellent player.

Tom Cannuli - a good kid for his relatively young age. Displayed maturity in busting horribly. Has a great attitude, instincts; can play at the highest level.

Pierre Neuville - I don't think he brought his best game. Seemed the easiest to read. For a 70 year old guy, had a great tournament.

Patrick Chan & Federico Butteroni - wish they had more chips and gotten to play more.

 

[BGinGA]

Back in my tournament backgammon days as a player and director (1977-2007), I was a strong proponent of using time clocks to prevent unnecessarily long tanking over decisions, and was the first in the country to require that all tournament matches be clocked. Time clocks in various forms are now routinely used in backgammon tournaments all over the world. Acceptance of the change was not easy at first, but it did happen, and the game is now much better for it.

When faced with a similar dilemma as a tournament director with poker players in 2005, I instituted a 'time chip' concept, where players each had a pre-set time bank (represented by chips) that could be used when facing tough decisions over the 'standard' amount of allowed time per decision. When a player exhausted their time bank, using additional time (that they didn't have banked) resulted in a rail time penalty -- but no hands were ever declared dead due to time violations. It worked very well, mostly by merely bringing the time issue to the forefront in the players' thinking, resulting in altered habits and quicker actions.

The current WPT Alpha8 high-roller poker tournament format uses a very similar 'time card' concept, and it seems to be pretty effective as well in keeping things moving at the tables. I'd like to see it expanded to the WSOP and/or TDA rule set as well.

 

[Hot Nuts]

"why do they wait the 90 days...i can see a week or two but 3 months seems a bit long even if its just to build hype"

I'm guessing it takes that long because they have to create the shows leading up to the final table, then play them through before they show the final 9.

 

[spikeithard]

The last few years I stayed up late and watched it all. this year thought I could care less about the final 9. Not sure why

I think if DN was in the final 9 I would have watched. Wanted to see him win it all

 

[snooptodd]

I have always been in favor of the Nov 9, but someone brought up a salient point on Twitter today that made me think again.

What are they going to do when someone who makes the final 9 dies before the table resumes? Obviously it's unlikely ... people with terminal conditions aren't likely to advance that far, and the chances of a healthy person up and dying in a four-month period are pretty low, but it's got to happen eventually, right?

Not sure it changes things enough to make me shift positions, but that would be pretty crazy and I have no idea what they'd do. My guess is the only option would be to blind the stack off and pay the person's heirs.

 

[jbutler]

I have always been in favor of the Nov 9, but someone brought up a salient point on Twitter today that made me think again.

What are they going to do when someone who makes the final 9 dies before the table resumes? Obviously it's unlikely ... people with terminal conditions aren't likely to advance that far, and the chances of a healthy person up and dying in a four-month period are pretty low, but it's got to happen eventually, right?

Not sure it changes things enough to make me shift positions, but that would be pretty crazy and I have no idea what they'd do. My guess is the only option would be to blind the stack off and pay the person's heirs.

I've heard that question a bunch. It's just people overthinking things imo. What would we do if someone keeled over at the table during a standard MTT after they'd already made the money? We'd cart him away like the lifeless sack of shit that he is, blind his stack down, and deposit his winnings into an account to be payable to his estate.

There are lots of good arguments against the November 9 (along with maybe one or two in favor), but this isn't one of them imo.

 

[manamongkids]

I have always been in favor of the Nov 9, but someone brought up a salient point on Twitter today that made me think again.

What are they going to do when someone who makes the final 9 dies before the table resumes? Obviously it's unlikely ... people with terminal conditions aren't likely to advance that far, and the chances of a healthy person up and dying in a four-month period are pretty low, but it's got to happen eventually, right?

Not sure it changes things enough to make me shift positions, but that would be pretty crazy and I have no idea what they'd do. My guess is the only option would be to blind the stack off and pay the person's heirs.

Well, as you may or may not know. All of the N9ers get paid out before the N9 happens anyways. They all get paid 9th place Money.

So he/she would either automaticaly finish 9th, having no impact at all. Or the would blind the person out, and probably give any extra money to the family, is what i would assume

 

[manamongkids]

Well, as you may or may not know. All of the N9ers get paid out before the N9 happens anyways. They all get paid 9th place Money.

So he/she would either automaticaly finish 9th, having no impact at all. Or the would blind the person out, and probably give any extra money to the family, is what i would assume

Thinking about this makes me laugh every time I think of Mark Newhouse, he got paid out 9th place money two years in a row, then went to the final table and didnt make 1 cent more.

 

[BGinGA]

Maybe the TDA will change the rule to read, "Players must be alive and in their seat before the deal is finished, otherwise their hand is also dead."

 

[manamongkids]

Maybe the TDA will change the rule to read, "Players must be alive and in their seat before the deal is finished, otherwise their hand is also dead."

 

[jbutler]

Well, as you may or may not know. All of the N9ers get paid out before the N9 happens anyways. They all get paid 9th place Money.

So he/she would either automaticaly finish 9th, having no impact at all. Or the would blind the person out, and probably give any extra money to the family, is what i would assume

I would think they would be required to actually blind his stack down just in case anyone at the table is dumb enough to go out before the dead stack. His estate does have equity after all...

It would be really interesting to see a case of this where someone had a lead the side of Joe McKeehen's though (not out of the question as personal health does not seem top priority for him). It would obviously take forever to blind that stack down and if people played properly, would cause the table to grind to a halt or play extremely awkwardly.

I wonder if Caesars would try to come to an arrangement with the estate whereby the estate agreed to forego the equity it might have (I say might because it could very well be covered by the T&C of the entry that if you die, you forego all further equity regardless) in exchange for some lump sum in addition to 9th place money. It would be in Caesars and the WSOP's interest to negotiate something like this rather than have the final table be all screwy.

Thinking about this makes me laugh every time I think of Mark Newhouse, he got paid out 9th place money two years in a row, then went to the final table and didnt make 1 cent more.

I get re-heartbroken for Newhouse every now and then when I think about his back-to-backs. So fucking brutal. Plus, the infamous:

 

[manamongkids]

Lets kill someone and find out how it works



Or find the terms of service upon entry

 

[bentax1978]

I am certainly not suggesting this would happen, but depending on whether or not there are any specific rules in regard to this topic, it seems like smaller stacks murdering the chip leaders would be worth quite a bit in EV. Again, not condoning murder, but people have killed for far, far less (money).

 

[BGinGA]

I would think they would be required to actually blind his stack down just in case anyone at the table is dumb enough to go out before the dead stack. His estate does have equity after all...

It would be really interesting to see a case of this where someone had a lead the side of Joe McKeehen's though (not out of the question as personal health does not seem top priority for him). It would obviously take forever to blind that stack down and if people played properly, would cause the table to grind to a halt or play extremely awkwardly.

I wonder if Caesars would try to come to an arrangement with the estate whereby the estate agreed to forego the equity it might have (I say might because it could very well be covered by the T&C of the entry that if you die, you forego all further equity regardless) in exchange for some lump sum in addition to 9th place money. It would be in Caesars and the WSOP's interest to negotiate something like this rather than have the final table be all screwy.

Just imagine if either senior citizen (there were two) in this year's final table had passed during the interim period, and their empty-chair stack remained on the table until blinded out. Chan went out on the second hand of play......you think that plays out any differently with a dead stack (pun sorta intended) present?

Or if god-forbid something happened to the massive chip leader, like an auto accident? There's no way that the short stacks could have outlasted Joe's stack blinding down normally.....

And not only death, but what about a severe accident that prevents the 'niner' from attending in November? It's just a really, really, bad idea..... has been from the start, and continues to be no matter how they try to dress it up.

 

[BGinGA]

Suggestions to improve the November 9:
1) no sunglasses, scarves or hoods; all players' faces and necks are to be totally visible

Turtlenecks and dickies banned too? Hats with brims? Agree that something should be done, but not exactly clear what that would entail.

I think I'd rather watch it live, not knowing the hole cards, and relying on good commentators like Antonio to figure out the hands; the re-runs could show the hole cards. This would allow guys like Neil, who played excellently initially, to extend their play throughout the entire session, instead of being exposed after 30 minutes.

This is a very good and valid point, most importantly that the MEDIA COVERAGE of the event actually influenced play -- which can't be good for the game.

With a live broadcast, no hole cards should be shown, even with time delay (unless it's delayed until after the event is over) -- and also allows for expert commentary to become more valuable.

Adding the hole card shots (and extra commentary surrounding them) to re-aired episodes brings extra elements to those broadcasts, which should increase viewer numbers. Win-win, and undoubtedly better for the game.