ESPN faking hole cards?
Paul Phillips
just didn't ring true. After closely analyzing the footage from episode
four, I am convinced that ESPN has flat-out invented the hole cards of
the players in at least one situation. I am shocked, appalled, dismayed,
and disillusioned that ESPN, the flag bearer for televised sports, would
sink to this level simply to create artificial drama.
The hand that gives this away is the altercation between Chuc Hoang and
Scotty Nguyen, where the board comes down K32. The ESPN graphics claim
that Hoang is holding KK and Nguyen AK. Let's deconstruct the situation.
First, the announcer says:
"Checking in on one of our outer tables, we do have a showdown between
Chuc Hoang and Scotty Nguyen..."
They admit that it was not the televised table, which is also given away
by the fact that you can see the televised table in the background behind
Chuc Hoang. There are no cameras covering this table! The cameras that
record players' hole cards are nestled up against the rail near each player
at the televised table. You can clearly see them if you look for them
(though they are intentionally camouflaged.) Those cameras are not present
at the Hoang/Nguyen table.
When Hoang moves in, it's for 80K into a pot with at least 150K in it.
Scotty has a mountain of chips, well over 300K. For Scotty to lay down
AK there, even against a very tight player, would be monumentally
unlikely given his pot odds, risk, and chip position. At the least it
would be a huge decision that would require a long study of Hoang.
Relative to the importance of the decision and the difficulty of the fold,
he gives up way too quickly and easily. It's just not believable to me
that he had AK.
If they had recorded the hole cards, why did we never see either of them
looking at their hands?
It's also interesting that this is the hand where they showed a 72% chance
of winning for a hand that's actually a 95% favorite. A lot of their
statistics were wrong, but this was the only one I saw that was WAY off.
Perhaps they were playing around with faking different matchups and forgot
to fix the statistic after they changed the hands for the last time.
I think they did one of two things: they asked each player what they
held and believed them, or they just made it up. I'm not sure which is
worse, monumental stupidity or explicit viewer fraud, but neither fills
me with much admiration. At least on the world poker tour, we can see
the cards for ourselves.
If ESPN has any explanation for how they could know their hole cards with
no cameras when they were mucked after the flop, I'd love to hear it. The
only way out of this I can see is if they looked at the cards after the
hand was over, before they made it into the muck. The footage they show
is not sufficient to make a determination about whether they did that.
Can anyone who played in the WSOP this year say one way or another whether
that kind of thing took place during the tournament? I can't believe people
would let the camera crew record their folded hands, no way.
I'm up for less damning theories about what took place, but it doesn't
look good from here. How would you feel if ESPN used digital tricks to
make Tiger's drives look thirty yards longer than they are? It's so, so
wrong. We've seen how ESPN was willing to cut together footage from
different hands as if it were the same hand, to move hands way out of
order from how they actually took place, and so on, all to create what
they saw as a more compelling show. But there is a limit.
--
Paul Phillips | It's better to have gloved and tossed than never to
Caged Spirit | have played baseball.
Empiricist |
i'll ship a pulp |----------* http://www.improving.org/paulp/ *----------
NWBurbsCouple
No way I thought Scotty could lay that down -- unless Hoang is just the
tightest player imaginable.
Likewise, other times during the broadcasts certain card revealing shots just
haven't seemed quite right. But we know from shows like Survivor and the Eco
Challenge that it's common for scenes in "reality" broadcasts to be
recreated--and the audience not informed about it (until some paper does an
expose).
If ESPN is doing some manipulalation here, then perhaps it's because it doesn't
take poker all that seriously and feels no harm, no foul. But I'd like to know
if everything broadcast was "real."
David Plastik
was definately no documentation of any kind during this time. I don't
think if those were the given hands, that Scotty could make that lay down.
David Plastik
Greg Swann
nwburb...@aol.comnojunk (NWBurbsCouple) wrote:
>But I'd like to know
>if everything broadcast was "real."
Oh, you mean like the rest of televised
"sports"...
Greg Swann
http://www.presenceofmind.net/
Chuck Humphrey
WSOP-ESPN coverage. How do you compare this coverage against the
ongoing "editing" and "production value" snafus on the WPT cablecasts
that make Sexton and VVP look foolish?
Chuck Humphrey
On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 00:57:39 GMT, Paul Phillips <rgp...@improving.org>
wrote:
Paul Phillips
Chuck Humphrey <ceh...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I am surprised there have been so few mistakes or "guesses" on the
>WSOP-ESPN coverage.
I am not reading your meaning here. Are you implying that we should
expect the sort of outright fabrications that I have demonstrated may
have taken place in episode four? Because, sorry, there's no way I'm
ever going to think that outright lying to the viewing audience about
what is taking place is par for the course.
Mistakes and "guesses" are entirely different things, and both are
vastly more forgivable than "outright fabrications." It's a guess if
it's labeled as a guess. It's a lie if it's labeled as the truth.
>How do you compare this coverage against the
>ongoing "editing" and "production value" snafus on the WPT cablecasts
>that make Sexton and VVP look foolish?
Again, I do not really know what you mean. There are aspects of the
WPT production that are somewhat amateurish, but as far as I know, no
one has suggested that they are deceiving viewers. No offense
intended, but it looks to me like you have an axe to grind with the
WPT that is coloring your vision.
--
Paul Phillips | The 'Take Back the Night' rally will be held at
Protagonist | noon today.
Empiricist | -- unknown reporter
all hip pupils! |----------* http://www.improving.org/paulp/ *----------
Dave L
the players what they had, and took them at their words. While this is an
utterly idiotic thing to do, its better than the alternative (outright
lying).
Hey Matt Savage...care to respond to this?
"David Plastik" <pla...@lvcm.com> wrote in message
news:ZHEWa.380$2g.225@fed1read05...
David
he had, and Scotty inflated the value of his hand in order to look better
on the telecast. Just a guess, though. I agree that if I had been in
Scotty's seat with AK, there's not much keeping me from getting all my
chips in. Course, maybe that's why he's a pro and I'm not.
For those of you who played, were you asked about your hole cards?
On Aug 1 2003 8:57PM, Paul Phillips wrote:
> I was talking to a few poker players about some ESPN WSOP coverage that
> just didn't ring true.
_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
Paul Phillips
David <anon...@codermonkey.com> wrote:
>I'm guessing that the producers of the show asked Scotty afterwards what
>he had, and Scotty inflated the value of his hand in order to look better
>on the telecast. Just a guess, though. I agree that if I had been in
>Scotty's seat with AK, there's not much keeping me from getting all my
>chips in. Course, maybe that's why he's a pro and I'm not.
What about Chuc? They would had to have asked both players. Not that
far fetched that the winner would say "I had the nuts" and the loser
would claim to have made a huge laydown. But think about it: if you
flopped a set of kings in that spot, would you move it all-in? The ONLY
draw with ANY plausible chance of beating you is the flush draw, and
the flush draw will beat you into the pot ANYWAY getting 3-1 on its
money all way to the river. So why not check it to induce a bluff or
give a free card that improves your opponent?
The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced it was faked.
In that situation, most of the pros I know would not only have called
him with any king, they would have called him with any pair. If you
habitually let the other guy get half his stack in before the flop and
then take it uncontested on the flop, you're doomed. You have to
think your hand has a very fair chance of being the best BEFORE the
flop if you go in for half of one player's stack, because your implied
odds are essentially non-existent. How can you do that with AK, hit
the best possible flop, and still fold?
No way. And I have never known Scotty to be the sort to make these
insanely difficult laydowns. Quite the opposite, really.
--
Paul Phillips | It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye,
Everyman | but only then can the CYCLOPS GAMES begin!
Empiricist |
slap pi uphill! |----------* http://www.improving.org/paulp/ *----------
Roy MacPherson
my newsreader didn't pick it up.
Now I have to create anoter filter.
---D
I
Aaron
> No way. And I have never known Scotty to be the sort to make these
> insanely difficult laydowns. Quite the opposite, really.
Maybe the hands were AK QQ instead of KK AK.
Maybe the ESPN person asked them, got the
truth from each, but then forgot the exact
details before writing them down.
Kkiely
get into a situation where they can't get the information on the players cards
and therefore the whole hand is worthless from a speculators perspective, then
why doesnt the editor just cut that hand out and throw it on the editing room
floor. There's so much action to choose from - they could have gotten authentic
poker hands at a differen table.
RTN4
wrote:
>and
>the flush draw will beat you into the pot ANYWAY getting 3-1 on its
>money all way to the river.
Huh?
Lanky Bob
had KK? You see what I'm saying? Why would he pick that hand, which
would require tremendous discipline to lay down in that situation, unless
it actually was his hand and he knew Chuck must have the two kings? Why
would he leave himself open to being shown on TV as having been bluffed?
lift-off
they choose to edit it to their own end? I am both. There is no reason for
them to 'juice' the action. There was plenty of drama to capture without a
juiceup. And now i wonder if RV got aces on hand one, day one...
JK, I fully understand your exhaustion as I have played down to two tables
myself, and many hands and days and situations do blend together, but
every single detail of my final hands stand out for me, rather surprised
that they do not for you, and for everyone... but I guess that is why we
play the game... and in the most important detail (Scotty's hand} you do
realize the lie. BTW I am very curious about Scotty's position as either
hand surprises me in relation to the way he plays it. Lots of beer and
lots of mo and lots of moxie, mix in a touch of arrogance... What the hell
was he thinking on this one? Reraise? If you cannot outplay them, just
suck out?
On Aug 1 2003 6:15PM, Jonathan Kapla wrote:
> i am fairly sure that ESPN changed the hand in which i busted, showing an
> amalgamation of two different hands. i remember the Ks9s in Scotty's hand,
when
> tabled. how can i get that wrong, even if my memory isnt perfect?
> this was the biggest hand i played all year, i sure examined pretty closely
the
> opponent's holding.
>
> Jonathan
>
> no matter where you go, there you are....
Jonathan Kaplan
>
>so are we happy that espn is having a popular show? or are we upset that
>they choose to edit it to their own end? I am both. There is no reason for
>them to 'juice' the action. There was plenty of drama to capture without a
>juiceup. And now i wonder if RV got aces on hand one, day one...
i agree, i am happy the show is very popular, and also upset about the editing.
in thinking about it, i am not sure they are juicing up the action, it seems
more reasonable their technical advisors were way below speed, and mainly, they
missed some footage in key hands and chose to substitute alternate footage (or
interpretation) rather than give up the action they did have.
this was a major TV production, and those involved in that production arent the
better/best players, almost all of them probably arent players at all. this was
a very difficult undertaking, and i applaud the fact they did it in any form.
but this show is so successful this year, i hope ESPN's technical advice
improves dramatically for next year's effort.
>
>...JK, I fully understand your exhaustion as I have played down to two tables
>myself, and many hands and days and situations do blend together, but
>every single detail of my final hands stand out for me, rather surprised
>that they do not for you, and for everyone... but I guess that is why we
>play the game... and in the most important detail (Scotty's hand} you do
>realize the lie....
i am potentially an anamoly in the sense that, no matter how important or
trivial whatever has just happened to me, i am too likely to forget some
details, my short term memory is very weakened. but once something makes it into
my longterm memory (i think about the fact for a while and anchor it), then i
will remember. (this aspect is why, in the trip reports i DO write, i have some
difficulty including many hands, even though i know people want that...i truly
just cant remember, unless the hand has been anchored for whatever reason...)
in the hand in question, i misremembered a few facts, i didnt anchor them. but i
can STILL see Scotty's hand sitting tabled in front of him, that image is
cemented into my brain. i am sure i'll never forget it.
so, i am sure ESPN fabricated that hand.
>...BTW I am very curious about Scotty's position as either
>hand surprises me in relation to the way he plays it. Lots of beer and
>lots of mo and lots of moxie, mix in a touch of arrogance... What the hell
>was he thinking on this one? Reraise? If you cannot outplay them, just
>suck out?
>
not really that.
Scotty and i have a considerable history of play against each other. he thinks i
am generally a conservative, tight, good amateur, i believe. i know how he plays
(when he is running good or bad). i have written a few times about hands we have
played together.
in his actions in the hand in question, he played pretty well (if maybe a bit
too aggressively) given he was playing against me. preflop, i raised nominally
preflop from late position, he reraised from early position, knowing i could
fold a steal right there. then the flop came, he goes allin, he is pretty sure
(correctly) that there are a number of hands that beat him (at that moment) that
i will fold, when challenged allin. i'll fold every hand worse than his current
hand, and a large number of hands that are marginally ahead. and then, even if i
do call, he has a monster out with the flush draw (and as it turns out, a minor,
but effective, out with the K overcard).
the best argument against his play is, why take a bunch of marginal risks this
low in the payout scheme if he thinks he is a superior player to the remaining
field (and his table)? he coulda just waited for a better opportunity. but that
kind of waiting play is more typical of Hellmuth i think, not Scotty N.
i think Scotty played it fine (given his nature, the opponent and our mutual
history) and he got lucky. a pretty good combination.
yeah, baby!
smile
Jonathan
Jonathan Kaplan
>
>In article <bgf296$lst$1...@spoon.improving.org>, Paul Phillips says...
>>
>>I was talking to a few poker players about some ESPN WSOP coverage that
>>just didn't ring true. After closely analyzing the footage from episode
>>four, I am convinced that ESPN has flat-out invented the hole cards of
>>the players in at least one situation. I am shocked, appalled, dismayed,
>>and disillusioned that ESPN, the flag bearer for televised sports, would
>
>in the WSoP 10k, i bowed out this year in 58th place. i was at the TV table when
>i lost my final hand. i just saw that hand replayed on ESPN.
>the hand i saw replayed was NOT the same hand i remember playing....
>
<snipped>
in addition, a hand comes up about 20 minutes into program #4...
in TV land, i have already (ostensibly) been eliminated (in the first hand of
that episode). in the hand shown, Bryan Watkins has TT and Mark Gregorich has
AKo, flop K43 and they are allin, Bryan then rivers a Ten to put a huge beat on
Mark.
i am in the 4 seat watching this hand. i have plenty of chips.
what a comeback for me, huh?...rebuy!
just watched the Hoang/Nguyen KK/AK confrontation, there is only a miniscule
chance that Scotty would fold AK in that specific situation. he didnt have AK in
that hand.
obviously, ESPN has alot of tricks in their production repertoire.
wamplerr
in with a draw and an overcard, as opposed to top pair? And I don't
mean to say Jonathan is wrong, I mean to say how stupid of them...
_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RGP ACCESS at http://www.LiveActionPoker.com
NWBurbsCouple
very least, ESPN should include a disclaimer that the sequence of events has
been rearranged.
ShaunBKGB
player seems pretty excited about his hand and re-raises Nyguen pre-flop and
then moves in when a King hits the board, I don't think it is beyond the realm
of possibility that a great player would lay this down. I mean, if Hoang has
QQ, is he going to do this? JJ? Myabe Scotty believes he can have one of three
hands if he truly is that tight: AA, KK, or AK, two of which Scotty Nyguen is
beaten badly by and one of which he ties.
I wasn't there so I don't know if they are faking stuff or not. Remeber the
hand where Dutch Boyd had 44 and the other guy JJ and Boyd hits the 4 on the
end (a 1 outer). This was not the main table either. This seemed authentic from
the reactions.
Anyway wether some things were faked or not, I'm glad they are showing a lot of
poker. More players will always be good, and maybe this will prompt newbies to
make huge laydowns...
Jim Geary
"NWBurbsCouple" <nwburb...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20030802123654...@mb-m22.aol.com...
> That's appalling. This info should be forwarded to media journalists. At
the
> very least, ESPN should include a disclaimer that the sequence of events
has
> been rearranged.
I agree that it's appalling, but personally I'm happy to see whatever is
necessary to encourage players #839-1200 show up next year. I don't think
that they will be professional players.
Paul Phillips
RTN4 <RT...@charter.net> wrote:
>Huh?
Your frequent one-word and one-sentence followups are extremely tiresome.
If all you have to say is "Huh?" then all I have to say is "Yes." See if
you can add something to the discussion beyond proving that you know where
the post button is.
--
Paul Phillips | In the land of the blind, the man with one eye is
Caged Spirit | 'different', he's an outcast, he's snubbed, shunned,
Empiricist | looked down upon by the existing group who all have
ha! spill, pupil | their own 'schooling' [...] -- wayno
NWBurbsCouple
existing group who all have their own 'schooling' [...] -- wayno
But if was indeed the land of the blind, how would the others know he had one
eye?
And if he knew having one eye would ostracize him, wouldn't he hide it from
them...not that it would be too much trouble hiding one eye in the land of the
blind.
Jonathan Kaplan
>
>Paul Phillips | In the land of the blind, the man with one eye is
>'different', he's an outcast, he's snubbed, shunned, looked down upon by the
>existing group who all have their own 'schooling' [...] -- wayno
>
>But if was indeed the land of the blind, how would the others know he had one
the others would know he was sighted because he would be the only person they
could hear moving nearby that no one ever bumped into.
Jonathan
>...And if he knew having one eye would ostracize him, wouldn't he hide it from
>them...not that it would be too much trouble hiding one eye in the land of the
>blind.
no matter where you go, there you are....
Lee Munzer
"NWBurbsCouple"
> That's appalling. This info should be forwarded to media journalists. At
the very least, ESPN should include a disclaimer that the sequence of events
has been rearranged.
Also to Chairman Michael K. Powell: mpo...@fcc.gov
He might be able to shed light on this issue... yes, ESPN probably needs to
tell viewers that the hands they are seeing may never have occurred and if
they did occur they may be out of chronological sequence.
This really is unconscionable. Based on several reports, especially JK's
(taking into consideration the old-timer is a tad memory challenged), I'm
sure we are seeing some edited hands. Based on Howard's report and JK's I
am sure we are seeing chronological shenanigans.
Yikes, can we even be positive Phil brushes his teeth? We may have been
watching Chris Berman or Dan Patrick brush his teeth... Phil's face
superimposed later?
Covering the event for five days and taking into consideration their
flexibility it is incomprehensible that the time of hands weren't recorded
and adhered to and they didn't get enough exciting action to resist
cheating.
Shame on ESPN.
Steamed in Vegas
Howard Lederer
When Scotty looks at his KT, we see someone with long sleeves and a light
colored shirt put some money in the pot from Scotty's hole card camera. The
way the money is put in and the amount does not match your action. If I
were a betting man, and I am, I would bet that you remembered this hand
correctly. On this hand I think ESPN might have just gotten confused.
Howard Lederer
ACBob
insanely difficult laydowns. Quite the opposite, really."
To what degree Paul? I saw another set of hands involving Scotty and I
am shaking my head.
Against Humberto Brenes, he open raises with 83c for $21K, Brenes
reraises $40K with ATo. Then Scotty reraises $100,000.? WTF? Play
variance? If any non name person did that they would be crucified.
Then against our own Jonathon Kaplan:
Kaplan open raises $12K with JJ. Scotty from the SB reraises $18K with
KTo? Each have $30K in the pot plus blinds for $64K.
Flop is ten high rainbow and Scotty goes all in. This I can actually
see as Kaplan has about $80K, so Scotty is pot committed. He catches a
K on the river to win.
I like Scotty's persona but it does get me that name players get so
much idolization despite making questionable, at best plays/decisions.
Bob Lewis
Gary Carson
of bad bets or bad raises.
Gary Carson
The Complete Book of Hold'em Poker is #9 on the bestseller list
List of Top Ten Gambling Books
http://garycarson.rediffblogs.com/
Amercian Casino Guide is #13 last week
RTN4
wrote:
>Your frequent one-word and one-sentence followups are extremely tiresome.
>If all you have to say is "Huh?" then all I have to say is "Yes." See if
>you can add something to the discussion beyond proving that you know where
>the post button is.
Are you somebody I should know?
Paul Phillips
ACBob <robert...@attbi.com> wrote:
>Against Humberto Brenes, he open raises with 83c for $21K, Brenes
>reraises $40K with ATo. Then Scotty reraises $100,000.? WTF? Play
>variance? If any non name person did that they would be crucified.
That's not true. There's nothing wrong with this play, especially
given the specific circumstances of the hand.
>Kaplan open raises $12K with JJ. Scotty from the SB reraises $18K with
>KTo? Each have $30K in the pot plus blinds for $64K.
I agree, depending on details this doesn't appear all that smart.
>I like Scotty's persona but it does get me that name players get so
>much idolization despite making questionable, at best plays/decisions.
Plenty of name players gamble "too much" (in quotes because it's not
really clear how much is too much.) But it's never entirely fair to look
at poker decisions outside of context. Perhaps Jonathan was opening
liberally but playing extremely tightly against re-raises, or Scotty
thought he was. And maybe Scotty decided that the flat call preflop
meant no group one pair, so he figured to be ahead when the ten hit.
Just because he was wrong as it played out doesn't mean he didn't figure
to be right more often than not.
I'm not saying he DID figure to be right, just that we can't tell well
enough from here to say.
--
Paul Phillips | Instead of trying to build newer and bigger weapons of
Apatheist | destruction, we should be thinking about getting more
Empiricist | use out of the ones we already have.
ha! spill, pupil |----------* http://www.improving.org/paulp/ *----------
NWBurbsCouple
course, but, geeze, the guy had top pair and a decent kicker. NLHE rewards
agreessive, bold play. That's Scotty in these two examples.
Jonathan Kaplan
>
>In article <d3ea9e53.03080...@posting.google.com>,
>ACBob <robert...@attbi.com> wrote:
>>Against Humberto Brenes, he open raises with 83c for $21K, Brenes
>>reraises $40K with ATo. Then Scotty reraises $100,000.? WTF? Play
>>variance? If any non name person did that they would be crucified.
>
>That's not true. There's nothing wrong with this play, especially
>given the specific circumstances of the hand.
>
>>Kaplan open raises $12K with JJ. Scotty from the SB reraises $18K with
>>KTo? Each have $30K in the pot plus blinds for $64K.
>
>I agree, depending on details this doesn't appear all that smart.
>
>>I like Scotty's persona but it does get me that name players get so
>>much idolization despite making questionable, at best plays/decisions.
>
>Plenty of name players gamble "too much" (in quotes because it's not
>really clear how much is too much.) But it's never entirely fair to look
>at poker decisions outside of context.
i agree with that almost completely, in fact, i dont think Paul's statement is
strong enough. remove the word "entirely", i think.
>...Perhaps Jonathan was opening
>liberally but playing extremely tightly against re-raises, or Scotty
>thought he was. And maybe Scotty decided that the flat call preflop
>meant no group one pair, so he figured to be ahead when the ten hit.
>Just because he was wrong as it played out doesn't mean he didn't figure
>to be right more often than not.
i wasnt opening liberally, the two and three seats to my immediate right (Chuc
and Fatoussi, i think) had been doing all of that. this was either the first or
second time that both had folded in the same hand in front of me, since the
table was formed. i was in a stealing type position, and this was my first
opportunity (other than potential re-steals).
Scotty may have figured no group one pair since i just flat-called preflop, but
if so, then he didnt know me as well as i think he does. like i said in another
post, we have some considerable history (given i am just an amateur who only
plays big tournaments), and he could have reasonably suspected a trap. but even
with that, i think he was right to think i was more likely to have just AK or
AQ, two big cards.
i think Scotty played it fine and typically (for him) all things considered,
given the chip situations and our history of hands played in view of each other
(particularly, the way he has seen me play). he just happened to be behind when
the money went in.
but like i have said before in a big post early in this thread (which for some
reason hasnt been archived by Google, that i can see?), Scotty's hand was
different than that shown. he had K9s, which had different tactical
considerations than described (although not really worse considerations,
somewhat better perhaps, but different). i might have to repost that post just
so some friends who read google can see it. wonder why it didnt archive?
>
>I'm not saying he DID figure to be right, just that we can't tell well
>enough from here to say.
>
right. it is (almost) never right to be too critical (or laudatory) from a
distance when discussing the play of hands. unless one is in the hand, and has
the history known, how can one know what is truly correct?
Jonathan
>--
>Paul Phillips | Instead of trying to build newer and bigger weapons of
>Apatheist | destruction, we should be thinking about getting more
>Empiricist | use out of the ones we already have.
>ha! spill, pupil |----------* http://www.improving.org/paulp/ *----------
no matter where you go, there you are....
AlwaysAware
Being the slacker that I am, I hadn't gotten around to reading your trip report
when you first posted.. In a previous post in this thread you copied part of
it, and, I was able to copy a phrase and find it easily.
Joan
>From: Jonathan Kaplan
>but like i have said before in a big post early in this thread (which for
>some
>reason hasnt been archived by Google, that i can see?),
(snip)> i might have to repost that post just
Peg Smith
nwburb...@aol.comnojunk (NWBurbsCouple) writes:
>Scotty's bluff on Brenes was brilliant. His all-in against JK got lucky, of
>course, but, geeze, the guy had top pair and a decent kicker.
JK said Scotty had K9s, not KT as shown by ESPN. Scotty, then, didn't have top
pair--just cajones.
Peg
Grant Peacock
He wouldn't hide it, he would go on the Art Bell show or something and
try to tell everyone he has this "vision" and he can "look" at things
and etc. And people would say, yeah right prove it, and he would not
be prepared for that request, and he'd start going on about "colors"
and how ugly everyone was, and make a fool of himself.
So I think Wayno is right.
Jonathan Kaplan
Joan, thanks for posting that link...but that isnt the post i am referring to
that wasnt archived (as far as i can see).
the post i am referring to is a post i put in this thread talking about the last
hand i played against Scotty as i saw it originally and the hand i saw on TV and
the differences i had noted. THAT post doesnt seem to be anywhere when i look on
Google. i have seen a few people reference it, so it is visible somewhere, but
hardly any, and some friends who use Google directly say they cant find it...
so, i apologize for reposting this long post from earlier in the thread, but i
want it in the archives and visible to the people i am talking about. if you
read it first time around, no need to reread it, i didnt change a single word.
i also want to comment here that, although it bothers me that ESPN didnt get the
hand correctly, i am not overly bothered by it, not as much as others appear to
be, because,
one, i think it was more just poor technical advisors than anything else
and
two, the ESPN show is doing wonders for participation of new players in the game
we love and i dont want them to take TOO much heat for problems with their first
attempt at airing poker. they'll do it better next time, i am sure.
they may not have even known of the problems, and the show IS great television,
and it really isnt that important to almost everyone who watches it. sure, the
integrity of the event is compromised by a sloppy airing like this, but lets
just get them to do it right next time, try not to kill the golden goose. i'd
hate to think that these problems would keep ESPN from trying again next year,
and the year after that...
-----------START repost:-----------
In article <bgf296$lst$1...@spoon.improving.org>, Paul Phillips says...
>
>I was talking to a few poker players about some ESPN WSOP coverage that
>just didn't ring true. After closely analyzing the footage from episode
>four, I am convinced that ESPN has flat-out invented the hole cards of
>the players in at least one situation. I am shocked, appalled, dismayed,
>and disillusioned that ESPN, the flag bearer for televised sports, would
>sink to this level simply to create artificial drama...
in the WSoP 10k, i bowed out this year in 58th place. i was at the TV table when
i lost my final hand. i just saw that hand replayed on ESPN.
the hand i saw replayed was NOT the same hand i remember playing.
i wrote a report about that hand (as part of a bigger trip report) shortly after
the series ended. although i am fuzzy on a few details (which i point out in the
report), i am pretty sure of the main facts in the hand. below is a segment of
that trip report:
begin quote
"...i draw the
"TV table", the eventual final table. i arrive over there, they wire me for
sound, they write down my name, i see that the table has cameras built in to
show the hands (as long as you look at them in front of the little peephole)...
.then this hand comes up. i am unsure of a few particulars,
but here is the way i remember it. probably you'll see it on ESPN later,
especially if Scotty N. goes on to win the tournament. i am in mid/late
position, i look down and see black Jacks. folds to me, i raise a bit small
(cant remember the number), all fold to Scotty who reraises from the BB to 30K.
(i am not sure if Scotty was the BB or if he limped utg then reraised. wish i
could remember.) the flop comes T8x, two spades. (another memory flaw, i cant
remember if the middle card was a 9 or an 8, i seem to remember an 8, but not
certain, and it turns out this is very relevant.) Scotty goes allin. i think for
a little bit, but not too long...
.i make a big call.
Scotty flips up K9s, i show JJ. he has plenty of outs, but i dont really mind
the situation. if i win i have a commanding stack. i consider that i
could/should have reraised allin preflop and avoided this situation, cause
Scotty would have (most probably) folded, but i didnt do that, and here i was
allin for a 280k pot, ready to leap up in rank, prepare for the final table.
the turn is a blank.
the river is a King.
i think i muttered some noise, Scotty did a little leap and exclamation, and i
was gone. i said, "i'll see you next year, Scotty" and he replied (something
like) "yep, that's poker".
"
end quote
in the hand i just watched on ESPN, the button starts out in front of me (i am
in the 5 seat). the guy to my left has the small blind, Casey Kastle in the 7
seat has the big blind. the blinds are 1500/3000. the chips and button are
pretty visible (although not really the exact denominations, just the chip
locations). Scotty is in the 8 seat, UTG. the 9 seat is currently empty. next,
Scotty is shown as having KdTh, two red cards, they show Scotty showing that
hand to the camera in the table. then the camera pulls back to an overhead shot
and NOW the button is in front of Casey, Scotty is the SB, the 1 seat has the
BB. the 2, 3, and 4 seats fold to me, ESPN then shows me looking at 2 black
jacks. i make it 8K (although the announcers say it was 12K), 6 seat folds,
Casey folds in the 7 seat, Scotty throws out 3 10K chips from the SB, pulling
back his 1.5K in SB chips. BB folds. they cut to me considering the 22K raise.
the graphic shows Nguyen with KdTh, Kaplan with JcJs, and a "70%" by my hand. i
call.
the flop comes Ts5s4c.
on the graphic, the number next to my hand changes to "76%". Scotty goes allin.
they cut back to me, i think for a moment onscreen (it took a few moments longer
in real life). i call. i flip up my hand, we can see the Black Jacks clearly on
the table. Scotty flips up his hand, but ESPN doesnt do a closeup on his hand.
at that point (in real life) i (of course) look very closely at what hand i am
facing. i remember very clearly that Scotty had the Ks9s. my memory is faulty
sometimes, but c'mon, how can i forget a thing like that? but i see his hand on
TV as KdTh, and one can only kind of make out Scotty's tabled hand visually, and
i do have memory problems, so i was doubting my memory somewhat.
then i see this thread posted here.
i go back to the videotape and watch the action more closely, replay it a few
times, (that is why i am pretty precise in the facts above). i catch the button
moving during the hand. in Scotty's tabled hand i am pretty sure i can see the
paint card closest to the dealer, but i cant really make out the color. the
other card sure looks like it only has one pip in the central area.
a Ten has two pips in the central area.
i am fairly sure that ESPN changed the hand in which i busted, showing an
amalgamation of two different hands. i remember the Ks9s in Scotty's hand, when
tabled. how can i get that wrong, even if my memory isnt perfect?
this was the biggest hand i played all year, i sure examined pretty closely the
opponent's holding.
it looks to me like Matt Savage is standing behind Scotty and saw the hand
(although it may have been some other official in a suit, but it doesnt look
like a TV guy). maybe he recalls this hand, he did make a gesticulation at the
conclusion of the action (right after we see Scotty high fiving someone just out
of camera view).
and yes Lee, i did look pretty scrubby...smile
Jonathan
-------------END Repost-----------
La Ciclon
news:bgf296$lst$1...@spoon.improving.org...
<*snip*>
Paul - During the taping of this event, when people would find themselves in
these situations, the crew would usually run over to the players and
videotape the event as it happened.
Often, players would lay down hands and not show hole cards. What the crew
would then do is record the board and the betting situation, then ask the
players about the hand during a break.
I'd be willing to bet that a few players either didn't/couldn't remember
thier exact hole cards, OR didn't want to be honest about them (the latter
being the best bet) and tell the crew they had more (or less) than they
really had.
I know if *I* was involved in a hand like that and *I* was asked what I had
etc. while the tourney was still in progress (and I'm still in), I'm pretty
sure I wouldn't be honest about it.
La Ciclon
Scott N
> I went back to my TIVO and carefully looked at your hand numerous times.
{jealous}
Ahh, I got get one of these.
Scott N
>
> in addition, a hand comes up about 20 minutes into program #4...
> in TV land, i have already (ostensibly) been eliminated (in the first hand of
The thing that shocked ME the most is that I thought for the longest time
Mark Gregorich was Ty Bayne. I put Marks face with "Ty Bayne" and I have no
idea where that came to be. When they said "Mark Gregorich" I thought they
were mistaken and laughed to one of my friends.
Did Ty change his name or something? Or do they look similar?
Scott N
OrangeSFO
Matt Savage...how about a name?
RTN4
(NWBurbsCouple) wrote:
>NLHE rewards
>agreessive, bold play. That's Scotty in these two examples.
Yes it does. Hence Kaplan's failure to re-raise all-in pre-flop, but
his willingness to go all-in post flop.
But hey, that's poker.
Jon C
TRUE STORY. Seems that would clear everything up.
BTW if I werent such an addict, I would boycott, ESPN sux!
_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
CTPoker
the flop but after all pre-flop betting was completed that Hoang had
AA or KK then it was fortified by his all in bet. And if Scotty did
put him on AA KK then he made a correct decision. How the hell do you
think this guy wins so many tournaments by dusting off half his chips
it took him 3 days to acquire by calling without the best hand? IMHO
he made a good lay down.
Regarding how they knew the hands, well, that is another debate. If
ESPN asked them their hands then they had no business broadcasting the
hand since they had no verifiaction of the hand played. I am certain
that ESPN now knows not to ask anyone what their cards were becasue no
one ever tells the truth.
BUT LETS STOP ALL THE SPECULATION - AK was a great and not
unbeliveable laydown by a world champion.
NWBurbsCouple
>that ESPN now knows not to ask anyone what their cards were becasue no
>one ever tells the truth.
And you certainty is based on....?
Mike O'Malley
"NWBurbsCouple" <nwburb...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
Poker players routinely challenge other players to a "mine is bigger than
yours" competition, and then quickly back out.
JTAutry
news:bgf296$lst$1...@spoon.improving.org...
> But there is a limit.
Actually its no-limit. Maybe in more ways than one.
JT
T. Pascal
> Scotty Nguyen, where the board comes down K32. The ESPN graphics claim
> that Hoang is holding KK and Nguyen AK. Let's deconstruct the situation.
> First, the announcer says:
>
> "Checking in on one of our outer tables, we do have a showdown between
> Chuc Hoang and Scotty Nguyen..."
>
I noticed this and was very surprised when the hands were mucked.
Initially, I thought, uh-oh, Scotty called and gotten an ace. But
then he threw it away!! How could they have know what the cards were,
I wondered.
> I think they did one of two things: they asked each player what they
> held and believed them, or they just made it up. I'm not sure which is
> worse, monumental stupidity or explicit viewer fraud, but neither fills
> me with much admiration. At least on the world poker tour, we can see
> the cards for ourselves.
>
I think they made it up, but why? They have shown confrontations
before without showing or knowing the cards. It's a little baffling.
But I think it is benign, in the sense of lack of intent.
Regarding the time-chopping that occurred: I noticed it as well and
am not concerned by it, as much as curious, why? Why was it
necessary? I have seen it twice and couldn't fathom the need. I'm
not saying it's wrong or misleading, or that I am pained. I just
question "why?"
I imagine in another sport, like football, they would not show a
highlights reel that changes the order of scoring. For example, a
game that scored touchdown-touchdown-fieldgoal as
fieldgoal-touchdown-touchdown to make it more "dramatic". However, in
another so-called "sport" like golf, they will show four players at
hole 18 when two played 18 last and another two played 18 first.
Perhaps poker is a quote-unquote so-called sport, much like other
quote-unquote sports like fishing, bowling, golf, archery, log
rolling, hog catching, curling, nude sunbathing, lemonade drinking,
chainsaw foot losing...
I think that's more like it.
Mister Poker
you look closely at the tv, you can see that they were Kings.
Someone posted in another thread that ESPN fudging the cards isn't a big
deal. I agree. The point gets across, and it's entertaining to watch.
The vast majority of people watching aren't concerned with exactly what is
had by each player. They just want to see cool poker, and ESPN is giving
us plenty of that.
I do think that next year they should have a better consultant.
Also, how bad did Phil get raped this year. He was really the one who
should have won that tournament. Maybe if he just knew a few more chip
tricks...
On Aug 1 2003 5:57PM, Paul Phillips wrote:
> I was talking to a few poker players about some ESPN WSOP coverage that
> just didn't ring true. After closely analyzing the footage from episode
> four, I am convinced that ESPN has flat-out invented the hole cards of
> the players in at least one situation. I am shocked, appalled, dismayed,
> and disillusioned that ESPN, the flag bearer for televised sports, would
> sink to this level simply to create artificial drama.
>
> The hand that gives this away is the altercation between Chuc Hoang and
> Scotty Nguyen, where the board comes down K32. The ESPN graphics claim
> that Hoang is holding KK and Nguyen AK. Let's deconstruct the situation.
> First, the announcer says:
>
> "Checking in on one of our outer tables, we do have a showdown between
> Chuc Hoang and Scotty Nguyen..."
>
> They admit that it was not the televised table, which is also given away
> by the fact that you can see the televised table in the background behind
> Chuc Hoang. There are no cameras covering this table! The cameras that
> record players' hole cards are nestled up against the rail near each player
> at the televised table. You can clearly see them if you look for them
> (though they are intentionally camouflaged.) Those cameras are not present
> at the Hoang/Nguyen table.
>
> When Hoang moves in, it's for 80K into a pot with at least 150K in it.
> Scotty has a mountain of chips, well over 300K. For Scotty to lay down
> AK there, even against a very tight player, would be monumentally
> unlikely given his pot odds, risk, and chip position. At the least it
> would be a huge decision that would require a long study of Hoang.
> Relative to the importance of the decision and the difficulty of the fold,
> he gives up way too quickly and easily. It's just not believable to me
> that he had AK.
>
> If they had recorded the hole cards, why did we never see either of them
> looking at their hands?
>
> It's also interesting that this is the hand where they showed a 72% chance
> of winning for a hand that's actually a 95% favorite. A lot of their
> statistics were wrong, but this was the only one I saw that was WAY off.
> Perhaps they were playing around with faking different matchups and forgot
> to fix the statistic after they changed the hands for the last time.
>
> I think they did one of two things: they asked each player what they
> held and believed them, or they just made it up. I'm not sure which is
> worse, monumental stupidity or explicit viewer fraud, but neither fills
> me with much admiration. At least on the world poker tour, we can see
> the cards for ourselves.
>
> If ESPN has any explanation for how they could know their hole cards with
> no cameras when they were mucked after the flop, I'd love to hear it. The
> only way out of this I can see is if they looked at the cards after the
> hand was over, before they made it into the muck. The footage they show
> is not sufficient to make a determination about whether they did that.
> Can anyone who played in the WSOP this year say one way or another whether
> that kind of thing took place during the tournament? I can't believe people
> would let the camera crew record their folded hands, no way.
>
> I'm up for less damning theories about what took place, but it doesn't
> look good from here. How would you feel if ESPN used digital tricks to
> make Tiger's drives look thirty yards longer than they are? It's so, so
> wrong. We've seen how ESPN was willing to cut together footage from
> different hands as if it were the same hand, to move hands way out of
> order from how they actually took place, and so on, all to create what
> they saw as a more compelling show. But there is a limit.
>
> --
> Paul Phillips | It's better to have gloved and tossed than never to
> Caged Spirit | have played baseball.
> Empiricist |
> i'll ship a pulp |----------* http://www.improving.org/paulp/ *----------
Gary Carson
Tad Perry
news:JTdXa.34532$Ne.20173@fed1read03...
> I know if *I* was involved in a hand like that and *I* was asked what I
had
> etc. while the tourney was still in progress (and I'm still in), I'm
pretty
> sure I wouldn't be honest about it.
Interesting point. It might be beneficial to always claim a bluff whenever
you've folded a pot away. ESPN would then have to handle the reporting this
way. Make sure we're all told "so and so *reported* <fill in the blank> with
what the guy said exactly if possible.
tvp
OrangeSFO
"card-cam"?
I submit: None.
Is there some pressure--subtle or otherwise--for players to show their
cards to the "eye". Why shouldn't a player--particularly a
high-profile player--just put a napkin over the camera lens and play
on?
John Harkness
It may be contractual. Anyone whose played at the feature table know?
John Harkness
Jonathan Kaplan
ESPN didnt make any wsop entrant sign anything before playing (or at least, not
anyone i spoke to about it, and that was perhaps a dozen different people). on
the 2nd day, some of the players at my table (not the feature table) said that
if they were put over there, they werent going to show anything.
when i was put on the featured table (towards the end of the third day), all
they did was wire me up, have me print out my name (and, i think, occupation
(but they got that wrong, so not sure about that)), and they pointed out where
the cameras were in front of each seat, but no one said any more than that, and
if one wanted to, one could pretty easily "hide" the hand from the cameras. in
fact, in the hand where i busted, i looked at the JJ from in front of my chips,
then i realized the camera might not be able to see it (and i knew i was going
to play), so i looked at the cards again from an angle i was sure the camera
could see the hand.
which makes me wonder what would have happened if i hadnt looked again...
Jonathan
Gary Carson
camara.
On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 15:54:54 -0400, John Harkness <j...@attcanada.ca>
wrote:
Gary Carson
Unknown
(Gary Carson) wrote:
>If WSOP players can hide chips under a napkin then they can hide a
>camara.
For your information, Carson, Jack Strauss didn't hide a chip.
DaveM
He didn't? Really?
Well, you've convinced me.
DaveM