TiVo Community Forums Archives

TiVoCommunity.com
(c)opyright 1995-2005 All rights reserved
indexcheckTC
This area is a static history of posts in the TiVo Community Forum Archive.
This archive history was made for the simple indexing of search sites like Google.

Pages:1

More poker on TV
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: pmyers

Celebs get to show poker face on cards showdown

Associated Press
Sept. 25, 2003

NEW YORK - Are Matthew Perry and Martin Sheen bluffing?

They are actors, after all. TV viewers will see their abilities tested in a different way when they participate in a new Bravo series "Celebrity Poker Showdown."

The six-episode series will air sometime this winter, the cable network said Wednesday. Other participants include Coolio, Jack Black, Hank Azaria, David Schwimmer and about half the cast of "The West Wing," including Allison Janney, Bradley Whitford, John Spencer and Richard Schiff.

Five different celebrities will compete each week, in a winner-take-all game of No Limit Texas Hold 'em.

Posted by: mrpurple

I'm torn between my love of poker and my hate for all celebrity reality shows.....

I'll probably watch...

Posted by: pmyers

c'mon...you know you want to see Coolio flop a set on the river! ;)

Posted by: tomlouie

Comedy Central did a show like this with several standup comedians, and it was hilarious. Kevin Pollack playing poker while telling a joke in a William Shatner voice. Priceless. I don't know how the dealer managed to keep a straight face.

Tom

Posted by: mrpurple

quote:
Originally posted by tomlouie
Comedy Central did a show like this with several standup comedians, and it was hilarious. Kevin Pollack playing poker while telling a joke in a William Shatner voice. Priceless. I don't know how the dealer managed to keep a straight face.

Tom

Now comics I could dig. They are spontaneous and entertaining.

Posted by: Z'Loth

Didn't you watch the celebrity invitational on WPT? They were having a blast at the table.

Posted by: smak

It's like dinner for 5 with poker.

I think it'll be great, especially if Hank Azaria wins some hands in Simpson voices.

-smak-

Posted by: pmyers

Update from Bravo's website: This will air on Tuesday nights this winter. No start date yet though.

Posted by: Frylock

On the WPT, there are celebrities now and then... The Lakers owner, Jerry Colangelo (sp?) made it to the final table.

Posted by: pmyers

quote:
Originally posted by Frylock
On the WPT, there are celebrities now and then... The Lakers owner, Jerry Colangelo (sp?) made it to the final table.

Jerry Colangelo owns the Phoenix Suns I believe.

Posted by: scottjf8

Jerry West.

Posted by: The Spud

Jerry Buss.

Posted by: Kablemodem

WPT is doing four more celebrity episodes.

Posted by: DreadPirateRob

Speaking of WPT, anyone know when new shows will start to air? I checked upcoming eps last night and only got repeats.

Posted by: Z'Loth

WPT - Probably April, since this is a 13 episode series.

Bravo Celeb Poker - Probably December 2nd.

Posted by: gerbil42

WPT = ?

Sorry, in advance, for my ignorance.

Posted by: DreadPirateRob

quote:
Originally posted by gerbil42
WPT = ?

Sorry, in advance, for my ignorance.

World Poker Tour on Travel Channel. It's a weekly 2 hour show covering various made for TV tourneys. If you like poker, it's enthralling, and the hole-card cam is addicting (I hate finding old WSPs on ESPN that don't have it).

Posted by: LiveBlues

I might check this show out. I have been getting back into playing cards lately (just for play money on PokerStars), and have enjoyed a couple of the shows on the Travel channel.

Posted by: smak

Check out the lineups. I believe this a new show, not an incarnation of another.

Game 1 (December 2): Ben Affleck, Don Cheadle, David Schwimmer, Emily Proctor and Willie Garson.

Game 2 (December 9): Martin Sheen, Allison Janney, Richard Schiff, John Spencer and Timothy Busfield.

Game 3 (December 16): Hank Azaria, Michael Ian Black, Peter Facinelli, Nicole Sullivan and Mo Gaffney.

Game 4 (December 23): Paul Rudd, Ron Livingston, Sarah Silverman, Shannon Elizabeth and Coolio.

Game 5 (January 6): Mimi Rogers, David Cross, Tom Green, Carrie Fisher and Scott Stapp

Game 2 looks like a hell of a lot of fun!

-smak-

Posted by: swifty

According to Bravo's website, there will be six episodes. Does anyone know if the final will be the winners of the first five against each other? Also, is it a one hour or two hour format?

Posted by: DreadPirateRob

quote:
Originally posted by swifty
Also, is it a one hour or two hour format?

Well, the link you posted had this to say: "This new six-part, one-hour original series..."

Posted by: Fustanella

I'm *really* looking forward to Game 2.

Posted by: DreadPirateRob

Game 3 should be pretty funny - Azaria, Black, and Gaffney are pretty damn hilarious...

Posted by: smak

Game 6 is the championship, probably with the 5 winners...

-smak-

Posted by: swifty

quote:
Originally posted by DreadPirateRob
Well, the link you posted had this to say: "This new six-part, one-hour original series..."

Whoops... must have missed that...

Posted by: murgatroyd

quote:
Originally posted by smak
Game 1 (December 2): Ben Affleck, Don Cheadle, David Schwimmer, Emily Proctor and Willie Garson.

Watched Game 1 tonight and loved it! My husband heard Emily talking and said: "Oh, so that is her real accent." :rolleyes:

I haven't played since I was a kid. And I've never played Texas Hold'em so this was especially fun for me. Now I'm wondering where the heck I stashed all my books on card games; I really need to brush up on the rules so I can follow the play better. But the stuff I did learn when I was a kid is all coming back to me as I watch.

Can't wait for next week!

Jan

Posted by: disco

I have to agree with murgatroyd: I thought I'd quickly fast-forward thru it, but I found myself actually rooting for Ben Affleck (is that wrong??). Now it's got a season pass to catch next week's!

Posted by: MitchO

I dunno, i was pretty annoyed at the amatuerish play of the winner. I know that true players hate to see stuff like that actually rewarded. Pollack was also annoying as all heck.

Posted by: Animgif

I hated the host and commentator, but the play was GREAT. I actually went back to watch a few hands...so much fun...definately keeping this SP around!

Posted by: sschwart

It was a bit interesting, but I'd like to see more of the poker play. There were large gaps, and the guy that won did on pure luck more than once. I was pulling for anyone else but him, he didn't seem to be a good poker player at all, just a damn lucky one.

Next week should be fun :)

Posted by: scottjf8

For those enjoying watching Poker on TV.. if you didn't know, a bunch of us here (led by our own JohnJr) play a free-money game on Wednesday nights - come join us, get some practice and learn some stuff (we usually end up giving each other tips, especially the better players like Mr Purple and ByronShock)...

You can always join us by reading the thread at http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-v...threadid=114998

We always post the site and room name/number around 9pm EST wednesdays..

Posted by: MacThor

quote:
Originally posted by Animgif
I hated the host and commentator, but the play was GREAT. I actually went back to watch a few hands...so much fun...definately keeping this SP around!

Why did you hate the commentator? I understand if Kevin Pollack annoyed you, but the commentator provided exactly the analysis he should be expected to. He correctly identified good, bold moves as well as insane/stupid moves

Spoiler Alert! (highlight to read)
(mostly made by Garson, which never once burned him).

He explained the odds (and if those were in his head, WOW). If you want to LEARN poker, he's the guy to listen to. He was runner up in one of the WPT events I believe.

The play was anything BUT great. It was fun to watch,

Spoiler Alert! (highlight to read)
but Garson had no business in many of those hands, and it's understandable that all the other players were rooting against him. Affleck played very well, as did Cheadle. It was easy to see Schwimmer steaming early-- he stayed in at least twice knowing he was beat -- although he had to call with AAA on the flop. Emily could have stuck around a lot longer, that was a dumb call. Affleck did screw up with his odd raise, and that was correctly picked up by both the commentator and Garson (he was lucky, but he was good at reads). That was the opening he needed.

IIRC, he actually pulled almost all of his monster lucky bad beats on the turn, so the other players had a chance to come back on the river but didn't get their cards. He always got his.

It was definitely fun to watch, but hopefully we'll see someone win with better play in the future. And how about Emily's outfit? WOW. Good thing she didn't have her back to the other players :).

I agree with SSchwart about the gaps being too large. We came back from the first break, Ben was in the chip lead and we didn't even see him win a pot to get there! He didn't take the lead stealing blinds... In a one-hour, 5-player format, they should be able to show several more hands.

Mac

Posted by: YCantAngieRead

I really enjoyed it as well, but (and this is a general note for all poker shows...) I really got annoyed at the audience. This show in particular it was distracting.

And I wanted Schwimmer to win from the beginning, but realistically I knew that Affleck would probably get in there and win. Garson was AWFULLY lucky and I think he'll get the hammer in the finals. And if Watson has been playing for that long, I certainly couldn't tell. She made a couple of good moves, and had some trash cards, but still.

I am loving this concept. Wish there were more than six episodes. Also-I kind of wondered about the fact that only part of the prize $ goes to their charity. I'm pretty sure most of these guys/girls don't need more money.

And I didn't know we had a poker tournament here! That'd be fun. I'll have to poke my head in sometime...it'll be a nice break from all the poker I've been playing against strangers on the internet.

Posted by: DreadPirateRob

Definitely enjoyable - and about what I expected. The only thing missing was the Outkast song they played on the previews for it last week (I love that song...)

Garson was ridiculously lucky, but sometimes the cards break that way. You can bet that 9 out 10 times he would lose playing that loose. Schwimmer had a couple of nice, snarky comments about Garson's play after he was eliminated ("I lost to the guy who goes all in with a pair of 2s?") which kind of gave an inkling as to what he thought of his play. Schwimmer seemed to be a decent player, but he hung in pots way too long when it was clear that his hand was probably beat. Compare that to Affleck, who folded quite a few hands (that we saw anyway) even late in the pot when he knew he was beat.

Wished it was longer - especially since WPT episodes are always 2 hours. It was kind of jarring to come back from commercial (well, skip through the commercials ;) ) and see that the money standings had changed significantly.

Posted by: cpalma

I didn't think the play was too slow. I'd be curious as to how long it actually took to film (or how long the real game lasted) and that had to be condensed into a 1 hour show with commercials.

Willie Garson would have aggravated me as well if I was playing with him. He may have one yesterday, but at some point, luck runs out and knowing how to play the game takes over. I'm not sure if he played that way because it wasn't his own money, or because he knew that his charity would win money either way. He played recklessly IMO and got lucky. I'm betting he won't win the whole enchilada.

Are there any other live-poker players here. Was it bugging you as much as me that they couldn't get their fingers on their chips? It just seemed amaturish and I thought if they played at all on their own, they shouldn't have trouble picking them up.

Posted by: MacThor

quote:
Originally posted by YCantAngieRead
I really enjoyed it as well, but (and this is a general note for all poker shows...) I really got annoyed at the audience. This show in particular it was distracting.

Agreed the crowd should show some courtesy. But these are actors, and Ben in particular played to the crowd. Garson actually said at one point "did someone really just say that out loud?" If I was playing, I certainly wouldn't want a gallery screaming at me to go "all in."

Oh, and it's Emily Procter not Emily Watson. Watson doesn't strike me as the poker playing type, but hey I could be wrong... :)

Posted by: MacThor

quote:
Originally posted by DreadPirateRob
Definitely enjoyable - and about what I expected. The only thing missing was the Outkast song they played on the previews for it last week (I love that song...)

Garson was ridiculously lucky, but sometimes the cards break that way. You can bet that 9 out 10 times he would lose playing that loose. Schwimmer had a couple of nice, snarky comments about Garson's play after he was eliminated ("I lost to the guy who goes all in with a pair of 2s?") which kind of gave an inkling as to what he thought of his play. Schwimmer seemed to be a decent player, but he hung in pots way too long when it was clear that his hand was probably beat. Compare that to Affleck, who folded quite a few hands (that we saw anyway) even late in the pot when he knew he was beat.

Wished it was longer - especially since WPT episodes are always 2 hours. It was kind of jarring to come back from commercial (well, skip through the commercials ;) ) and see that the money standings had changed significantly.

Rob,

You echoed most of my sentiments! I think one hour is the right length, just show more hands, and less of Kevin Pollack and the losers lounge. Two hours of watching poker can exhaust even diehards like me. :) But seeing the lead change each commercial break without knowing HOW was frustrating.

As for Outkast, try to catch a repeat of the "Big in '03" awards on VH1. Great live rendition of that song. They perform in the last half hour so you can spare yourself the rest of the show :)

Posted by: MacThor

quote:
Originally posted by cpalma
I didn't think the play was too slow. I'd be curious as to how long it actually took to film (or how long the real game lasted) and that had to be condensed into a 1 hour show with commercials.

Are there any other live-poker players here. Was it bugging you as much as me that they couldn't get their fingers on their chips? It just seemed amaturish and I thought if they played at all on their own, they shouldn't have trouble picking them up.

The NL tourneys I play in usually move pretty quickly when you get to the final five. Certainly you could show the hands with decent pots in an hour minus commercials. Then again, by the time a larger tourney gets down to five, a) the blinds are huge and b) there's a wide discrepancy between chip leader and short stack. Those factors tend to speed things along.

I didn't notice the chip fumbling, although the chips did seem odd to me, like they were too thin? I've played at the Palms and didn't remember them looking like that. However, I was playing 3-6.

Mac

Posted by: MitchO

For the person who commented on the chips: Yeah, i noticed the fumbling too. However, it appeared to me that they weren't exactly standard issue chips: as a matter of fact, they looked cheap and plastic to me.

The audience also bugged me, as it was obvious that people were just trying to be clever. Towards the end, when Matt was deciding on an all-in, someone shouted out "Man Without Fear" (as in Daredevil, whom Matt played). Har. Har. Har.

Posted by: MacThor

quote:
Originally posted by MitchO
For the person who commented on the chips: Yeah, i noticed the fumbling too. However, it appeared to me that they weren't exactly standard issue chips: as a matter of fact, they looked cheap and plastic to me.

The audience also bugged me, as it was obvious that people were just trying to be clever. Towards the end, when Matt was deciding on an all-in, someone shouted out "Man Without Fear" (as in Daredevil, whom Matt played). Har. Har. Har.

Matt, Ben....what's the difference right? They're interchangeable :)

Perhaps they did use some funky TV-friendly chips. I agree they looked cheap.

Posted by: YCantAngieRead

Gah ha. Emily Watson playing poker. Now there's an image for you.

And yes, the chips were some funky cheap things that it seems like they'd put stickers on to make them unique for the tournament. A couple of things went through my mine when I saw them...one, if you're playing a charity tourn at The Palms, get some scratch and make some real quality chips because two, you can sell them for charity later and probably make some good money. And yes, I did notice they kind of had trouble with them.

As for live poker...I can't seem to get a group together. I move too often for that. I wish, though. That, and I don't seem to be taken too seriously as a woman who wants to play poker.

Side note that probably no one cares about...I noticed that David Schwimmer didn't come out in the very end when they gave the winner his "chip". I wondered why.

Posted by: devdogaz

The reason the chips looked cheap is because most of us are used to seeing chips with stripes on the edges. The solid color chips they used looked more like Roulette chips.

I was also a little disappointed in how few hands we saw. Seems like they could show more poker and if they want to have the comments from the loser's lounge, they could put them on a PIP in the corner or something. No need for the interviews with those who were knocked out. It disrupted the flow of the show and there simply isn't time for it in a one-hour show. Overall it was fun to watch but I was expecting more friendly chit chat between the players. Instead they seemed kind of tentative and amatuerish. Probably because they are.

Looking forward to Week 2 when all the players at the table will know each other very well and should be more comfortable.

Posted by: Herg

Solid color chips are not a big deal (to me at least), but these looked like they were sliding around a lot. It may just be that those crappy stickers made them slick. It reminded me of watching someone handle cheap 4 gram plastic chips. The grand prize is something like $250k, and a set of nice clay chips with their logo would have been cheap compared to that.

My impression was that they were trying to appeal to the celebrity entertainment crowd more than poker fans. There were a few good comments from the loser's lounge, but I agree with devdogaz that they could have included that in a PIP type window.

There was not enough poker to let me really get into the game, and I spent almost all of the 8 hands (or however many it was) rooting for Willie to get nailed.

Posted by: scottjf8

quote:
Originally posted by devdogaz
I was also a little disappointed in how few hands we saw.

Totally agree... at one point, they mentioned how Willie Garson had so many chips, was in 2nd place, and I thougth "strange, he hasn't even won a hand yet!"

At least with WPT, they show (I think) all the hands, so you get a feel of how each person plays, etc... I didn't get that with this show....

Posted by: devdogaz

They definitely don't show all the hands in the coverage of WPT or WSoP. But their editing is much better so you don't feel like you missed huge chunks of the game. This CPS was very choppy in its editing and after every commercial break the chip count update showed that many hands had occured without any of it being on camera.

Posted by: MacThor

I believe in the WPT and WSOP they show all the hands that get significant action. On CPS, they only showed hands that made it all the way to the river, I believe.

NL Hold Em games are usually won by good play on or before the flop.

Posted by: lpwcomp

We might not have missed many hands.

Spoiler Alert! (highlight to read)
Based on the freakin' cards that "The Prince of Darkness" got in most of the hands we did see..

Posted by: YCantAngieRead

I finally watched a bit of WPT the other night. (I haven't had..the Travel Channel was it? until recently.) It was either my mood, or the announcers, but I got bored with it fairly quickly, and I NEVER do that with poker shows...I watch the worst of 'em. I think I need to just catch more of it than I did.

Posted by: Herg

I just took another look at the show, and the chips actually are clay chips. If you look closely enough, you can see the tophat imprint of Paul-Son chips. That doesn't make the poker any better, though.

Posted by: Carfan

Did anyone take notice of the credits, specifically the Executive Producers?

Not sure, might have had a brain cramp, but I swear I saw Joshua Molina of Sport Night/West Wing fames name.

Might explain the WW folks showing up.

Would Toby make him sit in an other part of the building?

:) :D

Posted by: MacThor

quote:
Originally posted by Carfan
Not sure, might have had a brain cramp, but I swear I saw Joshua Molina of Sport Night/West Wing fames name.

No brain cramp. That's him. I hear he's a very good player too.

Posted by: Fustanella

Yes, Josh Malina is one of the producers. From email correspondence and interviews, he's mentioned poker-ing his way through his "salad days" as an actor. Now he's turned it into a presumably well-paying career, without having to sit at smokey tables all day. Good for him!

Posted by: YCantAngieRead

I wondered why they were devoting a whole table to WW. Not that WW isn't a popular show or anything, it just seemed a tad odd to me.

Posted by: ThreeSoFar

I REALLY enjoyed this. No stupid scripted "conversations" or "jokes" for them to say, a la Hollywood Squares.

They were all passionate about the game, at least knew the game or were even good at it. All of the discussions were just real talk about the hands and the players.

Spoiler Alert! (highlight to read)
Did you catch how Affleck acted after the final hand? He was REALLY expecting to win this, at least the first table. He had his smokes out and was looking a little rough and like he just wanted to get the hell out of there.

Posted by: smak

The difference between this and the WPT, is that with the WPT it didn't seem like you missed any significant hands, although i'm sure a few of their final tables have gone on for many more hours than were shown.

With this, all of a sudden somebody had $24,000 in chips, and who knows how they got them. I think they can do a little better than that.

Although, i'm sure if a hand that had no action had some funny comments by a few players, they'd show that instead of a hand with big action.

I did like the show, I like a lot of the players, and it's fun to watch.

-smak-

Posted by: scooterboy

Curious...

Spoiler Alert! (highlight to read)

At the end when all the losers came back out, no David Schwimmer. Another engagement I guess.

Posted by: YCantAngieRead

Yeah, I mentioned that earlier-the Schwimmer thing. I wondered idly about it then as well.

Posted by: spartanstew

Finally watched this tonight. I enjoyed it (although I fast forwarded through all the "interviews"), but must echo the comments made by others regarding the number of hands. The one thing I came away with from this episode is that David Schwimmer is terrible. I don't think he played one had correctly (that we saw). I also think it would be better if they had more players at the table to start with.

Stew

Posted by: devdogaz

Well, if you want to fault Schwimmer for not folding the had he lost on, I will take issue with you on that. However, if you want to fault him for not going all in after the flop when he had three Aces, I can understand that. If he had gone all in after getting that Ace on the flop, it is highly unlikely that Willie Garson would have stayed in the hand with merely a flush draw and that could have changed the entier outcome of the table. Garson winning that hand was the beginning of the power for "the prince of darkness."

Posted by: smak

It's obvious that none of these players (except maybe Affleck), had any experience in no limit holdem. The betting in no limit is wildly different than limit holdem, and all the checking and calling showed that.

-smak-

Posted by: YCantAngieRead

I never fault anyone's decisions in poker. Unless they're mine. Then I fault them until the sun comes up. :D

Posted by: johnjohn

quote:
Originally posted by MacThor
But these are actors, and Ben in particular played to the crowd. Garson actually said at one point "did someone really just say that out loud?"

That's because someone in the crowd said, "The price of poker just went up," in response to the announcement that the blind bet amounts were increasing.

I was laughing out loud.

Posted by: MacThor

quote:
Originally posted by johnjohn
That's because someone in the crowd said, "The price of poker just went up," in response to the announcement that the blind bet amounts were increasing.

I was laughing out loud.

Yeah, I know what they said. Which just reinforces that the crowd participation was annoying not only to us but to the players.

Posted by: gschrock

I'll have to watch one more episode, but I honestly don't know if I'll continue after that, depends on whether it improves. Personally to me it felt like it was all about the celebrities, and nothing at all about the poker. What poker they actually showed seemed terribly disjointed, and almost random at best. If you want to watch a show with celebrities, ok, maybe it's ok. If you want to watch poker, the show left a lot to be desired.

Posted by: mrpurple

I thought this would be terrible when someone first mentioned it. If they want to do the celebrity thing they should get more then 2 people I've heard of.

But, I'm not much into celebrities.

Posted by: tapegasser

The poker coverage on ESPN2 had me glued to the screen. This version is a train wreck. Dull dull dull.

Posted by: eMarkM

First let me preface my comments by saying that the final motivating factor for me finally getting TiVo was so I could catch all the WPT events. I'm a very active player and take the game very seriously.

I thought the show was just ok. From a poker player's perspective, it wasn't very exciting. I'm keeping my SP, but won't be rushing to watch these shows. Frankly, I'd rather watch stale reruns of the WPT and study those players then watch this. But I'll watch Celebrity Poker, nevertheless. Hey, my wife is more interested in this show than the others as a total non-poker player, so that says something. Yeah, the quality of play is pretty poor. Affleck was the only one who had a clue, since he plays in major events sometimes and has been battle tested.

They should show more of the celebs hamming it up, that's why most viewers tune in, not your hardcore poker fiends like me. Well, at least they're getting some A-list guys for this. Not some washed up "the surreal life" has beens who's last hit show was in the 80s.

As to the questions about how much gets shown in a typical WPT event, check out this facinating thread on usenet's rec.gambling.poker group. This is Howard Lederer's response to blind structures on the WPT that anwsers some of the questions on just how many hands are seen and what all is involved in coming up with a strtucture that is inducive to exciting television.

Posted by: Frylock

I agree that the poker aspect is pretty weak. Cheale seemed to have somewhat of a clue, and Affleck as well. The others were just completely out of it!

My wife likes it though and I am going to keep watching it with her to get her to try and watch WPT as well, a much better poker program.

Posted by: smak

I don't really watch it to learn about poker, I just think it's a fun concept.

Like I said a few months ago, it's like Dinner For Five with poker.

-smak-

Posted by: YCantAngieRead

Yeah, I think that's the difference between this and other poker shows. If you want to learn something about poker, this isn't the show for you. If that's why you watch poker, I'd skip it. But if you just flat out enjoy watching poker, as I do, this is a pretty good way to do it-even if you miss most of the competition. Besides, I'm holding out for my final opinions until I see at least one more episode.

I do wish they'd made it two hours, though. But I can *almost* understand why they didn't.

Interesting comments from Lederer, by the way. I can see why they call him The Professor.

Posted by: JohnJr

quote:
Originally posted by eMarkM
I'm keeping my SP, but won't be rushing to watch these shows.

Like heck you won't. <big grin>

I found it pretty darn good. They showed me enough hands, and like someone mentioned above, it wasn't a scripted, Hollywood Squares, sort of thing. The people were at least playing real poker, and talking real poker.

Now, that they didn't know what they were doing, only mirrors, what say your average poker player might do. Seriously, don't we hear all the time about tables in Vegas full of folks that are there to play, enjoy themselves, and lose their money? What's the diff? I find it interesting from the perspective of how virtually any one can play, virtually any hand, virtually any way.

-John

Posted by: spartanstew

I didn't think the play could get any worse after the first episode, but man, those players from the West Wing were incredibly bad. I'd like to have them over to my house for a game or two.

Stew

Of course, I'll continue to watch though

Posted by: Frylock

I watch it because I enjoy poker, not to learn. But I agree to dump the interview Kevin Pollack does with the guests, and try and make the flow of the game a little more apparent. Kevin's interviews really aren't offering anything.

Posted by: ThreeSoFar

That was somewhat painful to watch.

The first was better because at least they knew the simple rules and most had played a little.

Posted by: pmyers

Kevin isn't offering anything to the show either.

Posted by: MacThor

Spoiler Alert! (highlight to read)
Wow, that was some bad poker. At least this time the best player won. Played it exactly right when short stacked and came all the way back.

Busfield played OK, but had some bad luck (when Spencer rivered the flush) and then started steaming and getting way too aggressive for the cards he had.

Did anyone else catch a glimpse of Josh Malina in a white T-shirt and headset? (Either when Sheen or Janney walked off). Is he directing as well as producing?

Posted by: TampaThunder

quote:
Originally posted by MacThor
Wow, that was some bad poker. At least this time the best player won. Played it exactly right when short stacked and came all the way back.

Busfield played OK, but had some bad luck (when Spencer rivered the flush) and then started steaming and getting way too aggressive for the cards he had.

Did anyone else catch a glimpse of Josh Malina in a white T-shirt and headset? (Either when Sheen or Janney walked off). Is he directing as well as producing?

I'm a relative newbie here but how hard is it to tag the spoilers? I subscribe to this thread so when I clicked on the email link it took me directly to this post and it was pretty much read already before I realized there were spoilers. :(

Posted by: MacThor

quote:
Originally posted by TampaThunder
I'm a relative newbie here but how hard is it to tag the spoilers? I subscribe to this thread so when I clicked on the email link it took me directly to this post and it was pretty much read already before I realized there were spoilers. :(

Fixed it. Sorry. I tagged everything last week but nobody else bothered, so I figured the thread was open to discussion. My bad.

Posted by: jschuman

I enjoy the show, but I'd have to agree with others here: Last night's players were terrible. Hearing "Check-Check-Check-Check-Check-Check-Check-Check" was annoying.

Posted by: YCantAngieRead

A spoiler that annoyed me from last night regarding next week's show:

Spoiler Alert! (highlight to read)
In the previews, you can totally see who goes broke first because that person is shown, alone, with Pollack, in the "Loser's Lounge." That annoyed the crap outta me.

At any rate, this episode was really...well, I don't want to say awful but...awful. Too much time spent showing players walking to the lounge, and I REALLY could do without the Pollack interview each time.

I got the feeling that there really weren't very many hands this time around, and that they were stretching. Of course, I'm sure that's not true and I'm lousy at math, so I couldn't have told you if the chip counts changed dramatically when we couldn't see them.

Really am looking forward to next week, though. Michael Ian Black cracks me up.

Oh, and John whatsisname...I totally felt for him. I get all wonky in the head when I'm playing live face-to-face poker, as well. I completely forget the basics.

Posted by: cpalma

quote:
Now, that they didn't know what they were doing, only mirrors, what say your average poker player might do. Seriously, don't we hear all the time about tables in Vegas full of folks that are there to play, enjoy themselves, and lose their money? What's the diff? I find it interesting from the perspective of how virtually any one can play, virtually any hand, virtually any way.

However, playing at a table with someone that has no clue what they are doing gets tiresome after a little bit (even for the person that just wants to play, enjoy themselves and lose their money?--although who wants to lose money???, LOL)

WW'ers were boring. I guess maybe I was identifying with their characters and expected too much. But it looked (to me) as if they were just strangers, at a table, playing poker. I've had more banter playing with strangers in LV.

I have been watching it live. I think I'll tivo the remaining episodes and ff through the instructions, interviews, and the like. Hubby fell asleep!

Posted by: Kylep

I thought it was pretty cool seeing them out of character. I really like John, he seems like a real sincere kind of guy. Did anyone else catch him calling Alyson (sp?) Claudia Jean?

Posted by: smak

I recall them playing poker a few times on the West Wing and it was a whole lot more fun than that show.

If you tune in to watch some of your favorite stars in an abnormal setting, maybe you would think it was great.

But being any kind of poker player, it is very difficult to watch the horrid play.

But I don't even think the players are too blame, I know they want their charity to win, but most of them don't expect to win, so playing with crappy cards isn't that big a deal. It's kind of like playing online play money, a lot of people don't play the correct way, because who cares, they'll just play the next game.

-smak-

Posted by: pmyers

The West Wing episode was pretty hard to watch. I don't watch West Wing so I didn't care about the people and the poker playing was very bad. Phil was right when he said they were playing their cards and not the other people. This show sure does make me feel like a good player though ;)

Posted by: cpalma

I ran across WPT Ladies Night last night. Those were some powerful ladies!!

Posted by: pmyers

quote:
Originally posted by cpalma
I ran across WPT Ladies Night last night. Those were some powerful ladies!!

I can't wait to watch this. I saw it Tivo'ing last night.

Posted by: scooterboy

Yes they look like horrible players but keep this in mind: Few of them have played this kind of poker before. It takes different playing and betting skills with this game than with the more common games of poker.

That said, if I knew I was going to be playing No Limit Texas Hold 'em on TV, I'd do a little research and try to learn some of the nuances of the game before looking like an amateur.

Posted by: YCantAngieRead

I watched WPT Ladies Night last night. For some reason, I just wasn't as interested in the play as I normally am. Maybe I was distracted by the feeling I kept getting that the commentator was Kenny Rogers. :) I'm not sure if it was the pacing, or what. I enjoy watching Annie Duke, though...she's so much like her brother it makes her fun to watch.

Posted by: devdogaz

Just watched the WW episode of CPS and also the Ladie's Night ep of WPT last night. I really expected the WW'ers to be alot more fun to watch. I mean, they've been working together for a few years now, I thought they'd be a little more loose and have more banter. I still hate the editing of this show. In the early part of the show when they keep cutting away to those interviews with each player and telling about their charity it really disrupts the flow. Then just as it starts to get going, someone gets knocked out and they go to a stupid interview in the loser's lounge. I also don't like that we can hear both the live studio announcer calling out the hands for the audience and then Phil Gordon and Kevin Pollack calling out the same thing for the TV audience. Phil Gordon's comments have been great but Keving Pollack is really bugging me, and I usually like him. I'll keep the SP just because I like watching celebs and poker, but this isn't nearly as good as I was hoping it would be.

As for the ladies on WPT, that was some exciting poker. Having just watched CPS, it was so refreshing to see real poker played by people who know what they are doing. They used their chips as well as their cards and the banter between them was more interesting than the WW'ers too.