The Tournament of Champions |
|
Posted Fri Nov 11, 2005 11:35 am GMT by snoogins47
I have a feeling the 2k5 TOC is going to be one of the cooler poker telecasts ever.
Steve Dannenman, to Hellmuth: "Nobody should buy your books or CDs because you're a punk"
Hellmuth: "You know I finished second in this event last year. There's only one way to improve."
Matusow: "If you keep getting INVITED to tournaments, it's easy to finish second."
Crowd: How do you feel about poker, Mike?
Matusow: "I hate this game."
Hellmuth: "Not me, I love this game. Like they say in the NBA, I LOVE this game!"
(In response to a Hellmuth raise:)
Matusow: "Normally I'd reraise you with any two cards, but I wanna keep you around for a while.
Tournament Director Jimmy Sommerfeld asks the audience to applaud the sponsors. Mike Matusow then asks the crowd to give a round of applause to Harrah's for "inviting Phil Hellmuth to show up and take all of their money. "
Really, all of these, and plenty more, need to ALL make the telecast. I'm sure they won't, sadly.
Did you know that participating in a poker forum can help you improve your own game? Be it by sharing experiences or simply asking for help, participation in a forum helps you focus and keep 'on topic' which will help you improve your game. You can learn from other players feedback and from their experiences. Why the THP poker forums? We offer one of the best managed texas holdem poker forums available, and the community within is far more friendly than those typicaly found on other sites. We've made a 'lurkers edition' of the poker forum available here on Holdem Poker Online, but we encourage all visitors to register and join in on the conversations on TexasHoldem-Poker.com
Posted Fri Nov 11, 2005 11:51 am GMT by Nut Flush
By the way, ESPN will be airing the telecast on Christmas Eve.
Should be a good one.
Posted Mon Nov 14, 2005 7:41 pm GMT by truplaya_177
sound slike a funny social poker show. we could us emor eof those...
Posted Mon Nov 14, 2005 7:51 pm GMT by DougisRad
| truplaya_177 wrote: | | sound slike a funny social poker show. we could us emor eof those... |
Please ... fix ... these ... things.
I'm about to have an overload. Please edit your posts before you send!
Posted Mon Nov 14, 2005 9:44 pm GMT by suitedaces84
Just install a breathalizer (sp?) on your computer.
Posted Mon Nov 14, 2005 10:11 pm GMT by zinn0
| suitedaces84 wrote: | | Just install a breathalizer (sp?) on your computer. |
the kids like 15--I hope he doesn't need a breathalizer...
Posted Mon Nov 14, 2005 11:29 pm GMT by Nut Flush
I could have used one when I was 15 
Posted Tue Nov 15, 2005 12:54 pm GMT by Bobross139
| snoogins47 wrote: |
Really, all of these, and plenty more, need to ALL make the telecast. I'm sure they won't, sadly. |
Hey, I'm sure we'll see plenty of excited RACES though! I can't enough of those, really.
Posted Tue Nov 15, 2005 2:05 pm GMT by wEbMaStEr
| DougisRad wrote: | | truplaya_177 wrote: | | sound slike a funny social poker show. we could us emor eof those... |
Please ... fix ... these ... things.
I'm about to have an overload. Please edit your posts before you send! |
waht semes to be teh probelm heer?
Posted Tue Nov 15, 2005 2:09 pm GMT by racquet000
I belive there was added hostility in the tournement because Hellmuth, Chan, and Doyle were added into the tourney even after not finishing into the qualifing rules that were initially set. Damn i suck at spelling..
lol
Posted Tue Nov 15, 2005 3:44 pm GMT by Dat_Dude
| racquet000 wrote: | | Hellmuth, Chan, and Doyle were added into the tourney even after not finishing into the qualifing rules that were initially set |
I don't know exactly what the qualifying rules state, but I would think Chan and Doyle would be in since they both won Bracelets in the 2005 WSOP.
Do you know what the rules state?
Posted Tue Nov 15, 2005 4:03 pm GMT by tame_deuces
| Dat_Dude wrote: | | racquet000 wrote: | | Hellmuth, Chan, and Doyle were added into the tourney even after not finishing into the qualifing rules that were initially set |
I don't know exactly what the qualifying rules state, but I would think Chan and Doyle would be in since they both won Bracelets in the 2005 WSOP.
Do you know what the rules state? |
Top twenty finish from from the five stops on the Circuit or final table finish in the main even. Chan, Hellmuth and Brunson did not qualify but were invited still.
I dunno...I wouldn't be too happy if they gave free entry to some of the best poker players in the world into a small field tournament that people have worked hard for qualifying for.
Posted Tue Nov 15, 2005 4:53 pm GMT by golddog
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/poker/columns/story?columnist=rosenbloom_steve&id=2216805
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/poker/columns/story?columnist=rosenbloom_steve&id=2223723
Posted Tue Nov 15, 2005 5:03 pm GMT by xDiamond_CutteRx
Not all that surprised that something unorthodox happened, as the 2005 WSOP was one of the worst-run tournaments in Poker history. Especially when compared to the 2004 series, which was directed by Matt Savage, the 2005 series was one setback after another, with constant late starts, bungled chip counts, and shoddy accounting. Also, the 10-minute "F bomb" penalty was an unnecessary policy, one which would have been better replaced with some sort of policy regarding abusive language directed at other players.
So it doesn't shock me when Harrah's or their sponsors would add 3 professionals at the last minute. I would have to agree with Negreanu's sentiments. Poker greats or not, they did not qualify, and that's an unfair policy.
Posted Tue Nov 15, 2005 6:12 pm GMT by racquet000
Yeah Tame_deuces hit it right....
Posted Wed Nov 16, 2005 3:41 am GMT by JohnnyCache
I say the people putting on the thing can add whoever they wanted.
If you entered an online promotion that said "Freeroll - winner playes in a big money tournemy with Phil, Doyle, and Johnny"
You would be happy if you won.
The only issue I have is if they were letting the three of them in they should have said so up front.
Posted Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:50 am GMT by snoogins47
| JohnnyCache wrote: |
The only issue I have is if they were letting the three of them in they should have said so up front. |
Bingo.
Posted Wed Nov 16, 2005 12:54 pm GMT by supafrey
so, what do you guys want? an apology card?
Posted Fri Dec 02, 2005 3:40 pm GMT by truplaya_177
Not having Doyle, Chan or Phil Hellmuth in the WSOP is like the NBA without Jordan. like my spelling bookworms?    
Posted Fri Dec 02, 2005 4:02 pm GMT by tame_deuces
| truplaya_177 wrote: | | Not having Doyle, Chan or Phil Hellmuth in the WSOP is like the NBA without Jordan. like my spelling bookworms? |
Yeah, and when you've worked hard and put a lot of money on the line to play a basketball match for a couple of million dollars in prize money, you'll get a little disappointed to see the 3 best NBA pros freeroll into the match for the other team because it 'makes for good television'.
Posted Fri Dec 02, 2005 4:53 pm GMT by wEbMaStEr
IT'S A FRICKIN' FREEROLL! nobody is losing out on anything because some people got invited rather than qualify. If you qualified and then people got added who didn't qualify and you don't like it....... DON'T FRICKIN' PLAY! Nobody is forcing anyone to play in it and no-one is losing out on a buy in, so what's the frickin' problem?
As for DN's comments, what a goddamn frickin' hypocritical little piece of sh*t this guy is. Does he just enjoy spouting off and trying to cause trouble for others? If he is in same situation next year and he get's an invite.... Is he gonna turn it down? I think not!
No, but then, he probably wouldn't get invited would he, i mean he's never won it all has he? And let's face it.... that's his real problem with this isn't it? He knows he would never get the invite.
If you don't like the rules of the game, don't play it. Don't sit around whining about it!
</rant>
Posted Fri Dec 02, 2005 5:13 pm GMT by tame_deuces
Since the req was placing 20th higher in a circuit event or final table in the main, I think it is safe to say it wasn't exactly a freeroll, more like both potentially expensive and hard to gain entry.
As for DN's motives...well...the guy speaks about alot of things on his blog, so this bit didn't strike me as anything special. Maybe he is jealous/maybe not, we don't know that. Considering how he usually speaks up about stuff, I'm willing to give him the benefit of doubt here.
Posted Fri Dec 02, 2005 6:30 pm GMT by bluef0x
Webmaster... there are people out there who actually have, ya know, morals? You can't assume every person is going to take the invite when they feel its unethical.
Nice try though.
Posted Fri Dec 02, 2005 9:34 pm GMT by wEbMaStEr
ok 3 things,
1: dueces, are you trying to tell me that anyone's prime motive in playing a circuit event was to finish top 20 so they could qualify for this event? I think not. It's a perk if you happened to do so, but no-one entered one specifically to try qualify for this. So..... It's a freeroll, it's a perk, no-one loses out, no matter who is playing in it.
2: f0x, Find me one person who plays poker who would not accept this invite to win $1 million at a cost to themselves of $0 because it would be "morally" wrong.
3: DN does speak on a lot of topics, he is very quick to pass remarks on others, not so fast to comment on his own personal shortcomings tho.
I repeat, if it's a problem ..... don't play in it.
Posted Fri Dec 02, 2005 9:58 pm GMT by bluef0x
You don't know what DN would do and it's stupid to assume anything. Just because there wasn't an invited pro who rejected doesn't mean there's someone that would do it. Your logic is stupid.
Posted Sat Dec 03, 2005 6:12 am GMT by wEbMaStEr
My logic is not based on the fact that none of the invited pro's rejected the chance to win $1 million. It is based on a lifetime's experience of human nature.
Of course it is impossible to prove that something which has never happened would in fact continue to never happen, so while i concede that there may be the tiniest possibility that someone, somewhere may actually be stupid enough to turn down such an opportunity on what you term "moral" grounds, i find it extremely unlikely.
That is my logic, it is not fact, but it is not "stupid" either.
If anything is "stupid" I would have to say it is your naivety.
P.S. DN is an amazing poker player, no doubt about that, but his tattle-telling, pass remarkable ways leave a lot to be desired in him as a human being.
Posted Sat Dec 03, 2005 7:44 am GMT by tame_deuces
| wEbMaStEr wrote: | ok 3 things,
1: dueces, are you trying to tell me that anyone's prime motive in playing a circuit event was to finish top 20 so they could qualify for this event? I think not. It's a perk if you happened to do so, but no-one entered one specifically to try qualify for this. So..... It's a freeroll, it's a perk, no-one loses out, no matter who is playing in it.
. |
I doubt they played in order qualify for this tournament, but qualifying for it was part of the prize of finishing so high in the circuit events, so I stand by the point that this isn't a 'freeroll'.
I don't get it, what the is fair about 3 people getting to enter a competition they did not qualify for? It's not the 'tournament of champions', its the 'tournament of champions and three famous poker players'.
They failed to qualify, harsh, that's poker. Nobody wins them all. Now let them go home and watch it on TV. 
In my eyes this atleast proves poker does not deserve to be called a 'sport'. In sports its what you did this season that matters for your competitions, not what you did ten years ago.
Posted Sat Dec 03, 2005 8:18 am GMT by wEbMaStEr
It's hardly the tournament of champions if some guy who finished 19th in a circuit event in AC gets to play. Yes this was part of the prize, but was part of the prize in an "added bonus" manner. Nobody paid any more for it, it didnt come out of the prizepool, it's a freeroll ticket that you got for finishing high in a selected tournament.
So if you want to rename it, what about "Tournament of runners up and some champions"
This isn't a world title these guys are playing for, it's a made for tv, sponsored, freeroll.
I agree with you on poker not being a sport, it's no more of a sport than say, chess, perhaps even less so. But not on the grounds of inviting big players to play special events. As the articles above mention, many golfers get "freerolled" into tournaments at a sponsors behest.
Did Jack Nicklaus deserve to be at The Masters this year? Not on anything he's done in the last 10 years he didn't. But watching him trudge up the 18th at Augusta for the last time sure made for good TV.
Ok so the fact he was one of the greatest all time masters champions afforded him this honour and that has been cast in stone for years. The organisers of the Tourney of champions were remiss in not saying "we reserve the right to add in anybody we damn well please" that is their mistake. But i maintain, it is their tournament, they make the rules, no-one loses out, it's a freeroll, if you don't like the conditions, no-one is twisting your arm.
Posted Sat Dec 03, 2005 12:05 pm GMT by tame_deuces
I'm still in doubt if golf is a sport or if its advanced hiking. 
Well, I really don't care much about the tournament of champions or who does or who does not get to play in it. I think it safe to say we agree to disagree, and that both sides in the discussion have their valid points. 
Posted Sat Dec 03, 2005 12:13 pm GMT by wEbMaStEr
| tame_deuces wrote: | I'm still in doubt if golf is a sport or if its advanced hiking.
|
OK! NOW I'M MAD!!!
Posted Mon Dec 26, 2005 6:11 pm GMT by TheSalche
I gotta say ... having the TOC as the top 20 from circuit events was ridiculous ... most of the players there weren't exactly top quality. A real TOC would've been something like all the bracelet/circuit winners + final table at the main event.
Funny thing is Hellmuth wouldn't be in it then, but Doyle and Chan would be.
Still my fav. quote from the whole thing was Dannenman calling Hellmuth a punk!
|
|
