2008 World Series of Poker

I thought they were showing it live. The there's a story on ESPN.com that says, "Don't read this if you don't want to know what happened!" Then there's a story on Yahoo that tells who's left. Then there's a headline on MSN.com after I sign out of my email saying who won.

Watching now is no different than watching it if they held it months ago like usual.

 

Yeah, I don't think it was a smart idea. It really didn't seem like it was hyped up more than normal.

 

I agree... and by them "rushing" events from the past two days into production so quickly, they didn't do a very good job to me. Maybe there just weren't that many good hands in headsup play, but for a 3-4 hour battle headsup to get reduced to less than 10 minutes, it felt uneventful.

 

Can anyone give a reasonable justification for ESPN delaying the final table for four months -- AND THEN NOT SHOWING IT LIVE? When I first heard about their plans, I thought that was the whole point, to avoid the anticlimax from everyone knowing the winner ahead of time. Obviously I was wrong, but I'd like to know what their thinking was. I don't see what they got out of this that they wouldn't have gotten doing it the old way.

 

A few observations...

- Loved the setup in the theater with the big crowd. I can't even begin to imagine playing cards with that many people watching me.

- Totally did NOT love how the battle between the final two guys was reduced to two hands shown on TV. Seriously, all the money on the table, all the buildup and bringing in Michael Buffer ... just so you can show TWO HANDS?

- There's really no way you could put something like this on live TV without seriously screwing with the blinds toward the end of the tournament. There's just no way to predict how long the final table will take. As much as ESPN loves its poker, there's no way in hell they're showing that much over a two-day span. And even if they decide to only show like the final two guys live, what happens in the unlikely event if it ends in a couple hands? What happens if things get dragged out all night?

- I think the biggest reason they did this was to give themselves a chance to maximize interest with a table full of unknowns. If Joe Schmoe at home is following along, knows in advance who wins the thing and then sees his favorite pros all get dumped, his interest for the final table is greatly reduced. This way, there's at least a chance now he'll stick around to see who's going to win.

 

But he still knows who's going to win, right?

 

Probably, but it's a lot easier to avoid learning the results for a day or two than it is for four months.

 

Agreed. This was the first time I watched the FT without knowing who would win, and I enjoyed it more. I actually was much more excited to watch, as if it were a "live event." I had no trouble avoiding the sources that spoil it for one day.

I agree that it still sucks to have to boil a whole FT down to two hours, especially the heads up. That said, you can't show poker live. Aside from potential hours of nothing happening, there is the issue of the hole cards being revealed.

In 2007 they did something where they showed some of the FTs live online, with exposed hole cards. During the FT, all the competitors were in this "quarantine chamber" and none of the spectators could leave either IIRC. They had to go to the bathroom together too, I think. Very weird.

 

OK, all those issues aside, from what I saw i don't know that Eastgates a great player, but he sure did catch cards.

Now, I say that knowing he had to have played great to get to that point. But catching the case 6? Hitting a set on small pockets pairs seemingly all the time?

He played great. He caught cards. That's pretty much what it takes.

 

Wasn't Eastgate's reaction to winning so odd? Don't know if it's his youth, but it certainly wasn't an ESPN moment of jubilation. He kinda seemed not to know he'd won it, then he stood and faced his buddies who swarmed him -- and even then he was blase about it. I don't know... And I agree, to see just two hands of head's-up was very disappointing. Up until then, it was a lot of fun to watch and well done.
One final thought on Eastgate too, even the obligatory pose with the stacks of money was kinda stiff. I guess he's not Mr. Personality.

 

The winner catching an incredible run of cards at the final table is virtually a given.

Moneymaker was wack.

Varkoni was the luckiest winner, EVER.