missing the point...
fgk42 said:
The basic strategy of min/min/min/min until near the end may be the ideal way BUT IT MAKES FOR BORING TV AND BORING PLAYING.
Now I know this is a stretch but look at tennis. Who was the outstanding icon in the 80's for the men? John McEnroe.
Why? His temper tantrums and attitude. I look at the UBT promo and I get excited. When I played at the two land based tourneys (Gold Nugget and Venetian) it felt like I was in a morgue. Give me a break. It's ok to have fun and be excited, especially when winning $25K
Couldn't agree with you more. And you know i'm the first person to champion the cause of fun, exciting, TV-friendly interaction while playing -- shit, i've built a career around it. But your McEnroe comparison is flawed in one crucial area:
John McEnroe was also an incredible tennis player!
Let's look at other examples from other sports where someone has made headlines (and conversely made the game more exciting to watch):
Poker: Phil Hellmuth throws tantrums with the best of 'em -- but oh yeah, he's also the youngest player to have won the World Series main event and to date has 9 bracelets, 3rd all-time behind Johnny Chan & Doyle Brunson.
Basketball: Dennis Rodman dyed his hair green & blue, is covered in tattoos and piercings, and talked about banging Madonna...while helping lead the Chicago Bulls to NBA Championship victory year after year after year...
Football: Terrell Owens -- T.O. -- gave new meaning to end-zone celebrations by phoning home, signing footballs with a sharpie, and doing pull-ups on the goal post. But wait -- he's also one of the game's superstar receivers, one of only 6 players in history with over 100 touchdown receptions.
Do i need to go on? Here's my point: no one is arguing that crazy antics make for better TV. Hell, no one's even arguing that his track record isn't long enough -- Bobby Fischer was a chess pariah at an incredibly young age, and many people tried for years to discount him by saying he was getting lucky, etc.
What i AM saying is: Paul does NOT know how to play blackjack tournaments! Pointing to a single decent bet here or there does not discount the litany of horrible, uninformed, and clueless decisions he made during the match, showing a complete disregard for the tourney math & odds that govern & control the game -- hell, he even ADMITTED this during his radio interview.
And here's the kicker: none of what i'm saying is an OPINION at all.... its FACT. Meaning, not open for interpretation. There are many areas of tourney strategy that are open to debate, and as a science it is continually changing. But to ignore some of the most basic correlations, the simplest decisions that over & over again cost him 20%, 40%, 60% of his advantage in a given hand when just about ANY OTHER choice would have given him a better mathematical chance of success, makes it clear that this is a man who simply GOT LUCKY.
Why am i so heated about this? Because the LAST THING i want is for someone like YOU -- or the many uninformed viewers at home -- to see his antics, get excited by them, see him win, and say "i wanna learn to play as well as him" -- it just sets up a whole negative scenario by which bad play is copied, and creates a potential army of idiots who believe they don't have to study, learn, or train to be as good as this sport demands. It removes the integrity of what we are trying to do. Because while i believe that it is CRUCIAL to create interesting & memorable characters on TV for the continued survival of our sport, the moment we make it look like that's ALL IT TAKES (read: no SKILL necessary as well), we've already failed and are losing ground.
Plenty of players show up, win or lose, and are never heard from again. its a shame when the truly talented ones slip through the TV cracks due to being too "boring" for home audiences. but when someone like this jackass actually lucks out and wins, we cannot trust the media networks covering him to use the same sense of responsibility or judgment that we will, as they only need be concerned with the short-term reward of better ratings or higher subscription rates. Hearing him called a 'pro' or one of the 'best blackjack players in the world' is just laughable and to know that some people in America actually think that about him now -- and, conversely, the kind of skill level it takes to 'make it' in our sport -- just makes my skin crawl. Instead of elevating a monkey on a pedestal simply because we CAN, i say: the Emperor has no clothes. Any fool can win a poker tournament by going all-in with the worst hand and winning... but to say it is 'good for the game' and reward him for it -- give me a break!!
-hd.
