98 replies to this topic

[DanielNegreanu]

On this week's episode of Inside the NFL on HBO, Bob Costas said thefollowing:Bob Costas: "Why do so many of us, not neccessarily on this program, but televisionin general make the mistake of confusing bafoonish and loudish behaviourwith colorful behaviour. Colorful and quirky characters are the lifeblood of sports, but over the last many years we've seen guys who are justlouts and television flocks to them. We can't get enough of them. We wantto document their every utterance which is almost always dopey."Chris Collinsworth: "You understand why, ratings. They drive ratings what else can you say." Now I have a question for you all: If I didn't tell you that it was BobCostas who said it and that he was talking about football, wouldn't youhave bet your last dollar that he was talking about poker? It amazed mehow well Bob's comments related directly to what we are seeing in thepoker world today. I'll add my own two cents: It's human nature for people to want to berecognized which often translates to wanting to be on TV. In the pokerworld, there are definitely ways to ensure that you will get on the air. Acting like a bafoon will absolutely GUARANTEE that you will getnoticed. If you want to be a memorable character on TV, you can come upwith a bagful of gimmicks: Dress up in a pink chicken suit and you'll get camera time.Beat your chest like a gorilla and scream "I'm the best player in theworld!!!" again they'll air it.Throw a temper tantrum when you lose... they'll air it. What's seems so much less interesting is a kid like Gavin Griffin. Theyoungest WSOP winner in history who behaved well beyond his years at thetable. Was extremely polite and well spoken. Didn't talk any trash,didn't parade around the table doing a victory dance. That kind of thingjust doesn't sell tickets. It does however earn you a great deal of respect from your peers in thepoker community. Bafoonery will ensure two things: 1)camera time, and 2)distain from your peers. I guess this message goes out to all of the new young stars of our game. There are ways to get your due respect from the media... keep winning. And there are ways to earn the respect of your peers in the poker world,do it humbly. There is nothing wrong with being excited. There is nothing wrong with being fun and colorful.When doing so, ALWAYS be mindful of your opponents feelings and the wayyour behaviour will be percieved. If you abide by that simple rule, youwill have the best of both worlds.

[JaysonWeber]

I couldn't agree with what is said here anymore! From Mattias Anderson to Mike Matusow the antics are just annoying. I think you've said enough about that, and the reasons why, everyone understands that. I hope there was a lot of backlash at the way ESPN Covered the 2004 WSOP Main Event, because they seemed to only show the bafoons or the incredible bad beats. I Love the way FSN does it with a lot of theres, just hand after hand, there will be a lot more aired Poker programs in the next year or so where they show every hand, that will be the best. Until then I hope ESPN doesn't continue the trend the set in 2004, just Think about how ridiculous some people are going to act in the '05 main event. Having nightmares yet?

[TomEnny]

That's the way ESPN covers all sports. Score a touchdown and pick up a cell phone you will be all over the highlights on ESPN. Score a touchdown and simply hand the ball to the ref and that highlight will never be shown. Fox sports does such a great job covering the WPT. It's just poker with great announcers. I like seeing everyones hand right away and then seeing who plays what hands.

[bassplayer45459]

It does seem like we ar drifting away from the way poker orginally was in sense to behavior. I am waiting to see next year when we see signs being held up in the crowd and "number one" fingers being displayed, haha. There are people who behave the same on or off camera from what i have heard...and i am sure you know them (Hellmuth and Mattusow). They say competetion brings out the worst in people, this is a classic case because i have heard both are calm and well mannered away from the table

[kook04]

Very well said. Daniel, how do you deal with the fact that one of the worst offenders is an admitted friend of yours (Mike Matusow)? It seems to me, more than just bafoonery, Mike is actually quite angry and has a self asteem problem.The clips from the 2004 WSOP are just terrible. Are you ever embarrased by (or for) him?

[pokertvstar]

along those lines of behavior, Josh Arieh seems to think ESPN wronged him by painting him as the bad guy. I completely disagree with that, since the spoken words came from Arieh and not an ESPN script (the WSOP ain't "Tilt").Thoughts?

[Boothy]

Josh's behaviour during the main event was very disappointing for such a talented poker player.Yes, ESPN can edit the show as they wish but only with the footage they have available. He's been pilloried, rightly in my opinion, for his actions but I hope he's learned from the experience and that Daniel (who, I understand, is a mate of his) has given him a long talking to. I want to see Josh get over this and show us all the good without the bad.

[JB]

If it weren't for the idiots then guys like Daniel wouldn't look so good.I think it was Barry Sanders who when asked why he didn't dance in the endzone like others he said "when I was young my father told me that when I scored a TD to act like I've been there before."A lot of these guys on TV have never been there before. They're used to sitting in front of a computer and they can act any way they want, nobody's watching.Later,J.B

[Chip_and_a_Chair]

I have to say that Hellmuth's antics don't bother me; I actually find them kind of endearing. Sure, he voices criticism when an amateur sucks out on him and his reactions can often be described only as "whiny," but he also openly acknowledges that his shortcomings in grace are a product of ego. There are players who handle losing (or at least not winning... subtle distinction) with more humility - Dan is one of them - but I think Phil's reactions make him human, and therefore more fun to watch. When you can watch a player's emotional ups and downs on-camera, you can observe how he or she deals with the mental roller-coaster from bad runs and downswings and begin to identify with the PERSON behind the cards.I'd rather watch a person than a rock any day. For me, the appropriate level of "character" is somewhere between the extremes. For some reason, I still get a kick out of Dan's "blibbity blobbity blibbity bloobity" spiel, because here's a guy in the middle of high-stakes poker with some pretty intense individuals, and he manages to balance being outwardly good-natured and inwardly cutthroat at the same time.Way beyond Phil's griping, and on the opposite end of the spectrum from Dan's cheerful banter, are the antics of Mike Matusow. He, too, is human, and seems to overcompensate for his insecurities with tasteless table talk... the problem is that instead of taking the "why me?" approach, he launches a counteroffensive on his opponents by trying to offend them into submission. He's one of those guys I watch just to see if he pushes the big red button and gets punched out by a Dan Harrington someday. If Fox were to start a poker series (and I wouldn't be surprised if they jump on the bandwagon with true "full contact poker"), this guy would be the main event.As for Arieh, he just strikes me, the average viewer, as one of those guys who has beat every local ring game and is just a bit miffed that it's taken him so long to get recognition and respect as a top player. In terms of plays, he was brilliant (i.e. the laydown against Murphy's full house after making the flush he was drawing to). But his showy indignance over a couple calls just made me feel sorry for him. It was as if he were playing in some Josh-o-centric poker universe where every play was supposed to happen as his genius strategy dictated. If he raised with A J offsuit in middle position, then by God, you'd better put him on a high pocket pair and fold your A Q in deference. In all, though, I'd wager he's a decent guy who simply as such a high level of pride invested in mastering his craft that he gets caught up in the heat of battle, like Hellmuth.I agree with the other post on the subject: was Arieh painted as a villain? Yes. Did the snide comments come out of his mouth? Yes. But he has plenty of time to tone it down and refocus his legacy on his skills, rather than his mouth.I, too, worry about the effects of players like Mattias Anderson on the game. It's tough enough for players to lose a large pot without being reminded with poker's equivalent of a Terrell Owens TD celebration. Of course, Mattias doesn't OWE it to the other players to bring it down a notch if the screaming helps his confidence, but I'd respect his game a lot more if he could maintain his edge without throwing it in the other players' faces.I'm just curious as to everyone's thoughts on apologizing incessantly after sucking out, or after making a questionable call and catching a miracle flop. A simple "You made the right play. Tough break." or "Sorry." and a sympathetic headshake would sometimes do. But I'm of the mind that apologizing for a bad beat needlessly demoralizes your opponent. I can't stand it when people explain their mindset as if they need to justify the dubious play: "I had to call your raise with my 4 6 suited because I love small suited cards and I figured it would only cost me 3 more bets to call, and if you had overcards and you missed the flop, well..." All the while, he has the breathless, but cheery tone of someone exhaling after being touched by an angel of mercy. If you beat me with a lucky draw, my thinking is you don't need to fill the awkward silence by defending your play. It's enough that you've won the pot, don't sheepishly deflect your embarrassment and spout your relief at my expense by rehashing it. Thoughts?

[JaysonWeber]

Josh Arieh is one player who you will not see act like that again, he publicly apologized for it right afterwords and I truly think he meant it, I like the way he plays and I think he's a good player, If he gets into any more televised events watch for a completely different Josh Arieh.

[Suited_Up]

JaysonWeber said:

Josh Arieh is one player who you will not see act like that again, he publicly apologized for it right afterwords and I truly think he meant it, I like the way he plays and I think he's a good player, If he gets into any more televised events watch for a completely different Josh Arieh.

I've got to agree with this one. I've heard from several pro's that he's not really a bad guy. One who pops to mind is Paul Phillips, he says he's played with him enough to know that it was just bad editing. And if you want some ammo for ESPN's editing issues, Paul is the guy to ask about that one too. Definitely has a bit of a bone to pick about that whole thing. I didn't like Arieh at all after I saw the show either, but after hearing from some first hand account, I've gone to undecided now. I'm just going to have to wait and see what happens in the future from him.

[tekn0wledg]

This type of thing is happening all over TV; from football to basketball to poker. Really the bottom line is, as you said, the media loves it.Look at how much the NBA and the NFL have changed over the last five years. MLB has remained for the most part the same due to the fact that they don't allow 'bling' and they don't condone celebrations on the field that are not within common taste and respect. But look at the viewers for MLB, way down. Why? Because the viewers today have been brought up on what's fancy and hip in the sport. When you think of baseball these days you think of homeruns and that's about it.... why? Because that's what the media focuses on. Thus most people find baseball boring. I don't. Now on the flip side, basketball and football are filled with celebrations and insane haircuts and actions which are centered around getting attention and air time on ESPN.... Is this really what we want sports to be about?My personal opinion is that people can do what they want because there are certain people who enjoy watching people act that way. I may not enjoy the way TO or AI might act on their respective battlefields, but some other people might find that high quality entertainment.From a poker standpoint, look at "The Unabomber." You can tell some players, notably John Juanda from one of the WPT final tables, looked disgusted at some of his antics. Was it entertaining to watch? At times yes.... maybe to other viewers they found it extremely entertaining. Is that what we want associated with poker? Probably not. However, people are going to be people and the media is going to be the media. Why do you think Phil Hellmuth gets so much air time? Because people want to see what he's going to do next.... just like Howard Stern or Dennis Rodman.... note their popularity....

[Lori]

There has been a lot of discussion about Josh Arieh and whether or not he has been painted wrongly by the media. If you don't show your butt at the tables, there is nothing to televise. I have seen him criticize other players on numerous occassions about their cards and how he couldn't believe they called with "those cards". Well, each player has their individual style and reasons for doing things, I think he should worry about his game and stop insulting the other players.

[Wilderness]

DanielNegreanu said:

 Now I have a question for you all: If I didn't tell you that it was BobCostas who said it and that he was talking about football, wouldn't youhave bet your last dollar that he was talking about poker?  It amazed mehow well Bob's comments related directly to what we are seeing in thepoker world today.    I'll add my own two cents:  It's human nature for people to want to berecognized which often translates to wanting to be on TV.  In the pokerworld, there are definitely ways to ensure that you will get on the air.    Acting like a bafoon will absolutely GUARANTEE that you will getnoticed.  If you want to be a memorable character on TV, you can come upwith a bagful of gimmicks:  Dress up in a pink chicken suit and you'll get camera time.Beat your chest like a gorilla and scream "I'm the best player in theworld!!!" again they'll air it.Throw a temper tantrum when you lose... they'll air it.  What's seems so much less interesting is a kid like Gavin Griffin.  Theyoungest WSOP winner in history who behaved well beyond his years at thetable.  Was extremely polite and well spoken.  Didn't talk any trash,didn't parade around the table doing a victory dance.  That kind of thingjust doesn't sell tickets.  It does however earn you a great deal of respect from your peers in thepoker community.  Bafoonery will ensure two things: 1)camera time, and 2)distain from your peers.  

That's a great quote and I definitely would have thought someone was commenting on poker. I think it has to do with the combination of people wanting to be on tv as well as so many players doing the majority of their play time on their computer where they don't learn to control how they react or what they say to the table. I always liked the quote "Practice makes permanent" rather than "Practice makes perfect" because I feel its true. However you practice, however you act the majority of the time, is exactly how you will act when it matters. So if you always get pissed and yell and scream like a baby when you take a bad beat online, you're very likely to do it when you are in the big one.And of course there is the tv side, because people love to see themselves on tv. Some of the loudmouths/whiners/jackasses are also very skilled poker players, but many of them are not, and maybe see acting that way as the only way they will get their face shown on the program. As sad as it is, the public (ie the viewers) like to see that kind of thing, as evidenced by the soaring popularity of the reality shows (I'm not complaining, I enjoy some of them myself, but a lot of them are really going to extremes to humiliation/embarass/destroy people it seems like). So if tons of viewers will tune in to watch poker, because of its growing popularity and people acting like that, then ESPN and the other networks will go out of their way to edit it to maximize those effects.Personally, I love watching players like Daniel and Marcell Luske who seem like they are having fun, chatting, and being entertaining without being mean, whining, or just acting like an idiot. I wish there were more players who act like that, but I understand that not everyone has a personality like that nor can they play their A game while talking or being friendly. I know that when I'm playing with friends I like to talk, have fun, and so on but I also usually play better when I'm being more serious and not so talkative.

[Acesgotcracked]

When I watched him play he always seemed in total control. He was just having fun but never felt the need to be a jerk, when he went out the only comment he made was "what can you do?". One of the most of exciting hands in that tournament was when him and Raymer looked horns early on and he went all in to bully the bully out of a sizeable pot.

[AceyDeucy]

Okay, let's concede that a schmuck is a schmuck, no matter what he schmucks up. Someone delivering a unsolicited paragraph worth of critique on someone's play will always be an ass, plain and simple.But that said, I do think the game is better for this sort of thing. First, it becomes more entertaining than the old stone-faced experience we have come to expect. Second, I think it does a lot to educate people on proper behavior. So many people come to the table thinking "I'm not gonna be that guy." When I lost my temper once or twice and my friends started calling me Phil (and not referring to Ivey or Gordon or even Laak) I immediately decided I had thrown my last nutty. Very few people have defended Josh or Mike or Phil (of course, I have. All of them. *sigh*) so I think everyone is taking the right lesson from this. The only issue is that newbies frequently aren't prepared for how emotional they are going to get at the table, not that they want to be another Phil. As for the broadcasts...well...a lot of that comes from ESPN's ongoing extended-middle-finger-at-the-poker-world, or as they would put it, "Adapting the game to appeal to a larger audience." Essentially, ESPN has told the poker world "Your game is too boring to show people. We, who regularly broadcast pool, bowling, and woodchopping, will make it interesting for you." So what do we get? We get Norm Chad's metamorphosis from a decent analyst into the world's most annoying person as poker's Rodney Dangerfield. We get "The Nuts," where we learn about Chris Ferguson, Vegetable Chopper and Champion Ballroom Dancer (flashes from "Rat Race"). We get a neverending series of all-in hands. We get "the Crew" taking over the poker world.And we get people acting like buffoons. A lot. We get Josh Arieh, the "villain" of the 2004 WSOP. We get Greg Raymer, the hero. (In fairness, I have only met Josh, and then largely in passing. I have never heard or read so much as an unkind peep about Raymer from anyone except Rick Reilly, who doesn't know him.) And the Hero must destroy the Villain. Which brings me to my next point:Suppose Josh had won the World Series. How then would the story have been told? Josh Arieh, the brash upstart from Dixie overcoming tragedy in his personal life to take a huge prize from the bloated bully. (and let's not lie, Norm would have taken EVERY shot he could find at Greg's weight, instead of just the one he did.) Now, rethink the broadcast. Imagine what would have been edited out. Imagine what would have been added in (Say Josh's expensive and nearly crippling laydown against Raymer). Imagine how Norm would couch Greg Raymer's "Presto!" screams as taunting his opponents, and Josh's great laydowns. Hell, you could even imagine him trying to gloss over his confrontation with Harry. You know the comments about Josh's shirts would evaporate in an instant. And now you know the problem with the broadcasts. ESPN and others are "creating" the story around these people, and throwing their reputations everywhere on the merits of an unavoidable waiver because they think poker won't appeal to people without it. I've seen firsthand how people react to Josh, and were I in his shoes, I would be thinking about carbombing ESPN. (not that I would. I'm a chemist, and I am trained to use my powers for good :-) )A buffoon gets what he gets, and that's fine. But a person is a buffoon once (or however many times) because they've spent five consecutive 13-hour days at the tables in the same tournament and THAT is all the world sees, I am not sure how much they deserve what they get.Okay. I am officially on a tangent now. I'll stop.

[iveyfan30]

well first of all john murphy played great poker 99.99% of the time..like alot of people i really hated seeing him make that big bet on the river to josh...if he checks there im pretty sure he knocks out josh or seriously cripples him..either way, if murphy plays the hand correctly josh never makes the final table ...as far as josh's antics they are horrendous...in a world where people like terrel owens ans ron artest are stars people like josh and mattias anderson are bringint that into the poker world..people try tosay that josh and hellmuth behave similarily ..i disagree when phil wins a hand he never runs around the poker room looking like a psycho escaping from the ayslum, or rubs the other guys nose it by saying"was there ever a doubt? if hes mad at espn tough, because if he didnt act that was they couldnt have showed anything...as far as espn changing their format,,,that will never happen ratings are through the roof...i only hope people that are new to poker that watch that wont start behaving like the guys i mentioned in the post thinking thats the right way to behave,,,if they do , please stick to the internet

[mk]

Chip_and_a_Chair said:

I'm just curious as to everyone's thoughts on apologizing incessantly after sucking out, or after making a questionable call and catching a miracle flop.  A simple "You made the right play. Tough break." or "Sorry." and a sympathetic headshake would sometimes do.  But I'm of the mind that apologizing for a bad beat needlessly demoralizes your opponent.

I think Robert Williamson had the best response for a suck out:"I'm sorry it's you, but I'm glad it's me."

[DaNuTz]

Daniel what do you think of Phil Laak? I think he is the epitemy of what you are talking about, doing outrageous things in order to gain popularity. But I was under the impression you guys are friends? Your thoughts on him?

[FrankB]

I agree completely. However there is something to be said for getting excited. I believe there is a big degree in seperation from Terrell Owens and Mike Matasow, then say...Phil Hellmuth and Matias Anderson. Terrell and Matasow show a great deal of skill in what they do and they're "celebrations" are kept to a minimum. They last all of maybe 15 seconds total and then it is back to business. The mental toughness that players like Matasow and T.O have keeps their head in the game. They don't let it get to them. I'm sure we have all seen Phil Hellmuth crack. As much as he claims he keeps his "bad beats" in check...he doesn't. You can see those bad hands effect his play later when he is making his reads (which he very much relys on to play effectively). Excitable players like Matias Anderson simply gamble too much and can't control their emotions. He should buy the first season of the WPT and watch a real gentleman like Gus Hanson gamble and keep his emotions to a minimum. It should always be remembered that for every hand you win, one or more have lost. Rubbing salt in players wounds never won anyone a future pot. Their cards and their correct decisions did. I only hope that someday when I'm old and gray and still walkin' into my favorite casino I'll be greeted like "Norm Peterson" when he walked into "Cheers." That would almost feel as good as a bracelet. (almost but not quite) :wink: