ESPN WSOP #4 Ratings

[Mattsana]

Unbelievable! The ratings for the new show last night were almost double the
previous week. To say ESPN is esctatic is an understatment. It was again the
highest rated show for the night. The second highest show of the night was the
repeat of show 3 at 8pm.

Matt Savage

[Paul Phillips]

In article <20030731013017.08314.00000736@mb-m20.aol.com>,
Mattsana <mattsana@aol.com> wrote:
>Unbelievable! The ratings for the new show last night were almost double the
>previous week. To say ESPN is esctatic is an understatment. It was again the
>highest rated show for the night. The second highest show of the night was the
>repeat of show 3 at 8pm.

I'm waiting by the phone for the moment they're ready to do their profile
of me! I know it's just minutes away. Ring, damn you, ring!

--
Paul Phillips | People who make little glass houses in their souls
Imperfectionist | shouldn't throw tombstones.
Empiricist |
all hip pupils! |----------* http://www.improving.org/paulp/ *----------

[Tyler Durdan]

Hopefully this will mean that someone in the UK might *think* about
showing it here.

On Jul 31 2003 6:30AM, Mattsana wrote:

> Unbelievable! The ratings for the new show last night were almost double the
> previous week. To say ESPN is esctatic is an understatment. It was again the
> highest rated show for the night. The second highest show of the night was
the
> repeat of show 3 at 8pm.
>
> Matt Savage

_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com

[T. Pascal]

mattsana@aol.com (Mattsana) wrote in message news:<20030731013017.08314.00000736@mb-m20.aol.com>...
> Unbelievable! The ratings for the new show last night were almost double the
> previous week. To say ESPN is esctatic is an understatment. It was again the
> highest rated show for the night. The second highest show of the night was the
> repeat of show 3 at 8pm.
>
Too bad #4 was the weaker of the four shows to date. :) Even when
it's bad, it's still pretty good.

I think episode 3 was a good lead in, however. I think that running
the two hours back-to-back is a much better way to go. The first hour
brings you up to date if you missed last week's episode (which I did,
I despise ESPN and their confusing programming -- and I couldn't even
figure out when the replay airs, and if it does, when, and I don't
want to wait until near dawn, either! but I digress) and the next
hour is the "current" episode.

Next week, however, I recommend playing the Phil Hellmouth episode
(#2) again, instead of this past week's episode #4. :)

[Phil Sandler]

ericpeter@ricochet.com (eric peter) wrote:

> this is the GOLDEN AGE OF POKER. let's all enjoy it!!!!!!!

Hear hear!

Let's all hope the following will occur:

1. Poker will become accepted as a legitimate hobby.
2. Poker will start being perceived for what it is, a game where
intelligence, not luck, dictates the results.
3. A constant flood of new, unskilled players will enter the game.
4. Poker players will become the chick magnets of the 21st century.

Cross your fingers.


Cheers,

Phil

[BadMrFrosty]

Thank God For Tivo

"T. Pascal" <t_pascal@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:2611b663.0307310650.4da6096c@posting.google.com...
> mattsana@aol.com (Mattsana) wrote in message
news:<20030731013017.08314.00000736@mb-m20.aol.com>...
> > Unbelievable! The ratings for the new show last night were almost double
the
> > previous week. To say ESPN is esctatic is an understatment. It was again
the
> > highest rated show for the night. The second highest show of the night
was the
> > repeat of show 3 at 8pm.
> >
> Too bad #4 was the weaker of the four shows to date. :) Even when
> it's bad, it's still pretty good.
>
> I think episode 3 was a good lead in, however. I think that running
> the two hours back-to-back is a much better way to go. The first hour
> brings you up to date if you missed last week's episode (which I did,
> I despise ESPN and their confusing programming -- and I couldn't even
> figure out when the replay airs, and if it does, when, and I don't
> want to wait until near dawn, either! but I digress) and the next
> hour is the "current" episode.
>
> Next week, however, I recommend playing the Phil Hellmouth episode
> (#2) again, instead of this past week's episode #4. :)

[Bill Reich]

ericpeter@ricochet.com (eric peter) wrote in message news:<8895dac5.0307310108.190fa9b2@posting.google.com>...
> Paul Phillips <rgp-9@improving.org> wrote in message news:<bgaerq$rd6$1@spoon.improving.org>...
> > In article <20030731013017.08314.00000736@mb-m20.aol.com>,
> > Mattsana <mattsana@aol.com> wrote:
> > >Unbelievable! The ratings for the new show last night were almost double the
> > >previous week. To say ESPN is esctatic is an understatment. It was again the
> > >highest rated show for the night. The second highest show of the night was the
> > >repeat of show 3 at 8pm.
> >
> > I'm waiting by the phone for the moment they're ready to do their profile
> > of me! I know it's just minutes away. Ring, damn you, ring!
>
> this is the GOLDEN AGE OF POKER. let's all enjoy it!!!!!!!

While all the casinos that I hear about are having huge influxes of
new players into their poker rooms, the Mohegan Sun is closing its
poker room as of Labor Day weekend. I play almost exclusively at the
Woods, so someone could facetiously say that I am one of the ones to
"blame" for the Sun's failure but I think that the main factors are
that they held none of the big tournaments that make a casino a poker
destination, they alloted too little space to poker and possibly paid
their supervisory staff too well. Not their dealers, of course. In the
end, of course, no poker room can compete with another acre of slots
unless the casino values the intangibles of drawing more people into
the casino and the atmosphere that a poker room lends to the place.
Not to everyone's taste nor every casino's.

--
Will in New Haven

[Debbie in Ohio]

Bill Reich <willreich_77@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7ce91b09.0307310928.5189ec83@posting.google.com...
> ericpeter@ricochet.com (eric peter) wrote in message
news:<8895dac5.0307310108.190fa9b2@posting.google.com>...
> > Paul Phillips <rgp-9@improving.org> wrote in message
news:<bgaerq$rd6$1@spoon.improving.org>...
> > > In article <20030731013017.08314.00000736@mb-m20.aol.com>,
> > > Mattsana <mattsana@aol.com> wrote:
> > > >Unbelievable! The ratings for the new show last night were almost
double the
> > > >previous week. To say ESPN is esctatic is an understatment. It was
again the
> > > >highest rated show for the night. The second highest show of the
night was the
> > > >repeat of show 3 at 8pm.
> > >
> > > I'm waiting by the phone for the moment they're ready to do their
profile
> > > of me! I know it's just minutes away. Ring, damn you, ring!
> >
> > this is the GOLDEN AGE OF POKER. let's all enjoy it!!!!!!!
>
> While all the casinos that I hear about are having huge influxes of
> new players into their poker rooms, the Mohegan Sun is closing its
> poker room as of Labor Day weekend. I play almost exclusively at the
> Woods, so someone could facetiously say that I am one of the ones to
> "blame" for the Sun's failure but I think that the main factors are
> that they held none of the big tournaments that make a casino a poker
> destination, they alloted too little space to poker and possibly paid
> their supervisory staff too well. Not their dealers, of course. In the
> end, of course, no poker room can compete with another acre of slots
> unless the casino values the intangibles of drawing more people into
> the casino and the atmosphere that a poker room lends to the place.
> Not to everyone's taste nor every casino's.
>
> --
> Will in New Haven

Well, IMO, I think it is time for the Legal begals in the group to challenge
some state laws, like they did in California.

I heard the way they got the poker clubs into that state, was that someone
challenged and won based on the concept that Poker is a game of skill and
NOT a game of chance.

If so, since there is a legal precedence for this now, why can't this
precedence be used in all FIFTY states to be able to open up poker clubs
EVERYWHERE they are wanted?

I'm no lawyer, so perhaps some of the Legal Beagles in the group, could tell
what would be the chances of the feasibility of doing this, and winning?
This especially since even with the rise of the popularity of Poker, the
slots are in effect winning out at the Casinos.

I've had table managers of the Riverboats tell me that if they could open up
space on land for Poker, most likely they would do so. However, since it's
not legal in their state to do this (currently) based on the (unchallenged)
laws on those states books, their casinos instead, find the non human
impersonal slot machines, including video Poker, are much, MUCH better for
them, profitability wise.

[Linda K Sherman]

Barbara Yoon wrote:

> I'm very pleased, of course, to see the great popularity of the poker telecasts,
> but it is rather dismaying to see such sloppy technical inaccuracies -- I mean,
> showing statistical chances of "76%" instead of the correct "81%" is simply
> inexcusable carelessness...
>

I'm not real impressed with the commentators, either. I don't remember
the hand, except that it was one of the big AK laydowns, but I do
remember screaming at the television, "THAT'S NOT WHY HE FOLDED!"

Sexton probably would have gotten it right.

Lin

[James L. Hankins]

"Linda K Sherman" <dimsbam@pwy.com> wrote in message
news:3F296A45.5040903@pwy.com...
> Barbara Yoon wrote:


> Sexton probably would have gotten it right.
>
> Lin


Sexton for sure would have known that Barbara Enright made the final table
of the main event.

[Gary Carson]

Actually, all those things are already true and have been for a long
time.

Poker is accepted as a legitimate hobby. Poker rooms aren't always
accepted as a legitimate business though.

Most people realize that some poker players are better than others.
Of course, I'm not sure it's even true that better poker players are
more intelligent than those that don't play as well. So, that exact
perception may never be accepted.

There has been a stream of new unskilled players into the game since
the invention of the game. That's not likely to ever stop.

Poker players are losers, winning poker players are chick magnets.


On 31 Jul 2003 08:55:31 -0700, psandler70@hotmail.com (Phil Sandler)
wrote:

>ericpeter@ricochet.com (eric peter) wrote:
>
>> this is the GOLDEN AGE OF POKER. let's all enjoy it!!!!!!!
>
>Hear hear!
>
>Let's all hope the following will occur:
>
>1. Poker will become accepted as a legitimate hobby.
>2. Poker will start being perceived for what it is, a game where
>intelligence, not luck, dictates the results.
>3. A constant flood of new, unskilled players will enter the game.
>4. Poker players will become the chick magnets of the 21st century.
>
>Cross your fingers.
>
>
>Cheers,
>
>Phil

Positively 5th Street is 7th on the list this week
Bestseller list
http://garycarson.rediffblogs.com/

[Gary Carson]

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 18:20:54 GMT, "Debbie in Ohio"
>
>Well, IMO, I think it is time for the Legal begals in the group to
challenge
>some state laws, like they did in California.
>
>I heard the way they got the poker clubs into that state, was that
someone
>challenged and won based on the concept that Poker is a game of skill
and
>NOT a game of chance.
>

You heard it wrong.




Positively 5th Street is 7th on the list this week
Bestseller list
http://garycarson.rediffblogs.com/

[Jonathan Kaplan]

In article <bgbvg8$d3h$1@bob.news.rcn.net>, Barbara Yoon says...
>
>>>>> Perhaps Jonathan [Kaplan] himself can fill us in with the details of the blinds,
>>>>> positions, stack sizes, betting, and such -- but first, allow me here to correct
>>>>> some of ESPN's rather surprisingly errant statistical information...
>>>>>
>>>>> Jonathan's Jc-Js against Scotty Nguyen's 10h-Kd...ESPN showed "70%"
>>>>> for Jonathan -- it's actually 71.16%...
>>>>>
>>>>> Flop 10s-5s-4c...ESPN showed "76%" for Jonathan -- it's actually 80.71%...
>>>>>
>>>>> Turn 2h...ESPN showed "90%" for Jonathan -- it's actually 88.64%...
>>>>>
>>>>> River Kc...
>
>>> I'm very pleased, of course, to see the great popularity of the poker telecasts,
>>> but it is rather dismaying to see such sloppy technical inaccuracies -- I mean,
>>> showing statistical chances of "76%" instead of the correct "81%" is simply
>>> inexcusable carelessness...
>
>Jonathan Kaplan:
>> i remember the hand you mention (my final hand this year) significantly
>> differently, so i am withholding comment until i see the show tonight
>> (i havent seen it yet), i'll comment after that. but i do agree, the technical
>> aspects seem sloppy...
>
>
>
>But Jonathan...all I described there was the CARDS -- and so are you saying
>here that you remember different cards, or what...?!
>

yes, exactly. i remember significantly different cards.
i remember Scotty having a different hand (and better percentages, also,
although still worse than mine...smile). its particularly strange cause, on the
one hand, i dont trust my memory too much, but on the other, i was looking right
at the cards in a very tense/crucial moment, hard to believe i would forget the
most significant details of a most memorable hand? i'll look at it later when
telecast and comment after.
regardless, i do agree that ESPN has been very lax about numbers and percentages
and other technical aspects.
maybe we should be pleased that espn IS so lax and it still doesnt matter, the
show is a big hit anyway. bodes well for future poker games and growth of the
community....

Jonathan

no matter where you go, there you are....

[Barbara Yoon]

>>>>> Perhaps Jonathan [Kaplan] himself can fill us in with the details of the blinds,
>>>>> positions, stack sizes, betting, and such -- but first, allow me here to correct
>>>>> some of ESPN's rather surprisingly errant statistical information...
>>>>>
>>>>> Jonathan's Jc-Js against Scotty Nguyen's 10h-Kd...ESPN showed "70%"
>>>>> for Jonathan -- it's actually 71.16%...
>>>>>
>>>>> Flop 10s-5s-4c...ESPN showed "76%" for Jonathan -- it's actually 80.71%...
>>>>>
>>>>> Turn 2h...ESPN showed "90%" for Jonathan -- it's actually 88.64%...
>>>>>
>>>>> River Kc...

>>>> I'm very pleased, of course, to see the great popularity of the poker telecasts,
>>>> but it is rather dismaying to see such sloppy technical inaccuracies -- I mean,
>>>> showing statistical chances of "76%" instead of the correct "81%" is simply
>>>> inexcusable carelessness...

Jonathan Kaplan:
>>> i remember the hand you mention (my final hand this year) significantly
>>> differently, so i am withholding comment until i see the show tonight
>>> (i havent seen it yet), i'll comment after that. but i do agree, the technical
>>> aspects seem sloppy...

me:
>> But Jonathan...all I described there was the CARDS -- and so are you
>> saying here that you remember different cards, or what...?!

Jonathan Kaplan:
> yes, exactly. i remember significantly different cards. i remember Scotty
> having a different hand (and better percentages, also, although still worse
> than mine...smile). its particularly strange cause, on the one hand, i dont
> trust my memory too much, but on the other, i was looking right at the
> cards in a very tense/crucial moment, hard to believe i would forget the
> most significant details of a most memorable hand? i'll look at it later when
> telecast and comment after.



Jonathan...perhaps a case of 'combat fatigue'...?!

[RTN4]

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 18:20:54 GMT, "Debbie in Ohio"
<nospam_cincygirl@pobox.com> wrote:

>If so, since there is a legal precedence for this now, why can't this
>precedence be used in all FIFTY states to be able to open up poker clubs
>EVERYWHERE they are wanted?

I can tell you this, that if Florida ever opens up poker there won't
be any available housing for anyone, because most of the pros in Vegas
and LA would move down there in a heartbeat.

[Gary Carson]

On 31 Jul 2003 21:10:39 GMT, "Lanky Bob" <anonymous@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>> You heard it wrong.
>
>Are you absolutely certain of this? And if so, then how did they get
>opened? Thank you.
>


Because the law, written I think in the 1890's explicely outlawed
'stud horse poker"

In the 1930's they realized that draw poker wasn't stud horse poker
and allowed municipalities to regulate cardrooms that offered various
draw poker vaiants.

In the 1980's they realized that whatever 'stud horse poker' is, it
isn't holdem and it isin'g 7-card stud. Some historian found some old
newspaper clippings that described it as some kind of nolimit
house-banked version of poker. It's still not clear what stud horse
poker is, but whatever it is it's not legal, other poker is legal.

Also, in the 1980's the state realized that they were losing out on a
taxing oppurunity by allowing individual cities to regulate poker
rooms and the state took over the regulation.

Each state's legal language is somewhat different. In California they
explicitly outlaw some games (house banked games of all kinds are
outlawed), other games are legal. When I lived in SF they had legal
rubber bridge clubs in SF for example. Chicago had them also when I
lived there. You won't find those in Texas.

Winning Low Limit Hold'em by Lee Jones is #8 on the bestseller lis
http://garycarson.rediffblogs.com/

[Bill Reich]

RTN4 <RTN4@charter.net> wrote in message news:<ng7mivsimbglpnsj87nps4j1vk4ov2fc6d@4ax.com>...
> On 31 Jul 2003 10:28:03 -0700, willreich_77@yahoo.com (Bill Reich)
> wrote:
>
> >While all the casinos that I hear about are having huge influxes of
> >new players into their poker rooms,
>
> This is of course merely hyperbole.

If you mean that the people who have told me that there are huge
influxes of new people in their poker rooms are engaging in hyperbole,
you may be right. I have no way to check their statements except
against one another. So far, no one has personally told me nor have I
read here anything that contradicts the statements that the casinos in
MS. and AC and FL are having an noticeable influx of newbies (the word
HUGE may, in fact, be hyperbole. It is almost impossible to use it
without someone having a bigger idea of what huge is) I have heard
little or nothing about attendance in western card rooms. My own
'sperience at Foxwoods would lead me to believe that these people are
not engaging in hyperbole. And I am not engaging in hyperbole. In
fact, I don't think that can have expectations of the word huge that
would not fit the turnout of newbies at Foxwoods without making the
word practically unusable. I have in the past used hyperbole. For one
thing, I used to send the newspapers the "attendance figures for a
minor league hockey team. I know what it is to use hyperbole. I am not
doing so now.

You are, of course, a snide bastard.

--
Cordially as always,

Will in New Haven

[Jester]

RTN4 wrote:
> *On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 18:20:54 GMT, "Debbie in Ohio"
> <nospam_cincygirl@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> >If so, since there is a legal precedence for this now, why can't
> this
> >precedence be used in all FIFTY states to be able to open up poker
> clubs
> >EVERYWHERE they are wanted?
>
> I can tell you this, that if Florida ever opens up poker there won't
> be any available housing for anyone, because most of the pros in
> Vegas
> and LA would move down there in a heartbeat. *

Good I can rent out my house 1min from Hard Rock.


--
Jester - River Catcher
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Access RGP from Pokeritis.com, create a poker journal, and more.
http://www.pokeritis.com/forums
View this thread on PI: http://www.pokeritis.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=16278

[Joe Long]

On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 20:23:31 -0700, RTN4 <RTN4@charter.net> wrote:

>I can tell you this, that if Florida ever opens up poker there won't
>be any available housing for anyone, because most of the pros in Vegas
>and LA would move down there in a heartbeat.

Whatever for?

Florida is:

flat

hot

flat

humid

flat

swampy

flat

sandy

flat

full of crawling and flying insects

flat

and, being a peninsula, to get anywhere else you've got to drive a
looooong way ...

; ^ >