Re: ESPN WSOP Show #6 Ratings

[Barbara Yoon]

"Mattsana" (Matt Savage, World Series of Poker tournament director):
> Last night's show had the highest ratings so far. The rating was 1.58 and
> that's a staggering number more than double earlier weeks. Once again,
> it was the highest rated show on espn all night by far, and once again,
> the second highest rated show was the re-air of last week's show.



Matt.....I'm really pleased with the great success of poker on television...
However, the woeful inaccuracy of the statistical information that they
display (and just how do they get those numbers anyway?!) undermines
their overall credibility -- and this is especially inexplicable in view of
the ready availability of the RIGHT information...OK?!

[Mattsana]

I passed on your information to Matt Maranz and I will see how the producer
responds.

Matt Savage


>Matt.....I'm really pleased with the great success of poker on television...
>However, the woeful inaccuracy of the statistical information that they
>display (and just how do they get those numbers anyway?!) undermines
>their overall credibility -- and this is especially inexplicable in view of
>the ready availability of the RIGHT information...OK?!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Barbara Yoon]

>> Matt.....I'm really pleased with the great success of poker on television...
>> However, the woeful inaccuracy of the statistical information that they
>> display (and just how do they get those numbers anyway?!) undermines
>> their overall credibility -- and this is especially inexplicable in view of
>> the ready availability of the RIGHT information...OK?!

"Mattsana" (Matt Savage, World Series of Poker tournament director):
> I passed on your information to Matt Maranz and I will see how the producer
> responds.



Matt.....good...and please do let us all know how ESPN responds... Thanks...

[Gary Carson]

Barbara, why don't you just send them a resume?


On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 00:04:28 -0400, "Barbara Yoon" <byoon@erols.com>
wrote:

>>> Matt.....I'm really pleased with the great success of poker on
television...
>>> However, the woeful inaccuracy of the statistical information that
they
>>> display (and just how do they get those numbers anyway?!)
undermines
>>> their overall credibility -- and this is especially inexplicable
in view of
>>> the ready availability of the RIGHT information...OK?!
>
>"Mattsana" (Matt Savage, World Series of Poker tournament director):
>> I passed on your information to Matt Maranz and I will see how the
producer
>> responds.
>
>
>
>Matt.....good...and please do let us all know how ESPN responds...
Thanks...
>
>
>

[bzod]

Don't you think that "woeful" might be a little strong? "Undermines
credibility"? Some of your very studious and explicit examples of
inaccuracies have shown rounding errors and percentages off by 1 or 2 %.
This is not woeful, nor does it undermine credibility. It may be a little
sloppy, but if the goal of the production is to entertain the masses and
attempt to show the extent that one hand is a favorite over another, does
a difference of 77% versus 79% really matter? While we are all impressed
by your knowledge of the correct odds, and appreciative that you take the
time to point out the "inexplicable" errors, I believe that your diatribes
here, while righteous, are somewhat misguided.


On Aug 13 2003 11:50PM, Barbara Yoon wrote:

> "Mattsana" (Matt Savage, World Series of Poker tournament director):
> > Last night's show had the highest ratings so far. The rating was 1.58 and
> > that's a staggering number more than double earlier weeks. Once again,
> > it was the highest rated show on espn all night by far, and once again,
> > the second highest rated show was the re-air of last week's show.
>
>
>
> Matt.....I'm really pleased with the great success of poker on television...
> However, the woeful inaccuracy of the statistical information that they
> display (and just how do they get those numbers anyway?!) undermines
> their overall credibility -- and this is especially inexplicable in view of
> the ready availability of the RIGHT information...OK?!

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

[Shutup and Go Away]

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 23:58:38 -0400, "Barbara Yoon" <byoon@erols.com>
wrote:

>Matt.....seriously...instead of you just 'cheerleading' and 'PR flacking' for
>the WSOP on ESPN, please do tell us all here in RGP how they get those
>erroneous '%-number' chances that they show so authoritatively.....OK?!

Nobody gives a shit you stupid fucking bitch!

[Barbara Yoon]

me:
>> I'm really pleased with the great success of poker on television...
>> However, the woeful inaccuracy of the statistical information that they
>> display (and just how do they get those numbers anyway?!) undermines
>> their overall credibility -- and this is especially inexplicable in view of
>> the ready availability of the RIGHT information...OK?!

"bzod" <anonymous@hotmail.com>:
> Don't you think that "woeful" might be a little strong? "Undermines credibility"?
> Some of your very studious and explicit examples of inaccuracies have shown
> rounding errors and percentages off by 1 or 2 %. This is not woeful, nor does
> it undermine credibility.

"bzod".....OK...that's a matter of opinion -- and my own personal opinion is
that ESPN's technical statistical inaccuracy truly IS "woeful," and that it indeed
really DOES "undermine their overall credibility"...

> It may be a little sloppy, but if the goal of the production is to entertain the
> masses and attempt to show the extent that one hand is a favorite over another,
> does a difference of 77% versus 79% really matter?

But wouldn't "the masses" be equally "entertained" by the RIGHT numbers too?!

> While we are all impressed by your knowledge of the correct odds, and
> appreciative that you take the time to point out the "inexplicable" errors,
> I believe that your diatribes here, while righteous, are somewhat misguided.

Thanks for the compliment -- but I'm just an old-fashioned believer that
'if it's worth doing, then it's worth doing RIGHT'.....OK?!

[Barbara Yoon]

me:
>> WSOP on ESPN, please do tell us all here in RGP how they get those
>> erroneous '%-number' chances that they show so authoritatively...

<Shutup and Go Away>:
> Nobody gives a shit you stupid fucking bitch!



Hah.....any bets on, between ME and this 'new' pink-cheeked 'stoogie boy'
here, who'll be first to "Shutup and Go Away"...?!

[snapper]

I really enjoy the shows. And I agree with Barbara that a news
organization should be more careful. Reporting bad information (when the
good information is available) absolutely calls into question a news
organization's integrity. Not that ESPN has bad intentions, but if they
aren't thorough enough to get the easy ones right...

On another note, maybe some of those cutting edge ESPN folks would
consider doing a poker ticker. They could run information about hands,
blinds, position, stack size, etc.. across the bottom.

-snapper

On Aug 13 2003 8:50PM, Barbara Yoon wrote:

> "Mattsana" (Matt Savage, World Series of Poker tournament director):
> > Last night's show had the highest ratings so far. The rating was 1.58 and
> > that's a staggering number more than double earlier weeks. Once again,
> > it was the highest rated show on espn all night by far, and once again,
> > the second highest rated show was the re-air of last week's show.
>
>
>
> Matt.....I'm really pleased with the great success of poker on television...
> However, the woeful inaccuracy of the statistical information that they
> display (and just how do they get those numbers anyway?!) undermines
> their overall credibility -- and this is especially inexplicable in view of
> the ready availability of the RIGHT information...OK?!

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

[Peg Smith]

In article <bhf0uu$qup$1@bob.news.rcn.net>, "Barbara Yoon" <byoon@erols.com>
writes:

>Matt.....I'm really pleased with the great success of poker on television...
>However, the woeful inaccuracy of the statistical information that they
>display (and just how do they get those numbers anyway?!) undermines
>their overall credibility -- and this is especially inexplicable in view of
>the ready availability of the RIGHT information...OK?!

Being off by .8% is "woeful"? LOL.

Peg

[Paul Phillips]

In article <3f3baa4c$0$156$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>,
bzod <anonymous@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Don't you think that "woeful" might be a little strong? "Undermines
>credibility"? Some of your very studious and explicit examples of
>inaccuracies have shown rounding errors and percentages off by 1 or 2 %.

What about when the actual percentage is 96% and the displayed one
is 72%, does that undermine credibility? That is what took place in
the chuc/scotty top set vs. top pair hand. Of course in that case
their credibility deserved a bit of undermining since all evidence
indicates that those hands were made up.

--
Paul Phillips | All mimes were the borrowers,
Imperfectionist | And the moderate Belgrade.
Empiricist | -- Jabberwocky, as recognized by the Apple Newton
i pull his palp! |----------* http://www.improving.org/paulp/ *----------