The high stakes poker hand that launched a 3 month investigation into cheating (1 Viewer)

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I don’t understand that either.

A lot of times when there is an all in call they will ask how many times the players want to "run it". This time they ran it twice. Meaning if one person won with one card and the other won with the other they would split the pot. If the "run it" three times and one person won twice and the other once they would split the pot 66-33.

I’m not a high stakes player, and I’ve only really watched a lot of the WSOP events.
Totally new to me. Not gonna lie - I kinda hate it. lol

I am not a fan of it either. Kind of diminishes the stakes a bit to me. Minimizes the "All In" risk to some degree.

It totally neuters it. Where’s the risk if it’s a split instead of a KO?

Super lame.

Because these guys are looking to regularly make small winnings over a long time. They don't want like 3 months of good play/work to go down in flames on one unlucky hand.

Then they shouldn’t go all-in, nor should they call all-in.

It’s gutless poker. And it’s kind of a scam - they’ll keep scratching out a living off sponsorship while trading chips back and forth with no real repercussions for bad play.

IMO it challenges the integrity of the game significantly.

I see what you're saying and it will affect decisions on the margins, but I think for the occasional huge pot it's nice to have the option. I wouldn't want to see it happening with every pot or even every fourth pot.

As far as integrity of the game, I would argue the fact that a lot of these guys are being significantly staked is more of an issue. I know I would play significantly differently if instead of taking 100% loss on a bad night I was only risking a small portion of my buy-ins.

Its personality poker.

Negrano is the clown, Helmuth the heel, Brunson the old timer, chick with giant fake knockers the eye candy.

It’s all for ratings and sponsorship. And you’re spot on - they’re staked, so it’s not even their own money at risk.

Plus as I mentioned, the sponsorships - Doyle looks so lame with the giant logo on his cowboy hat.

I see very little compelling about any of this as an audience. Part of what makes watching high stakes poker entertaining is that there’s risk to the players involved. You’re watching legitimate drama.

What we’re seeing here has very little legitimacy left.

 

[Softballguy]

I don’t understand that either.

A lot of times when there is an all in call they will ask how many times the players want to "run it". This time they ran it twice. Meaning if one person won with one card and the other won with the other they would split the pot. If the "run it" three times and one person won twice and the other once they would split the pot 66-33.

I’m not a high stakes player, and I’ve only really watched a lot of the WSOP events.
Totally new to me. Not gonna lie - I kinda hate it. lol

I am not a fan of it either. Kind of diminishes the stakes a bit to me. Minimizes the "All In" risk to some degree.

It totally neuters it. Where’s the risk if it’s a split instead of a KO?

Super lame.

Because these guys are looking to regularly make small winnings over a long time. They don't want like 3 months of good play/work to go down in flames on one unlucky hand.

Then they shouldn’t go all-in, nor should they call all-in.

It’s gutless poker. And it’s kind of a scam - they’ll keep scratching out a living off sponsorship while trading chips back and forth with no real repercussions for bad play.

IMO it challenges the integrity of the game significantly.

I see what you're saying and it will affect decisions on the margins, but I think for the occasional huge pot it's nice to have the option. I wouldn't want to see it happening with every pot or even every fourth pot.

As far as integrity of the game, I would argue the fact that a lot of these guys are being significantly staked is more of an issue. I know I would play significantly differently if instead of taking 100% loss on a bad night I was only risking a small portion of my buy-ins.

Its personality pomker.

Negrano is the clown, Helmuth the heel, Brunson the old timer, chick with giant fake knockers the eye candy.

It’s all for ratings and sponsorship. And you’re spot on - they’re staked, so it’s not even their own money at risk.

Plus as I mentioned, the sponsorships - Doyle looks so lame with the giant logo on his cowboy hat.

I see very little compelling about any of this as an audience. Part of what makes watching high stakes poker entertaining is that there’s risk to the players involved. You’re watching legitimate drama.

What we’re seeing here has very little legitimacy left.

You're not wrong. The games you see on TV are very different than the non-televised/live streamed games you see at those stakes. It's pretty simple - if you don't play loose, you're not entertaining and won't be invited back.

There's a stat in poker that represents how loose a player is... Voluntary Put In Pot (VPIP). Good players typically have a VPIP of 15 - 20% depending on 6max or 9max games. Most of the shows these days list everyone's VPIP and they're in the 35 - 50% range. It's comical, but often entertaining.

Watch a 10-20 NL game at Aria or Bellagio sometime. Most hands are either an early position raise and everyone folds, or it folds to the button and only the button and big blind see a flop. It's relatively rare that three or more see a flop. Yet on these televised shows you'll routinely see four or more. Very little semblance to real poker.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I don’t understand that either.

A lot of times when there is an all in call they will ask how many times the players want to "run it". This time they ran it twice. Meaning if one person won with one card and the other won with the other they would split the pot. If the "run it" three times and one person won twice and the other once they would split the pot 66-33.

I’m not a high stakes player, and I’ve only really watched a lot of the WSOP events.
Totally new to me. Not gonna lie - I kinda hate it. lol

I am not a fan of it either. Kind of diminishes the stakes a bit to me. Minimizes the "All In" risk to some degree.

It totally neuters it. Where’s the risk if it’s a split instead of a KO?

Super lame.

Because these guys are looking to regularly make small winnings over a long time. They don't want like 3 months of good play/work to go down in flames on one unlucky hand.

Then they shouldn’t go all-in, nor should they call all-in.

It’s gutless poker. And it’s kind of a scam - they’ll keep scratching out a living off sponsorship while trading chips back and forth with no real repercussions for bad play.

IMO it challenges the integrity of the game significantly.

I see what you're saying and it will affect decisions on the margins, but I think for the occasional huge pot it's nice to have the option. I wouldn't want to see it happening with every pot or even every fourth pot.

As far as integrity of the game, I would argue the fact that a lot of these guys are being significantly staked is more of an issue. I know I would play significantly differently if instead of taking 100% loss on a bad night I was only risking a small portion of my buy-ins.

Its personality pomker.

Negrano is the clown, Helmuth the heel, Brunson the old timer, chick with giant fake knockers the eye candy.

It’s all for ratings and sponsorship. And you’re spot on - they’re staked, so it’s not even their own money at risk.

Plus as I mentioned, the sponsorships - Doyle looks so lame with the giant logo on his cowboy hat.

I see very little compelling about any of this as an audience. Part of what makes watching high stakes poker entertaining is that there’s risk to the players involved. You’re watching legitimate drama.

What we’re seeing here has very little legitimacy left.

You're not wrong. The games you see on TV are very different than the non-televised/live streamed games you see at those stakes. It's pretty simple - if you don't play loose, you're not entertaining and won't be invited back.

There's a stat in poker that represents how loose a player is... Voluntary Put In Pot (VPIP). Good players typically have a VPIP of 15 - 20% depending on 6max or 9max games. Most of the shows these days list everyone's VPIP and they're in the 35 - 50% range. It's comical, but often entertaining.

Watch a 10-20 NL game at Aria or Bellagio sometime. Most hands are either an early position raise and everyone folds, or it folds to the button and only the button and big blind see a flop. It's relatively rare that three or more see a flop. Yet on these televised shows you'll routinely see four or more. Very little semblance to real poker.

Yep. I don’t play as much as I used to, but I played 6/12 hold em, and occasionally 4/8 Omaha with a 1/2 kill.

I’m typically in about 8-10% of hands, and that’s if I’m playing “loose”. Ideally I’d be in 5% in hold em, maybe 7% in Omaha (it’s a high low game).

35% or higher is comical.

 

[TakiToki]

The VPIP stuff is basically another dimension to poker -- being a fun player with which to play.

People aren't entitled to a seat at a private table (whether it be a streamed event or actual private party/poker game). A hoodie-wearing mute nit doesn't bring enjoyment to other players. Over a multi-hour (and those of us degens here know games can go on for a LONG time) session, there needs to be banter, interaction and game play.

I know Doug Polk is a pretty polarizing guy in the poker world, but I think he does it up right on the streams. Loose but not dumb, with public randomization in big spots (e.g., facing an all in, he'll show his cards and then turn them back over, mix them up, turn them back over and call or fold based on some ordering criteria he set forth). It both illustrates GTO mixing principles and provides a sweat to the players and viewers.

I really like the extra component, as a viewer, and enjoy seeing players try to adjust to the different elements. For example, I probably lost more respect for Hellmuth during the creator stream (with ultra-rich young people like Mr. Beast and a bunch of other folks I hadn't heard of) than I had in 20 years of his whining. He was literally in just about the juiciest game in the history of poker, and he's buying in short and berating players for loose plays. Just lighting both money and public goodwill on fire.

 

[gianmarco]

The VPIP stuff is basically another dimension to poker -- being a fun player with which to play.

People aren't entitled to a seat at a private table (whether it be a streamed event or actual private party/poker game). A hoodie-wearing mute nit doesn't bring enjoyment to other players. Over a multi-hour (and those of us degens here know games can go on for a LONG time) session, there needs to be banter, interaction and game play.

I know Doug Polk is a pretty polarizing guy in the poker world, but I think he does it up right on the streams. Loose but not dumb, with public randomization in big spots (e.g., facing an all in, he'll show his cards and then turn them back over, mix them up, turn them back over and call or fold based on some ordering criteria he set forth). It both illustrates GTO mixing principles and provides a sweat to the players and viewers.

I really like the extra component, as a viewer, and enjoy seeing players try to adjust to the different elements. For example, I probably lost more respect for Hellmuth during the creator stream (with ultra-rich young people like Mr. Beast and a bunch of other folks I hadn't heard of) than I had in 20 years of his whining. He was literally in just about the juiciest game in the history of poker, and he's buying in short and berating players for loose plays. Just lighting both money and public goodwill on fire.

All of this.

No one wants to watch guys fold most every hand. That said, while it may be different than what most are used to, there are certainly players that play like that regularly and there's lots to learn from that play, both pre and post flop. I've found myself changing things up as a result of what I've seen from some of these guys when I play at ultra loose tables.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Just lighting both money and public goodwill on fire.

That’s been Helmuth’s brand for decades though.

 

[CGRdrJoe]

Just lighting both money and public goodwill on fire.

That’s been Helmuth’s brand for decades though.

the guy has 17 bracelets, his shtick may be awful but his tournament play is second to none.

Doyle wrote one of the greatest poker books of all time, RIP...

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I've found myself changing things up as a result of what I've seen from some of these guys when I play at ultra loose tables.

Without a doubt, when a table is loose, loosen up. Otherwise you’ll miss all of that easy action.

I’ll absolutely get in with more marginal hands when I see a table going on tilt.

The last time I played there was a dude on his 3rd buy-in, raising every hand pre-flop. At that point I jumped in with super marginal hands I’d ordinarily toss. Got lucky a couple times on the flop, took him for about $300 in 30 mins.

Playing tight as nails is boring and profitable, but if there’s action at the table & you’re not getting into hands, you’re missing opportunity.

Sometimes it’s fine to gamble.

But if the table is tight, you don’t want to be the loose one. I know I said i tend to play tight - that’s true, but it’s not 100% of the time.

Circumstances should dictate style.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

the guy has 17 bracelets, his shtick may be awful but his tournament play is second to none.

No doubt. I’ve watched quite a bit of him over the years. Being off putting is part of his style.

Doyle wrote one of the greatest poker books of all time, RIP...

I have it sitting on my nightstand.

 

[El Floppo]

post flop.