Live at the Bike 2012 thread

[HustlerLA]

One team dropped out so if anyone wants to join in there's an open spot for one team of 2

[EN09]

Are the prospective team names out?

[HustlerLA]

Yes.
Zach Freeman (me) & Mike Basic

Bryce Yockey & Jonathan (not sure last name) was on show last 2 episodes.

Mike Noori & Will (I don't know Will)

Evan Krentzman & Rob Kraft (Each have been on the show once or twice)

[HustlerLA]

Limon may play if he can find a partner
Anyone?

[IbelieveinChipKelly]

god that was painful to watch

[BulltexasATM]

Have to say worst episode ever.

[HustlerLA]

Sounds like people didnt enjoy the show as much as we did. We had a blast, most of being good friends and its always fun to play with a group of good players.

Maybe the viewer demographic is more into WSOP style Big Pots Allins, suckouts and donks.

I could see viewers wishing for more action pots; but there wasnt many big hand v big hand or big draw vs big hand matchups. That def wouldv'e been more entertaining.

It was a little annoying that the analysis lacked detail, and was just plain off; every time we made pretty easy value bets they (Tuchman moreso) think we are turning our hand into a bluff. And just so much stuff is missed.

A good example is when Mike/I had T8s on A46r vs Bryce/Jon. Flop went check check. Turn 8 and we bet. and got called. River 2. And we bet again; first off we bet 220 into 160 to rep a polarized range which would make them think we dont have a middling hand like 8X or weak AX thus our percieved value range is much more narrow. Moreso, Tuchman comments, "what better hands are going to fold this river, I dont like this bluff"
No thought was given that the flop check back range so heavily consists of 4X and 6X hands that have SD value, hands like 99-KK are in their range but are most often cbetting becasue they get called by worse a lot and by draws. Evenso there are way more 4x, 6x combos then mid PPs. River is a easy value bet and Bryce/Jon didnt raise river when they hit 2pr because our overbet looked polarized and the value portion of such a range beats bottom 2. That kind of stuff just wasn't able to be understood by commentating and relayed to viewership which would be interesting and educational to viewers.

Personally, myself and Mike; we made a handful of incorrect folds. All of which were weak hands but still I wish we didnt. We incorrectly folded TP on 3 flush board, 5th pair on 4 flush board, A-high on J68 and 4th pair T6 on KJ6,2,5 where villain was valuebetting worse (and commentary again thought they were bluffing).

We pretty much bricked every flop; not even a gutter to c/r or barrel. Strongest hand we made by river was One Pair on a 4 flush board if you don't count T3 on JT3,J, J which is technically a boat but not a very valuable one.

Anyhow overall just wanted to give my 2c on the show. Had a few critiques but we had a great time and glad it worked out well.

[IbelieveinChipKelly]

Originally Posted by HustlerLA

Sounds like people didnt enjoy the show as much as we did. We had a blast, most of being good friends and its always fun to play with a group of good players.

Maybe the viewer demographic is more into WSOP style Big Pots Allins, suckouts and donks.

I could see viewers wishing for more action pots; but there wasnt many big hand v big hand or big draw vs big hand matchups. That def wouldv'e been more entertaining.

It was a little annoying that the analysis lacked detail, and was just plain off; every time we made pretty easy value bets they (Tuchman moreso) think we are turning our hand into a bluff. And just so much stuff is missed.

A good example is when Mike/I had T8s on A46r vs Bryce/Jon. Flop went check check. Turn 8 and we bet. and got called. River 2. And we bet again; first off we bet 220 into 160 to rep a polarized range which would make them think we dont have a middling hand like 8X or weak AX thus our percieved value range is much more narrow. Moreso, Tuchman comments, "what better hands are going to fold this river, I dont like this bluff"
No thought was given that the flop check back range so heavily consists of 4X and 6X hands that have SD value, hands like 99-KK are in their range but are most often cbetting becasue they get called by worse a lot and by draws. Evenso there are way more 4x, 6x combos then mid PPs. River is a easy value bet and Bryce/Jon didnt raise river when they hit 2pr because our overbet looked polarized and the value portion of such a range beats bottom 2. That kind of stuff just wasn't able to be understood by commentating and relayed to viewership which would be interesting and educational to viewers.

Personally, myself and Mike; we made a handful of incorrect folds. All of which were weak hands but still I wish we didnt. We incorrectly folded TP on 3 flush board, 5th pair on 4 flush board, A-high on J68 and 4th pair T6 on KJ6,2,5 where villain was valuebetting worse (and commentary again thought they were bluffing).

We pretty much bricked every flop; not even a gutter to c/r or barrel. Strongest hand we made by river was One Pair on a 4 flush board if you don't count T3 on JT3,J, J which is technically a boat but not a very valuable one.

Anyhow overall just wanted to give my 2c on the show. Had a few critiques but we had a great time and glad it worked out well.

perhaps we just got unlucky and it was just an uneventful show for viewers. i don't think it's that we need to see all-ins every hand, or suckouts or donks.

i mean, 1 of the teams involved hardly got involved in any action. that's 20 percent of the players. harry looked unenthused to be playing.

i only saw a couple of timeouts used ... it would have been nice to hear those discussions.

i'm not saying i won't watch it again if this format is used. i will, because i'm a degenerate ... (i'm now watching the big game russia and not understanding a word that is being said, because, it's in freaking russian.)

maybe it would be better if it was more than 5-handed?

[sunno]

Latb, plz don't do that type of show again.

[EN09]

Whether one liked the show or not, Kudos to LATB for giving a different type of show a shot. The willingness to try new things and concepts show a willingness to grow and expand. Every success has a few stumbles somewhere along the way. The LATB, and it's crew, is still one of my top picks.

[bigoiltrader]

I'd take tuchman's analysis over norm mcdonald or that indian dude that thinks he's so cool any day of the wk. Give the guy a break for not being on lvl 25 poker ffs...

[HustlerLA]

Im not giving the guy a hard time, just giving appropriate criticism. I've commentated on the show and while my analysis was strong I wasn't good at keeping the flow of the show going.

His analysis is above average and in soft lineups his critique/ analysis is adequate and appropriate.
But here instead of him just guessing so often with incorrect assessments I'd rather see less analysis and go the route of sticking to color commentary, and side stories which he is very good at.
If you watched his WSOP coverage, he was great; deferring to top player guest analysts and keeping the show running smoothly.

[cstevens]

Originally Posted by HustlerLA

Im not giving the guy a hard time, just giving appropriate criticism. I've commentated on the show and while my analysis was strong I wasn't good at keeping the flow of the show going.

His analysis is above average and in soft lineups his critique/ analysis is adequate and appropriate.
But here instead of him just guessing so often with incorrect assessments I'd rather see less analysis and go the route of sticking to color commentary, and side stories which he is very good at.
If you watched his WSOP coverage, he was great; deferring to top player guest analysts and keeping the show running smoothly.

i watched this entire show (prob a first for me) cause i thought this team dynamic was very interesting.

so what you are saying is that with normal soft latb lineups dave can chime in w/ analysis but when latb gets tougher lineups like your game dave shouldnt give any analysis whatsoever and stick to color? seems pretty dumb to not want his side of the analysis in tougher games just cause he isnt a pro poker player like a lot of you guys.

while obviously nobody always agrees w/ any one persons analysis (in this case daves) that doesnt mean he should sit on the sidelines and let someone else do all the work (this is his and barts gig remember).

i just dont understand how when you get more pros that play on the show they somehow expect expert analysis.

[HustlerLA]

Originally Posted by cstevens

i watched this entire show (prob a first for me) cause i thought this team dynamic was very interesting.

so what you are saying is that with normal soft latb lineups dave can chime in w/ analysis but when latb gets tougher lineups like your game dave shouldnt give any analysis whatsoever and stick to color? seems pretty dumb to not want his side of the analysis in tougher games just cause he isnt a pro poker player like a lot of you guys.

while obviously nobody always agrees w/ any one persons analysis (in this case daves) that doesnt mean he should sit on the sidelines and let someone else do all the work (this is his and barts gig remember).

i just dont understand how when you get more pros that play on the show they somehow expect expert analysis.

I can expand, I think the analysis could have been more open ended and less absolute.
Instead of "this bluff is bad" or "hes turning TP into a bluff" where both the assumption of intent and the conclusion of profitability are probably not simple enough for him to assess, commentary could have been more along the lines of " I believe he is bluffing with TP here, I wonder what he expects to fold out. Or if value betting what does he think villains calling range is"
Im not hating on the job they did, just offering input to improve in similar future situations.

I do the same for my play, I found some spots I wish I played better and self critique for next time.

[thehammah]

Originally Posted by HustlerLA

Im not giving the guy a hard time, just giving appropriate criticism. I've commentated on the show and while my analysis was strong I wasn't good at keeping the flow of the show going.

His analysis is above average and in soft lineups his critique/ analysis is adequate and appropriate.
But here instead of him just guessing so often with incorrect assessments I'd rather see less analysis and go the route of sticking to color commentary, and side stories which he is very good at.
If you watched his WSOP coverage, he was great; deferring to top player guest analysts and keeping the show running smoothly.

At least people dont think you are a nit with no imagination!

he he.