I loved him. He brought a good sense of knowledge about what players might be doing. He was spot on about Hellmuth but wasn't mean or cruel about it. I hope he does more tourneys.

It doesn't matter what his opinion of helmuth is. It's just his opinion. He could have brought it up in a funnier or pure "trash talking" way - and not made it so concrete. Imagine a casual onlooker who thinks helmuth is the man - but is told that is wrong and people are way better. Like this guy final tabled a million dollar event and he's getting put down. That was not the time for that.

Also i disagree with norm and Lon balancing it out. Olivier was clearly the expert and when he says amateurs have zero chance, that is just terrible - and very untrue for short term especially btw. Do you want newcomers to the game thinking there are sharks like Olivier just sitting and waiting to pick them off?

Best example of an informative show was big game with Joe Stapleton. He always made the game seem like a fun party. And if the amateur made a mistake he would point it out and you can learn from that He would also give awesome analysis (I know he had writers, time, and multiple takes - but still, joe would never say an amateur has no chance).

I don't mind the expert commentary. Just please keep in mind how poker got big - by amateurs beating the game

Maybe it has something to do with Hellmuth's ability to win bracelets in every decade since his first one. I will check on this, but it is not like he only one his bracelets back in the pre-web days. He has won a few since then, iirc.

Yup, every decade since the win in '89, though there is a 5 yr. gap between '07 - '12 . . .

I disagree with the sentiments about trying to hide the fact that poker is a skill game from recreational players. I think people are attracted to poker for that very reason, not because they think its just random bingo gambling.

Except for HU, right? I mean, Beth Shak says HU poker is all luck, and she's a pro . . . right? RIght?!?

It's not that Olivier's opinion about Phil was so crazy or anything... it's that it was out-of-place and catty. The idea that it's okay because he repeatedly said he meant no disrespect is silly... when people say they mean no disrespect, that generally means they know they're saying something that (at the very least) is likely to be interpreted as disrespectful.

Hellmuth is on a big stage, competing for the largest prize in poker history, and Olivier almost randomly decides to go off about how Phil really hasn't kept up with the times like Negreanu has and isn't nearly as good as the top players. Not saying it's the end of the world, and not saying it's even necessarily incorrect (or not getting into that argument anyway)... just saying IMO it's inappropriate in the context it was presented. I also thought, on a more general level, that Olivier's tone came across smug... obviously, I understand that's pretty subjective, but it also seems like I'm not the only person who felt that way.

Olivier does the best commentary I've heard.

You know why he said the things he said about hellmuth?

They are true.

I remember when he was on the pokercast last year, he said that he didn't believe he was doing anyone any good by "dumbing down" his analysis to the level of the average joe, and that everyone would be better served if he helped bring people up to the level of his commentary (I've paraphrased there and he didn't sound like a douchebag the way I just did).

+1

And why is that? Because of the butthurt fa ggots that are crowding this thread. "He is definitely one of that all time greats, but..." How incredibly disrespectful.
It's so funny how Helmuth was catching heat all the time a little over a year ago. For his constant antics on the one hand and for the game supposedly having passed him by on the other. Now he goes out and performs a great two series in a row and suddenly he is some sort sacred lamb that may not even be moderately critizised. The hilarity/irony of (internet) idiocy, I guess.
Btw, I'm not a Helmuth hater at all, I have been a fan of the guy since I first saw him years ago.

No amount of commentary of any kind will ever approach the damage done in regards to amateurs as the USA banning online poker. The only people watching anymore are poker players, usually those well above the amateur level. I would rather they shut up too so I can listen to the players.

Well, just watched the One Drop and I have to say I loved Busquet's commentary, especially as a guy who often tries to explain to less experienced players that people like Phil Hellmuth, Mike Matusow, Chris Ferguson, all these "TV stars" are not anywhere close to best poker players in the world as it is often presented.

Many of them have had some ridiculous leaks for years now and are definitely not a good example of what does it mean to be a poker player. So, having said that, not only I have not found Busquet's commentary (Hellmuth parts) smug or insulting, I honsetly thought that it was actually a good thing for casual viewers to point out that people like Hellmuth are not really THAT good.

Listening to Olivier commentate can do nothing but help a good player get better and is a huge benefit. Most players would pay to hear this stuff. Anyone complaining about it just doesn't get it.

I really liked his commentary but my opinion is heavily biased by being a husng reg and wanting to hear the insight from a top husng player. I understand the point you are making that his commentary may not be the best for getting recreational players more into the game; however I believe that some recreational players may become more inspired to learn how to play poker better by hearing his analysis. Also i don't think his comments that amateurs have no chance against pros (did he even say that as i don't remember him actually saying that?) is particularly relevant as recreational players watching don't think they are ever going to playing against top pros. Instead hearing that pros have a big edge on recreational players gives incentives for recreational players to try and learn and play more as they think that they can go then go to the casino and have an edge over the other players there who they probably assume are recreational players like themselves.

To those saying that his comments on Hellmuth were random or out of the blue just isn't true. Olivier said these things as a response to Hellmuth making out that he is better or as good because he 'has learned what the other guys do, which is play in this box, whereas my game is in this box over here'. Olivier made it clear that Hellmuth is a good player and should be respected as a pro player but he merely disagrees with Phil's assessment that he is still one of the very best at NL Holdem. Olivier never said Phil is bad at NL Holdem, just not quite in the top echelon of players any more.

Edit: you say that his commentary gives the impression that poker is unbeatable. This is completely untrue in my opinion. It may give the impression that beating the top pros is very hard but it also gives the impression that by learning the game it becomes very beatable. If Olivier was to make out that amateurs have exactly equal chance versus pros, which is just clearly false, it takes away all incentives to learn how to play well.

Your opinion seems to be that TV poker shows should further the incorrect assumption by many that poker is mindless gambling akin to roulette etc by taking away all the strategy talk.

I'm in the pro-Olivier camp, I love his commentary, love the fact that it does get into more detailed explanations of what's going on and why. And I think it does an important service to the game to explain that there are people who have, by virtue of skill, hard work, and experience, an advantage compared with a recreational player.

Saying they have "no chance" may be extreme, but if we hope to grow the game among newcomers by obscuring the fact that there is a high learning curve I think we don't really gain anything at all.

His comments about Hellmuth were right on as well. He said over and over again that he's a great champion, one of the all-time greats. But he also tried to explain how Hellmuth plays a non-standard style that most people think is far from optimal. This is totally right on - Hellmuth isn't great because he has a better approach to the game, he's great because even with his weird style he still manages to win. I think it's great that someone tries to explain that to viewers.