Not of a Fan of Olivier Busquet's Commentery - Page 4 - Televised Poker

brandoncla · 07-18-2012, 02:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deuces McKracken

I feel the need to enlighten people interested in this thread.

The poker landscape changes, and poker commentary changes with it. The number of people becoming experts at poker will continue to rise as a proportion of all people playing poker. The number of people trying to make money selling poker strategy will also continue to rise. Then there is also what I call the "show off" factor, which is huge- even people who don't get paid for it can't wait to tell others what they learn. You can see this in others spheres as well. For instance a few years back there was a group of physicists who actually constructed a successful predictive model of the stock market based on a model of heat flow. Did they get rich off it? No. They published it. And of course, ironically predictably, the model lost all value once it was known. They just couldn't keep it in and that is just part of human nature.

There is clearly a "gold rush" aspect to poker which follows a very similar model to many other opportunities: the later you get into the game the more skill you need and at some point the market becomes efficient to the point where no amount of skill will help you. I feel bad for young kids building their life around poker dreams. It doesn't matter if you have more skills than the unibomber and the magician put together. You will never have their bankrolls because they built theirs in a different era, an era where there was money lying around for the taking. That era is over and trying to preserve the scraps of that era by dumbing down commentary is like trying to keep ice cream from melting with a floor fan.

E7390 · 07-18-2012, 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kreuznagel

Plus, he was spot on with everything he was saying about Helmuth (him being one of the all time greats considering his ability to play all the games very well, but not really being at the very top of the game when it comes to "modern" tournament poker). How you donks could possibly find that disrespectful or "smug" is beyond me. Maybe it's "hearing comprehension" or something.

91 WSOP Cashes
48 WSOP Final Tables
12 Bracelets

4 WPT Final Tables
13 WPT Cashes

Yeah look at those shoddy results!

E7390 · 07-18-2012, 05:35 AM

.

Chi_town99 · 07-18-2012, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kreuznagel
... How you donks could possibly find that disrespectful or "smug" is beyond me. Maybe it's "hearing comprehension" or something.

I suppose you can't see it as disrespectful, because you likewise have chosen to express yourself in a disrespectful way. But you are an anonymous internet thread poster, so I don't expect much...

However, Olivier was playing the part of a professional broadcast analyst, and it is incumbent on him to express his points in a tactful, professional manner. He dismissed a player's past and even recent accomplishments, and completely diminished the man in such a off-handed way. Not taking the time to craft a better way to deliver his point was very disrespectful.

Plus, he didn't provide any back-up information to explain or justify his conclusion. There may be plenty of back-up to his point, and such analysis would warrant details to help the viewer understand why this is the case. Very bush-league... and believing that you can drop that kind of remark without justification is indeed smug.

FargoPokerPlayer · 07-27-2012, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kreuznagel

When adressing Helmuth, he meant no disrespect at all, even said so numerous times. Plus, he was spot on with everything he was saying about Helmuth (him being one of the all time greats considering his ability to play all the games very well, but not really being at the very top of the game when it comes to "modern" tournament poker). How you donks could possibly find that disrespectful or "smug" is beyond me. Maybe it's "hearing comprehension" or something.
On top of that, you have Norm in the booth, balancing everything out and you can already tell they're trying to establish that dynamic of one commentator antagonizing the other playfully, which is btw almost becoming a common thing in today's (sports) commentary.

"Not being @ the very top when it comes to modern tournament poker." LOL What planet are you from? Hellmuth has finished in the top 5 in the WSOP POY for the last two years, has 3 2nd places @ WSOP in last 2 years, has 2 million dollar WSOP cashes the last 2 years, and one bracelet in the last 2 years. Is he suppose to final table or win every #$##ing tournament to be considered at the very top??????

JohnnyIllini · 07-27-2012, 01:19 AM

I am also a tremendous fan of Busquet. I find him to be both incredibly intelligent and humble, and think it is tremendously refreshing to hear someone so thoughtful do the commentary.

devilman2075 · 07-27-2012, 07:23 AM

I can understand arguments on both sides of this, but i can't deny that the only commentators I've ever enjoyed were Busquet and Esfandiari. Obviously people like Norman Chad and Gabe and others are probably better for poker and its growth. I just can't help but love hearing these pros going through these hands though

kerr · 07-28-2012, 10:25 AM

I greatly enjoy commentary from either Olivier or Antonio.

I have no interest in listening to commentary from Hellmuth and would be happy to never hear him commentate again.

Hugh_G_Johnson · 07-30-2012, 02:39 PM

Busquet was interesting on poker geek level, but he doesn't make for 'good TV'. However, on the 'is he Lon McCarron or Norman Chad?' criterion he scores incredibly high.

Lon McCarron is a bag of bones in a suit and Norman Chad is a wounded child in a middle-aged body with a mustache from a police sketch. Maybe Norm would be funny if he wasn't so depressing -- probably not though. Lon's self worth seems to derive from the fact that he's not Norman Chad. As Norm would say: "good for you." And yes; I'm a bitter, jealous, armchair quarterbacking, internet assassin (see? I can do self-deprecation too!).

I have no clue why they are paid to announce/analyse poker on television. On the other hand; this is the network that has more NFL analysts than NFL players; who actually paid Emmit Smith to speak and has basically turned itself into debate television ("embrace debate"? No thanks).

BTW, if ESPN is reading: I have enough of a non-geek working knowledge of poker to competently commentate on it without alienating the commom plebeian (oops). I do NOT have an ex-wife, or wife... or girlfriend -- but, I clearly have a pathetic life and plenty of material for the highly sophisticated brand of humor that is self-deprication. Finally; this is a 3 paragraph post. If a hacker inserted a rogue paragraph above this one I have no knowledge or control over its content. I look forward to working with anyone but Lon McCarron or Norman Chad, thank you.

djanhalen · 07-31-2012, 10:05 PM

I watched him a couple of times, unless he went crazy with advanced strategy on broadcasts I've missed, he was talking about pretty standard stuff. If you think such basics makes good players better and chases fish away, the odds are against you being good to start with.
That said I prefer Gabe Kaplan over anyone and I don't give a **** if he said people should raise for information on 2006 HSP episodes. He is the most witty and fun to watch commentator. He held his own on a few televised cash games as well.

lancelott_ · 08-01-2012, 02:43 AM

Oliver, STOP educating fish so hard (we know your good at poker...)! Obv its all cool for you as you get TV time/experience etc, but man its sucks so bad when one man gains, and so many lose because one person gains. tilts the **** out of me. This is why Kaplan was so awesome/+EV for poker environment back in the day

kerr · 08-01-2012, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lancelott_

Oliver, STOP educating fish so hard (we know your good at poker...)! Obv its all cool for you as you get TV time/experience etc, but man its sucks so bad when one man gains, and so many lose because one person gains. tilts the **** out of me. This is why Kaplan was so awesome/+EV for poker environment back in the day

guess you want hole cameras removed also

Hugh_G_Johnson · 08-01-2012, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lancelott_

Oliver, STOP educating fish so hard (we know your good at poker...)! Obv its all cool for you as you get TV time/experience etc, but man its sucks so bad when one man gains, and so many lose because one person gains. tilts the **** out of me. This is why Kaplan was so awesome/+EV for poker environment back in the day

I understand the sentiment, but I honestly wouldn't worry about it. One of the biggest running jokes in poker are fish who "learn" jargon and nuggets of wisdom and completely misapply both. You have to be smart to play poker and most people just aren't smart.

He's talking about things that most people just cannot comprehend. Some people kind of get it and they end up being the would-be geniuses. This allows them to play bad and think they're good and unlucky. This is great for poker. However, I would be worried more about scaring potential new players away. But, there will always be people who just want to play recreationally.

The only real downfall in his commentary I'm afraid to say; is that it may just be too mathematical and make poker seem boring.

Boonce · 08-01-2012, 10:08 PM

I like OB but I definitely agree with OP's first two paragraphs. The analysis of hands was great and not too technical or alienating. I too would like to hear him putting a bit more emphasis on luck rather than GTO for the recreational players watching.