I know this will be an unpopular opinion, but I found this to be one of the least enjoyable shows in recent memory. Everyone is bagging on Cantu, and correctly so. But I also found Olivier Busquet to be just as dull and not very interesting. I have enjoyed his commentary in the past, and if I remember correctly, past appearance(s)? on the pokercast. But he just didn't seem too interesting this show.

Super late to the game here... but I just listened to the show (catching up with WSOP 2014 coverage).

Olivier is a smart guy, and obviously gives Dan Coleman the benefit of the doubt, but I maintain there are sensible arguments against Dan Coleman's position on doing media following the One Drop.

It's true that Dan has no obligations to poker. There's no entity that has a contract with him, and no actual obligations exist. That said, sometimes we do things that are not legally required, where other interests are at play. Dan is a supergenius NL player. He has made his money out-gaming players interested in testing their ability. Winning players need losing players, as we all know. Of course, some players, winning or losing, cannot handle what comes along with a game like this. I'll grant him that.

He entered a poker tournament put on by WSOP. He agreed to have his likeness shown. He filled his obligations by paying the rake, using the holecard cam and being on tv. While his legal obligations might end there, his and his fellow players' interests did not. The prizepool's size is a direct result of the WSOP having spread the tournament. He knew going in that they would want to interview the winner and ask them to pose for promo pictures. If posing was not in the agreement, quiet objection is appropriate.

He could have assisted the WSOP in their broadcast for the continued health of the brand and the tournament, not for his own continuing contractual obligations, but rather the continued business interests of his fellow players. To protest *in this way* is flat-out immature, and indicative of his having just won *FU* money. He could have answered the questions reservedly, but respectfully, and then issued a fuller statement.

When anyone has a client they would like to do future business with, we sometimes do something extra, not by legal obligation, to maintain the relationship. Sorry, but if you are mature about it and not thinking only of your personal interest in maintaining a relationship, thwarting the broadcast / marketing of a tournament is not a good option. The next winner of the tournament would've appreciated his maturity and complicity, just as he enjoyed Antonio's.

I've been one of the better players in a game, and I've been one of the worst. What you can do if you are winning is keep it fun, so there is value for the worse player to return.

Which part of Antonio's maturity did Dan enjoy, his bare footed crowd surfing or his picture with the bricks of cash?

The next one drop winner will just have to settle for the millions of dollars.
I respect your opinion but I also understand Dan. He sees no need to encourage fish. That's not his job. He claims to want the opposite in fact. Fine. Clearly he is good enough to win anyway.