A local bar in my home town used to run poker tournaments, word spread and numbers grew every week. It was a fun night out. Eventually though, certain undesirable types started to show up. The mood changed, anti-social behaviour started to creep in. Personal insults, arguments, and loud obnoxious drunken table talk became the norm. People stopped showing up, soon the bar stopped running poker tournaments at all.

My point is: Any behaviour which ruins the experience for other players should not be tolerated. It has a pernicious effect on the game and drives recreational players away. A strong, no BS floorman is an absolute sine qua non for any establishment that runs poker. I have no sympathy for spoiled brats like Matusow who think the world revolves around them and their need to always be the centre of attention.

Actually, you probably should "get a pass." Or at least a more developed level of understanding as to the impact a psychopathology has on behavior. Having a mental illness, like bi-polar disorder, should afford you some level of accommodation and understanding in the same way a physical illness does. The WSOP has a fair and reasonable history of making rule-exceptions for players who are blind, deaf, and other serious physical issues (the dude with no arms comes to mind). Why this same line of thinking doesn't apply to psychological issues is borderline prejudicial.

Note: I have no idea if Mike has any mental issues that should be considered when applying the rules, and I don't mean to white-knight on his behalf. But when you attempt to legislate "socially unacceptable" behavior at a poker table (rooting and loudly swearing after winning a hand?), many things, including documented mental issues should be considered. It's not that hard

I agree with your premise that if no one had any personality/social skills, the game would not be as popular as it is. No one wants to watch 9 22-yr olds in hoodies/shades sit there silently playing poker and saying nothing else except the quick "nihan nihan" after each hand is complete.

But come on, you cannot possibly believe that childish, immature hissyfits are a big part of why people enjoy watching poker. There is a huge range of human behavior in regards to social interactions in-between "stone silent, refusing to interact with any other person" and "acting like a 4 year old who dropped his ice cream". The two extreme ends are not fun to watch or entertaining in the slightest. It's the in-between group where the entertainment lies and that's where the most tv-friendly players lie.

Here, allow me to demonstrate. This is what we all agree is good for televised poker - players bantering with each other, interacting, socializing, personalities shining through, making the televised product truly fun to watch and definitely the type of episode that people can point to and say "this is the kind of thing we want to be showing when we show poker on TV":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3ROUhBIBbI

Start at 2:20 or so. Gavin Smith starts the table interaction with a side-game proposal and it goes from there.

But please don't confuse that with immature, childish meltdowns. Poker did not get popular because of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeUNNfBxJds

Guys like the aforementioned Smith, Laak, Negreanu, Esfandari, those are the "personalities" that people talk about such that no matter whether or not they are the best poker players, they're always going to be good to have on a poker show because they bring value to the overall production by being fun to watch at a poker table.

Matusow is not that type of person. He gets lumped in that category because he isn't the overembellished stereotype of an internet nerd who lives in his mom's basement and can't interact with anyone unless it's through a computer, but people forget that there's a TWO STEP PROCESS to being fun to be around and fun to watch on TV - step 1 is trying to interact with others, step 2 is acting reasonable during those attempts. Andrew Robl got accused of not doing Step 1 after being on the Poker Stars "Big Game" show one time. Matusow passes Step 1. He fails Step 2. All the time. And he is entirely pathetic to watch, and honestly I doubt he had even the smallest impact on poke'rs popularity. The ONLY person who erupts and throws temper tantrums repeatedly but is still an overall good poker personality and great for building the game is Phil Hellmuth. I have no idea why he and he alone somehow does it, that's not important. He's the exception that proves the rule. Poker doesn't need immature babies. Poker doesn't need nerds in their mothers' basement. It needs the people who are in-between those two extremes.

how much did mike get for his high finish?

Agreed with your premise; however, any mental issues here are more about the meltdown he had after the ruling was made. I listed that as one of the four things he did that were entirely ridiculous - if the meltdown was connected to a mental illness that he is struggling with, okay, I will admit that it's not appropriate to criticize him for that.

But pointing to a mental illness as to why you cannot act reasonably and civil when you win a pot? That's much different than pointing to a mental illness as to why you weren't able to compose yourself and regroup and refocus on the task at hand after a tournament director made a bad ruling that hurt your overall position at a key moment.

Actually for me it definitely helped get me into poker. I remember watching the old WSOP ME shows with the good story telling, the Phil Helmuth blow ups, the Mike Matusow meltdowns and just funny **** like that. It definitely made poker more entertaining. Compared to an EPT episode which puts me to sleep.

Mike Matusow has sent me 500$ for a trivia on old FullTilt, after he won a huge football-bet and spun 3k up to 60k that day, too.
I use to mention this, and the fact that I like Mike Matusow, in every thread about him. In return for that, I bought his book, which is really entertaining.

+1

this is terrible ruling

I don't know of any polls but I do have a number of relatives and acquaintances that like to watch the WSOP but aren't poker players per se. They all recognize and like to watch the big names that were always featured on the early WSOP. One of them really loves Matusow, says he comes a cross as a very kind person with a big heart. She wound up dumping a decent amount at the FTP and even Party tables back in the day despite me trying to get her to play better.

I know for myself, the excitement I saw on tv got me interested in the game. Had someone told me it's a boring grind of tedius math that turns your mind to mush for the rest of the day I don't think I would have started.

I think it's evidenced by the large number of noobs thinking the TV pros are the **** until they're set straight by other people on the forums.

I don't now how large a population this represents but from my experience, these are exactly the type of people you want getting into poker. Not some math geek who loved all the talk of pot odds and equity.

There's actually some middle ground between silent, expressionless nodding and running around the room screaming for an extended period of time.

Seems like a ridiculous ruling with no prior warning, though.

Mike wins a big pot and celebrates loudly. Player 1 at the table jokingly makes a comment about "excessive endzone celebration" within earshot of the floor. Player 2 at the table who has clearly been annoyed with Mike prior to this hand chimes in and agrees (non jokingly) that his behavior is out of line and adds that he's been dropping f bombs every other word since they were sat together. Floor hears this as well and issues Matusow a penalty. Matusow is clearly very upset and complains about the ruling but at no point insults the floor.

The argument that outrageous behavior is "good" for poker is an interesting one, but when he told Raymer that he has big balls and GR has tiny little balls, that was bull****. What a ****ing *******. When Raymer refused to shake his hand, I loved that.

I don't know exactly where to draw the line, but that Raymer interaction crossed it by about 6 miles.

I dont know about the USA but certainly here in the UK, Mike shouting and swearing just wouldn't be shown on mainstream TV without a lot of editing.
I don't see how that can be good for the game.
I Agree his penalty was harsh but he really needs to have a little respect for the other players at the table.

I personally have never played a live game but if my first experience was being berated at the table by the likes of Mike it would probably be my last.

I'm not the biggest fan of Mike, but clearly this was a terrible ruling.

The line should be if the "celebration' is hostile towards another player. To your point, the "little balls' comment, was insulting an unknown (at the time), which was wrong. Mike being a clown and running around isn't directly attacking someone else's character or play. I can accept this, the game should be fun.

People make mistakes, but they can't be tolerated when people are playing for significant sums of money. The tourney director needs reprimand, at minimum.

That was seriously some of the most obnoxious **** I've heard in a long, long time.

So you are okay with this:

Right?

If that's what really happened the penalty was way out of line.

The penalty was for disruptive behavior, not for excessive celebration. Still seems silly to jump straight to a one round penalty when a warning or one hand penalty is an option.

Doesn't mean he wasn't way out of line with that penalty.

Something happens every year at the WSOP that turns TDs into people who have no business running tournaments. Must be the water or something. It becomes OK to run a tournament like an amateur because it's a tournament with hundreds or thousands of amateurs.

I'm not a Matusow guy at all, but Dave Lamb screwed him pretty good by not knowing a rule got tossed 2 years ago.

The amount of the blinds effects the degree or amount of the penalty, and thus whether the penalty fit the purported "crime."

+1, exept I enjoyed watching him on tv

+1

Also TD's at the WSOP and WSOP Circuit often give weight to the stage of the tournament when giving penalties. I have heard numerous times from different WSOP floors that if cards are exposed in the early levels they simply give a warning, but if it's in the later levels with more on the line, they will give an orbit penalty as their discretion allows. They are clearly aware that a penalty later on the tourney carries considerably more weight, they should temper their sentences accordingly imo.

TD had more than enough reason to give a douche a penalty. A douche got a penalty. Big deal, i've seen people accidentally flip a card over and get a one round penalty. Probably a bad ruling. I think anyone who reads this thread should get a free buy in to main event if Mike should get that.

TD should be promoted for standing up to a douche bag. Me and anyone else who have read even part of this knows mike was acting like a douche. TD penalized him for that, but Mike feels like he should get special treatment. **** any douchebag that claims being bibolar getting to act out needing special treatment. Rake your pot, move on, and try to win the tourney. Be a pro, and act like a pro.

TD has a right and obligation to protect the other players when a douchebag acts like Mike did. Mike has no case. Anyone that thinka the TD should be fired or Mike deserves anything is a dumbass. imo

Loads of other pros do the exact samething. Why only Mike?

Mike is great... he's so entertaining.

But, act like professional... taunting and bullying have no place in any competition these modern times.