This feels very déjà vu - was this UB connection not already discussed a couple weeks ago?

Not that it shouldn't be discussed still; just wanted to make sure I hadn't missed any new developments.

qft

dude is the nut low live poker commentator.

yeah i don't get it, i mean i understand norman chad and his schtick and role but lon is supposed to be the guy who knows the game and yet after all these years seems to have only a basic understanding of the game

How hard is it reading a que card in the post-production booth?

It's probably harder than spelling cue card correctly..

Lon is more like the play-by-play guy, while Norm is the color commentator/expert analyst, who happens to add more color than analysis (although Norm did have some history playing poker coming into this, I realize few would characterize him as an expert). I think Lon would even admit that his role is only to know the game well enough to announce the action. As you noted, he does get in trouble when he strays beyond that and tries reading the board, talking about a player's outs, etc.

Sinto muito. Inglês não é minha língua nativa.

ah right, forgot the color guy was also supposed to be the expert when there are only 2

well i guess he does his job fine then and they obviously punted analyis for color with norm - i don't mind norm, but perhaps it's just familiarity and now reminded of lon's role i guess he's alright

need to add in schulman and there ya go but he'd probably have his head buried in his hands for most of the broadcast

hate to say it but the times they bring in a poker player like helmuth or antonion it really adds in an extra dimension even if it's someone that just rubs me the wrong way like antonio

As someone who has played with lon a bunch of times it's not surprising he isn't sure if there was cheating. Dude is a standard nit fish without a clue.

That being said he's really nice and Ive never had a bad experience being around him

Does everyone in Brazil have such crappy avatars?

As far as I can see, both of these guys were chosen as good talkers rather than poker experts. Presumably, they were appealing to people who didn't know anything about poker. Presumably, also they were unknown players and cheaper than hiring a strong player. Lon calls the action and Chad comments. Mike Sexton > Norm Chad > Lon, as far as NLHE MTT knowledge. Sexton has actually learned from commentating. The thing is none of them were good players when they were hired, regardless of changes in the game. I agree it would be better to use Chad along with a strong player who is a good talker. I guess someone has to call the action though.

I agree. It kind of tempers the schtick a bit, and it helps cater to a broader audience.

Sexton was a poker pro for decades before he became a poker commentator. He won a WSOP gold bracelet in 1989, well over a decade before he became an announcer for the WPT.

You'd be absolutely right. I am a coward and a subhuman piece of ****.

Yeah when I saw that post I began scratching my head with a omg I thought he was a pro before he commented

Has a great interview with Chicago papi about how he made millions as a poker consultant for one of the online sites basically telling them how poker was played (like rules and stuff) and then lost it all. Was a real wild west back then

This is OT so feel free to nuke, Bobo, but the UB talk in this thread made me revisit the Ultimate Beat doc. I can’t believe how Annie Duke has access to some of the most influential financial people in the world (Mauboussin and Howard Marks, especially) who willingly pimp her book on twitter. Marks wrote the jacket blurb on Thinking in Bets ffs.

My initial reaction to rewatching the doc leads me to think everyone associated is guilty, but if that’s true, how does she have access to the people mentioned above? They ignore the UB scandal? They know about it but don’t care? Occasionally people call her out on twitter but it’s dwarfed by the praise from CFAs and investors. I don’t know what to make of it.

I've thought about this idea a bunch - I think that we overestimate how much other successful people from other worlds understand poker and the poker world. These type of people are consumed in their own worlds - they hear one of the best poker players and assume it must be true because she and other people are saying it. If we go to the business world and see someone promoted as one of the top people over their biggest media, we will believe he is one of the best. That is how she was presented in poker media.

She says she didn't do anything, why would these people not believe her?? And they might even think it would be good business to also take place in it - make easy money, why not?? Some people don't care about the ethics of poker. They care about how to make the most money from their business. They aren't watching the UB documentary.

As a play by play guy, Lon doesn't need to be good at poker. He doesn't need to know high level strategy. The problem with Lon is that when he commentates he sounds like a dude that doesn't ever even play poker. He messes up on really simple things like a flush hitting, or two pair being counterfeited. These are things that should come natural to anyone that plays any significant amount of poker.

I'm sure they never canned him because he's a really good announcer in general with a great voice. He was great in the prerecorded WSOPs back in the day but now we need someone that can call the action accurately and instantly recognize things like the turn card bringing in a possible backdoor flush draw or a double gutter. The poker knowledge aspect of his job is really not rocket science, TBH.

Sounds like I need to watch this documentary.

this is maybe the best way to win the case. get a roster of 20-50 local poker professionals, and have them look at 10 postle hands, 10 hands chosen at random, and 10 hands from a (potentially different) winning professional poker player. they should all ace the challenge of pinpointing who played which, and then their opinion suddenly has merit to a judge.

That's funny what if they don't ace it? If the glove does not fit you must acquit.

sample size too small, cherry picking can easily be accused even if it isn't actually valid. I would just have statisticians pointing out the mathematical impossibility of his results and with preponderance of evidence being the standard to meet as far as I know being that it's a civil case, this should be a fairly easy win for team veronica and co

without someone flipping there will be no criminal case. too hard too prove beyond a reasonable doubt. and not big enough potatoes for a district attorney to spend the money on a case that they likely wont win and the penalty wont be severe even if they do.

but a civil case is a slam dunk as the level of proof is way down and lots of other evidence can be admitted. its only monetarily worthwhile against the casino as the participants likely have little money.

but getting a judgement can have their paychecks and other accounts charged. and of course the irs can be brought in as proceeds from theft are taxable and so are his winnings even if legit and there is a video record of them. so he isnt out of the woods yet on this.

this is false. Justin is still on staff at stones. unpaid leave

Unpaid leave pending the outcome of the investigation, or unpaid leave like all the other workers due to the Coronavirus?

he has been on leave since Sept 28th ish