I appreciate the effort but Match Game is brutal. Retire it.

I wouldn't call the Match Game segment "brutal" like the poster above, but overall I agree that it's simply tough to execute in this format. In line with the SHEEP/PEEHS games: the contestant really wants to follow the herd as best as possible. However, if the contestant (or the panel) tends toward novel answers – perhaps because they're more funny or biting that way – then it hampers the game. So the PokerCast Match Game has largely consisted of PEEHS minds trying to play SHEEP.

By the way, part of the humor of the Match Game – not unlike Family Feud – is that the initial questions always come out as sounding suggestive. So whenever possible, they all need to get phrased (or rephrased) in that manner. (e.g. "Alec Torelli's recent angle-shooting allegations are hardly surprising. Back in high school, he was sent to the principal's office for not concealing his _____________.")

All this said, I found myself playing along with the show. Given my own responses, you can see why I enjoyed the segment more this time than before:



Anyway, you may consider pivoting this to something more Family Feud-ish, like PokerRoad Radio used to do. Shronk and Ali would poll a group of people – players, media members – then Sebok and Gavin would square off on the next episode.

Since you guys don't go on-site to tournaments like PRR did, just use the forum: Ross could poll a bunch of forum regs, then Adam and Terrence would battle wits. (This is why the SHEEP game reveal was much more enjoyable than any Match Game.)

Excellent suggestion WT!

Will work on NVG Match Game thread...

Mongolian Beef!!!

I always thought the MG was about the funny answers and the back and forth with the panel. With that as the criteria, the MG segment delivered. Alan was a good sport. The classroom answer was gold. Pure gold.

I like the idea of the VERY gradual bubble. Start paying 10% of a buy in with, say 30% of the players remaining. It could probably be done in such a way that the top 10% still get what they would have, at the expense of the 10.01%-15% group. The big downside is for the organizers, far more payouts means more staff required.

Very intersting LHE insights by Terrence, enjoyed it very much.

Two questions related to his hand histories:

- Is it nowadays standard to not have a 3bet range from the bb?

- In the Hellmuth hand Terrence said that his call on the turn was probably wrong against PH, but mandatory against really tough oppenents.
Suppose you were up against one of those tough opponents, and the river was a brick. Would you check/fold or check/call with your K high?

Been standard for years to not have a 3bet range from BB against a single raiser.

Although with checking behind getting a bit more popular, it might start to lean the other way.

The prevailing wisdom was an opener was c betting really close to 100% so you could protect your range, get the same amount of bets in by c/r what you would 3 bet preflop, and not announce you have a huge hand preflop or on the flop since you'll be c/r a lot of pairs and draws, not just what you would 3bet preflop.

And yes you are c/c K high to c/c again on the river unimproved.

Not TC, but it is certainly standard vs narrow ranges. There's a school of thought that says vs. wide ranges that it would be possible to create balanced 3 betting ranges, but there are others who say don't bother. It also depends on your opponent's likelihood to check back flops.
Could depend on exact runout, I'm guessing. Don't recall, did TC x/r the flop and call a 3 bet?

Who answered it better, me or Doug?

We'll let Terence judge?

FWIW, I think we were typing at the same time. I like yours, at least as well as mine. Kind of think we said the same things in slightly different ways.

We should also tell people interested in LHE that the two new LHE forums are a great place to hang out. Lots of WSOP LHE bracelet winners to talk to. Sometimes other GT wizards drop wisdom.

Like who? I mostly just scan that forum for responses by certain people and I'm curious whether my list overlaps with the bracelet winners.

Thank you, makes sense!

DrOlson, ZOMG_Rigged, and DeathDonkey. Might be missing one or two. They were all great posters before, during, and after winning at the WSOP. Lots of other really strong players who post. Take Terrence as someone who is an absolute beast at LHE who doesn't have hardware. Whether or not he wins a donkament, his advice on the game is worth the time spent listening.

Someone on the LHE forum mentioned sitting with TChan HU in the 6m event at a table before it was filled, and getting to blind off a stack between them (?). He thought TChan was enough of a beast that it was not the greatest spot.
I think the math guys would tell you that most of us cbet too much in many spots.

Also, ProfessorBen but he doesn't post much in the LHE forums anymore.

Don't think Bugstud ever won anything (Edit: Nope, 7 top 10 finishes including a runner up last year)

CardSharpCook also won a bracelet (beat Ben HU), but he rarely posts also.

I redid the payoffs for the 2017 Main. From 1-603 remained the same.

Going down by groups of 72 the remaining payoffs would be

18K,16K,14K,12K,10K, 8K,6K,4K,2K,1K

This would pay about 1320 players instead of the 1080 or so that were paid last year. There would be no giant bubble.

These are good questions, I will make a note to add this discussion into next week's show (i.e. 466) if we can cram it in there!

But couldn't you create a structure that has this kind of gradual buy-in WITHOUT expanding prizes to 30 percent of the field? Continue to give prizes to only 15 percent of the field, but the bottom prize is 20 percent of the buy-in, the next one up is 25 percent, etc.

This would put more of the prize money in the higher places (which the pros would prefer) while disincentivizing stalling at the bubble.

Maybe I need to email this question to Terrence on the show. I've asked it in four different threads now, yet TChan still said (on the episode with Matt Glantz) that a gradual bubble would require giving prizes to 30-40 percent of the field. It does not.

Thoughts on Match Game:

Get an average Joe to skype in for a chance to win some ROI coaching or Shark Scope or something. Hell, if you gave out a free month for every match you still wouldn't have given anything out.

If you do it Family Fued-style, this is a good spot to use Survey Monkey, though I have no idea how much that costs. Something like 50 responses can't be that much, right?

Don't feel too bad about the growing process, you have zero professional writers and/or comedians on staff. Also, the three of you are more likely to match each other than a fourth person is to match one of you. You guys just spend more time together, virtual or otherwise.

I completely agree with the posters who have said that the banter is more important than the number of matches. Alan's 'classroom' answer made up for any misses. Accentuate the positive.

I wasn't even thinking of a third party, but you could use Straw Poll if you wanted. That one is free. Probably would have to do it several times, though.

No, I had in mind the same mechanism Xander used for his PEEHS and SHEEP games: Ross posts a list of categories in the forum, then people PM or email their responses. Then he ranks them, Terrence and Adam make their guesses, maybe reduce the number of strikes to two just to speed things up, and voila...

Survey Monkey is free for up to 10 questions and up to 100 respondents per survey (we asked 100 degenerate poker players...)

https://www.surveymonkey.com/pricing/

Great stuff guys, thanks. Will try to come up with a FF style format.

Look at my next post, where I actually did the math. I kept the top 10 percent as is, and only made the payouts go a little less than 20% deep. Min cash would be 1000. Stalling would be for tiny increments of a buy in

Okay, but you're still increasing the total number of people who get prizes. I'm asking if that number can remain unchanged, only with the smallest prize diminishing to a fraction of a buy-in, while increasing the prize money at the top.

To use the example of last year's Main, you would still award prizes to 1,011 people. But 1,011st place gets (say) $2,500 rather than $15,000. Then maybe 1,005th gets $3,000. 999th might get $3,750. Or something along those lines.

Terrence's concern with a gradual bubble is that it requires flattening the pay structure by awarding prizes to more players. So... create one without awarding more prizes. There would be far less incentive to stall AND the pros would prefer the steeper prize structure. Thus, it's a win-win, at least from the two problems Terrence targeted in both his thread and his discussions.

My numbers keep the top 10% the same. The only flattening comes from below that.

Personally, I think there is already enough money at the final table in these massive MTTs. Adding more would be bad for the poker economy. As it is, so much already disappears to the government and the very few who come in the top 3.