What is that Chinese player's name who went from $0.01-0.02 micro stakes to the highest stakes and subsequently lost $1.1 million? I didn't quite catch his name during the show.

I'd love to check out his graph and see some hand histories...

Thanks guys!!

nice to have a non-confrontational show this week.....

Thx for the post tipee. Some decent points.

I never indicated they were little or desperate for traffic in any way. I actually clarified that they claim to be the largest poker site in the world (which if true makes this stunt even worse). I don't know if I'd define it as shady, some might even call it shrewd marketing but it's main intention is obvious. If it wasn't to generate traffic, then the minute Ray said, 'sorry I'm not going to answer most of the questions you want to ask, I'll just cherry pick the ones where I don't have to actually give any info at all' the piece would never have been posted as it was. Now for those who say, well a BS statement is better than nothing, OK, then don't post it with the misleading sensational headline. Publish a headline that says 'Ray Bitar issues statement, avoids questions'. The only reason to not publish that type of accurate headline is if you are worried about upsetting Ray.

I don't think this is similar to that interview we did with Boston about HL.
This was a piece where the author openly admits he basically permitted the most vilified person in poker and potentially the biggest thief in poker history to basically dictate the content of the article vs. a 1 hour conversation where a known ranter(Boston) was asked as a longtime acquaintance/friend of Lederer to give his opinion of the man as a person(which is exactly what he did). Boston was not asked questions about the FTP situation because he clearly didn't know anything. He was specifically asked about Howard the man and spoke on that subject.

I'm no expert poker journalist by any means, and I'm sure we've done plenty of bad interviews. I guess what bothered me most about this specific piece was the fact everyone in the poker media knew that the first on the record conversation with Ray Bitar (I'm not sure this was even a conversation or just some back and forth e-mails) came with a responsibility. You knew the entire poker community was waiting to hear from this guy and there were certain obvious questions that had to be asked. Now, I know you can't ensure that he'll answer them, but you can certainly ensure that you hold up your end of the bargain and at least ask them. If he declines, then publish the decline. To not ask them in the piece, and then when called out about it, say 'oh yeah, we asked them but he told us to only publish his 'apology', you end up doing a disservice to the poker community.

Sorry, I don't know what the 'i'm a member and I'm biased' part of your post means.

Thanks for the reply

I'm a member at PokerStrategy, that's what I meant by being biased. I think if I never heard of the site and listened to your segment, I would've thought the whole site was the shadiest and scummiest poker site ever. And since I never wouldve played poker at all or played it professionally like I do without that site, can't help but be a little hurt when it sounds the way that it did. (the news part is definately not the good part of the site btw :P)

I understand, and I agree with the main points! Basically, the biggest problem is the headline. They're a bit obsessed with "Exclusive", pretty much everything that you can't read elsewhere gets "Exclusive" in the title. Like, right now, theres "PokerStrategy.com Exclusive Review Of All In: The Poker Movie ". I think it's stupid, and I never read poker news sites anyway (I wait for your show every week instead :P), but I'm also used to that type of marketing because all the evening papers here (Sweden) use it.

Since it's still a newssite, posting news (Perhaps it sucked, but like you say, it's the biggest thief in poker history who never released any statement before.. surely worth posting on a newssite?), despite the faults of the piece and the headline, the segment felt like it was filled with an unproportional amount of animosity towards the site and the journalist. I think perhaps you transferred some of your feelings about Bitar to the interviewer and the site which they didnt quite deserve.

The entire culture of affiliates posing as news sites has always struck me as shady, or at least being rife with hazard for shadiness.

Hell, we've seen all too often in this very forum Adam and MJ having to defend themselves against accusations that they are PokerStars shills. All because of a title sponsorship. Yet I am fully confident that both of them would not shy away from calling Isai Scheinberg on the carpet if he had engaged in the same nefarious acts that Bitar is charged of. (Adam, as I recall, your site was the first affiliate to cut off the AP train when the PotRipper scandal took shape. 'Tis among the reasons why I trust your show more than any other for honest poker news and opinion.)

By the way, if anyone wants some side entertainment on how advertising and editorial interests can clash, do a search for "Osteria L'Intrepido" and "Wine Spectator."

http://www.pokerscout.com/PokerInfoSites.aspx

You nailed it. I also just don't get it.

Why don't you guys get Kaufman on your show.

Cant believe you threw your guest under the bus like you did...Matt Marafioti was a great interview for your show.

Mike and Adam..you showed very little class and loose my respect after you piss on the interview because some *******(s) were jealous of your interview.

You don't need to incorrectly help shape a negative view of someone(s) to your whole audience...especially one who was only deserving of thanks and praise from you to help fill up the pokercast....he did a great job, from articulating some interesting hands, baller lifestyle restaurants and if you think he hasn't had big soul crushing downswings...you certainly don't understand poker or Matts record enough to comment poorly on it.

Believe you owe the kid an apology on-air for your on-air romp to his personality and reputation.

Thanks.

If you want a serious response, you're going to have to be a bit more specific of what you took offense to.

FWIW, I have the utmost respect for a guy like Matt (and I think I said as much a few times during both shows). He's a true cash game superstar to be around for as long as he has in the highest games.

Is he very self-confident? Yes, I'm sure he would tell you the same thing.

hahah what? are u serious ironman ?
adam and mikes comments toward the flame train that came along after matt interview (me included) werent exactly powerful one way or the other, dont see how you could raise your eyebrows at anything they said when they were discussing the opinions surrounding matt

and matt deserves a round of applause and thank us for being on? yea im sure adam and mike had to work 24h a day to convince matt into participating and putting up w 30 min of his own time to market himself

This is not accurate. We frequently talk about listener reaction on the forums to the previous weeks guest. It's a way to get the audience involved in the show. I'd have to go back and listen to exactly what was said but I'm pretty sure that I started by saying that a lot of people loved it before we brought up the comments in the show thread about people who weren't fans. By the way, there were some pretty strong words by a good % of posters along the lines of 'douche' etc. that we didn't use at all as I thought they were unduly harsh. Maybe read through the show thread for Ep 211 and check out the comments we were referencing.

That aside, I don't get how you figure discussing what the listeners posted about Matt =what we thought about Matt. I have no problem with the guy at all. He has a big ego. He knows that. That was one of the reasons we invited him on - confident talkers make good radio.

As Adam said, maybe reference a specific comment in which you feel we 'trashed' Matt. We are always courteous and thankful to all of our guests who take unpaid time to come on the program.

Also, the next person who spells lose as loose, will lose my respect. I'm super slack with misspelled words but that one is Grade 2 ****.

He can probably pronounce it better than you though

Mike...your need to correct my spelling reads much like an anal orientation usually dominated by certain neurotic personality traits, which are partly a reactive formation of not having the life experience you state was lacking in Matt.

We can cut you some slack, as you stated for Matt and his on-air conversation, lol. Can't believe you said he maybe will look back at the interview and laugh at himself. There was nothing that Matt said was douche like or overconfident or laughable...and he certainly sounded like the kid has a good amount of life experiences at a tender age.

Remarkable that you can have irrelevent blow-hard like Alan Boston repeatedly on that Adam believes is your best guest, you didnt berate him or most others afterwards....lol.

Don't get me wrong...I usually love the pokercast, you guys have done great work for years...just disagree with the pile on Matt for no reason.

I take it you didn't bother to read the Marafioti show thread as suggested. Listeners provided many examples of different things they felt were 'douche-like or overconfident or laughable'. Again, conveying what the reaction to a guest was doesn't mean that was our reaction. You are completely confusing the two.

Funny enough the opinion you have about Boston was similar to the opinion others had about Matt. I don't believe Adam has ever said the Boston is 'our best guest' but there are certainly many listeners that think he's great, just as there are many, including you, who thought Matt was great.

BTW, it's Boston's NCAA sleepers this week. You'll want to tune in.

Any help guys?? I tried to listen to the name on the show multiple times, just tough to decipher as none native speaker. Pretty plz for help

Confirmed pokercast streams fine on IE