D negs tweets about Nick Shulman right or wrong?

fishfood80

fishfood80

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Mar 17, 2015
Total posts
357
Chips
0
On twitter last night Negreanu stated Nick Shulman was his favorite commentator and he didn't even have a second. In fact stating he usually mutes the other commentators while watching events. This caused numerous tweets from Jamie Kerstetter, Justin Bonomo, and others saying it was out of line. My question is what are your thoughts on this debate. I for one do think Nick is probably the best commentator out there right now. But I also really enjoy the action called by Norm, Lon, Jamie, and Maria. And while I do believe society as a whole can be a little over sensitive I do think saying you mute a commentator because they add nothing to the broadcast is a little much.
 
firstcrack

firstcrack

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 25, 2016
Total posts
434
Chips
0
I haven't seen DN's comments, but if what you say is true, were they associated with the minor controversy surrounding NS? I'm referring to NS's comments about the main event (see article on CardsChat home page). If so, I wonder if DN's comments were more of an attempt to rally behind NS in a show of support. Personally, I do like NS and he is my favorite, too, but I also really do enjoy Norm, Lon and whoever they have as a guest--including both Maria and Jamie. Jamie has really grown on me during this year's broadcast. I've always enjoyed Maria.

Edit:
Okay, I found the thread. DN also added the following comments in his own words:

Daniel N. Writes:

'Man, poker players can be a sensitive bunch.

I think @NickSchulman is THE best poker commentator.

There are several other good commentators as well IMO.

Then there are some that aren’t my cup of tea. It’s not a condemnation of their character.'
 
Last edited:
firstcrack

firstcrack

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 25, 2016
Total posts
434
Chips
0
...and speaking of folks having the propensity for being overly sensitive these days


On day 7 coverage of the wsop Main Event a controversial ruling had to be made after the dealer miscounted a player's chip stack who was all-in. The rules are apparently very clear on this issue at the WSOP and when an official left the table with a parting comment to the player who would not let it go, and I'm paraphrasing a bit, here, 'a bet of 17 million is the same as 22', he was said to have 'needled' the player. The comment was a statement of fact, reiterating simply that the rules don't care what your intentions are when it comes to 'action', in this case the forward motion of the calling player's chips. Of course, and unfortunately predictably in these times, folks felt they needed to come to the defense of the 'victim', who in this case, was a professional player who should have known the rules, or at least, understood there would be no changing them mid-stream. To his credit, the player seemed to regain his composure after the break that followed shortly thereafter. I was a little disappointed, however, when one of the announcers whom I've already said that I liked, chose to pile on the official a bit with a remark about how the 'needling' remark was uncalled for. In fairness, this was after one of the players not involved in the pot also made a comment to this affect to the tournament officials that remained at the table after the lead official had left. My beef is that no one spoke in defense of the official to say perhaps it was not a needle but simply an attempt to deflate the argument raised by the emotional player by reducing it to its most simplest of terms--it doesn't matter how much you thought you were calling, the rules say that the responsibility is ultimately yours, and yours alone to determine chip sizing as long as they are clearly exposed, which they were in this case. The lead tournament official went on to say at one point prior to this that even if the dealer had said '3 million' instead of the actual amount of more than 22 million, it wouldn't have mattered. Yet, the emotional player continued to air his frustrations. Still, in the end it is easier for folks to pile on the official who was just doing his job.
 
Last edited:
C

Cesum Pec

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 7, 2019
Total posts
39
Chips
0
I disagree with the official's needle. I haven't seen anything but your report, but based on what you described, the official should have just walked away to a distance that allows him to observe, but not interact with the angry player.

Too often the official wants to "win" the debate. There is no justification for that. The player doesn't have to agree with the official or be happy with the ruling. The player only has to accept that the ruling is final.

As long as the player didn't get out of line and keep an argument going with other players or the dealer in a manner that slows the game, there is no call for further comment from the official. If comment by the official is required, it should not further argue the ruling, just warn and if needed issue a punishment for bad behavior.
 
firstcrack

firstcrack

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 25, 2016
Total posts
434
Chips
0
Cesum Pec said:
I disagree with the official's needle. ...
Click to expand...

Fine, a lot of other folks apparently do, too. Read the latest WSOP article in the CardsChat news section on the home page. I hadn't seen this before I wrote my spiel above. Still, my point is that I never saw it as a 'needle' to begin with; hence, my reference to over-sensitivity. The player was not wanting to let the official just walk away, and kept bantering with him even after he was told that the decision was final and that no further arguing was going to change the rule. It's the player who refused to let up, IMHO. Was it handled poorly in the beginning when the cards were turned over? Yes. But keep in mind that the player had already burned through two other officials prior to the lead official coming down to make the ultimate determination. At this point it should have been over.
 
C

Cesum Pec

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 7, 2019
Total posts
39
Chips
0
You aren't getting my point. The player may be a giant douche, but the official still has an obligation to be professional. A parting arguing shot is not professional.
 
fishfood80

fishfood80

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Mar 17, 2015
Total posts
357
Chips
0
firstcrack said:
...and speaking of folks having the propensity for being overly sensitive these days


On day 7 coverage of the WSOP Main Event a controversial ruling had to be made after the dealer miscounted a player's chip stack who was all-in. The rules are apparently very clear on this issue at the WSOP and when an official left the table with a parting comment to the player who would not let it go, and I'm paraphrasing a bit, here, 'a bet of 17 million is the same as 22', he was said to have 'needled' the player. The comment was a statement of fact, reiterating simply that the rules don't care what your intentions are when it comes to 'action', in this case the forward motion of the calling player's chips. Of course, and unfortunately predictably in these times, folks felt they needed to come to the defense of the 'victim', who in this case, was a professional player who should have known the rules, or at least, understood there would be no changing them mid-stream. To his credit, the player seemed to regain his composure after the break that followed shortly thereafter. I was a little disappointed, however, when one of the announcers whom I've already said that I liked, chose to pile on the official a bit with a remark about how the 'needling' remark was uncalled for. In fairness, this was after one of the players not involved in the pot also made a comment to this affect to the tournament officials that remained at the table after the lead official had left. My beef is that no one spoke in defense of the official to say perhaps it was not a needle but simply an attempt to deflate the argument raised by the emotional player by reducing it to its most simplest of terms--it doesn't matter how much you thought you were calling, the rules say that the responsibility is ultimately yours, and yours alone to determine chip sizing as long as they are clearly exposed, which they were in this case. The lead tournament official went on to say at one point prior to this that even if the dealer had said '3 million' instead of the actual amount of more than 22 million, it wouldn't have mattered. Yet, the emotional player continued to air his frustrations. Still, in the end it is easier for folks to pile on the official who was just doing his job.
Click to expand...
And when you research the footage after it is clarified that the bet was 22.2 million Dario nodded like it was fine. Only after the cards were tabled and he saw he was behind did he start to complain. Dan Smith said it best via twitter. If your gonna dispute a ruling you have to do it before the cards are tabled. And I didn't necessarily see jack effels closing remarks as a needle. Just a statement of fact as he perceived it.
 
fishfood80

fishfood80

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Mar 17, 2015
Total posts
357
Chips
0
Also in regards to the Dario Sammartino controversy when he asked for the count he did comment that he didn't think he could fold. I actually like Dario as a player but I think he got it in bad and when he realized it he saw a way (through the dealer error) to maybe talk his way out of the situation. And T.D Effel wasn't having it.
 
M

Master Bedroom

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 3, 2015
Total posts
55
Chips
0
Personally I think it was brave of Daniel to say that only Nick's commentary adds to the game/broadcast.
I feel the same way bc it's obvious that the other commentators are casual players, and they rarely do more than make jokes, or talk about personal preferences.

Sports commentators should call the game. Their job is to take me deeper into the mindset of the sport player. Not make beat-to-death jokes about ex-wives, their own poor play, or their fav players
 
Top