WSOP Event #5 100k High Roller finish disappointing (or not)?

S

scubed

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 17, 2018
Total posts
818
Awards
1
Chips
1
poker news headline: Nick Petrangelo Claims Victory in Event #5: $100,000 No-Limit Hold'em High Roller

Did Nick really "CLAIM" victory? The final two players Nick and Elio decided they didn't want to play out their big stacks, that the heads up game would take too long (in terms of hours due to stack depth). So... they raised pre-flop without looking at their cards (watch the replay, deciding how to raise blind was a comedy). This approach ended the tournament very quickly in what was essentially flipping for the bracelet (a deal had already been made on the prize $$).

IMHO Nick didn't "claim victory" he and Elio conceded that the bracelet and first place weren't important enough to battle. wsop should give the bracelet to the 3rd place finisher, Aymon Hata who was the last player out that truly wanted to "do what it takes" to win it.

At my job I am not able to quit a project before I finish; I often have to work long over-time hours over many days to complete with good quality. I am disappointed that these players quit during heads up because it was "too hard to deal with the hours required to play the tournament out." Are you disappointed too?
 
C

celoshida

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
May 26, 2018
Total posts
100
Chips
0
that happens a lot. after playing for days and hours the last thing you want is a long heads up battle. remember when John Juanda won the Wsope ME? if you and your opponent are ok with it, what is the problem? They are not cheating.
 
R

rmcneice

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
May 30, 2018
Total posts
218
Chips
0
Since the "bracelet" was not worth playing once they removed the financial incentive by agreement. It does make for poor TV. Now we need the network to come in and offer funds to make it better for TV that fixes every sport.
 
hugh blair

hugh blair

Legend
Bronze Level
Joined
Apr 8, 2017
Total posts
11,173
Awards
8
Chips
30
No matter what the viewers think the last two players in it can do what they want it is their money and tournament.
 
xaxawa

xaxawa

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Total posts
247
Awards
1
Chips
5
I think that the decision justified because you need to keep your strength in the following tournaments
 
Whaevoz

Whaevoz

Legend
Platinum Level
Joined
May 17, 2015
Total posts
1,640
Awards
2
Chips
123
Isn't televised poker supposed to be a sport?

Aren't there people betting on the outcomes of these games?

If so, all deal making should be banned.
 
DougPkrMonsta

DougPkrMonsta

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 7, 2016
Total posts
914
Awards
15
Chips
0
Clearly these guys are there to make money not win bracelets - if they can avoid playing another competent player in essentially a $1.1 Million winner-take-all heads-up match ($2.9M to 1st and about $1.8M for 2nd) they are right to do so. The next time you are heads-up for this much money you'll be glad you can chop!

Hours and hours of heads-up 90BB deep wouldn't appeal to me either, they sped it up a little with forced raises, they didn't start going all-in pre-flop every hand. There's also something to be said for conserving energy during a long tournament series.

At the end of the day it's their decision and despite not being what people are used to, it was still well played and entertaining (at least for me).
 
BnaD

BnaD

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 7, 2018
Total posts
206
Chips
0
I agree that it is disappointing from a fans perspective, but I don't think the bracelet should go to third place. I'm sure they put in the effort to finish top 2 and considering that they probably have quite a grind in front of them I'm assuming the time spent relaxing and preparing was more valuable to them than a long drawn out and draining heads up battle. I would play for the win, but I'm not a millionaire card shark 8]
 
Shrops

Shrops

Legend
Bronze Level
Joined
May 14, 2018
Total posts
1,083
Chips
0
Not good

I don't like the chop and hate to see it. I don't understand where their competitive sprite is. I wish it is not allowed at all. It is a shame.
 
dj11

dj11

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Total posts
23,189
Awards
9
Chips
0
Isn't televised poker supposed to be a sport?

Aren't there people betting on the outcomes of these games?

If so, all deal making should be banned.

I agree:cool:

However, a winner was declared, and he gets the bracelet regardless.
 
A

AlexTheOwl

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 22, 2017
Total posts
860
Chips
0
The bracelet wouldn't mean anything to me, except that someone might be willing to buy it. If other players are motivated by bracelets, good for them. I respect that, and they should respect my indifference.

Is whoever is televising the event paying me to provide entertainment? Probably not. So what do I owe them?

If a tournament provider or broadcaster wants to make a "no chopping" rule, they should compensate players. For example, they could pay an appearance fee to all the players who make the final table, or add a substantial amount to the prize pool.

Players have traditionally been able to make deals. Why would they give away that option and receive nothing in return?
 
S

scubed

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 17, 2018
Total posts
818
Awards
1
Chips
1
Clearly these guys are there to make money not win bracelets - if they can avoid playing another competent player in essentially a $1.1 Million winner-take-all heads-up match ($2.9M to 1st and about $1.8M for 2nd) they are right to do so. The next time you are heads-up for this much money you'll be glad you can chop
I am not at all disagreeing with the $$ chop - I'm absolutely fine with the players making a deal. My statement is simply that I'm disappointed in the final two play-out for the bracelet because the players didn't try their BEST to win it (and the title/bragging rights of being first place), which was disappointing to me.
 
Last edited:
DougPkrMonsta

DougPkrMonsta

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 7, 2016
Total posts
914
Awards
15
Chips
0
I see, yeah it would have been more fun to see them actually battle it out, but the two are intertwined - making a deal changes the play.

I'm re-reading all 4 days of live updates while I play tonight's freeroll, 100K buyins play slightly differently lol. :D
 
Shells

Shells

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Dec 18, 2010
Total posts
17,675
Awards
15
CA
Chips
170
The bracelet wouldn't mean anything to me, except that someone might be willing to buy it. If other players are motivated by bracelets, good for them. I respect that, and they should respect my indifference.

Is whoever is televising the event paying me to provide entertainment? Probably not. So what do I owe them?

If a tournament provider or broadcaster wants to make a "no chopping" rule, they should compensate players. For example, they could pay an appearance fee to all the players who make the final table, or add a substantial amount to the prize pool.

Players have traditionally been able to make deals. Why would they give away that option and receive nothing in return?


You might have a point there.
 
S

SeanDoe

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
May 6, 2018
Total posts
30
Chips
0
The bracelets should mean something. The TV coverage has made the prize pools what they are today and brought poker into the mainstream. It's not that they are getting nothing. They're getting rewarded for what the players who came before them achieved and created. I think they owe it to the future of poker. Personally, I enjoy watching talented people outplay, persevere, and fight for the win. A bracelet is a symbol of just that and when the money is settled by making a deal which is fine, but now let us see who the better poker player is.
 
vavilen_

vavilen_

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Feb 24, 2018
Total posts
269
Chips
0
yes this is a big disappointment!
 
PHX

PHX

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Total posts
7,127
Awards
16
TT
Chips
68
Disappointment for the the rail and viewers but as a poker player I understand why they did it.

Playing for that long you are emotional and mentally drained at that point. The players are entitled to do what they did the prize money belongs to them and they should be allowed to do what they want with it.
 
A

AlexTheOwl

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 22, 2017
Total posts
860
Chips
0
The bracelets should mean something.


One bracelet doesn't mean much in terms of demonstrating poker prowess. Luck has an enormous influence in the short term. There are a lot of mediocre players with a bracelet.

The TV coverage has made the prize pools what they are today and brought poker into the mainstream. It's not that they are getting nothing. They're getting rewarded for what the players who came before them achieved and created. I think they owe it to the future of poker.

The poker boom happened because poker sites were willing to pay to advertise their services.
Players who made (and make) money from being sponsored pros and selling educational materials fed off of this. Players who concerned themselves with providing entertainment did so because they enjoyed it and/or it was in their own best interest.

I don't remember anyone sacrificing a single thing "for the future of poker". Nor should they. I enjoy the game, but The Future Of Poker is not a great and noble cause.

Personally, I enjoy watching talented people outplay, persevere, and fight for the win.
That's fine. I don't know why that should affect how these players chose to play.

I watch pro sports, on television and in person. This generates funds for teams, which enables them to pay players to entertain me. I expect those players to play hard at all times, even if they are on a team that has no hope of winning a championship. Because that is what they are paid to do. Poker players are not paid this way.

A bracelet is a symbol of just that and when the money is settled by making a deal which is fine, but now let us see who the better poker player is.
One heads-up match does nothing to settle the question of who is the better poker player. It is either disingenuous or naive to suggest that it does.
I understand that you might find it entertaining, but people aren't morally or ethically obliged to entertain you.
 
Last edited:
pepsilv

pepsilv

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 20, 2013
Total posts
603
Chips
0
They must have made a real deal to do that. Maybe the were happy to be the best 2 players of that tournament.
 
S

SeanDoe

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
May 6, 2018
Total posts
30
Chips
0
One bracelet doesn't mean much in terms of demonstrating poker prowess. Luck has an enormous influence in the short term. There are a lot of mediocre players with a bracelet.



The poker boom happened because poker sites were willing to pay to advertise their services.
Players who made (and make) money from being sponsored pros and selling educational materials fed off of this. Players who concerned themselves with providing entertainment did so because they enjoyed it and/or it was in their own best interest.

I don't remember anyone sacrificing a single thing "for the future of poker". Nor should they. I enjoy the game, but The Future Of Poker is not a great and noble cause.


That's fine. I don't know why that should affect how these players chose to play.

I watch pro sports, on television and in person. This generates funds for teams, which enables them to pay players to entertain me. I expect those players to play hard at all times, even if they are on a team that has no hope of winning a championship. Because that is what they are paid to do. Poker players are not paid this way.


One heads-up match does nothing to settle the question of who is the better poker player. It is either disingenuous or naive to suggest that it does.
I understand that you might find it entertaining, but people aren't morally or ethically obliged to entertain you.


You said one bracelet doesn't mean much, but without one, you can't have two and so on.... Online poker is not the sole reason for the poker boom. Television was huge for poker and the stage wouldn't be set, in terms of growth, if others before didn't make it "entertaining". My opinion is about poker as an industry and being a means for many people to make a living from that industry not whether it is noble or whatever you're thinking. How I feel about it is a direct response to op's topic with explanation and to think that television hasn't benefited poker players bottom line is naive. Maybe ask Phil Helmuth which one contributed more to his bottom line, online poker or television. https://youtu.be/B6y9W9BQd2Y You can hear from him and many other players out.
 
A

AlexTheOwl

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 22, 2017
Total posts
860
Chips
0
You said one bracelet doesn't mean much, but without one, you can't have two and so on....

Why "should" two, or more bracelets mean something, and to whom? Some players don't care about accumulating bracelets, and in fact prefer to fly under the radar. Stop telling other people what their preferences should be.


Online poker is not the sole reason for the poker boom. Television was huge for poker and the stage wouldn't be set, in terms of growth, if others before didn't make it "entertaining". My opinion is about poker as an industry and being a means for many people to make a living from that industry not whether it is noble or whatever you're thinking. How I feel about it is a direct response to op's topic with explanation and to think that television hasn't benefited poker players bottom line is naive. Maybe ask Phil Helmuth which one contributed more to his bottom line, online poker or television. https://youtu.be/B6y9W9BQd2Y You can hear from him and many other players out.


I did not claim that no players before the poker boom were entertainers, or that those players weren't good for the game. Some enjoyed the spotlight, or found it to be in their self interest. Many did not. None were obliged to.

I did not claim that online poker was the "sole reason" for the poker boom.

I did not claim that online poker was a more important factor than television. Instead, I suggested that the two factors worked together, and that one largely caused the other. The primary motivating factor for there being much more poker on television than before was the desire of online poker companies to buy ads to promote their product. If you watched a baseball game in the USA in that era, you'd see ads for beer, snack food, and cars. If you watched poker, almost all of the national ads were for poker sites or the network. Non-poker brands were reluctant to be associated with gambling (many still are, though the trend has been away from stigmatizing the game).

I did not claim that television hasn't benefited poker players's bottom line. My claim is that these players had no obligation to prioritize entertaining viewers over their own self-interest, and that viewers who are angry at them are acting unreasonably.

Congratulations on your sound rhetorical victory over your entirely imaginary opponent who claimed all of these things. I award you one invisible bracelet, which I have decided you should care about very much.
 
C

celoshida

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
May 26, 2018
Total posts
100
Chips
0
At my job I am not able to quit a project before I finish; I often have to work long over-time hours over many days to complete with good quality. I am disappointed that these players quit during heads up because it was "too hard to deal with the hours required to play the tournament out." Are you disappointed too?


oranges and apples.

poker is not like any regular job.

I mean, poker players are their own bosses and clients, at the end of the day is all about the money. there is no product or service delivered.

if you had the power to decide to work less and get pay the same, you would do it.
 
WSOP
Top