From authorandy@aol.com Tue May 22 17:45:29 2001 Path: nntp1.ba.best.com!news1.best.com!news.dra.com!news.mainstreet.net!feedwest.news.agis.net!feedeast.news.agis.net!us.telia.net!news.stealth.net!news-east.rr.com!news.rr.com!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey04.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Lines: 98 X-Admin: news@aol.com From: authorandy@aol.com (AuthorAndy) Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker Date: 22 May 2001 10:59:56 GMT References: Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: My comments regarding Henry Nowitzki Message-ID: <20010522065956.16686.00000722@ng-mf1.aol.com> Xref: nntp1.ba.best.com rec.gambling.poker:71775 Mike McClain wrote: >Also, if Glazers description is correct in that DN hesitated >before making his raise, HN might have interpreted that in >such a way as to reduce the chances of AA or KK. In >any event, there is certainly some possibility of DN giving off >some sort of tell that indicated he'd prefer his opponents to fold. To be more specific, Daniel's hesitation wasn't an "I'm scared, oh, gosh, what do I do now?" hesitation. He looked pretty confident the whole time, but took what I estimated at 10 seconds to count out his chips, take a look at Henry's stack, and figure out the size of the raise he wanted to make. Second, and more important, I have gotten some emails from people who seemed confused because I called Nowakowski a "gentleman" in my story but Daniel had jumped on him in the broadcast, in the version of the story that will be appearing in Card Player, I added the following two paragraphs: "While I do indeed consider Nowakowski a gentleman, he did say something uncalled for to Daniel Negreanu when we were down to two tables. He called him "an American idiot," which was a double insult because Daniel is Canadian. The remark seemed out of character from what I know about him and have observed of him. Nowakowski probably didn't know about the American/Canadian thing, but I was sorry to see the pressure of the event cause this "introduction." I have a feeling that if these two guys had gotten to know one another under different circumstances, they'd have different opinions of each other than they probably do now." Now, for the even lengthier explanation... I had seen Henry take what appeared to be a "stand" for the amateur players on several occasions during this tournament, on hands where neither he nor Daniel were involved. For example, one time one amatuer was taking his time with a decision, someone criticized that, and Henry said, "Please, he is an amateur, not a professional like you, give him the time he needs." Daniel talks a lot at a table--invariably in a friendly, engaging way that makes it, at least for me, a delight to play with him and/or cover his table (although his presence at my table drops my EV)--and I could see this talking as coming across to Henry as a lack of seriousness about what he is doing. This, combined with the incredible pressure of playing at that final table (just a guess here--I could easily have missed something that happened at the table) could have led to the "American idiot" comment. I don't know about you, but I think I'd have had a damn difficult time broadcasting nice things about a player I didn't know much about who had called me "an American idiot" in a pretty loud voice, especially if I felt he had made a weak call/move in (it amounted to the same thing, with only another $70,000 at stake--no chance whatsoever Daniel folds) with a small pair. I HATE calling giant raises with small pairs, because I probably have either a tiny edge or a giant disadvantage. I'll do it if I feel like someone is pushing way too much, but usually I consider little pairs raising hands or limping hands, not calling hands. In any event, I think anyone analyzing Daniel's broadcast (I haven't heard it, I've basically been sleeping most of the time since the event ended) should crank a few things into the equation: 1) Extremely difficult conditions for broadcasters. The final table isn't set up like the Super Bowl with broadcast booths and the like. The TV people run the show, and everyone else--Internet broadcasters, journalists, photographers--has to jockey for position, move around, and work from often difficult angles. 2) Extreme disappointment for Daniel. He's close to a dream the day before, after four days of intense effort, and then loses right near the end on a call that seems questionable to him. For Henry, who needs to gamble to get to the final table, the call is probably his best way to get the chips he needs. 3) (Kind of an extension of #1). We've all grown accustomed to professional radio and TV people who have an army of support personnel helping them out, and who have also worked their way up the ranks of smaller games. You should have heard some of the glitches we had when I was calling basketball games for the college radio station in Ann Arbor. People putting on these internet broadcasts have none of these advantages. Even my radio training (I was part of the first Internet broadcast in '99) didn't help me very much when we had one cell phone and no producer and no one helping to coordinate who had said what already. Some people have made some good suggestions here about graphics, and about other things that can be done to improve the broadcast, and if Binion's can figure out a way to give the TV people their necessary space while also giving enough to the Internet broadcasters, some of these changes might happen. You should also realize how expensive it would be to set up some of the improvements people would like to see. Meanwhile, having been a significant part of the first broadcast, and having seen the difficult circumstances under which everyone was trying to work, I think whatever they turned out was probably a minor miracle. And I really do regret that Daniel and Henry's "introduction" came under these circumstances. Daniel is one of the nicest guys in poker, and although I have less experience with Henry, I have enough with him to know that he is indeed a gentleman also, at least away from the table. Like all of us, he has a few rough edges. Andy Glazer