Epic poker

[The 6th Wilbury]

Finally watching this. I'll overlook the fact that I still don't love the Epic Poker League (but I also don't hate it as much as I did when it was first conceived). Also, the fact that this was the Chino Rheem "knock down a few markers" table won't play into my evaluation of this show, simply because we know it won't happy very often.

Likes:
- the overall look of the broadcast: they followed the previous WSOP stage design, using cool lighting to wash over the background and warmer diffuse lighting to fall straight down from above. It's one of the few things I miss from the previous 441-era WSOP coverage. I might have dimmed the background lighting a bit more, but I guess the who's who nature of the rail makes it conducive to show the faces in the stands.
- nice chyron: very easy-to-read card info, plus I like the remaning stacks listed beneath the hole cards. Plus, they always show blinds/ante info at the start of the hand.
- the picture-in-picture quick soundbytes of the players, perhaps inspired by the chat room feature on Poker After Dark.


Dislikes:
- Not at all a fan of O'Brien's announcing. I agree 100 percent with Cheese to have Matt Vasgersian on the call with Ali on the analysis.
- Exit interview of Gavin. Not that I hate doing it, but if the subject simply does not want to talk to TV after getting busted, don't go after it.
- One-hour broadcast means too few hands. I understand the constraints of getting any TV time, but I would have preferred the WPT method of splitting each final table up into two episodes. That way, we see more hands than just the all-ins.
- While I get why they do it, the hyperbole is a bit tilting. Calling the EPL ring one of the "most prestigious" prizes in poker is beyond ridiculous, especially since we are told this is a new event. So even a casual fan would figure out how premature the term "prestigious" is. The show makes a bit too much of the Global Poker Index, but I don't hate that as much. I just would prefer them to qualify it a bit, perhaps by saying "an objective measure of tournament success" rather than playing it up as an overdue ranking of true poker greatness.

[Big Dan]

I have to Vote Eric seidel for the top 10 greatest calls in history. I have no clue how he calls an all in bet by chino with only a pair of 7's ! Maybe someone can explain what made him call. Cuz in my eyes thats gotta be on the top 10 best calls ever made

I agree -- as long as I play poker I'll never figure out how Seidel made that call. But I guess that's why he's made over $6 million this year alone and I'm stuck in the micros. Chino's reaction was just about as good as the call, by the way.

[passthesugar]

Originally Posted by Big Dan

I agree -- as long as I play poker I'll never figure out how Seidel made that call.

Def a great call....but he clearly thought chino was semi-bluffin a draw like he had.....and turn and river were total blanks.

I saw that hand and wondered why Seidel bet the turn. I thought that he would pot-control a pair if he thought it was good. My opinion is that if you bet-call the turn you 100% have to call that river.

Overall tho, it was a great hand. Great play by chino and next-level call by Seiborg!

[highonbetter]

Does it seem like to all of you david williams plays fast ?
Theres all great players there , all capable of huge bluffs, but no one was getting to out of line, in his defense, he had some bad luck,maybe he's use to running good, if that was me taking those beats id take them in stride, im use to getting my head kicked in like that )
On the other side , he did have one of the cutest babys ever, life cant be all that bad for him )