Wednesday, October 26, 2005

You So Crazy, Normie

I have to admit, I find Norm's schtick fairly funny, but probably not for the reasons he'd wish. Something about the barely contained bitterness and angriness of the wee man makes me laugh, especially when he's going off on people who routinely play for pots > Norm's annual salary. In general, I think he does a decent job of bringing enough poker knowledge to the commentary so that he doesn't sound idiotic and/or talk over the head of an average, casual fan.

But what was he babbling about last night as far as defending blinds being a sure sign of an "amateur", and that pros know that once you post a blind it's in the pot, no longer your money, blah blah blah? Granted, I guess the context matters, but that's a pretty ignorant blanket statement to make. I don't remember how much Lederer raised in the actual hand, but it didn't seem a gigantic amount, as he only had a middle pair, and it folded to Danneman in the BB, who called the not-gigantic raise with K5h, which didn't seem all that out of line, especially with Lederer getting short and a potential chance to knock out an obviously dangerous player.

Not even going to comment on the Danneman phone call incident. I think I've reached the point where behavior like that doesn't even surprise me anymore. If anything, it's probably surprising that there's not more asshatery behavior like that, given that the asshat quotient is in general pretty high in the US these days, especially when money and ego are involved.

That dude that lost with the second nut heart flush needs to get out of the house more often. I know, it's the Main Event, yada yada yada, but you're still just flipping around cards in largely random fashion. More. Important. Things.

What little poker I've played lately seems to be riddled with the dreaded disease second-best-itis. At least I've mainly been playing 5/10 so the damage is somewhat limited, but still not much fun.


cc said...

I've been watching more often with mute, so I can't comment on Norm. I do think coverage in general is very tired, and ESPN could really do alot more with the coverage. One of the seemingly obvious is to increase the number of TV tables. Really, the production costs for poker have to be almost nothing when compared to most any other content in sports/on ESPN. (Next comment: I only watched the first hour last night and have to see TiVo tonight). Much like a horserace, they could have done a better job of identifying stories early on. It sounds like Danneman was introduced last night, but Tiffany the last lady standing from England via South Carolina (or vice versa), who seems to be an incredibly remarkable story (is there another African American female even playing), she's seen a seat or two to the right of Layne Flack when he is near death, but no mention of her.

Sorry for the rant--obviously too much time on my hands.

d said...

I think you are being too hard on the guy with the 2nd nut flush for getting so upset with himself at the immediate end of the hand. Those are the absolute toughest decisions to make in a deep stack NL tournament. I have felt physically sick after making fatally incorrect decisions in big tournaments.
Granted, he did have chips remaining, so he should have done his best to pull himself together (or at least taken a walk to clear his head).

HighOnPoker said...

Hey Scurvy, I just wanted to say that I am generally not a fan of defending blinds, and while Norm may be obnoxious, I think he had a point somewhat. I mean, I didn't see the show yet, and I woulnd't necessarily say defending blinds = amatuer, but I do agree that defending blinds is not a correct consideration to make unless your blinds are continuously getting stolen. Just a thought from the self-proclaimed devil's advocate of poker bloggers.