Support NeoGAF

[Mike Works]

Alright so I'm watching the 2004 Championships replay (on TSN, which is basically ESPN in Canada). Here's the setup for the hand. All but 2 people fold. One guy is very short stacked. His hand is:

Kd / 9c

So he has off suit King Nine. He calls the big blind. Action moves to the other guy who winds up playing. He has:

Ks / Kc

So he's got pocket kings. He obviously calls. Here's the flop:

3d / Kh / 8d

So the short stacked guy hits the top pair, but the better off guy has 3 of a kind. Short stacked guy goes all in, better off guy obviously calls him. Now this is what fucking irks me, maybe I'm missing something here, I don't know.

The announcers/play by play guys start lamenting at how bad off the short stacked guy is, because there is no way he can win the hand. For most poker TV shows/specials, they have a little graphic on the left hand side which shows each player's name, what cards they have, and the odds/percentage they have of winning the hand (the percentage changes each time someone folds or the turn/river hits). Right after the flop hit, the percentages went from something like 81% - 19% (in favor of the pocket kings obviously) to 100% - 0% (which was represented by a checkmark for the 100% and a - for the 0%).

Now is it just me, or would the short-stacked all in guy have won the fucking hand if he got two running diamonds (excluding the 8 or 3 of diamonds)? I'm no poker expert, but doesn't a flush fucking beat a three of a kid?

The turn card was a 4 of clubs, so the guy did lose, but I don't understand how they could not only call that wrong, but miss it in editing (or perhaps purposefully ignore it?) too. Am I missing something here?

 

[Dilbert]

Do they shuffle the deck in between every hand? If not, there might not have been two diamonds left in the deck. Otherwise, I would say that you're right -- a flush would have won the hand versus three kings.

 

[Archaix]

Was that the 2004 US championship or the World Series?

If it was the former, they fucked up a few things while recording the commentary(which is done well after the tournament ends) and with the graphics. I remember one hand where they changed the player's cards after each betting round. It was pretty poor.

The problem here could have been similar. Was it just the graphics, or did you actually see the cards as described? My best guess would be that (assuming you didn't see the cards) the screen was labeled improperly and the hands were actually Kc/9d and Kd/Ks, giving the second player the best hand if there were a flush. Or one of the cards on the flop was actually a heart and not a diamond. Something along those lines.

Other than that(and given that you typed everything up correctly), a bunch of people just fucked up.

 

[Mike Works]

It's the 2004 US Championship, and yeah, you could see the actual cards on the table. And I swear to God, 3 hands after that, they fucked up AGAIN (some guy had trips again, and they ignore the full house potential of the guy who was running two pair). It's fucking ridiculous.

 

[Mister Zimbu]

They take into consideration what cards were folded when doing the probability, so there's an off chance that all 10 other diamonds could have been folded already.

But yeah, they probably fucked up on that one.