Home / Community / Forum / Support Area / Poker News /

Who runs PokerSchool?

Old
Default
Who runs PokerSchool? - Tue Dec 24, 2002, 10:48 AM
(#1)
Deleted user
Bruno wrote to Rio Rita:

"Look, it's very translucent that what you've wanted when we didn't agree with you is Mark to step in and make some edict to Freddie and I about what we can say and can't say. I don't speak for freddie with this (I speak just for myself here!) but, I will not be stiffled. Not when it's my time and money."

Rio Rita writes back:

Not trying to hide my feelings, Bruno; I think Mark should enforce whatever rules are necessary to make the games, and especially the really important tournaments, fair for everyone involved. And I am not trying to stifle anyone. I am just calling for ethical behavior from all participants (including railbirds) DURING THE PLAY OF EACH AND EVERY HAND.

Your time and money? What about the time and money of each of the rest of us here? When covering a game, you are indulging yourself in a hobby that you like. That's great, and I'm all for hobbies. But when you infringe on my rights to a game devoid of outside influence during play, that is WRONG.

Call out the plays, who does what, what the board shows, and anything else you can see that is happening. But keep your opinion as to how the play should unfold TO YOURSELF until after the hand!

I don't want to hurt anyones' feelings here, but you broadcasters seem to view yourselves as poker pros who know all the moves. I contend that is a topic for hot debate. And I don't care HOW obvious you believe the move to make is....maybe the person under the gun has missed it so far. Poker is a game of expoiting the mistakes of others, and for you to point things out during a hand may cause someone to lose chips they otherwise would have won. You do not have the right to risk that. To give advice during play is very, very WRONG and violates the rights of all the players in the hand...including the one put to a decision----your advice may sway that player's decision and (gasp!!) it just might be wrong!

Say what you will, but providing guidance of any type (whether you call it your opinion, or your practice of free speech, or your duty as a "broadcaster") within the earshot of any players in such a situation is incorrect and should be quashed by online management, the same as it would be in a brick and mortar cardroom.

In every large, live tournament I have seen, management keeps bystanders at a distance. Are they just being mean? Or are they ensuring that the remaining players get a chance to play their games unimpeded by any type of outside input, accidental or intentional?

I believe I've made my opinion clear, and I know I said I was through posting on the subject. However, your statement (above) was so in my face, I had to respond.

I know you have an opinion, too, and yes, you could be wrong.

Best regards and good luck at the tables. /RR
 
Old
Default
Tue Dec 24, 2002, 11:00 AM
(#2)
Deleted user
Deleted
 
Old
Default
Tue Dec 24, 2002, 11:11 AM
(#3)
Deleted user
rita
i think that you make some great points and i have always stated 1 person per hand when i am at a table but i think it would be hard to inforce someone on a net radio station broadcasting there thoughts
freddie/bruno/top2pair/raiderman have all paid out of there own pocket money to fancast and spend their time on bringing a great service to school members.

they have put a disclaimer on the fancast and the school site saying that it is there thoughts and in no way is it reflected on PSO

if MARK asked the commentors to not talk about "what they think is right to do" during a hand i am sure they would but would be unable to enforce it and there would be nothing to stop someone else (without the school knowing who) starting up a similiar broadcast and them telling players what to do every hands

bruno/hazy broadcast was IMHO well rounded and all though i think that on 2 occasions they stepped on the borderline i dont think they crossed the line.

I would on the other hand say that listen to the broadcast and listen to what they would do would not be a great help cause on several occasions i disagreed with what was being said and i am sure putting 20 different members in a room we would have gotten 5 or 6 different views.

the only thing that disappointed me was brunos biased and at one point rude comments made after a player made a bad play and got lucky against his good buddy. I think that if bruno wants the broadcast to be taken serious by all members in future he would be better to stay impartial and point out the mistakes made in HIS view rather than trying to belittle a player.


to conclude this i have no problems with either bruno or rita and some of the stuff that has been said has upset me remember not one of us is a WSOP champ YET and untill one of us wins the WSOP back to back years then our views/thoughts are just that.


ps unless your the dean of the school and write/sell alot of books then your views are that of a good % of the players that read your books.
 
Old
Default
Tue Dec 24, 2002, 11:31 AM
(#4)
Deleted user
The Hazy One wrote to Rio Rita:

PSO can't control the broadcasts, and Freddie and Bruno have the right to say whatever they wish.

Rita says back:

Well, I've said it before and I'll say it again...just because they CAN do it, doesn't make it RIGHT. And it surely does infringe on my rights, and the rights of everyone in the hand at the time. I protest vigorously about "opinions" during an active hand. Make some notes and discuss the hand after it's OVER.

Hazy One says:

I think we should just appreciate the time that Freddie and Bruno take to bring us the show, which helps to bring the PSO community together.

Rita concludes:

Thanks for your opinion. I think it's great fun to hear the broadcasts, too. But during important events where big prizes are at stake and everyone has worked their collective butts off to get to the money, commentators should not be allowed free rein on commentary if they can't follow the basic tenets of poker ethics. Period.

Merry Christmas / RR
 
Old
Default
Tue Dec 24, 2002, 11:40 AM
(#5)
Deleted user
Deleted
 
Old
Default
Tue Dec 24, 2002, 11:42 AM
(#6)
TrumpinJoe's Avatar
Since: Jun 2010
Posts: 4,557
In the broadcasted events where I have had extreme fortune to appear at the final table, I have deliberately chosen NOT to listen to the broadcasts. This is done partly due to a slow dial-up connection and the resultant fear of freeze-ups or congestion. And partly due to my desire to remove the influence of commentators who play differently than I have chosen and it's potential effect on my concentration.

Since the subject of rights has been broached in this discussion I wish to state that it is utterly ridiculous for any school member to think that free speech allows them to broadcast. PSO owns and operates these events and as such they have the sole right to them. It is quite likely that performing broadcasts without specifc and written approval from PSO is a TOS violation in addition to a violation of PSO's copyright. If Rita so chose, she could report it as such.
 
Old
Default
Tue Dec 24, 2002, 11:44 AM
(#7)
Deleted user
Deleted
 
Old
Default
Tue Dec 24, 2002, 11:49 AM
(#8)
Deleted user
Ironside writes:

freddie/bruno/top2pair/raiderman have all paid out of there own pocket money to fancast and spend their time on bringing a great service to school members.

Rita says:

They certainly have a right to spend their money as they please. It's my opinion that opining during a hand is NOT a "service" to school members. It is potentially harmful to players in the hand.

Ironside also says:

they have put a disclaimer on the fancast and the school site saying that it is there thoughts and in no way is it reflected on PSO

Rita:

Disclaimer, Schmisclaimer. If someone walked up to a table in any of my tournaments and started giving opinions and advice on play during a hand, they'd be thrown out in short order. Give me a break.

Ironside:

if MARK asked the commentors to not talk about "what they think is right to do" during a hand i am sure they would but would be unable to enforce it

Rita:

I believe that Bruno and Freddieboy are of a level of character that they shouldn't HAVE to be asked to follows the rules of poker ethics. I think they have done it their way for so long with no complaints, that they think they're right to continue doing it. I hope they reconsider.

That would make for a very professional-type presentation that could be ENJOYED by everyone.

Ironside:

and there would be nothing to stop someone else (without the school knowing who) starting up a similiar broadcast and them telling players what to do every hands

Rita concludes:

That is not the current case. Let's stick to what's going on here and now.

This is tiring me out. Merry Christmas. 8O
 
Old
Default
Tue Dec 24, 2002, 11:50 AM
(#9)
Deleted user
Quote:
Originally Posted by thehazyone
Rita,

My point was not that the commentators should comment on a hand while it is in play. I was one of the commentators who did so, and I know if I ever guest commentate, I will refrain from doing so in the future until after the hand is over. So take that for what you will. I made a mistake, and I apologize for it, I was merely saying what I thought was interesting and thought provoking at the time.
as none of the broadcasters are pro broadcasters mistakes are going to happen it is nice that hazy has realised he made a mistake and that he has learnt from it and will try not to make the same mistake again.
 
Old
Default
Tue Dec 24, 2002, 12:03 PM
(#10)
Deleted user
thehazyone wrote:
Rita,

My point was not that the commentators should comment on a hand while it is in play. I was one of the commentators who did so, and I know if I ever guest commentate, I will refrain from doing so in the future until after the hand is over. So take that for what you will. I made a mistake, and I apologize for it, I was merely saying what I thought was interesting and thought provoking at the time.

Ironside wrote:

as none of the broadcasters are pro broadcasters mistakes are going to happen it is nice that hazy has realised he made a mistake and that he has learnt from it and will try not to make the same mistake again.

Rita writes:

I agree!! Cheers, and Merry Freakin' Christmas!! :lol:
 
Old
Default
Tue Dec 24, 2002, 12:32 PM
(#11)
Deleted user
Ya know Rita, I'm not surprised you haven't dropped this. I was positive that I had a "tell" on you on this, and even told you what I "read" yesterday:
Bruno said:
Quote:
Look, it's very translucent that what you've wanted when we didn't agree with you is Mark to step in and make some edict to Freddie and I about what we can say and can't say
Now Rita saya:
Quote:
should be quashed by online management
Look, I've got you feel strongly about this. But, you have taken one instance (ONE INSTANCE) and tried to make a f&*king crusade out of it. Tell you what, you make an offer to sponsor us and we'll review it, and if we accept we'll let you dictate how we broadcast.

Rita said:
Quote:
I don't want to hurt anyones' feelings here, but you broadcasters seem to view yourselves as poker pros who know all the moves. I contend that is a topic for hot debate.
Easy girl.....Don't make this thing personal. I haven't at any point said I'm the one with all the answeres, and neither has Freddie (and as far as I know neither has Hazy). And I've said that in several of my posts on this topic, and we say it in the broadcasts, and I've said that we say it in the broadcasts in several of the posts on this topic. WHY ARE YOU MISSING THIS?

Rita said:
Quote:
Say what you will, but...
But your stuck on your opinion and side of this, and I'm comfotable on mine. Several people have posted on why your interpretation of the one-hand/one-person rule is wrong here (PokerGoddess, etc.) Can we agree to disagree?

Rita said:
Quote:
However, your statement (above) was so in my face, I had to respond.
Hmmm.....Never intended as an affront to you, wonder why you took it that way. This is a good topic for debate, and that's why I engage in it. Did you miss the last paragraph where I congratulated you on your great tourney, and wished you well and hoped you make serious waves at Tunica with the sponsorship money? Did you miss where I said I enjoy your table company and respect your game and right to have an opinion?

Now, All of the above being said, I'm through debating you in a public forum on this. If you want to continue a debate with me, I have AIM and Yahoo messenger. Yahoo has vocal capabilities. We can set a time that's convienient for you and me, I'll open up a chat room, and we can talk about it. Just tell me if you're interested.
 
Old
Default
Tue Dec 24, 2002, 12:48 PM
(#12)
Deleted user
Bruno begins:

Ya know Rita, I'm not surprised you haven't dropped this. I was positive that I had a "tell" on you on this, and even told you what I "read" yesterday:

Rita compliments Bruno on his reading ability. :lol:

Bruno said to Rita:

Hmmm.....Never intended as an affront to you, wonder why you took it that way.

Rita's reply:

I didn't take it as an affront. I think it's a great debate, too. I just wanted to make sure you didn't think "translucence" was intended on my part. I am certainly not trying to hide my opinions.

Bruno:

Did you miss the last paragraph where I congratulated you on your great tourney, and wished you well and hoped you make serious waves at Tunica with the sponsorship money? Did you miss where I said I enjoy your table company and respect your game and right to have an opinion?

Me:

Let me take this opportunity to say thank you and that I respect you as a player, as well. I have been aware of your playing skills since the first time you called me out at a table for making what you thought was a bad play. I enjoy playing with you and, certainly, everyone has the right to an opinion.

I am awed to have taken second place in a second big event on PokerPages, and I hope I have been able to convey my humility about it amid all the debate about what is right and wrong about comments during play.

Have a Merry, Merry Christmas and best of luck in Tunica. As I have told some other players, I won't make Tunica, as I am having shoulder surgery on January 15th. Gotta get psyched up for it... I will be at the WSOP, however, playing in some early events. Just waiting for the schedule to be published... 8O

Best regards, Bruno!!
 
Old
Default
Tue Dec 24, 2002, 01:05 PM
(#13)
Deleted user
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rio Rita
commentators should not be allowed free rein on commentary
Thats a very ugly, disturbing statement.

Commentary is a fact of life in professional spectator sports. The announcers cover every aspect of a game, offer their opinions and analysis, before, during, and after games. This past Sunday, Fox's pregame show had a segment of analysis on just how to block Michael Strahan. John Madden points out every bit of information he observes during a game, and he observes a lot. He notices weaknesses, hot streaks, and gives his opinion about what the coahces should be doing or thinking about. Sideline reporters break news about injuries during a game long before the team releases word. A sideline reporter might note that the QB that left the field was just loaded into an ambulance and taken to a hospital, in other words, he wont be back today. Any of this COULD have an affect on the game. Whether its noticing that some zip has left the pitchers fastball, or that Peter Forsberg is retaping his wrist every time he hits the bench. Some of this information the other team may be made aware of because they are listening to all the commentating. Truth is, though, that little gets by the experts in the booths who's job it is to watch for this kind of thing.

To suggest that a broadcast be somehow restricted or "reined in" is nothing short of censorship. Fortunately, Rita is a vocal minority and no one is in a position to "rein in" Freddies broadcast. Freddie and Bruno offer opinions, entertainment, analysis, thoughts, and whatever else. Some of that falls during a hand. I have listened to most every broadcast they have put on and often both of them are playing while doing the show. I have never heard one instance of either commentator discussing a hand in play in which they were personally involved and had inside information, such as "well, he cant have trips, because I folded...". The analysis they do give during the hand is no different than any other railbird analysis, or the play by play commentating by a tournament pro that is becoming more commonplace during major events.

I see nothing at all unethical about the manner in which they conduct the broadcasts or about the particular situations to which Rita refers. In fact, I admire both of them for sticking to their guns and showing what amounts to journalistic intergrity. I know its just a free internet broadcast for a small select audience, but it is good to see that Freddie and Bruno take it as seriously as they do.

KEEP INTERNET RADIO FREE!!!

Rock on Freddie and Bruno!

--Greagar
 
Old
Default
Tue Dec 24, 2002, 01:43 PM
(#14)
TrumpinJoe's Avatar
Since: Jun 2010
Posts: 4,557
Who was the broadcaster fired from CBS for his 'bikini waxed greens' comment at the Masters? Has he broadcast a Masters event since? So much for a broadcaster's right to unlimited free speech.

The sports analogies are ridiculously inappropriate. Where in sports can a broadcast commentary affect a play in progress? Discussion may affect subsequent decisions, but it is practically impossible to affect an in progress play by broadcast opinions. This is a situation not applicable to Rita's situation.

Rita had much more at stake here than did the amateur broadcasters. Their right's end where her's begin. What some see as journalistic integrity I see as BS to hide a questionable decision.
 
Old
Default
Tue Dec 24, 2002, 02:29 PM
(#15)
Deleted user
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrumpinJoe
Who was the broadcaster fired from CBS for his 'bikini waxed greens' comment at the Masters? Has he broadcast a Masters event since? So much for a broadcaster's right to unlimited free speech.
Speaking of ridulously inappropriate. In that case CBS is the broadcaster, not the individual with the mic. They made a decision that his actions violated the intended spirit/flavor of their broadcast. Same thing when Nick the Greek was fired as a broadcaster. But no one had or has a right to stop the broadcaster in question from broadcasting his own show (on fancast if he wanted). Those who do the actual broadcasting determine the rules. Fancast could have rules govening objectionable language (I dont know) and if Freddie and Bruno violated those rules their broadcast at Fancast could be ended. Would the same commentator have been fired from Fox? Probably not. No one ever claimed "unlimited free speech". A broadcaster or an individual is not allowed to shout "FIRE" in a crowded building, because of the danger that poses to others. The right to flail your fists stops at my nose. However, Rita's face was not in danger here, literally or figuritevly.

I am appalled, though, at the seeming ease some people have to dismiss the right of free speech. Free speech is the cornerstone of a free society. That is not really the issue regarding Freddie's show though.

Quote:
The sports analogies are ridiculously inappropriate. Where in sports can a broadcast commentary affect a play in progress? Discussion may affect subsequent decisions, but it is practically impossible to affect an in progress play by broadcast opinions. This is a situation not applicable to Rita's situation.
I would not say "ridiculously inappropriate". I will concede they are not as good an example as intended when I wrote them. In both cases the commentators are analyzing the game from the POV of spectator. Freddie and Bruno do not break down hands they are playing and have inside information on. I have never heard either one use the broadcast as a tool in their game. As an example, saying over the air, "dont know why he bet into me, i have the nuts", then raising on a bluff, knowing the opponent was a listener. That would be grossly inappropriate. The comment that pot-odds dictate a call with NE2 was just analysis of the situation. Earlier, Bruno remarked, when Freddie was facing a raise, that he basically had to call in that spot. Freddie mucked. The commentators do not have the inside knowledge of the hands in play. They have no more impact on the game than John Madden does on a game he is commentating. The players still play their hands and make their own decisions. The one player to a hand rule is not broken because neither Freddie or Bruno can see the hands in play.

Quote:
Rita had much more at stake here than did the amateur broadcasters. Their right's end where her's begin. What some see as journalistic integrity I see as BS to hide a questionable decision.
That is a totally irrelevant point. Whats at stake isnt an issue, as noones "right" were violated. They did not violate the one player to a hand rule or any other poker rule. They were offering opinion and analysis, sometimes stating what they would do or would have done or what they would be thinking about right now. There is nothing wrong or unethical about that.

--Greagar
 
Old
Default
Tue Dec 24, 2002, 02:30 PM
(#16)
Deleted user
GREAGAR wrote to Everyone:

"Rio Rita wrote: commentators should not be allowed free rein on commentary

(then Greagar says Thats a very ugly, disturbing statement. ""

Rita tells GREAGAR:

Picking words out of context to fit your needs is a dishonorable way to debate. It wastes the readers' time, as well as the responder's time. It's an angle-shooting-cheap-shot.

The entire statement from which you picked a portion reads as follows:

"But during important events where big prizes are at stake and everyone has worked their collective butts off to get to the money, commentators should not be allowed free rein on commentary if they can't follow the basic tenets of poker ethics."
-----------------------------------

Rita now writes to Everyone:

If I am in a hand at a tournament table, it is MY hand, it is MY game, it is MY situation, and NO ONE has the right (don't confuse that with "ability") to interfere with it in any way while it is happening.

Having said that...I agree that it would be a loss to the PokerSchool community if the broadcasts went away. I certainly have never thought that Freddie and the others intended to harm anyone in any way. Perhaps no hand has been swayed by their commentary...but no one really knows.

I guess I just expect from our esteemed fellow players a level of professionalism in the presentation of important games which is above the very suggestion that anyone might be harmed by it.

Peace to everyone and good day;
Santa Clause is coming to town. :lol:
 
Old
Default
Tue Dec 24, 2002, 02:38 PM
(#17)
Deleted user
Interesting debate. I think Rio Rita is on target on this issue. I would be interested in any comments Mark has - specifically in reference to the parallels between B & M casinos (in which I think the comments would be considered inappropriate) and this on-line venue (in which the matter is at issue). If he concludes that the commentary was out of line, I'd be curious as to his solution.

max
 
Old
Default
Tue Dec 24, 2002, 03:18 PM
(#18)
Trisail's Avatar
Since: Jun 2010
Posts: 33
BronzeStar
I am of the opinion that the live broadcasts should continue. I have "called" in on many of these with all the broadcasters. I enjoy this media and hope to see it continue here at PSO.

As for the debate..... I am a firm believer that no comment should be offered as a hand is in progress. Any comment, advise or play by play should be presented after all action is completed. I am sure Bruno, Freddieboy, Top2Pair and any others have the right to say anything they wish. I am also confident that any remarks that may be said by anyone on a broadcast that could affect the play of a hand in progress are not done intentionally.

As for me.... I will continue to listen and "call in" whenever possible. If IMO I believe the commentary is not ethical or in any way able to affect a hand in play I will not participate in or condone such commentary. I am sure each of us has our own thoughts on this subject. These are mine.

Trisail

PS. I hope I have not said anything on air that was perceived as unethical in the past. If so, I apologize for that now as it would not have been intentional.
 
Old
Default
Tue Dec 24, 2002, 03:38 PM
(#19)
Deleted user
RioRita said:
Quote:
I am awed to have taken second place in a second big event on PokerPages, and I hope I have been able to convey my humility about it amid all the debate about what is right and wrong about comments during play.
Rita, you have. You've shown nothing but true sportsmanship and humility regarding your tremendous play and finish in the BigOne2. Myself, I think I woulda been upset with TomHawks' bluff at the drypot (for all intents and purposes, it was a dry-pot) with Scarz all-in.

DPBBear said once "adversity doesn't build character, it reveals it". I think the same is true when good things happen.

Sorry to hear about your shoulder surgery, and that you'll miss Tunica. Hope it all comes out ok.
 
Old
Default
Tue Dec 24, 2002, 03:54 PM
(#20)
Deleted user
I have at this point tried only to clarify what the rule of one player per hand but I think Rita has negated some of her own arguement here with her statement...."If I am in a hand at a tournament table, it is MY hand, it is MY game, it is MY situation"....
This is precisely the point that Bruno, Freddie, et al, have been making!! 8O It IS YOUR hand, Your game, and YOUR situation, and therefore YOU will act according to YOUR gameplan. Her assertion that someone would be influenced by the broadcaster stating the accepted theory of proper play, indicates that there is a belief that they are sharing some secret of strategy that another player would not be priveledged to.
An interesting theory....at the final table of the WPO 2002, Humberto Brenes was listening to a headset. What was he tuned into? He could, for all we know, by some feat of technology been tuned into Marks internet broadcast of the final table play, or had someone "coaching" him from the rail? We really don't know. Yes, it's a far fetched possibility, but even tho it is remote, he was allowed to listen to whatever he choose to have coming to him at the time.
I DO agree, that NO ONE should be allowed to "entice" a player to act in a hand, but stating what the "normal and reasonable" possibilities are, don't fall into this category, at least as I see it. After all, it IS THEIR hand, THEIR game, and THEIR situation.
To conclude...I DO hope, that no one involved in this debate in any way takes a personal affront to the debate, as it deminishes the value of what I think is and should be an interesting topic of discussion. If we all try to "keep it out of the muck"...then it can be informative and enlightning for everyone.

8O

'Goddess
 

Getting PokerStars is easy: download and install the PokerStars game software, create your free player account, and validate your email address. Clicking on the download poker button will lead to the installation of compatible poker software on your PC of 51.7 MB, which will enable you to register and play poker on the PokerStars platform. To uninstall PokerStars use the Windows uninstaller: click Start > Control Panel and then select Add or Remove programs > Select PokerStars and click Uninstall or Remove.

Copyright (c) PokerSchoolOnline.com. All rights reserved, Rational Group, Douglas Bay Complex, King Edward Road, Onchan, Isle of Man, IM3 1DZ. You can email us on support@pokerschoolonline.com