Im afraid Lucy falls into the same bad habit that Roy Brindley does when he commentates. it becomes a breakdown of how THEY would have played the hand. Lucys style works well for her and I endless respect for her as a player but her way isnt the only way. That said, the HU play was very poor after the heat got off to such a cracking start.
What other way
is there for someone to commentate other than to give
their opinions, based on
their experience, which is the combined knowledge of how
they have played similar hands.
What's the alternative?
"Well, he could raise here, or he could call or fold. Personally I would raise but there are arguments for calling and folding - there's no right answer" - I would tire of hearing this everytime someone got dealt cards other than AA.
Oddly, Roy did give the absolute spot-on answer as to why he was winning the HU battle - Barny didn't try and nick his blinds, whereas he did steal Barny's.