For some reason, the template for poker commentary has become wise cracking scripted humor by people who just aren’t funny. The joke seems to be how bad the joke is. If there’s going to be any poker remarks at all, they need to be strategy related lessons with a tinge of humor sprinkled in.

Without question, the most compelling poker commentary was Daniel Negreanu’s live radio broadcast for the CardPlayer web site for the 2005 main event. Unfortunately, it was in the wee hours of the morning and there were probably a dozen or so hellacious dorks like me listening to it. He made it sound easy without even seeing the hole cards of the players that night. NBC’s ‘Poker after Dark’ went with the Norman Chad approach causing my ear drums to burst.

Instead of a reality review, let’s look at this week’s show from a poker stand point. A guy in my home game has this theory that there’s not a game in the world where the disparity between the greatest player and the worst player is more subtle than in poker. (You could make very compelling and well thought-out arguments for Baggo and Disc Golf as well. But you’d have no life whatsoever if you did.) Some of the pros illustrated that point this time around.

David Grey, a 20 year pro, flopped top two pair while in the middle of a story and paused in recognition of his discovery. He ran a rudimentary check raise telegraphing his holdings. In all honesty, many of the plays seemed pretty standard of what I do and see every week. They did exactly what their cards told them to do. There were no bold calls, timely bluffs or creativity of any kind.

There were some mistakes along the way that wouldn’t seem typical among the greenest of players. The legendary Doyle Brunson tangled with Grey and moved in with four to a straight on board converting the most likely draw. Grey held the strongest hand possible and Brunson was dunzo. (In his defense, Doyle seemed bored with the mere 120K format and eager to take a nap.) Jerry Buss was an open book of bad acting and looked lost. Gabe Kaplan seemed to be doing a lot of calling and chasing, typically another no-no in respected poker books. These would be standard plays in our home game by guys that are mainly just drunk and happy to have a night out.

Head ups, play didn’t improve. On a board of all clubs, Grey rechecked his cards to validate he held the queen of clubs. You’d be hard pressed to find a poker book that didn’t specifically mention this tell. My wife, who can’t remember for the life of her if a flush beats a straight, looked up from her Ballard Designs catalog to note, “That guy is just not very good.” Mind you, she’s referring to somebody with two World Series bracelets and a top-notch cash game player.

As for the theory that the disparity between the top and bottom tier players is minimal, I have to agree. (Alright, alright, so that guy in my home game is me.) There are two ways to digest this: one of relief that the pinnacle might be near or one of fear that the pinnacle might be near. For me, it’s the latter. As a fledging, atypical, wanna-be player with large aspirations, my greatest fear is that there might not be a light at the end of the tunnel. Let’s say that my absolute ceiling as a player is David Grey or Gabe Kaplan. I almost question whether or not it’s worth it. These guys are far better than I am, but are they good enough to put in hours and hours of Internet play, tedious reading and hand analysis to be their equals?

On the other side of the spectrum, I’m also a fledging, atypical, wanna-be writer. On that note, when I read the work of other columnists like Malcolm Gladwell and Chuck Klostermen, I know I’ll never be as good as them. They’re on a different plane. So I guess my question then is this: is it scarier to know you’ll never be as good as the greatest or to know that after years of diligence that being great might not be all that special?

At days end I would love to see this exact format with a final table of a small staked World Series event fraught with amateurs. Pick one interesting table and show every hand for a few hours. It would be a great educational tool to see these same pros who struggled this week force busters like me to make the big mistakes. Negreanu was the only pro who seemed to play many pots creatively and he ran Grey off the table for the win. Along the way, he sent Matusow to the rail on a tough beat who then summed up my theory, “It’s beats like those that separate me from multi-millionaires like them.”

For a poker player, it doesn’t get much scarier than that. If you ever find yourself believing it, you’ve topped out as a player. But if you’ve ever played the game, you’ll know there are many days when it’s impossible not to.