Vanessa Rousso first annoyed me during a "Poker After Dark" appearance when she just would never shut the hell up. She seemed to have no filter between brain and mouth, and just spewed whatever random thoughts came into her head. She may wear headphones while playing poker, but I'll bet that Chad Brown resorts to wearing them nearly all day when he's going to be around her, just to block out the incessant, mindless chatter. Either that or we'll soon have our first professional poker domestic murder-suicide on our hands. (They allegedly recently eloped in Florida.)
But yesterday I was watching the final rounds of the NBC Heads-Up Poker Championship, and Rousso upped the ante on annoyance. She did play well, granted, and she didn't open her stupid yap too much. But when she did, she could spew idiocies with the best (or worst) of them.
The one that really made me pull out what little is left of my hair was in the semi-final round, when she was all-in against Bertrand Grospellier. She had the lead in the hand, but the turn gave Grospellier a flush draw, which would beat her if it hit. She said, "If it's not meant to be, it's not meant to be."
Huh?
Just on the level of grammatical structure and logic, this sentence means, literally, nothing. It's as devoid as meaning as saying, "If it's not raining, it's not raining."
But I'm even more bothered by the whole "meant to be" idea (if we can flatter it by elevating it to the level of an "idea"). She reinforced that this is something of an important concept to her when Huck Seed finally defeated her in the finals, and just about the first thing out of her mouth was, "It wasn't meant to be."
We are supposed to believe that this woman has an impressive educational background, graduating from Duke with a degree in economics and then going to the University of Miami law school. How, then, can she be this stupid?
I'd like to ask her who it is that has formed these intentions or plans the nature of which she perceives by how things play out. Does she believe in a supernatural deity who has predestined everything to happen? If I go to the cupboard and choose chicken noodle soup for my lunch in preference to minestrone, does it make any sense to say, "I guess I wasn't meant to have minestrone today," as if my choice were foreordained from the Big Bang? If a drunk driver runs a red light and plows into my car, severing my spinal cord, should I just shrug and say, "Well, I guess I wasn't meant to walk my last few decades of life"? Does this mystical being, who has apparently planned out everything, really care about who wins a poker tournament? In Rousso's world view, is every decision she makes at the poker table simply going through the motions of what has already been decided by somebody (or something) else? If so, doesn't that kind of take away any sense of accomplishment when she wins?
Rousso isn't exactly the only one who spouts this kind of nonsense. One frequently hears of relationships that break up, and one of the people involved will say, "I guess it just wasn't meant to be." I don't think it's possible to utter such vapid froth unless you are in the habit of putting zero thought behind your words.
Only slightly less annoying was what she said during what proved to be the final hand of the match. Rousso was behind but had the chance for a lucky card to come and deliver a bad beat to Seed. She said, "No, I don't want to win like that."
What????
Sure, if we were given the choice between getting our money in good and having the best hand hold up or getting it in bad and sucking out, I think nearly everybody would choose the former. But if you're given the choice between sucking out a win and losing, who in their right mind would choose losing? Well, Vanessa Rousso would, apparently, if we are to believe her statement. Which raises the question of whether she is, in fact, "in her right mind." More likely, she was just lying. Had the suckout come, would she literally have resigned and conceded the match anyway, out of a principled refusal to win by getting lucky? Everybody who believes that, raise your right hand. Anybody? Anybody? I didn't think so. Even she doesn't believe her own nonsense.
I'll allow that none of Rousso's comments during this televised match were as shockingly moronic as those that Shannon Elizabeth spouted two years ago during her run at the same event (see here for details). But saying that your words and thoughts aren't quite as stupid as those of Shannon Elizabeth is setting your standards pretty low.
Rousso has been putting in some impressive performances and results lately. I could have a lot more respect for her if she just played poker and kept her damn piehole shut.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Vanessa Rousso annoys me
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
16 comments:
It's pretty amazing that we have such great personalities as Mike "The Mouth" and Phil the "Poker Brat" and yet we don't have any female players that are good at being annoying. A woman yelling Tony G style "It's a FLUSH!"
Strangely I don't think I've ever seen Vanessa Rousso playing on TV even though I know who she is. Thanks Grump, I don't miss it.
Wow, an impressive level of vitriol from the Grump! Mind you, I emitted a similarly caustic rant on the topic of "it is what it is," so I really can't point the finger.
I have concluded that these speech acts are simply gestures of self-soothing, and by no means to be understood as literal, actual representations of the person's worldview.
The concept of saying words and sentences that sound as if they are reflective of a specific world view and/or set of facts, but really do not derive from such, is completely foreign and incomprehensible to me. If that assessment is accurate, then I want to ask Rousso, "Why do you say things that imply a world view that you don't actually have? How can you derive any comfort or soothing from words that mean nothing, or that mean something you don't really believe? How can you be that stupid?"
Approximately the same thing came up with respect to Jerry Yang. His words unequivocally conveyed that he believes that his god will rearrange the cards in the dealer's hand upon proper request from the penitent. But then he later completely denied having any such belief. This leaves us wondering whether he was lying in his denial, hasn't thought through what his words at the time implied, is delusional, is abysmally stupid, or some other unflattering interpretation.
Maybe I'm the oddball here (always a distinct possibility), but I think that words actually mean things, and that one shouldn't use words that convey meanings one doesn't possess or intend to express.
It is stupid to believe the things that Rousso's words imply her to believe. It is just as stupid to say those things if one does not really believe them.
Almost everyone emits verbal gestures that either don't mean what they purport literally to mean, or perform some other social function. Some of them fall into the category of semi-meaningless but polite formalities: "How do you do?" and "Gesundheit!" or "Bless you!" spring immediately to mind. I used to particularly enjoy my father's heartfelt delivery of "Jesus H. Christ!" as an expletive, given that he was an atheist Jew. (If you're going to blaspheme in a moment of wrath, shouldn't it be against something you actually believe in?)
As for Rousso (Yang is a slightly different and much more egregious case, I think), she is saying what she considers the socially acceptable face-saving thing. Probably what she was thinking was: Goddam it, why can't I get lucky one time!!!! But she doesn't want to sound like Phil Hellmuth. So she sounds like Rousso instead. (Apparently, it's a no win situation for her.)
No wonder you are single! Anal guys like you are "meant" to be alone!
I think you might be just a bit harsh here, at least as far as the statement, "If it's not meant to be, it's not meant to be." This phrase could be used colloquially to mean, "It's out of my control now". For example, you put your money in with top set against a flush draw. At this point, you've done all you can do, and you have no control over what occurs next (i.e., what cards peel off randomly). Saying, "If it's not meant to be, it's not meant to be," in that situation doesn't necessarily equate to a belief in fate or a deterministic universe.
From my background in philosophy, I would also note that not all declarative statements are meant to be taken as literally true at face value. There can be multiple possible meanings (literal, figurative, implied, or ironic) to many statements, and context is often necessary to interpret the meaning (or truth value) of a statement. Of course, Ms. Rousso may in fact believe her poker results are controlled by fate, a deity, or little green (or purple) aliens. But I think you should find a little more definitive statement before concluding that Ms. Rousso is as ... misguided? irrational? nuts? ... as Shannon Elizabeth and Jerry Yang.
As for the statement, "No, I don't want to win like that," that's what we lawyers like to call a "misrepresentation".
I think that you and i watch the same shows and read the same books...
i think your a little harsh on Rousso, if 'it' is this way 'it' is how 'it' is MEANT to be because this is how it is. make sense? it's a very european expression and in general a coping mechanism -its probably not coming out right but trust me.
I'm only even commenting on this because you seemed quite perturbed.
Anyway, just a thought. love your blog! I'm so happy for Huck Seed i think he played spectacular poker during this match and i'm sure we didn't see the half of it. His match with Gus Hansen was awesome!
Cardgrrl has privately pointed out to me that the word "penitent" in my previous comment seems wrong. She's right; it is. I think I had a brain fart and was thinking of "pious" and the wrong word slipped out. Apologies.
The worst itch is the one we can't scratch.
Did I say that right? Probably not.
She's French. Cut her some slack. It is tough being disadvantaged. To paraphrase Schwarzkopf*: Playing poker without Vanessa is like sitting at the tables without your accordion...
*This quote is misattributed to Norman Schwarzkopf, as well as to
Donald Rumsfeld and Ross Perot. The real speaker was Jed Babbin, a
deputy undersecretary of defense from the first Bush administration.
The full quote is "... you know frankly, going to war without France
is like going deer hunting without an accordion. You just leave a lot
of useless noisy baggage behind."
The language is fun to play with Rakewell. Literal should be reserved for contract law.
Have to agree with cardgrrl and grange here. I read the statement "It's not meant to be" as a self-soothing statement and at the worst an acceptance of an outcome that's no longer controllable, as the cards are overturned.
"She said, "If it's not meant to be, it's not meant to be.""
This is the literal translation of a french expression. Who was she playing against?
I've heard how smart Rousso is supposed to be too. I've been equally unimpressed by her vapid utterances. But I don't think she's any more guilty than anyone else of making inane, fatalistic comments. Us rationalists will always be perturbed at such things. But I do question her intelligence a little when such anti-rational phrases are made by her (or anyone).
The thing that bugged me the most about her were her magic slippers. Did you see her say in a previous HU episode say that, in essence, she's such a Cinderella story she thought she should have glass slippers to match. I did throw up a little when I heard that.
I take it to mean "I'm not going to try to use superstition to control something that is completely out of my hands."
It makes a hell of a lot more sense than "ONE TIME" from some fuck stick that's won millions of dollars, e.g. Joe Hachem.
Well, I came to the comments page meaning to vent my own annoyance at the latest catchphrase on everyone's lips, "It is what it is," but I see cardgrrl's beat me to the punch. (BTW, cg, "speech acts"? "emits verbals gestures"? I feel like I'm back in a grad school semiotics seminar. Parole! Sign, signified, referent! Differance!!!)
I have to agree with cg, Grange et al. that everything we say, especially our idiomatic, casual speech, cannot be held under the same scrutiny as our sworn testimony in a court of law. It's pedantic overkill to monitor absolutely everything we say, even the most off-the-cuff or facetious statements, for total consistency with our conscious belief systems or for perfect rationality and philosophical clarity. Complete consistency and rationality are noble, pursuable goals, certainly, but they are, finally, out of reach for mere mortals like us. The others have said all of this clearly enough.
You obviously respect language and value the ol' examined life, Rakewell, but your righteous indignation on this one is a bit misplaced. Went back and read your Jerry Yang stuff. "Stupid," "idiotic," "incomprehensible." Is it just me, or isn't there a class of poker writer, usually the math-y/math-based ones that like to define "correct play" down to the 30th decimal place (that part is not you, R), that loves to call people idiots, to berate them for their superstitions or (expanding their critical scope beyond the felt) to profess complete bafflement that an intelligent human being could have religious beliefs? Even if it is all bunk, there's a need for some sympathy and respect here. Never mind that probably their being superstitious--faith-based players, if you will--will make them play worse, which is good for you.
Oh, I forgot to mention how much Rousso annoys me, too. Been hounding her on the youtube vids of the tourney: "Lord I find this girl so annoying. The cutesy act has got to go, ditto the embarrassing self-promotion: "scholarship to Duke, 2 1/2 years, scholarship to law school." This is like the people who actually wear their Phi Beta Kappa key, especially to, like, pool parties. You think real poker players like Huck Seed GAF what your GPA was? She obviously wrote her own Wikipedia entry, too. You were class valedictorian in high school? Wow. Welcome to the least impressive club in the world."
Vanessa is a feminized Phil Laak.
Post a Comment