Let's Think Before We....

I'm sitting in my apartment watching the National Heads-Up Poker Tournament, in which Shannon Elizabeth is in the semifinals [what?--ed.] against Paul Wasicka. Before the last commercial, Shannon (if I may call her that) had a ~3:1 chip lead when Wasicka went all in with pocket 10's. Shannon called with AcQc. In other words, the hand was close to a coin-flip, but Wasicka had a slight lead. A queen fell on the flop, making Shannon a big favorite at that point---until Wasicka back-doored a straight.

Since this happened, the broadcasters have, by my count, described the hand as a "bad beat" three times, a "suck-out" twice, and a "beat" twice. Now look, I get it that both commentators want to sleep with Shannon Elizabeth. So do I. So I can sympathize with their (faux) sympathy for her. But this trope is retarded, and I've seen way too many instances of it in poker coverage, and it needs to be strangled in the cradle. If you go all-in with the best of it, and your opponent improbably takes the lead, only for you to come back and win the pot, that is not a bad beat or a suck-out. Enough. It's enough.

UPDATE: Now they're talking about the "emotional roller-coaster Shannon's been on."

UPDATE: On the final hand of the match, Shannon went all-in with 65, Wasicka called with AK. The flop came AKQ. Thus: "Shannon can chop with J10, and can return the suck-out favor with running 5's or 6's."

UNRELATED UPDATE: Although the episode must have come out ten years ago, I only recently got why the Simpsons episode featuring a drink called the "flaming homer"/"flaming mo" is so funny, when I heard someone use the expression "flaming 'mo."

RELATED UPDATE: One of the broadcasters is named "Ali Nejad." Therefore, I blame Rod for this.