High stakes cash games on TV

[cowpie]

Am I the only one who thinks it would be interesting to watch high stakes cash games on TV? The high stakes players (Reese, Ivey, etc) might not like it because of the hole card cameras, and the TV audience maybe want to see Joe Schmoe win instead of only pros, but god damn it, I want to watch them play high stakes cash games for a change.

[deuces09]

How can televising something that doesn't end be profitable to a station? If you want to watch the big cash games, travel there and watch them yourself /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Lazymeatball]

that would be like watching baseball if there were no playoffs

[Tuds75]

The history channel had a show called "The History of Poker" and one part of the show they keep showing some hands from a cash game between, Doyle, Ivey, Greenstein, Chip Reese, Gus Hansen, and Daniel Negreanua, just to name a few. ACtually Doyle put the game together and it seemed like A LOT of the big cash game players are sitting down at some point during the show.

The whole show is not this cash game, but is pretty cool see a person bet a 50K in REAL dollars.

Check your TV Guide for the next showing.

Tuds

[theBruiser500]

Not really LazyMeatball.

[theBruiser500]

Cowpie, I would be EXTREMELY interested to see this, this would be a lot more interesting to me than touranments.

[Lazymeatball]

[ QUOTE ]

Not really

[/ QUOTE ]

Please offer some substance to support your posts in future. This helps to foster more lively debate.

[Rushmore]

You're right that it seems like this might be interesting.

I suspect, however, that it might lose its appeal when nobody new ever sits down, and we see mostly the same six guys just pushing tens of thousands of dollars back and forth until someone has a win and gets up and goes home, and the other guys just shrug and say they'll be back tomorrow, see y'all then, wanna go to the buffet?

[Smasharoo]

The whole show is not this cash game, but is pretty cool see a person bet a 50K in REAL dollars.


90% of viewers think that's exactly what's happening in televised touranments anyway.

[theBruiser500]

In tournaments the skill level goes down a lot compared to cash games cause of the high blinds, completely different from baseball. Also, if we watched just the really high stkaes games we would have a table full of great players. In touranments the quality of the tables is a lot less. Compare this with baseball where you get th ebest teams in the playoffs... This among many other reasons makes your analogy bad.

[Sundevils21]

[ QUOTE ]
that would be like watching baseball if there were no playoffs

[/ QUOTE ]

tell that to the thousands that show up(and watch on tv) to see a baseball team who has NO chance to make the playoffs, during the middle and ends of a season.

[CrisBrown]

Hi Rushmore,

Agreed 100%. The problem with televising a cash game is that it has no narrative: no beginning, middle, or end. If you want to watch this kind of play, log onto any poker site and watch the highest stakes cash games.

Cris

[theBruiser500]

I don't care, I'm not looking for a story Mrs. Writer, I'm looking for poker.

[blendedsuit]

I bet there would be high viewership numbers for broadcasts of highstakes cash games. The pros might agree to it if the hole cards werent shown, but then the interest level would decrease substanially.

[toots]

Cool idea.

I think I'm gonna go do that now.

[jstnrgrs]

If they were paid (perhase by they tv network showing them), maybe they would agree to hold card camreas.

[Tosh]

If they did it, noway should they be allowed hole cams. I would be furious as a high stakes regular and they tried to do this so the whole world could see all my cards.

[TheBull]

No there wouldn't.

A large portion of the viewing audience doesn't understand the difference between a tournament and a cash game as it is. To them, it would just look like a tournament with no end.

Believe me, if people would watch it, they would show it.

[Rushmore]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Rushmore,

Agreed 100%. The problem with televising a cash game is that it has no narrative: no beginning, middle, or end. If you want to watch this kind of play, log onto any poker site and watch the highest stakes cash games.

Cris

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey Cris.

Although it is true that the lack of linear narrative might be a problem for many, that wasn't my whole point.

In tournaments, the only perspective to adopt is life or death. You bust, you die. This creates a dramatic effect.

Once the audience realizes that these guys are all properly staked, and don't sweat losing sessions, there's no drama whatsoever.

Math is a bore.

Now, if they managed to televise only those episodes where one or two $50/$100 players were taking a shot at the $1000/$2000, either drunk or desperate or just plain stupid, well...

THAT I would like to see.

[CrisBrown]

Hi Bruiser,

Regarding my comment that a televised cash game would lack any narrative structure (i.e.: no end point):

[ QUOTE ]
I don't care, I'm not looking for a story Mrs. Writer, I'm looking for poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't care either. I'd watch it. Heck, I do logon and watch the highest-stakes games online. But you and I are not a typical poker audience, and I think those people would want an "ending" and a clear "winner."

Cris

[EvlG]

A high stakes cash game would create interesting opportunities for the "budding reality show contestant" type of person.

If you could just get some money and show up in vegas and put your name on the wait list, you could get a chance to make a splash on TV.

I think that would attract a lot of interesting stories and personalities.

[ClonexxSA]

It is my understanding that the mainstay and most steady source of income for pros are cash games and not tournaments.

Going with that in mind, I highly doubt many pros would agree to hole cameras in a high stakes cash game, it would just reveal too much.

[Lazymeatball]

While many on this board would find high stakes cash games between world class players both entertaining and educational, we are a very niche audience at best.

Watching a single poker game (or a baseball game) may have it's charm at first, but will get increasingly boring with each new episode as there is no beginning, middle and end as has been stated. This is very bad from a tv standpoint trying to market to a mass audience.

The point I was trying to make with my baseball analogy was that tournaments are similar to the playoffs in baseball, or any sport in general. Now there is a reason to play, to find out who the winner is, who the best is.

Now of course tournament poker with it's current escalating blind structure introduces a lot of luck into into it's outcomes. But there has been a lot of luck in sports decisions as well causing the underdog to win.
For example: remember the snowbowl in the 2002 Divisional playoffs between New England and Oakland where Tom Brady was very lucky to get that fumble in the 4th quarter ruled as a forward pass. That lucky break led them to win the game, without it, they're history. Sports teams, just like poker players need to get lucky in playoff situations.

[Knockwurst]

I think watching cash games would be the nuts. I recently heard a story about a heads-up match between Phil Ivey and The Banker (I think it was a consortium of people staking a guy to go up against Phil) playing $50,000-$100,000 limit. Tell me who wouldn't watch that.

But anyways, about the narrative problem, you could have a one table freeze out, very high blinds everyone has to bring a $100,000 to the table and the sponser could match it with another million.

Also, like someone said, the idea of a reality show focused on highstakes poker players would be friggin great.

[klagett]

[ QUOTE ]
But anyways, about the narrative problem, you could have a one table freeze out, very high blinds everyone has to bring a $100,000 to the table and the sponser could match it with another million.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhh... that sounds like a tournament to me.

[CrisBrown]

Hi Knockwurst,

[ QUOTE ]
I recently heard a story about a heads-up match between Phil Ivey and The Banker (I think it was a consortium of people staking a guy to go up against Phil) playing $50,000-$100,000 limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Banker is Andy Beal, and you have it backwards. The players (Phil Ivey, Doyle, etc.) pool their bankrolls so that one of them at a time can challenge Beal to very high-stakes heads-up action when Beal is in Vegas. The pros divide the winnings (or losses) amongst themselves, sharing both the risk and benefit.

[ QUOTE ]
But anyways, about the narrative problem, you could have a one table freeze out, very high blinds everyone has to bring a $100,000 to the table and the sponser could match it with another million.

[/ QUOTE ]

A one-table freeze out is a tournament. The TOC was a one-table freeze out. The PSI is a series of one-table freeze outs. Yes, obviously, a freeze out has a narrative: one person ultimately ends up with all the chips, and the game is over. But that's not a cash game.

Cris

[Knockwurst]

True, it is a tournament, /images/graemlins/blush.gif, but it also has elements of a cash game in that instead of a $10,000 buyin, you would be essentially playing for the cash you put up, say $50,000-$100,000, in addition to what the sponsers pitched in.

Sorry if I got the details wrong about the Banker heads-up deal, but I still think it would be very cool to watch it on T.V. and I think other people would watch it too because of the hugh amount of cash money being played for. I heard Phil lost $2 million in the first hour of play but then came back and won something like 8-10 million. Any details you could provide would be appreciated.

Cash Is King. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[PlanoPoker]

Cris,

I believe that many cash games actually have a stronger narrative. We won't have to focus on the tournament bust-outs and races and instead follow a true narrative. For example, lets watch all the hands that show how a player was able to create then spend his table image. Lets watch a battle of wits between two players that doesn't end just because blind escalation forced a play.

I imagine putting a camera on a NL cash game for a couple weeks, finding the story within and then editing around that. Each episode would in fact have some sort of resolution.

Also tournaments let us see one player win millions and everyone else lose a buy-in. I want to see 1 player win 300k and one player lose 300k.

[ACBob]

I am very interested in a High Stakes cash game. Here is how it might be done. The details to be worked out but here are some concept:

1) The network pays pays each player about 50% of a buy in, say $100K. Like an Add On.

2) Game should be "Limit" say $2K-$4K using $500. chips. This plays to a 4 and 8 chip game.

3) Players required to play a minimum of say two hours and can then leave the game(just like cash games). Another player comes into his/her seat with same conditions.

This would incent high stakes players to play as they are getting partially staked and they keep all winnings.

I say "limit" for two reasons:
1) As most all of us have seen and experienced, when it comes to one table, NL, is virtually a shootout with some play but mainly who has the better cards.
2) "Limit" is what we really play in most all cash games.

Bob Lewis

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]

1) The network pays pays each player about 50% of a buy in, say $100K. Like an Add On.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sure that would be great, give somebody $100,000 for sitting down, then watch them fold 95% of their hands and take the 100K

[CrisBrown]

Hi Plano,

Yes, that would be one way to do it. Another way might be to record a couple of days' play at Doyle's Golden Nugget game (the one with Phil Ivey, Barry G., Chau Giang, etc.), with hole card cameras for all players, and then produce an episode on each of the players in the game. You would end up seeing many of the same hands again, but from different perspectives, as in any given episode you would be "seeing through the eyes of" a single player. If the ep were about Chau Giang, for example, we wouldn't see the other players' hole cards.

I think the PSI format has tried to strike something of a balance between cash game and tournament play. Each round is a one-table freezeout, but all of the players come back for the next round, and in the semi-finals their starting stacks are based on their results in the preliminaries. And again, all of the players come back for the finals, but with starting stacks based on their results in the semis, with prize payouts based on the results in the final round.

Cris

[InchoateHand]

Or better yet, a team that has no chance of winning the world series---ie, the red sox.

[AceFace]

You could create a "narrative" if you structured the cash game somewhat, in terms of beginning, end, competition, initial buy-in, etc.

The show would be heavily edited, of course, but the idea here would be to focus on who's winning (and it's gonna be real $ this time around) over the course of the televised session.

I'd find such an event truly fascinating.

[turnipmonster]

I would love to watch this, but there would have to be some sort of incentive for pros to allow hole card cams and stuff. otherwise, why would they give up information about how they play?

--turnipmonster

[MrBlini]

How about having the show seed every pot that goes to a flop with an amount equal to, say, the small blind? It would be like a rake in reverse. I'd think that would be more than enough to attract the pros as well as a few amateurs who think they can "beat the rake".

To be really interesting, the show should be no-limit with deep money.

[housenuts]

where does all the money go that ESPN pays for the rights to cover the world series? does it just go into the casino's pocket? i think it should definitely go back to the players...at least a portion of it.

[DonkeyKong]

I would like to see this... What about just having a set buy-in amount and a blind that is something in the middle of the range -- somewhere high enough for the amount to matter to the stack but not so high that it forces pre-flop all-ins all the time...

players can re-load but the higher than normal blinds would create some benefit for the action players who play lots of pots but not favor them too much... the point is to avoid attracting the total rocks who only play AA KK and AKs and the occassional bluff...