TV Poker: Significant Flaws (Possible Solution?)

[Blankstare]

****I posted this on the Cardplayer Forums****

Don't get me wrong, I think televised poker had done a lot to popularize the game.

However the more I watch it, and the more my poker knowledge expands, the more I find TV poker less satisfying and almost misleading in some ways.

I understand you can't fit the length of an entire final table into 2 hours (minus commercial time) but only watching major or All-In showdowns is really not very educational or exciting beyond the beginner level. The worst part is it could be very misleading why a particular player made the move they did.

We all know in the game of poker gathering intelligence about your opponents is really one of the most important factors in determining how you play against them. I wish this could be reflected somehow in TV poker.

I was thinking they should put the Hand Number on the screen and make an effort, perhaps through a quick 1 minute replay collage, to go over what transpired before the major showdown occured. It could even be as simple as having the commentators
talk about any significant hand/betting exchanges when they post the Chip Counts after a bunch of "not-so-TV-exciting" hands.

The more I learn about poker the more I realize it is just not when a big showdown is happeneing or when I have decent playable hands that is important. It everything that happens in-between that establishes how you should act on big showdowns and playable hands.

This is not a complaint so much as a suggestion. Instead of representing Hollywood Poker (ie. Rounders) televised poker should try to represent some of the timing, depth, and subtity that transend the big moves, bold face bluffs, and major confrontations that really only occur once in a bunch of hands.

What do you guys think?

- Blankstare

[NLSoldier]

[ QUOTE ]

The more I learn about poker the more I realize it is just not when a big showdown is happeneing or when I have decent playable hands that is important. It everything that happens in-between that establishes how you should act on big showdowns and playable hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that you have realized this, why would you want all the new fish to figure it out any faster than you did?

[B1GF1SHY]

Championship Poker at the Plaza was very detailed, showing many hands, even ones where everyone folded preflop to a raise. I think many amateurs found this boring, and since TV is for entertainment purposes and the networks wants good ratings and lots of viewers they need to make it appeal to the fish so it probably won't be done too often. Instead I think they should have a version of the tournaments with extended footage, more hands and more details on DVD, but I'm sure that won't sell enough for them to make a good profit. There's just no winning I guess.

[Synth]

The American Poker Championship was very detailed. It showed every hand played at the final table while Howard Lederer and Mike Konik(sp?) analyzed and discussed the action and also a few replays of the previous action that needed further analysis.

Certin FSN poker broadcasts do show instant replays, such as the APC and Championship Poker At The Plaza while also stating expert theorys and analysis.

ESPN and Travel don't have enough air time to show every hand played at the final table. Also, and like B1GF1SHY mentioned, they are trying to appeal to the fish and rake in the ratings.

I'm fairly certin this won't change.

[riverboatking]

poker on tv is for entertainment pure and simple, it makes no pretenses of educational content.
and while avid poker fans would find it much more interesting to see "real poker playing" as opposed to all in races, we are not the majority.

plus how great is it to have someone sit down at a full ring game and try and play like gus hansen?

[Blankstare]

*LoL* /images/graemlins/laugh.gif Oh I get it.

Don't bite the hand that feeds you... so to speak.

Good point. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Thebram]

[ QUOTE ]
ESPN and Travel don't have enough air time to show every hand played at the final table.

[/ QUOTE ]
I laughed out loud at this.
Perhaps, ESPN could just make their WSOP coverage last a few months longer and go into more detail instead of rushing through the tournament in a few episodes then playing the same episodes over and over and over and over...

[Lurshy]

right, and my impression of te Travel Channel is that they are content starved.

The future of Poker on TV is Live Broadcasts.

[MrDannimal]

No, it's not. If for no other reason than there are very few networks that can block of an unknown amount of time because they don't know how long the table will run. Add to it that final tables very often start in the early afternoon and run after midnight, the "prime" viewing would occur after a large chunk of the audience has gone to bed. Not to mention that the big two for poker on TV have broadcast committments to other sports that prevent them from even having a day where they could do this.

How do you sell ad time? Do you put in 15 minute breaks to run ads? Do players want a 3-4 minute break every 15 minutes? Go the pro soccer route and put ads on the screen and never break coverage (which limits ads to huge companies who can afford to in effect buy all the ad spots for a given period of time)?

On top of that, producing live TV is MUCH harder and more costly than just taping the entire event and editting it down later.

The future of TV poker is right where it is now. Once interest fades, it won't recapture viewers to include more "boring" hands.

Poker savvy viewers are the minority of the TV poker audience, and as such coverage is not geared towards what we want to see. That's life.

Fox Sports broadcasting the final table live was a rare occurance, because it happened on a day in which they KNEW no local FSN station (Fox Sports Detroit, Fox Sports Ohio, Fox Sports West...) would be carrying a local pro sports game. Why? It was one of the very few days in the year in which all 4 major sports weren't playing (either the day before or after the MLB All Star game, I forget which).

[legend42]

Do you have any idea what televised poker used to be like just a few years ago? You were lucky if you saw a dozen hands total from the final table on ESPN's WSOP broadcast- with confusing coverage, dreadful commentary, dim-witted (if any) analysis, etc.

You're right that the current crop of poker shows could do a better job of contextualizng the action. But really, as a poker afficianado, you should probably just be glad they exist at all.

[AgentBishop]

Solution: The poker channel. Then again, how reluctant do you think the pros would be to have every hand, every move, twitch, tell, bet, raise, etc.. taped and played for everyone to see and study. It seems unfair. I think the way it is now is fun to watch and doesn't hurt the player to much. Eric Siedel has said he doesn't like his hand shown and is always trying to hide his cards from the camera. I'm sure there are others that feel the same way and I guess I can understand why.

[MrDannimal]

I'm sure the players bitch and moan about the cameras, but if you gave them the option of playing to $5 million, with every hand recorded or $1 million and nobody saw a hand you didn't show, they'd all opt for the former.

TV coverage is hugely responsible for the massive prize pools that exist now in relation to even 4 years ago.

[AgentBishop]

Very true, with the exception of maybe Hellmuth...lol. But I'm reffering to full coverage of every hand they play. I just think players would have to be aware that the cameras are watching and so is his or her competition. It would add another layer or two to the whole "what he thinks I think he's thinks I'm thinking" thing...lol.

[Arsene Lupin III]

I have this problem with my memory where every time I sit to watch or play poker, I have to be reminded of the rankings of the hands as well as a list of betting rounds and a definition of 'blinds' 'antes' and 'the button.' It helps if these explanations are overdramatized and take at least a minute to complete.

I also like being reminded of the sponsor before, during, and after the commercial breaks. As for chip counts, celebrity poker showdown does this the best. Phil Gordon does a good job slowly reading off all the chip counts for all of the blind poker players.

Also, it's always nice to see extended player profiles and descriptions of the casinos where these events take place, which change so much from season to season. I -really- like the WPT's explanation of mysteries why it takes a lot of physical and mental stamina to play 50 hours of poker over a 5 day period. Sitting at a table is always exciting. Throw in 30 seconds of gus hansen lifting weights and we've got a show.

[TM1212]

The question is who is espn and the travel channels target market. Since there are only so many good poker players who would enjoy seeing ever hand played, its much more likely that the fish are there target market, or even people who have never played before. Fish would find that in a poker toutament you actually have to sit at a poker table for hours on end mucking hands for a few secs of excitement this would not only hurt the ever expanding game, and the number of new players, but ratings would tank.

[deacsoft]

I know I would not mind watching a full length (every hand) tournament. However, the bottom line here is, and always wiil be, the almighty dollar. The networks airing these programs don't give two [censored] about educationg the masses on poker play. The show how the game is played so everyone can have an oppertunity to understand what they are watching. Aside from that, every penny saved is a penny earned to the networks. The percentage of players who watch and would like to see an event in it's entirety for educational value I belive to be nearly insignificant to the total number of people who watch for entertainment purposes only. My belief is that all networks currently airing poker programs will continue to cater t the masses, because that's where the money is. It's just too bad for us.

[MrDannimal]

Since you can't show every hand they play during a tournament (you can really only show the final table from start to finish), I think that most pros would realize that the vast majority of possible tournament opponents are:

- Not good enough to make use of the info (Joe Average).
- Unable to understand the difference between day 2 play and final table, short handed play (decent but not great).
- Already know how they play (other pros).

I don't think that cameras have altered the styles of the great pros. We haven't seen any real portion of a single tournament, but we've seen some guys on enough occasions that we understand their main style. They still are who they are, and they still win.