Can poker really work on (and gain from) TV?

[Easy E]

I was thinking about this after watching the 2002 WSOP on ESPN. My general feeling was, if I stepped back from my obsessive enjoyment of poker, with "insider's knowledge" as it were (more than most people who haven't played, or only played at home, that is)… that the 2002 WSOP was generally boring to watch, as a 2-hour televised event. Gods know that if they showed all of the folding in between the “actual” hands, it would be a ratings nightmare after 15 minutes….

I, as a poker addict, didn’t really think all that much of the production (not in quality, but in general viewing interest value)…. so how is poker on TV going to capture the recreational player, and especially the non-poker inclined general public? Again, I don’t see this as a flaw of whoever did the production on ESPN’s behalf, but as a general flaw in the concept of poker as a televised “sport.”

I really don’t see how any sustainable interest (a key for advertisers to support this) can be maintained by poker, since I don’t see as television-friendly. How can it be, when the true drama takes more knowledge and understanding and patience than most of the TV-watching public will have? How interesting can it be to see people shove all in and make others fold, or have them call and not have any more betting, just random luck as the cards come out? Maybe this is more a function of big bet vs. limit poker, maybe not…

And if poker can’t sustain and grow an audience, how can poker GAIN from being on television? What gain do the players get from revealing their cards (the World Poker Tour will also be doing this, correct?) if they won’t benefit from large numbers of new people playing in tournaments and ring games?

Do any of you, admitted poker addicts (or, more PC, “ people predisposed to enjoy poker television broadcasts”) know of non-poker people who enjoyed the telecast, or were more intrigued about playing poker due to some of the many specials that have been shown? I leave aside the Rounders phenomenon….

So, what do you fellow poker fans think? Does poker on television have any chance of long-term success, as far as a recruiting tool? Or is its appeal just limited to we, the Children of the River?

I'll have to watch it (WSOP 2002) again and see if my opinion changes, but the only thing I'm holding out hope for now is the WPT in April, with its weekly format...

[M2d]

I think it draws in the recreational gamblers and "manly men" who know something about poker, but not a lot. in this regard, it may help to creat new players and an audience. I think it would be like watching grass grow, though, for people who are not already predisposed to poker/gambling in some regard.

[broomcorn]

m2d, i agree. it might get those already predisposed to casino gambling or sports betting to try to play poker next time they're at the casino, and that would be great, i would think.
at the same time, i'm not sure anyone else finds it even remotely interesting. in fact, they always try to "play up" how much money is being bet, etc, when i think they should explain that its not really the players money to lose. ie, "bill just called a $60,000 raise!!" makes it sound like he's risking 60K of his own money when in a tournament its obviously nothing like that. i don't know, maybe its just me, but that seems misleading and maybe even detrimental/intimidating to a beginner watching.

[Schmed]

I agree with that.

For me to some degree all the BS was bothering me. I mean they spent as much time talking about/and clipping that guys hair as they did showing some action.

I'd like to see some of the folding and the flow. There really wasn't any flow to the game. I mean one minute they are on hand 138 they show a hand, then there's a comercial break, a 3 minute lead in, 3 more minutes of Kotter, 3 minutes of Poker (hand 145), commercial break, lead in, Kotter, Poker, hair cutting BS.......I'm mean just shut up and deal already..... /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

[M2d]

If they wanted to attract new players (assuming the industry has any say so in all this), they'd explain just that. They'd also explain that these games are played at more managable levels (low-mid limits) and that the structure of games offered isn't always no-limit. If I were a non player thinking about my feet wet, I know that I'd be reluctant to put my money into the ring with these guys if my main exposure were the telecasts.

[rusty JEDI]

EasyE, you really get around, i noticed you posted identical articles at RGP and UnitedPokerforum maybe after all is said and done, you can tell us which forum gave the most replies, and which gave the most useful.

[TimTimSalabim]

A friend of mine (who does not play) called me up today and asked me if I'd seen the broadcast. He said he had no idea poker could be so exciting, he particularly thought the last hand was really dramatic, and now he wants to go to a casino and play. He also said his wife watched the show, too, and now she thinks she can become a millionaire playing poker.

Of course they're both pretty intelligent people, and I'm not sure if poker would ever have the mass appeal as, say, WWF /forums/images/icons/smirk.gif , but I think there is potential out there to attract a wider audience. My friend also remarked on how interesting it was to be able to see the player's hole cards. He asked me how that was done(of course, I have no idea, except that maybe they show through on the underside of the table).

[pokerMAM]

I disagree. With the exception of the ones done by the Discovery channel (very poor), I find the WSOP coverage interesting and educational. The best were the Stu Unger and Scotty Nguyen championships. I have played them several times and each time find new thoughts on strategy that I hadn't seen before. Being able to watch "the wheels turn" with these guys was, for me, eye opening. The 2002 was not quite as good but much better than the Discovery coverage of the Ferguson and Furlong wins.
I don't expect to see alot of hands considering they are covering several hours of play in a 1-2 hour broadcast. As for the fluff...well that's show biz.
Will it intimidate the masses? Poker is often compared to golf. I doubt when people watch golf they think there is no point in going out to play as all they will encounter are the pros they see on tv. They must know when they sit in a 2-4, 3-6, 4-8 poker game that the world champs they watched on tv are most likely not there.
At any rate, I hope ESPN continues to cover more and more major poker events. I'l be watching, taping, and rewatching.
magie

[pokerMAM]

I forgot to add in my previous post that several people at work caught the broadcast and thought it was exciting, too. I don't know if they will go out and play but at least they stopped channel surfing and watched and that's a start.
maggie

[Easy E]

Let's not talk about my personal life.

[Easy E]

I hope I'm wrong- good to hear that some positive reaction was achieved.

[TwoPair1958]

Yes I think this year's coverage (2002) was good and on the right track. The comparison to Golf is close in the fact that it's boring to most people to watch...until the annnouncer paints a dramatic or classic milestone is on the line, etc. I love baseball...but I know many people who find it boring to watch on television...or don't understand the game. I don't really like hockey..but when the Kings were in the playoffs a few years back...I watched.

I think the coverage needs to point out the finer points of the game...and to draw people into the drama and strategy thats going on. In the 2002 show...they had a very good idea with the "sneak peak" ( a special camera was set up next to the dealer; folded cards were flashed to it, and edited in during post production) The production has to get as polished as the other entertainment sports.

This means the players have to feel they are part of the process. Since there isn't a "Players Association" with a governing body this will be hard to do. An example might be like bowling, the PBA tour was dying a slow death on TV and in popularity. The governing body for the tour decided something had to be done. It pretty much told the players that..."Hey, help us out or we are done". The players were asked to "play up" and show their emotions and it has worked...bowling is reversing the slide.

I point this out only to say the "entertainment factor" is there if it's presented right: Showing the hole cards are a something someone can get involved with as a viewer.

Better camera work(which was much improved)helps. Strong commentary works.(Gabe Kaplan was pretty good...but they need someone explaining what's going on). The interviews after player had been eliminated were OK. (The questions could have been more probing) Dress it up better. (Some players needed to dress better)

The exposure on TV and the internet will bring more players.

Poker can work on TV but changes have to made the the tournaments to make them more TV friendly. This evolving process has begun.

[Dynasty]

This thread was started about 15 months ago. It's interesting to see how pessimistic people were about how televised poker would impact the game.

[jwvdcw]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif