Making televised poker better

[NYCNative]

If you were in charge of one of the networks that televise poker, what would you do to make it better? By better I mean as a way that is more representative of what poker is since many (myself invluded) say that TV presents the game as a giant bluff-heavy push-fest which is unrealistic and, by now, is getting tedious.

I would get the commentators I like (I am partial to Lederer and Gabe Kaplan) and I would have them reference past plays at the table - maybe even cut away to brief snippets of those hands - when comenting on a current play as this would better show how past plays can "set up" a big hand later in the day.

I would have them speculate more on what the player are thinking. I am sick of seeing players with KT against pocket 7s see a flop that comes AJT and having the announcers say how KT is way ahead. I want them to get into the throughts of the players and how they put each other on a hand. Show the logical, mathematical and psychological sides of the game better. Those facets are what makes poker great to play; why wouldn't they make it great to watch?

I also would like to see more hands where they don't show the hole cards of one player in a hand. They do this on Bravo's with the celebrities but not for the pros and I would like to see Lederer play along with someone and guess what the best moves are and then see his reaction when the hole cards reveal him right or wrong.

I would also make sure that I showed at least 1-2 hands per show where the blinds are simply stolen. Sure, showing this all day makes bad TV (even if it's the bulk of tournament poker), but showing it just once or twice will allow the commentators to discuss steals, position and other nuances that are often overlooked and not bog down the broadcast since those hands only last a short time.

I think that poker could still attract viewership and be broadcast more intelligently.

[nuclear500]

Show the hand number. Its funny watching the WPT and see a big pot, cut to commercial and come back and somehow the guy has lost most of what he won in the big pot and someone else is a new chip leader. Its like, wtf happened? If a significant amount of hands have been skipped, do a recap of them. Show chip position shifts, key hands and key bluffs that were merely blind steals or flop steals where the action was big but not "intense" enough to warrant airtime. Showing the hand number and identifying it should get people to understand that the final table of the WPT really isn't two hours.

People got into poker so insane because all they ever showed was big hands vs big hands or crazy outdraws. People assumed that this happens constantly. Good for Poker profits, bad for poker sanity.

[Voltron87]

better, less lame commentators

more graphics telling blinds, stacks, pot size, hand #

the ads are so dopey this year, they need to be changed

[Adjective]

Less of it.

[BlueBear]

The casual viewer will be turned off by technical details such as blind sizes, pot sizes and blind steals. They just want to see an macho all-in stack-shoving fest.

[Voltron87]

No they won't. not if its done right. it doesnt have to look like cnbc.

[ClaytonN]

[ QUOTE ]
better, less lame commentators

more graphics telling blinds, stacks, pot size, hand #

[/ QUOTE ]

This, plus more live poker events. There's a lot of intrigue there, especially if there's a lot of press on the event beforehand. The first 2 live poker events kinda lacked advertising strength.

[Voltron87]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
better, less lame commentators

more graphics telling blinds, stacks, pot size, hand #

[/ QUOTE ]

This, plus more live poker events. There's a lot of intrigue there, especially if there's a lot of press on the event beforehand. The first 2 live poker events kinda lacked advertising strength.

[/ QUOTE ]


defintely true, good point.

[NYCNative]

I disagree. They said that the casual viewer wouldn't get football either because they couldn't relate to the players with faces hidden behind facemasks and the game was too complicated. Now it's the #1 sport on TV and the NFL is huge and there are former players and coaches who get quite detailed when broadcasting the games.

The casual viewer can enjoy the game even if they also provide more detailed commentary, I believe.

[lgas]

I've always thought it would be great if someone would put a ring game on T.V. I'm not sure how you'd have to set it up to make it work, and it may be -EV for ring game pros, because right now so many people final tables from tournaments where there's lot of all-in push fests and fancy play syndrome and then try to duplicate what they've seen at ring games, but I still think it'd be interesting to watch.

Maybe you pick one table in one casino and tape it 24/7 then show the most interesting N hands from the last week each week or something like that.

[rheaume]

1. don't assign a sponsor to every frickin aspect of your broadcast.

i.e. "here are the preparation H rules for 2-to-7 triple draw!"

2. show EVERY players hole card. this bugs the sh*t out of me.

3. more live events, as previously stated. kind of goes with #2 also, because the FTP event showed every hand, for obvious reasons.

4. stop trying to make poker players look like the baddest MFers in the world. you know those gay little interviews ESPN always does, the ones where it ends with the player trying to look all hard while he's shuffling checks and the camera pans down to him, while they play that cheesy slide guitar music? yeah. get rid of that. dudes are playin a game with pieces of clay. it's not ultimate fighting championship.

5. speaking of crappy slide guitar music, change the theme music. especially the WPT theme music. holy crap that is terrible.

6. how about some opinions from the players in the audience? seriously. they never do this. and they should. when doyle brunson is watching the event, take a mic over to him and ask him what he thinks of the action so far. maybe a specific hand. or who his favorite is.

thats all i got for now, im positive i'll think of more later

[ QUOTE ]
This, plus more live poker events. There's a lot of intrigue there, especially if there's a lot of press on the event beforehand. The first 2 live poker events kinda lacked advertising strength.

[/ QUOTE ]

Showing live poker allows the players to gain more information than normally possible, should they so choose. If I was playing in a live broadcast, I would take every break I could to check out my opposition and how they are playing, as well as what commentators are saying about me and my table image.

Prima Poker runs live broadcast tables from their website. They advertise a 5-minute delay to prevent active hands from being shown. But all I have to do here is wait 5 minutes and I know whether my opponent bluffed that hand or was just betting the nuts.

Poker is not a very interesting spectator game, in fact it can be quite dull sometimes. The average non-player viewer is probably bored even baffled by the odds and percentages shown and mentioned by the commentators what they want to see is action and drama and there is not a whole lot of that in poker.

I jokingly made a reference in another post about shows adopting a WWF Wrestling mentality where by the focus is not on the actual game but on the players themselves and the "controversies" surrounding them. Players would be divided into two groups "good guys" and "bad guys". Joe Six-Pack may be more inclined to tune not to see if Player A wins the game but rather that he beats Player B because he "dissed" him in a interview on last week's show.

Yes, this dumbing down of the game would be the end of poker as we know it and I don't think any true pros would have anything to do with it (that is until the show's producers drive a dump truck full of money to thier door).

Lets hope it dosen't come to this because it is a stupid idea....but so is American Idol

[hectorjelly]

Live at the bike does this most nights,

http://www.thebike.com/live_at_the_bike/

[pokers]

id actually televise the whole dam tourney.

even tho it would take hours it would be fun to watch

[RhitTaker]

[ QUOTE ]
there are former players and coaches who get quite detailed when broadcasting the games.

[/ QUOTE ]
NYC, I would love to see the things you discuss in your initial post implemented. However, they won't. And I simply don't believe your football statement which I quoted to be true. Poker and football probably rank as my top two interests. And both are very much "dumbed-down" in order to appeal to the masses.

To a football novice, the analysis provided by the color commentators might seem to be thorough and detailed. However, it doesn't even scratch the surface of the strategy involved with a single play.

Unfortunately, there just isn't a large enough market for real poker. People want to see showdowns and emotions. Personally, I hit the fast-forward button as soon as all the money goes in, because I don't find the dealing of cards to be interesting. I care about the situation when the money goes in, not what happens afterwards. But I know that I'm in the minority.

More live tournaments is definately the way to go. The way it is now, once a final table is heads up all the suspense is ruined because if one guy is all in but with still 10 minutes to go in the show then you know hes gonna win the hand.

[RRRRICK]

I don't know how many of you are fimiliar with the game of cricket. But anyway there are two forms of the game the test match and the one day match.
A test match last for 5 days and is at times tedious but full of crictical key event points.
A one day match is a condensed form of the game which is fast furious and full of action.
A poker tournament is like a test match but is portrayed on TV like a one day match.

[Meraxes]

[ QUOTE ]
More live tournaments is definately the way to go. The way it is now, once a final table is heads up all the suspense is ruined because if one guy is all in but with still 10 minutes to go in the show then you know hes gonna win the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

This can be annoying, but there's a simple solution: Don't look at the clock while you're watching.

[m1illion]

1. Don't show anyone's hand. If it doesnt go to a showdown then show the winner and maybe the one or two other players significant in the hand. Imagine the reaction to an PP laydown to a 72o in that situation.

2. Phil Hellmuth must have a mic

[-Skeme-]

Fire Michael Konik and that other idget. Neither of them know what they're talking about.

[rheaume]

[ QUOTE ]
Fire Michael Konik and that other idget. Neither of them know what they're talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

amen

[jmillerdls]

I think the analogy is close to correct though. Not long ago, the broadcast companies would hardly put anything on the screen during the football game...just the action on the field. There was a belief that the consumer would be distracted, and did not want more information. As they started adding more and more (the score, time left, timeouts, other games scores, and fantasy football stats), they have seen that the fan not only appreciates it, but expects it.
I like the idea of adding similar "extra" information while the hand is going on (i.e. blinds, pot size, etc.). I think its a matter of time before the stations realize that the casual fine will not be turned off by more information, but likely more engrossed.

[Quicksilvre]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't show anyone's hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not showing anyone's hand was what made TV poker so boring in the pre-lipstick camera days.

[imported_metrognome7]

The biggest thing plaguing televised poker right now is the "Vince! He can still win with running clubs! Or any J that's not a spade! Or a burrito shaped like the disembodied head of Hervez Villachez! Let's cut to a five-minute commercial sweep and when we get back, we'll see the turn!" aspect. The networks have WAY too much control over the actual competition itself; for examples check out this thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=2958671&page=0&view=colla psed&sb=5&o=2&fpart=1) and Felicia Lee's blog about the WPPA championship (http://felicialee.blogspot.com/). It's the equivalent of ESPN asking pro golfers to participate using only three clubs on Sunday, or Monday Night Football requiring all tight games to be played with 10 men on defense during the 4th quarter.

What can be done? Well, first of all you've got find a core group of high-level pros who will refuse the money offered by the networks unless they agree to let the tournament run "naturally." Second, there has to be more LIVE poker - the best idea I've heard would be a no-commercials sponsorship like they do for soccer, so the play is uninterrupted in any way outside of the normal flow. Third, someone - someone BIG, like Doyle & Chip or the FullTilters - needs to set up a standardized worldwide professional poker organization based on the Professional Golf Association and the Pro Bowling Association: weekly capped-entry tournaments, a set "no interference" broadcast contract with a single channel, and an "exemption/qualification" system loosely modeled on the PGA's Q-School.

All of these, I realize, are pipe dreams; the media complex is going to milk the poker boom for all it's worth, and eventually, in five years, poker will settle into a niche right above bowling and just below tennis - next to horse racing. Then, maybe, we'll see some legitimate cards-playing on-air.

Adam

[Trainwreck]

Are you sure you want TV Poker educating the masses? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Less fluff, more hands is only major reasonable change I'd like to see.

>TW<

[m1illion]

Do try and read my entire post before you respond. It helps with your post if you appear to have some clue.

[bigalt]

i really like when they follow one player for a few hands.

i think they should do this the majority of the time--

either when someone takes a big pot or makes a big fold or busts out, follow them for a few hands that lead up to it (either sequentially or content-wise) or else always play from the perspective of the opener or big blind or caller or something.

I couldn't agree more with the OP, televised poker is almost too boring to watch for me as a player. All-in, all-in, all-in, bluff and more all-ins. Screw that.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
I think its a matter of time before the stations realize that the casual fine will not be turned off by more information, but likely more engrossed.

[/ QUOTE ]



I think this is generally correct.
And obviously a lot of people would like better announcing (i.e. - more in depth).
I don't think this is asking for too much either.
Gabe Kaplan does a terrific job of analyzing the hands as they are being played.


-------


AKT.....guy with T2 vs. 77 - "He's WAY ahead here Vince."

Yup...that ticks me off too. On that kind of board there's no possible way he can expect to be in THAT good shape.
Gabe Kaplan would look at it and go "well....those over-cards will make it difficult for him to get too aggressive here." (or something like that)


So I do think it is possible to have better analysis without losing the mainstream audience.



But you DO need to keep all the profiles and other stuff.

My Dad doesn't know squat about poker...but reports that he likes watching 'the interesting personalities'.
So when Matusow has a fit or Juuha Jelpi (whatever the screamer's name was) goes nuts or Ellix Powers just sits there being weird THAT is as interesting to him as anything else.


Other guy I know follows it a little bit. Says "Hey...I was watching that poker on NBC today and I thought of you."
"That Ledbetter guy is really good isn't he?"
Wanted me to get Annie Duke's phone # at the WSOP.
Stuff like that.

When I came back he asked me how I did. I said not very well...but I was on Johnny Chan's table for 10 hours and that was kind of fun.

He asked if I played any hands against him and I said, "Well...I tried to steal his blind and the prick check-raised me on the flop."
He said, "I have no idea what any of that means."

This is a typical guy who doesn't really play poker but might occasionally watch it on TV if there's nothing else on worth watching.
He's seen it before...but the term 'check-raise' was beyond his knowledge.


And this is the type of audience that the networks are trying to grab.
People who don't even know how to play, might even think the bets being made are for REAL money ("can you believe he bet a half-a-million dollars there? He could buy a house with that much money Vince!!") and say things like "look at that guy pulling his hooded-sweatshirt over his head. the 'eskimo' guy with the beard is scaring the crap out of him."

stuff like that.



I visited my Mom last year and on Wednesday she checked in the main room and I was watching WPT with Gus Hansen and Paul Phillips (was Ron Rose on that one too??).
She had no idea what she was watching...but the announcing was so basic that she was able to understand.



It's for people like that that Sexton or Lon need to constantly explain "he needs a club for a flush or a 10 for a higher pair or else his tournament is over."

[freekobe]

[ QUOTE ]
And this is the type of audience that the networks are trying to grab.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bob, your posts are always good, and this one was dead-on.

The posters on this board represent .0001 of the poker audience. Poker TV shows are made for the casual fan.

Would more stats make it more interesting for us? Of course. And perhaps a few wrinkles will be added in to new shows. But for now, the networks are doing what's best for them.

Advanced theory/commentary and/or live shows would alienate the vast majority of the audience. If John Madden's commentary was aimed at high school football coaches, 99% of us would be completely lost. Madden's genius is that he can talk down to us, those who don't know the names of formations or when to use three WRs instead of two.

I am in no way apologizng for Sexton/Van Patten/Chad/McEachern. Those guys are horrendous. But they're closer to where they should be than most of you think. Most of the audience doesn't know that a flush beats a straight. Realize that, and then re-evaluate what you think about network TV and poker.

Live shows will exist, but they'll NEVER make it on national TV. Ever. As someone who worked on the NBC Heads-Up Poker Championship, I feel confident in saying that. It is WAY too boring and the technology isn't quite there yet (cards aren't always right).

Whenever you criticize TV for how they broadcast poker, remember who the audience is. Once you understand that, most of it makes sense.

[revots33]

They are trying to get the casual players to watch, not the smaller # of hardcore players like 2+2 members. Showing live events might be fun for us, but I doubt most casual fans want to watch hours and hours of blind steals with an occasional action hand thrown in.

I think some sort of pro player league, with the more charismatic stars instead of Joe Blow the contracter from Minnesota, might help ratings. I know I hate when I turn on the WPT and it's a bunch of no-names at the final table. Any sports league needs recognizable stars for people to root for (or against). Perhaps an idea like the ProJo poker series (http://cbs.sportsline.com/info/ir/press/2005/projopoker05) will work, since it will pit amateurs against the pros.

[Big_Jim]

MORE ALL IN PRE-FLOP POTS (preferably with a commercial after the turn)

[PE101]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you sure you want TV Poker educating the masses?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm with you. I want the folks I'm playing against to have leaned everything they know from watching TV!

[ShaneMoney]

First, I would definately take away the "How-to play" at the beginning.
Second, Highlight a couple hands and only show one person's hole cards. It would be really fun to try and guess what these guys have without commentator interuption. After the hand is over, the hosts can dissect the hand. Those stupid commercials where Jesus is in the refrigerator only show the river, how is anyone supposed to know to fold or not based on one card and no knowledge of betting patterns.
And third, views of all the players in the pot. I hate all the cuts back and forth.

[CourtesyFlush]

Havent read any other posts but..

deep stacked high stakes cash games.