Easy E
04-03-2003, 11:23 AM
(NOTE- this is a copy of my post on RGP, which may take a while to show up since I posted it through Google)
Mike (or Jan, Linda, anyone else associated with the World Poker Tour on Travel Channel who happens to be reading this- this is addressed throughout to Mike Sexton, however), this review is associated with the Wed 4/2 tournament at the Bicycle. Some of these comments carry over from the inaugural show on Sunday.
First, I've thought the productions were pretty good so far. The stage, as someone posted somewhere, DOES seem a little too Millionaire-ish for my tastes, but that's fine. Hopefully the show does well for the Travel Channel (the casino and poker shows are what got me really hooked on the TC, and I've watched many other things on there as well) and poker in general. I am and will be a dedicated watcher of the show and I try to get as many people as I can to check it out also.
I think the pop-ups of terms and quotes are good. The cameos and other background pieces are also entertaining and should help make the show more interesting to new/non-players (one suggestion- mention satellites more often as a cheap way for people to get a shot at joining the fun). All of the announcers seem personable enough and familiar enough with the terminology to not come across as stiff.
That said, I do have some criticisms/suggestions for you to consider, if you choose.
ANNOUNCERS
Shana- Besides her primary purpose as eye candy (you're cute and all, Mike, but she's probably adding more to the ratings on THAT front), as well as the tour guide for various poker-related topics, what background does Shana have? From WPT site- "Shana hosts a high stakes Hollywood poker match at a prestigious Beverly Hills club."- does that mean she plays in a private game? She justs hosts it? Something? I think that some of the stuff that she's doing is good, but do we want to represent poker as a male-only bastion? As in, only guys have "real" knowledge of poker?
I worry about the figurehead effect- if Shana has more of a background in poker, have her use more of it (mouthing phrases like Big Slick ain't the way to go)
Vince- I'm not sure of Vince Van Patten's poker background (From WPT website: "Vince brings solid experience hosting televised sports and poker broadcasts as well as the Hollywood home-game perspective to WPT."- what exactly does this mean? Could someone give more details as to Vince's experiences? Especially the Hollywood home game part... should that MEAN something?)
Yourself- Given the above, I would expect you to add more of the insightful comments and criticism about the play of the finalists ("...as well as his mastery of poker strategy make him the ideal spokesman and commentator"). However, you seem to be either a) acting like or b) thinking like a tourist, with the shocked comments along the lines of "How could s/he DO that?".
Now, if the WPT is primarily geared towards newer players, or people who don't play that might, it might make sense to present a more conservative, simplistic concept of tournament poker strategy.
(On the side- I'm assuming that all of the commentary is laid over the production after the tournament is over? Or are you two in a secluded area, making comments during the play of the hands? From the broadcasts, it seems more of the former than the latter...)
If, however, one of the goals is to educate people on poker play, to some degree, then you should be using your opportunities during these 2 hour shows to DO that! "Getting inside the heads of elite players gives you a shot at improving your own game."
You have mentioned occassionally some thoughts on why a player was doing what s/he was doing, but it doesn't seem to me as if you are taking the time to analyze and explain WHY players might be doing what they are doing. (If the idea is to make new/non-players think that the players are mainly crazy, then you might be accomplishing your goal!)
One example from the first show was the Q7 vs 63 hand, when Deeb (?) ran the all-in river bluff. I don't have that show taped, but I'm pretty sure
a) you didn't talk about WHY Deeb ran that play, why it MIGHT have worked (the K on the flop that Deeb bet into) and why it FAILED (because Deeb screwed up, IMO, by not betting the turn). Nor did you
b) talk about why Gus called- his chip position, the lack of a play on the turn by Deeb, the fact that he wouldn't be hurt significantly by calling on the river, the "either monster hand or a bluff, not a medium hand" concept, etc.- and why he SHOULDN'T have called- King on the flop that was bet, check-raise attempt all-in by Deeb meaning something, not wanting to let Deeb double up and get back into the tournament, etc.
c) Also, you didn't talk about why Gus bet, and should have bet, his Q on the river, and why he shouldn't have.
In fact, you haven't really made much of several concepts that to me were pretty obvious:
I) the whole strategy of chip stacks and how they are used in a tournament; how stack strategy has much more bearing on play than the actual cards; how crippling/limiting a short stack can be and WHY (there were several examples, such as Deeb's bust-out on Sunday, that could be associated with this)
II) Image and how it's being used/changed by players (Chris K's play last night especially- more on that later) as strategy for the end game
III) the need for aggressiveness, and dialing back, and why either would be used in a situation.
Mike, you should have the most poker knowledge (except for maybe Linda- you two can fight that out- but she's not announcing) on the show. USE IT! Give people an understanding of what the players are doing and why, NOT "I can't believe he's doing (X)" or " I think that was a bad play". Tell WHY it was a bad play, and ALSO why they might be doing it anyway! Stop focusing on being shocked and concentrate on explaining the different sides of it!
You don't always have to play down to the lowest knowledge base.
Some examples I jotted down from last night, where I thought you could have put more thought into your responses, were centered around Chris K's play:
1) Early on, when Chris would raise some amount, then show his strong hands when everyone folded, you complained that he was making a "mistake" by giving information away. You said something along the lines of 'They think that he's a conservative player already, why convince them by showing his hand unnecessarily?'
Well, YOU'RE the poker pro and have tournament experience- what were the reasons, pro and con, for doing so? Did his 53d steal raise earlier have something to do with it? Was he reinforcing an image, along with a strategy, for use later in the tournament? Given that he bounced Kathy early, and had a large chunk of chips, AND was against several known aggressive players, did his strategy make sense (he DID win, after all, and get his QQ called at the end... was it a cumulation of his play before then, or just Hon Lee being himself?). Was it REALLY a mistake? Weigh the pros and cons for the audience!
2) The second hand, when Kathy came over the top with AK vs Chris' pocket Queens. You didn't say ANYTHING about whether that was a mistake or not, nor discuss WHY it was a mistake (against Chris, as one of the chip leaders, early in the tourney, dangers of Big Slick, etc) or why it WASN'T (Chris as tight player might dump, trying to build a huge stack to bully the rest of the short stacks, the strength of Big Slick)
The results (AK vs QQ) don't matter as much as the thinking behind it, in my mind.
3) The horrible play by Chris, IMO, of dumping the KJc against the blinds. You said it was a bad play, but you didn't say WHY... nor did you play devil's advocate to your opinion and talk about Chris reinforcing his tight image, for later use, or his not wanting to risk giving the blinds a chance to get back into the chip positions, etc.
In summary, take less of a role as a fan of poker and focus more on your role as a poker expert. You should be able to analyze both sides of the plays being made- USE THAT during the tournaments!
Oh- one mistake of yours that I think I caught. When Hon Lee raised Mark, I was pretty sure he clearly said "Raise 20 thousand" and THEN Mark tossed his cards. You castigated Mark incorrectly, i believe, for "giving away information" because I think you only caught "raise" and not the amount. I DID like that you explained a little bit about WHY it would be a mistake by Mark.... so some good came out of YOUR mistake. But, you should pay attention more closely (if I was wrong, I apologize)
Mike, I apologize if this seems a little harsh against you, or if it seems that I'm picking only on YOU, but I hold you to a higher standard than the other announcers (based on perceived expertise) and I think you can take it...
YOU are the one I'm counting on to add insight to this WPT series. Or, bring in guest commentators that are pros and have THEM analyze (unless the players protest about giving away an advantage... but since they're showing all of their cards, they don't have TOO much room to complain)
Other comments- show the chip position more often. You seemed to do that more on Sunday than Wednesday, but Wednesday the chips were much closer to one another.
Also, are we seeing every hand of the final table, or is there a lot of editing going on? The WSOP shows would indicate what hand we were at, I think WPT should do the same.
You could ALSO talk about what's happening, in a general sense, with the hands that I assume are off-camera... and how that affects future plays that we see ON camera (I'm thinking of Gus on Sunday, specifically, if some of the comments I've read online are accurate)
One more comment- was it just me, or did the tournament not give the players enough chips to play with? Unlike Sunday, there weren't a lot of chips on the table among the players. I know that there were less buy-ins (and lower amount?- but the top prize Wed was bigger than Sunday... I'll have to pay more attention next time), Wed vs Sunday, but the Bicycle should up the chip count so it's not as much of a crapshoot
Anyway, that's my say. I'm not sure what the goals are for the WPT broadcasts, on the education/intended audience side, but I hope you can find something useful out of this mess. Good luck with the show, I look forward to many more nights of it!
Easy E
Mike (or Jan, Linda, anyone else associated with the World Poker Tour on Travel Channel who happens to be reading this- this is addressed throughout to Mike Sexton, however), this review is associated with the Wed 4/2 tournament at the Bicycle. Some of these comments carry over from the inaugural show on Sunday.
First, I've thought the productions were pretty good so far. The stage, as someone posted somewhere, DOES seem a little too Millionaire-ish for my tastes, but that's fine. Hopefully the show does well for the Travel Channel (the casino and poker shows are what got me really hooked on the TC, and I've watched many other things on there as well) and poker in general. I am and will be a dedicated watcher of the show and I try to get as many people as I can to check it out also.
I think the pop-ups of terms and quotes are good. The cameos and other background pieces are also entertaining and should help make the show more interesting to new/non-players (one suggestion- mention satellites more often as a cheap way for people to get a shot at joining the fun). All of the announcers seem personable enough and familiar enough with the terminology to not come across as stiff.
That said, I do have some criticisms/suggestions for you to consider, if you choose.
ANNOUNCERS
Shana- Besides her primary purpose as eye candy (you're cute and all, Mike, but she's probably adding more to the ratings on THAT front), as well as the tour guide for various poker-related topics, what background does Shana have? From WPT site- "Shana hosts a high stakes Hollywood poker match at a prestigious Beverly Hills club."- does that mean she plays in a private game? She justs hosts it? Something? I think that some of the stuff that she's doing is good, but do we want to represent poker as a male-only bastion? As in, only guys have "real" knowledge of poker?
I worry about the figurehead effect- if Shana has more of a background in poker, have her use more of it (mouthing phrases like Big Slick ain't the way to go)
Vince- I'm not sure of Vince Van Patten's poker background (From WPT website: "Vince brings solid experience hosting televised sports and poker broadcasts as well as the Hollywood home-game perspective to WPT."- what exactly does this mean? Could someone give more details as to Vince's experiences? Especially the Hollywood home game part... should that MEAN something?)
Yourself- Given the above, I would expect you to add more of the insightful comments and criticism about the play of the finalists ("...as well as his mastery of poker strategy make him the ideal spokesman and commentator"). However, you seem to be either a) acting like or b) thinking like a tourist, with the shocked comments along the lines of "How could s/he DO that?".
Now, if the WPT is primarily geared towards newer players, or people who don't play that might, it might make sense to present a more conservative, simplistic concept of tournament poker strategy.
(On the side- I'm assuming that all of the commentary is laid over the production after the tournament is over? Or are you two in a secluded area, making comments during the play of the hands? From the broadcasts, it seems more of the former than the latter...)
If, however, one of the goals is to educate people on poker play, to some degree, then you should be using your opportunities during these 2 hour shows to DO that! "Getting inside the heads of elite players gives you a shot at improving your own game."
You have mentioned occassionally some thoughts on why a player was doing what s/he was doing, but it doesn't seem to me as if you are taking the time to analyze and explain WHY players might be doing what they are doing. (If the idea is to make new/non-players think that the players are mainly crazy, then you might be accomplishing your goal!)
One example from the first show was the Q7 vs 63 hand, when Deeb (?) ran the all-in river bluff. I don't have that show taped, but I'm pretty sure
a) you didn't talk about WHY Deeb ran that play, why it MIGHT have worked (the K on the flop that Deeb bet into) and why it FAILED (because Deeb screwed up, IMO, by not betting the turn). Nor did you
b) talk about why Gus called- his chip position, the lack of a play on the turn by Deeb, the fact that he wouldn't be hurt significantly by calling on the river, the "either monster hand or a bluff, not a medium hand" concept, etc.- and why he SHOULDN'T have called- King on the flop that was bet, check-raise attempt all-in by Deeb meaning something, not wanting to let Deeb double up and get back into the tournament, etc.
c) Also, you didn't talk about why Gus bet, and should have bet, his Q on the river, and why he shouldn't have.
In fact, you haven't really made much of several concepts that to me were pretty obvious:
I) the whole strategy of chip stacks and how they are used in a tournament; how stack strategy has much more bearing on play than the actual cards; how crippling/limiting a short stack can be and WHY (there were several examples, such as Deeb's bust-out on Sunday, that could be associated with this)
II) Image and how it's being used/changed by players (Chris K's play last night especially- more on that later) as strategy for the end game
III) the need for aggressiveness, and dialing back, and why either would be used in a situation.
Mike, you should have the most poker knowledge (except for maybe Linda- you two can fight that out- but she's not announcing) on the show. USE IT! Give people an understanding of what the players are doing and why, NOT "I can't believe he's doing (X)" or " I think that was a bad play". Tell WHY it was a bad play, and ALSO why they might be doing it anyway! Stop focusing on being shocked and concentrate on explaining the different sides of it!
You don't always have to play down to the lowest knowledge base.
Some examples I jotted down from last night, where I thought you could have put more thought into your responses, were centered around Chris K's play:
1) Early on, when Chris would raise some amount, then show his strong hands when everyone folded, you complained that he was making a "mistake" by giving information away. You said something along the lines of 'They think that he's a conservative player already, why convince them by showing his hand unnecessarily?'
Well, YOU'RE the poker pro and have tournament experience- what were the reasons, pro and con, for doing so? Did his 53d steal raise earlier have something to do with it? Was he reinforcing an image, along with a strategy, for use later in the tournament? Given that he bounced Kathy early, and had a large chunk of chips, AND was against several known aggressive players, did his strategy make sense (he DID win, after all, and get his QQ called at the end... was it a cumulation of his play before then, or just Hon Lee being himself?). Was it REALLY a mistake? Weigh the pros and cons for the audience!
2) The second hand, when Kathy came over the top with AK vs Chris' pocket Queens. You didn't say ANYTHING about whether that was a mistake or not, nor discuss WHY it was a mistake (against Chris, as one of the chip leaders, early in the tourney, dangers of Big Slick, etc) or why it WASN'T (Chris as tight player might dump, trying to build a huge stack to bully the rest of the short stacks, the strength of Big Slick)
The results (AK vs QQ) don't matter as much as the thinking behind it, in my mind.
3) The horrible play by Chris, IMO, of dumping the KJc against the blinds. You said it was a bad play, but you didn't say WHY... nor did you play devil's advocate to your opinion and talk about Chris reinforcing his tight image, for later use, or his not wanting to risk giving the blinds a chance to get back into the chip positions, etc.
In summary, take less of a role as a fan of poker and focus more on your role as a poker expert. You should be able to analyze both sides of the plays being made- USE THAT during the tournaments!
Oh- one mistake of yours that I think I caught. When Hon Lee raised Mark, I was pretty sure he clearly said "Raise 20 thousand" and THEN Mark tossed his cards. You castigated Mark incorrectly, i believe, for "giving away information" because I think you only caught "raise" and not the amount. I DID like that you explained a little bit about WHY it would be a mistake by Mark.... so some good came out of YOUR mistake. But, you should pay attention more closely (if I was wrong, I apologize)
Mike, I apologize if this seems a little harsh against you, or if it seems that I'm picking only on YOU, but I hold you to a higher standard than the other announcers (based on perceived expertise) and I think you can take it...
YOU are the one I'm counting on to add insight to this WPT series. Or, bring in guest commentators that are pros and have THEM analyze (unless the players protest about giving away an advantage... but since they're showing all of their cards, they don't have TOO much room to complain)
Other comments- show the chip position more often. You seemed to do that more on Sunday than Wednesday, but Wednesday the chips were much closer to one another.
Also, are we seeing every hand of the final table, or is there a lot of editing going on? The WSOP shows would indicate what hand we were at, I think WPT should do the same.
You could ALSO talk about what's happening, in a general sense, with the hands that I assume are off-camera... and how that affects future plays that we see ON camera (I'm thinking of Gus on Sunday, specifically, if some of the comments I've read online are accurate)
One more comment- was it just me, or did the tournament not give the players enough chips to play with? Unlike Sunday, there weren't a lot of chips on the table among the players. I know that there were less buy-ins (and lower amount?- but the top prize Wed was bigger than Sunday... I'll have to pay more attention next time), Wed vs Sunday, but the Bicycle should up the chip count so it's not as much of a crapshoot
Anyway, that's my say. I'm not sure what the goals are for the WPT broadcasts, on the education/intended audience side, but I hope you can find something useful out of this mess. Good luck with the show, I look forward to many more nights of it!
Easy E