Re: ESPN\'s coverage hurts the game
 

Does it seem to me that ESPN just tries to mimick their past years coverage of the Main Event?

Steve Dannenman= Josh Arieh
James Pollack= John Murphy
Barry Paskin= Bobby Chung/Mattias Anderson

I'm sure we will see more as the episodes come along.

Re: ESPN\'s coverage hurts the game
 

[ QUOTE ]
Was he the guy that said "I played perfectly for three days"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, he played perfectly for 3 days, got cold-decked in a big hand which didn't appear to bust him, and he cried about it. Now that's entertainment!

Re: ESPN\'s coverage hurts the game
 

Yes, it was the guy crying who said he had played perfect for three days.

And I picked up a tell on Layne Flack when I watched the broadcasts. Actually, picked up a couple tells, I can't friggin' wait to bust him, w00t!

Re: ESPN\'s coverage hurts the game
 

Here's a couple possibilites in the next couple of weeks:

Minh Ly = Harry Demetriou
Aaron Kanter = Matt Dean

Re: ESPN\'s coverage hurts the game
 

<<It's a TV show with one goal in mind: to entertain a mass audience.>>

well excuse me for not being part of that "mass audience". Maybe I'm just sick of the overall "dumbing down" of television, sick of everything turning into Jerry Springer nation. I don't find dickheads entertaining, and when I do one viewing is plenty, I don't need a continuous stream of their antics.

There is plenty of entertainment to be found, plenty of humor and excitement that doesn't require the TV viewer to be part of the 75 IQ, trailer trash crowd. I don't need ESPN to try to raise standards but can they at least not sink into those ever increasing murky depths ?

There is plenty of good natured humor to be found, plenty of laughs that would not only entertain the audience but also make poker seem like a helluva lot of fun. Instead it's presented as a freak show, something I would pay money to avoid, not become a part of.

And I don't mind Norm Chad, he can be funny. But it would be nice if someone on the announcing team occassionally correctly noted why a player acted a certain way. Instead, when they do mention anything related to the play of the cards they are ALWAYS wrong.

Is it so much to ask to replace "He correctly moves all-in with his full house. Ohh, great laydown."

with something like "He wants to get called here but wow, he goes all-in, that's a terrible bet and makes it easy for Hellmuth to get away from the hand."

The ESPN producers start with the assumption that everyone watching is an idiot. I have the right to complain about that.

Re: ESPN\'s coverage hurts the game
 

you do have the right to complain about it...doesn't make you right, but you do HAVE the right.

Re: ESPN\'s coverage hurts the game
 

I think the current poker on TV is great for poker. The average viewier probably thinks all there is to poker is going all in and yelling, which is a good thing. It keeps the fish oblivious.

Re: ESPN\'s coverage hurts the game
 

This is like the eighteen billionth post on how much ESPN sucks, for Christ's sake.

Re: ESPN\'s coverage hurts the game
 

[ QUOTE ]
Nice post. I always thought it was vulgar also, although I did think it was cool when Joe Awada, a former Vegas juggler, juggles stacks of cash. I had the feeling Cunningham was goaded into holding up the money by photographers in event 1, as I suspect is the case with all the winners.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, juggling is fine. I'd die if they made me hold up cash on TV though.

Mack