ESPN\'s coverage hurts the game
 

Just like last year they seem intent on featuring the biggest assholes, therefore assuring the following year will have even MORE people acting like assholes to get on TV. Last year it was the screaming Swede (I think) with the "Ja !!!" every 10 minutes, but that was nothing compared to this year's King of the A-holes, Barry Paskin.

It's obnoxious enough to have someone scream at the top of their lungs during the entire showdown, but for that person to smell so bad the floor gets called sets a new low. I love his logic - being told that his shirt stinks, a fact he admits while proudly saying he never washes it, is INSULTING. How about my fist in your mouth, would that be insulting ? At least Mattias just gave one obnoxious yell when winning his hand, this guy is obviously just trying to get as much attention as possible.

If ESPN just ignored these idiots they'd pretty much disappear, but by keeping a camera on the disgusting [censored] it just encourages him.

Personally I found myself with the overwhelming urge to remove all the hair on his head and face with a weedwhacker and blast him with a fire hose. And I'm pretty calm, I can just imagine the reaction from those viewers more easily annoyed than me.

suggestion - less assholes, more Shannon Elizabeth. Announcers that actually have a clue about poker strategy wouldn't hurt either.

Re: ESPN\'s coverage hurts the game
 

Lets get ol' McMannus to go up to Norman Chad and tell him he's disrespecting the game.

Re: ESPN\'s coverage hurts the game
 

I whole heartedly agree. For everyone saying OMG NORMAN CHAD WAS ACTUALLY FUNNY WITH HIS 800th HELLMUTH JOKE, they need to sit back and think what Hellmuth's act does. He gets so much camera time to whine and overact (like he doesn't know he's going to get camera time if he acts that way.) and this is what people are presented as being one of the top tournament pros, giving someone the impression that poker is like this.

Then you get 2 seconds of a player and a comment "This man is a class act and a testament to... sorry breaking news, we must cut to some loud ass over here!"

The good guys get 10 seconds of face time, the people making a scene get 55 minutes.

Rather than ignoring the idiots, ESPN treats poker like a giant freak show full of the same Hellmuth act, the same two dozen ex wife show, and a loud stupid celebration.

Yes these things happen and yes they will generate interest, but if so much focus is put on them, they overwhelm the game, and people will be way less likely to say "Hey this looks like fun, I'll try to play online" because who the hell wants to be berated for 10 minutes about not knowing how to play. The WSOP is supposed to be the place where anyone can win in the minds of the average Joe, not the place where you can be yelled at for being a donkey on National TV.

And when you combine it with announcers who do not take the game seriously, (except for the quick cut to Doyle Brunson and then quickly back to the morons.) you just make poker look like one giant unfunny joke about nonexistant ex wives. They don't need to know about poker strategy. Just have announcers who sound interested, (in the style of Rose and Konik, but not with someone as highly annoying as Konik.) they help make the game sound important, and give people an idea of what's going on, which helps people get more interested in the actual game.

Re: ESPN\'s coverage hurts the game
 

It doesn't hurt the game, and it's not keeping anyone away.

It's true that [censored]-ish behavior attracts the ESPN cameras, but I don't think that makes it a desireable away to attract attention. Dan Druff's performance is only the most recent cautionary tale.

If you'll notice, Mattias Anderson is nowhere to be seen this year.

And as for attracting novice poker players, all the college-kid-Joe-Random success stories do more to attract and engage new players than one stinky jerkoff Scottish guy could ever do to repel them.

I don't think we should include Phil Hellmuth in this discussion, since his [censored]-ish bheavior has grown into an all-encompassing study in human pathology, deserving of excessive air time.

Re: ESPN\'s coverage hurts the game
 

I just think that 45 minutes of bullshit with maybe 10 poker hands in there is ridiculous. This has to be the WORST ME coverage I've ever seen. Some dickhead screaming at the top of his lungs is not entertainment. ESPN, Grow up and show something people want to see. IF they want to see idiots yelling and screaming, well, go watch Celebrity Poker Showdown.

Re: ESPN\'s coverage hurts the game
 

[ QUOTE ]

If ESPN just ignored these idiots they'd pretty much disappear

[/ QUOTE ]



I REALLLY REALLY REALLY wish this was true.
Unfortunately, it isn't.


I hate these guys too...everyone from Hellmuth to Matusow to Barry-the-stinky-screamer.
But not showing them won't stop people from acting like idiots.


FWIW - Lon and Norm continually referred to Barry's screaming as 'unspeakable' and also threw in some insults about Hellmuth's antics.
So they aren't exactly glorifying it. But obviously ESPN IS giving them more air-time specifically BECAUSE they are jerk-offs.


I hate the behavior as well...but isn't really ESPN's fault imo.

If the WSOP management and floor had any stones they would actually enforce some rules of appropriate behavior.

This goes WAY beyond the f'bomb rule.
There's just no reason that they have to sit back and let Barry stand on the top of his chair and scream at the top of his lungs.

Give the guy a penalty for doing just that even if there is no profanity involved. It's pretty obvious to everyone that he is not behaving in an appropriate mannger. But the officials just sit there and watch him as if they can't do anything about the stupid, stinky maniac who is disrupting the whole freaking event.

Re: ESPN\'s coverage hurts the game
 

You and the OP have the best one-two post combo I've ever seen.

Regards,

Rick

Re: ESPN\'s coverage hurts the game
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think we should include Phil Hellmuth in this discussion, since his [censored]-ish bheavior has grown into an all-encompassing study in human pathology, deserving of excessive air time.

[/ QUOTE ]

He should get his own channel.

It seems to me that Norman Chad is actually making an effort to point out and praise "model" table behavior this year, and that if anything he's going after the Matusows even harder. Obviously this is subjective but it's something I've noticed, and maybe other people have as well. Now I might be talking out of my ass here, but why do you people think he's doing that? He could just be a pompous dick. But I think the more likely explanation is that he's aware of precisely the effect you're alluding to, and he wants to use his stage to teach all these new players how someone should act.

If that's the case, he's going above and beyond anything that we have the right to expect of him. The poker boom exists now because people watch poker on TV, which requires that it be entertaining to a broader audience than 2+2ers. That means more smelly-shirt-guy. Take the good with the bad.

I'm not completely sure what infuriates you so much about these people being given air time by ESPN. Even if it wasn't an inevitability, which it is, do you think it would really encourage people to act this way at a poker table when there aren't any cameras around? Especially when the color guy points out ten times an hour that it's not appropriate? And ESPECIALLY when none of these jackasses are ever shown winning anything?

That last point's really important. These people might get air time, but pay attention to the way they're presented. It would be a LOT different if you had guys like Ivey or Ferguson fist-pumping and shouting and [censored]. They don't hype guys like that, they "Dan Druff" them. The one exception is obviously Hellmuth, but it's my impression that they're even presenting him this year as someone not to be taken very seriously. Again, subjective.

And the idea that any of this is going to drive new players away is dumb, honestly.

Re: ESPN\'s coverage hurts the game
 

[ QUOTE ]
I just think that 45 minutes of bullshit with maybe 10 poker hands in there is ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect you don't represent what the average viewer is interested in.

People who complain about the "quality of poker commentary" don't seem to realize that ESPN is obviously not trying to provide detailed, in-depth poker advise ala Lederer. Two guys sitting there making goofy comments and plain observations is apparently a more succesful formula.

I enjoy the overall tenor of the commentary and sort of like the fact that poker is presented as something light and fun. I also think the proportion of non-hand-related sketches to NL hands creates a better product than the WPT, which shows a lot more hands but is way less entertaining.

Re: ESPN\'s coverage hurts the game
 

The thing is, he's almost needlessly going after Mike. When Mike is just obviously joking around and being a clown you hear "The new mike, Same as the old Mike" in the same tone as when he blows up and is angry, making light of what he said at the end of the prison segment.

In Hellmuth's case, he's sort of jokingly portrayed in a wacky "That's our Phil, ain't he crazy!" light. "What's that say, Poker brat?" isn't said in a tone of scorn, but more light heartedly said. After his fluff segment on his family, that isn't being shot down in the same way Mike's segment is, all that's said is "His wife must be a saint" "I hope she charges him a good rate!" when everything Phil says is totally unlike Mike. Mike's comments are about 60% self depricating, Phil is 90% "Everyone else sucks but me, you stupid donkey."

Yes, the screaming Brit isn't portrayed in the best light, but why is he even being shown? Was he important at all to the tournament? No! While you may not prevent another guy from acting like an idiot, you do set a general tone. Notice how the screaming and carrying on is far reduced on WPT broadcasts (although it is still there in places) and almost non existant on FSN broadcasts like Poker at the Plaza? The announcers just make note of how professional everyone acts, and how you don't see them acting like a fool, and they move on to the next hand.

We've seen how heavily ESPN edits the play of hands, it wouldn't be a trick for them to just be rid of the annoying incidents such as Matias. But they don't. You can have the announcers criticize it all day, but in the end if you show it, it falls under the category of there's no such thing as bad publicity.

And in televised poker's case, instead of giving it so much bad publicity, it could be given much better publicity.

Now, some people have said they enjoy the more "fun" broadcast ESPN shows, and that the serious WPT shows are more dull.

How is a Hellmuth rant "fun"? We've all heard it before, in fact he's in reruns. We've already heard the "Without luck I'd win em all" line 3 times on the WSOP and WPT. Yeah that sure is a genuine blow up, and not a guy acting in front of the cameras. Want a fun broadcast? Show the first 30 seconds, the "he can't even spell poker!" line, and then cut to an intertitle in the style of a silent movie.

"Phil Hellmuth continued to rant for the next 20 minutes"
"Yes, a middle aged man continued to act like a 10 year old in an attempt to get on TV, since he couldn't get on TV for winning poker hands"
"Instead of showing that, we'll return you to your regularly scheduled WSOP broadcast."

See what that does? It makes Hellmuth look like a fool. It actually makes fun of him, instead of telling a joke related to him. Norman Chad's jokes don't actually make fun of him, since they aren't that mean spirited. It's more "Hey look at me I'm Norman Chad aren't I funny!"

But ESPN wouldn't dare make their star Freak attraction look like a fool, he might get mad and boycott the WSOP! Or worse yet, he might realize his antics won't get him on TV anymore, and he might act like a human being, and ESPN can't have that.

Instead Hellmuth gets 5 minutes of add time for UB, his clothing line, and any other products he might want to show off the next time he pulls up in a limo.

Re: ESPN\'s coverage hurts the game
 

[ QUOTE ]
Notice how the screaming and carrying on is far reduced on WPT broadcasts

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because the WPT is filmed in a heavily controlled environment. They show 6 players playing poker in what is essentially a tv-studio; there's makeup and visual effects and the tournament is actually structured AROUND the broadcast.

The WSOP coverage documents a total event, similar to the way Woodstcok documented a rock and roll festival. And, while you might not consider the loutish Scotsman "important at all to the game," he represents a real faction of players who show up at the WSOP: those with no serious intention of winning the tournament but come seeking media attention anyway. If you are a serious poker player, do you really want to see these people stay home next year? I don't.

Re: ESPN\'s coverage hurts the game
 

[ QUOTE ]

That last point's really important. These people might get air time, but pay attention to the way they're presented. It would be a LOT different if you had guys like Ivey or Ferguson fist-pumping and shouting and [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]


Except that this year Mike Matusow makes it all the way to the final-table. And I'm sure there are a numbe of shaky-jittery-fist-pumped "I'm so great's" in there along the way.

I don't know this though.
All I know is that it's Matusow...and he makes it to the final-table...so I'm just guessing as to what kind of behavior he will exhibit on his way there.

Re: ESPN\'s coverage hurts the game
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

That last point's really important. These people might get air time, but pay attention to the way they're presented. It would be a LOT different if you had guys like Ivey or Ferguson fist-pumping and shouting and [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]


Except that this year Mike Matusow makes it all the way to the final-table. And I'm sure there are a numbe of shaky-jittery-fist-pumped "I'm so great's" in there along the way.

I don't know this though.
All I know is that it's Matusow...and he makes it to the final-table...so I'm just guessing as to what kind of behavior he will exhibit on his way there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah but ESPN is under no obligation to spin Mike Matusow as a great player, even though he makes the final table, and I don't think they will. And I suspect that his abrasiveness factors into that decision, but I could be wrong.

Re: ESPN\'s coverage hurts the game
 

I may be in the minority here but while I wouldn't like some of the behavior described here to happen at my table in a real poker event (although I have no problem with Phil or Mike the Mouth's behavior) I was playing in, I do think it makes for more entertaining television. And little bits like the guy going off to phone a friend about his bluff of Lederer before he then gets knocked out by Howard a little later do add an enjoyable story line about the type of player who may be playing over his head who will be happy to have the story of how he beat the pro in one key hand, and given how everyone was coming over the top of Lederer and how he correctly predicted that this meant once he actually caught some cards he'd build a stack fast, this type of color was important to the storyline. I mean I'd love them to show more hands and expand their coverage, but I'd still like to include some of the chatter, needling, celebrations, and other color to make the broadcast more interesting.

Re: ESPN\'s coverage hurts the game
 

Its no longer broadcasting a poker event.. It is now Reality TV, no different from Real World, Average Joe, etc.. People get an opportunity to be a douchebag on national tv.

Re: ESPN\'s coverage hurts the game
 

All that is pretty bad, but nowhere close to as bad as holding the money up at the end, that sucks, it's just vulgar.

Mack

Re: ESPN\'s coverage hurts the game
 

When are you prudes going to realize that jackass behavoir is +EV for us? It's exciting to watch.

Raymer is a great guy and a true gentleman. But you can't keep the general public glued to the television and interested in poker if all you show is people being polite all the time. It would just put the general audience (i.e. the donks who overplay K/J sooted) to sleep, and then we'd have less dead money to go after.

Re: ESPN\'s coverage hurts the game
 

[ QUOTE ]
you just make poker look like one giant unfunny joke about nonexistant ex wives.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite a Quantum Leap so to speak.

Mack

Re: ESPN\'s coverage hurts the game
 

I'm a little reluctant to post this, but I've come to the realization that I'm the only one on this site that finds Norman Chad slightly entertaining. I kind of dig his sense of humor.

Re: ESPN\'s coverage hurts the game
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm a little reluctant to post this, but I've come to the realization that I'm the only one on this site that finds Norman Chad slightly entertaining. I kind of dig his sense of humor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah, it's just the haters are more vocal then us luke warm supporters. In the context of the overall coverage, I don't think he sucks. Would I rather see more of a Turning Stone type broadcast? Yes. Since they aren't going to do that, then I don't think he is that bad.

Re: ESPN\'s coverage hurts the game
 

No no no no no no no no............NO NO NO NO NO.........YEEEEEESSSSSSSS!

My wife and I were dying watching that smelly guy, that's just good tv.

Re: ESPN\'s coverage hurts the game
 

I don't know if I would go so far to say it is hurting the game but I do have many issues with their coverage. The head muckity-mucks at ESPN appear to have this belief that they will lose audience unless they focus on the freak show characters in poker. True, most of us do enjoy humor and interesting characters but do they have to focus on the same mental cases each show?

ESPN went for the loudest, most obnoxious person at the ME and gave him to us for two weeks. This scumbag should be roundly denounced for his disgusting behavior at the table but I don't blame him one bit for hamming it up for the cameras. ESPN encourages it, Harrah's doesn't give a rat's a$# as long as they get their plugs.

It's sucky coverage but I don't feel it necessarily hurts the game.

Re: ESPN\'s coverage hurts the game
 

You do realize the majority of people who watch the show aren't 2+2ers, right? That they're just people who have a passing interest in the game, maybe want to start picking it up themselves, and that ESPN simply wants to make it as entertaining as possible for them? I mean, look, I know they focus a lot on the jerks, but how exciting is it when they focus on Lederer or Ivey? People who just sit there, playing the game to the best of their ability? Sure, it's fascinating to you guys, but to the general crowd who watches the stuff it's kind of boring. ESPN shows a lot of the 'drama' hands and keeps tabs on the more colorful characters of the game. I think they do a great job with their coverage.

Besides, there's always the WPT if you don't like the WSOP coverage. Or you can just log on to Pokerstars and watch one of their $1000 buy in sit n' go's, if you just wanna watch high stakes poker [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

Re: ESPN\'s coverage hurts the game
 

ESPN's coverage shows poker players how NOT to act. Chad goes out of his way to criticize the comments of Josh Arieh, Mike Matusow, etc. He commended the reactions of both Paul Darden and John Juanda when Juanda sucked out on the river to win a pot. Juanda didn't celebrate and Darden didn't do anything more than look disappointed.

If you want ESPN to turn a blind eye to the antics of some people, then they wouldn't really be covering the event. It's just a fact that poker is full of obnoxious, classless jerks.

On one point, I do agree: more Shannon Elizabeth!

Re: ESPN\'s coverage hurts the game
 

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.

Re: ESPN\'s coverage hurts the game
 

1. It's not a documentary on the nobility of great poker players and the world's biggest poker tournament.

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

3. Stop acting like James McManus.

Re: ESPN\'s coverage hurts the game
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Notice how the screaming and carrying on is far reduced on WPT broadcasts

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because the WPT is filmed in a heavily controlled environment. They show 6 players playing poker in what is essentially a tv-studio; there's makeup and visual effects and the tournament is actually structured AROUND the broadcast.

The WSOP coverage documents a total event, similar to the way Woodstcok documented a rock and roll festival. And, while you might not consider the loutish Scotsman "important at all to the game," he represents a real faction of players who show up at the WSOP: those with no serious intention of winning the tournament but come seeking media attention anyway. If you are a serious poker player, do you really want to see these people stay home next year? I don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

The WSOP is not Woodstock. It is another controlled enviroment, and the television cameras can make it more or less controlled. This isn't a cultural event, this is about making good television. And I simply don't think showing every single thing a loud jackass does is good television, or that it is good for poker. And yes, the WPT events are more highly controlled, and guess what, their ratings aren't exactly bad. Without showing all the stupidity they are still on television. (Phil Laak of course fills their stupidity quota I suppose.)

If you want to provide an entertaining product, then show the NO NO NO NO NO YES! line, and that's it. It's not entertaining to show the same guy yelling five times. Yes, I know he likes to yell, I got that the first time you showed him yelling. Now show something new.

For those arguing that the freak show aspect helps ratings, maybe it does, but short term. I was involved heavily with another TV phenom that focused on the freak show aspect, Battlebots.

I've thrown events, I've been involved in the planning of countless more, and was one of the few people who saw its demise from television coming. The freak show presentation helped boost ratings in the short term, but in the long term it just hurts things. It provides a few years of good ratings, but instead of weening people on the poker, it weens them on the idiots and the boobs, and in the end people realize if they want to watch stupidity, they can just watch a sitcom on ABC, which are quite possibly the dumbest things on TV.

Now I'm not saying Poker is going the way of Battlebots, not even close. But if you want to sustain a boom, you must try to minimize the bad and maximize the good. Broadcasts like the WPT and FSN shows help maximize poker. ESPN doesn't.

Re: ESPN\'s coverage hurts the game
 

I think that jerkoff Scottish guy must have really touched a nerve with you, because, although I agree that he received excessive and unnecessary attention during this year's coverage, I hardly think that coverage threatens the prosperity of the WSOP's ratings, or the public's interest in poker.

As one last way of illustrating why I think ESPN basically does a good job with the peripheral aspects of the scene: I find it much more entertaining to see the guy crying after calling allin with the second nuts than I would to see how the action went on every street.

Re: ESPN\'s coverage hurts the game
 

[ QUOTE ]
I find it much more entertaining to see the guy crying after calling allin with the second nuts than I would to see how the action went on every street.

[/ QUOTE ]

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

Re: ESPN\'s coverage hurts the game
 

Though Norman Chad and Lon hate the Barry Paskin screaming and the other forms of bad behavior it was Chad complaining that the guys were looking dull as hell when they were playing that hand at Layne Flack's table. So I guess even they want excitement the whole time, instead of a poker hand.

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