Why does ESPN even bother with 9 players?
 

9 players in one hour offers us as many as 3 hands heads-up, and no more than the elimination hand for players who don't become a central part of the show. I would have no problem with the final table being 6 players for one hour -- at least that would give us a bit more insight into the play.

Of course, I'll tune in anyways...

Re: Why does ESPN even bother with 9 players?
 

They do it because it's the traditional final table size. They're not all jazzy like WPT. Maybe they do it to be different? I agree with others here that ESPN is less devoted to poker than they could be. It seems the WPT puts forth more effort (2 hours with 6 players) and provides the more in depth play.

Re: Why does ESPN even bother with 9 players?
 

More insight? From who?

Re: Why does ESPN even bother with 9 players?
 

This IMO is ESPN's biggest mistake. They should start with the final 5 or 6 just like the Travel Channel. Yes now they may be getting good ratings, but I think that this will cause them to drop in the future.

Also it's bad for character development when people are constantly eliminated the very first hand they play, which they often have to do due to lack of time.

Also I've lost basically all interest in watching the 1 hour 9 player final tables. I guess I'll watch the one that shaniac is in, but the rest are just too boring to me now.

Re: Why does ESPN even bother with 9 players?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I guess I'll watch the one that shaniac is in,

[/ QUOTE ]

You just showed why they have more players at the final table.

Re: Why does ESPN even bother with 9 players?
 

Just think about this logically (assuming that ESPN can't tell the future and won't know who will be entertaining)

Re: Why does ESPN even bother with 9 players?
 

[ QUOTE ]

You just showed why they have more players at the final table.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right, since I plan to watch one tournament out of 13 as opposed to all 13 (which I likely would if there were more players), I've clearly proved that point.

Re: Why does ESPN even bother with 9 players?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You just showed why they have more players at the final table.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right, since I plan to watch one tournament out of 13 as opposed to all 13 (which I likely would if there were more players), I've clearly proved that point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you mean you'd watch more with LESS players?

Re: Why does ESPN even bother with 9 players?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You just showed why they have more players at the final table.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right, since I plan to watch one tournament out of 13 as opposed to all 13 (which I likely would if there were more players), I've clearly proved that point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you mean you'd watch more with LESS players?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that's what he meant--fewer players at the table makes curtains happier. In the heat of the moment, curtains clearly mistyped.

ESPN does a pretty good job with player-profiles and some of the color surrounding poker. If a 9-player format gives them more flexibility to do that, then I don't mind. Often the peripheral filler is more interesting than NL tourney hands.

The WPT is certainly a richer source of pure poker material, but it's somehow stuffier and less appealing. Both productions are leagues ahead of the competition. Poker players complain too much.

Re: Why does ESPN even bother with 9 players?
 

i downloaded some old school WSOP final tables that were broadcasted on ESPN. they were all 6 seat tables.

the most recent one i looked at was 93 or so think. maybe later. i have some more downloaded, just havent watched them yet.

so you could say, the wpt is ripping off the old wsop coverage.