Making televised poker better

[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