Making televised poker better

[-Skeme-]

Fire Michael Konik and that other idget. Neither of them know what they're talking about.

[rheaume]

[ QUOTE ]
Fire Michael Konik and that other idget. Neither of them know what they're talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

amen

[jmillerdls]

I think the analogy is close to correct though. Not long ago, the broadcast companies would hardly put anything on the screen during the football game...just the action on the field. There was a belief that the consumer would be distracted, and did not want more information. As they started adding more and more (the score, time left, timeouts, other games scores, and fantasy football stats), they have seen that the fan not only appreciates it, but expects it.
I like the idea of adding similar "extra" information while the hand is going on (i.e. blinds, pot size, etc.). I think its a matter of time before the stations realize that the casual fine will not be turned off by more information, but likely more engrossed.

[Quicksilvre]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't show anyone's hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not showing anyone's hand was what made TV poker so boring in the pre-lipstick camera days.

[imported_metrognome7]

The biggest thing plaguing televised poker right now is the "Vince! He can still win with running clubs! Or any J that's not a spade! Or a burrito shaped like the disembodied head of Hervez Villachez! Let's cut to a five-minute commercial sweep and when we get back, we'll see the turn!" aspect. The networks have WAY too much control over the actual competition itself; for examples check out this thread and Felicia Lee's blog about the WPPA championship. It's the equivalent of ESPN asking pro golfers to participate using only three clubs on Sunday, or Monday Night Football requiring all tight games to be played with 10 men on defense during the 4th quarter.

What can be done? Well, first of all you've got find a core group of high-level pros who will refuse the money offered by the networks unless they agree to let the tournament run "naturally." Second, there has to be more LIVE poker - the best idea I've heard would be a no-commercials sponsorship like they do for soccer, so the play is uninterrupted in any way outside of the normal flow. Third, someone - someone BIG, like Doyle & Chip or the FullTilters - needs to set up a standardized worldwide professional poker organization based on the Professional Golf Association and the Pro Bowling Association: weekly capped-entry tournaments, a set "no interference" broadcast contract with a single channel, and an "exemption/qualification" system loosely modeled on the PGA's Q-School.

All of these, I realize, are pipe dreams; the media complex is going to milk the poker boom for all it's worth, and eventually, in five years, poker will settle into a niche right above bowling and just below tennis - next to horse racing. Then, maybe, we'll see some legitimate cards-playing on-air.

Adam

[Trainwreck]

Are you sure you want TV Poker educating the masses? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Less fluff, more hands is only major reasonable change I'd like to see.

>TW<

[m1illion]

Do try and read my entire post before you respond. It helps with your post if you appear to have some clue.

[bigalt]

i really like when they follow one player for a few hands.

i think they should do this the majority of the time--

either when someone takes a big pot or makes a big fold or busts out, follow them for a few hands that lead up to it (either sequentially or content-wise) or else always play from the perspective of the opener or big blind or caller or something.

I couldn't agree more with the OP, televised poker is almost too boring to watch for me as a player. All-in, all-in, all-in, bluff and more all-ins. Screw that.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
I think its a matter of time before the stations realize that the casual fine will not be turned off by more information, but likely more engrossed.

[/ QUOTE ]



I think this is generally correct.
And obviously a lot of people would like better announcing (i.e. - more in depth).
I don't think this is asking for too much either.
Gabe Kaplan does a terrific job of analyzing the hands as they are being played.


-------


AKT.....guy with T2 vs. 77 - "He's WAY ahead here Vince."

Yup...that ticks me off too. On that kind of board there's no possible way he can expect to be in THAT good shape.
Gabe Kaplan would look at it and go "well....those over-cards will make it difficult for him to get too aggressive here." (or something like that)


So I do think it is possible to have better analysis without losing the mainstream audience.



But you DO need to keep all the profiles and other stuff.

My Dad doesn't know squat about poker...but reports that he likes watching 'the interesting personalities'.
So when Matusow has a fit or Juuha Jelpi (whatever the screamer's name was) goes nuts or Ellix Powers just sits there being weird THAT is as interesting to him as anything else.


Other guy I know follows it a little bit. Says "Hey...I was watching that poker on NBC today and I thought of you."
"That Ledbetter guy is really good isn't he?"
Wanted me to get Annie Duke's phone # at the WSOP.
Stuff like that.

When I came back he asked me how I did. I said not very well...but I was on Johnny Chan's table for 10 hours and that was kind of fun.

He asked if I played any hands against him and I said, "Well...I tried to steal his blind and the prick check-raised me on the flop."
He said, "I have no idea what any of that means."

This is a typical guy who doesn't really play poker but might occasionally watch it on TV if there's nothing else on worth watching.
He's seen it before...but the term 'check-raise' was beyond his knowledge.


And this is the type of audience that the networks are trying to grab.
People who don't even know how to play, might even think the bets being made are for REAL money ("can you believe he bet a half-a-million dollars there? He could buy a house with that much money Vince!!") and say things like "look at that guy pulling his hooded-sweatshirt over his head. the 'eskimo' guy with the beard is scaring the crap out of him."

stuff like that.



I visited my Mom last year and on Wednesday she checked in the main room and I was watching WPT with Gus Hansen and Paul Phillips (was Ron Rose on that one too??).
She had no idea what she was watching...but the announcing was so basic that she was able to understand.



It's for people like that that Sexton or Lon need to constantly explain "he needs a club for a flush or a 10 for a higher pair or else his tournament is over."