Complaints about announcers and poker coverage

Walter Pullis · #1 08-23-2005, 03:01 PM

There have been many posts concerning the lack of good poker analysts and the way the tournaments are covered. All you need to know about why this is true is the following:

1. They can only get good ratings by getting the casual viewer. Thus tons of all-ins and the emphasis on poker personalities and warm and fuzzy stuff.
2. TV executives think that the poker boom will die in a few years, so they don't work to really improve the product.
3. They know that the poker addict will watch, whether the analyst is Norman Chad or Mickey Mouse. Therefore they don't want to use the money and effort to pay and develop better
people.

beekeeper · #2 08-23-2005, 04:00 PM

Not too long ago I watched what I considered a comparatively superior telecast sponsored by Full Tilt Poker. Howard Lederer was a cohost/analyst. They showed every hand. If I remember correctly, the program lasted 3-4 hours.

Does anyone know if there will anymore telecasts like this from Full Tilt?

Jordan Olsommer · #3 08-23-2005, 04:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Does anyone know if there will anymore telecasts like this from Full Tilt?

[/ QUOTE ]
Probably not too many more of them, because

[ QUOTE ]
1. They can only get good ratings by getting the casual viewer. Thus tons of all-ins and the emphasis on poker personalities and warm and fuzzy stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

lonn19 · #4 08-23-2005, 04:50 PM

That was a good tourney, but they showed every hand because it was live.

tek · #5 08-23-2005, 06:34 PM

I saw a live every hand event this year and the Turning Stone (Ivey) every hand tourney last year. I like coverage like that, but I'm sure the production coordination makes them difficult to produce.

Hopefully we'll get more than one a year...

Dynasty · #6 08-23-2005, 07:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]

2. TV executives think that the poker boom will die in a few years, so they don't work to really improve the product.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a truly foolish comment. It's as if you aren't paying attention at all.

Comparing poker broadcasts from just three years ago to today would show tremendous improvements in the production.

Steve00007 · #7 08-24-2005, 02:27 AM

I get bored too easily when I watch poker on ESPN. The more they cover the WSOP, the more bored I seem to get with their coverage. I think there are two major reasons for this: I'm seeing a lot of the same stuff that I've seen before, and too many hands are shown that require little thinking.

So far I've seen the same jokes/comments from Norman Chad. The ace of spades is the prettiest card in the deck, ex-wife jokes, etc. He seems to have run out of stuff to say. I also see a lot of the same clips that they ran from the 2004 WSOP. Their current editions of the nuts leave me thinking two words: Who cares? A year ago, I didn't mind seeing that part of the show, but I've been bored and slightly annoyed with the editions of the nuts in 2005. However, none of these are my biggest gripe with the show.

My biggest problem with the show is there are too many all-in hands. On every episode I see people going all-in preflop with big hands. There is a race, and one of them wins. I consider this to be a problem for three reasons. One, I've seen a million hands like this before on ESPN. Second, those hands don't get the audience thinking. I don't wonder whether I would have called the all-in raise from a bigger stack when I have pocket kings. Third, these all-in hands make it difficult to get a feel for what is going on at the table. As a result, the audience is less likely to think 'What would I do if I were in that spot?' I do very little reflecting when watching poker on ESPN. Maybe that's appealing to bad poker players, but it isn't to me. However, it wouldn't surprise me if even some bad poker players are bored with ESPN coverage because it's a lot of the same old stuff they've seen before.

italianstang · #8 08-24-2005, 02:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

2. TV executives think that the poker boom will die in a few years, so they don't work to really improve the product.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a truly foolish comment. It's as if you aren't paying attention at all.

Comparing poker broadcasts from just three years ago to today would show tremendous improvements in the production.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does his comment have to do with your comment? Perhaps you should read his closer.

PeeWeeH · #9 08-24-2005, 02:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

2. TV executives think that the poker boom will die in a few years, so they don't work to really improve the product.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a truly foolish comment. It's as if you aren't paying attention at all.

Comparing poker broadcasts from just three years ago to today would show tremendous improvements in the production.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does his comment have to do with your comment? Perhaps you should read his closer.

[/ QUOTE ]

The internet would be a much better place if donks trying to act smart just made their point instead of pretending to be smart and making others look twice and guess at what they mean, when most of the time the only person who cares is the insecure [censored] who feels like he's being attacked.

PeeWee

shaniac · #10 08-24-2005, 03:05 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Probably not too many more of them, because

[ QUOTE ]
1. They can only get good ratings by getting the casual viewer. Thus tons of all-ins and the emphasis on poker personalities and warm and fuzzy stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

This argument confuses me. A lot of what occurs during the end stages of a NL tournament is, um, going all-in. I understand that most of us are obsessed with poker, so we'd rather see some of the more arcane situations that come up--but there's nothing about showing the juicy allin hands that necessarily cheapens the quality of poker you are watching.

Also, I like the "warm and fuzzy stuff." Without individual personalities, poker would be very boring to watch.