Why does ESPN even bother with 9 players?

[Quicksilvre]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

The Main Event first had a nine-handed final table in 2002.

[MonkeeMan]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess I'll watch the one that shaniac is in, but the rest are just too boring to me now.


[/ QUOTE ]

Cool. Shaniac, what event was this, and what's your non-virtual name?

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess I'll watch the one that shaniac is in, but the rest are just too boring to me now.


[/ QUOTE ]

Cool. Shaniac, what event was this, and what's your non-virtual name?

[/ QUOTE ]
Johnathan Chan

[Jimbo]

[ 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 ]

I understand what you meant to type. I also believe you will only watch one more episode. What I do not believe you proved is that more people would watch if there were less players. Where would this end? At six players? Five? Four? Three? Heads-up? On person playing solitaire should be able to make ratings history taking your theory to it's logical conclusion. Perhaps 60 minutes of a dealer sitting with his hand out waiting for a toke might be the highest rated WSOP show of all time.

[KneeCo]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with others here that ESPN is less devoted to poker than they could be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps this is true.

But can't it also be said that they are more devoted to poker players?

If someone plays their way through the enourmous fields haven't they earned their 15 minutes (or 5 seconds as the case may be)?

Maybe the WPT is better to poker than ESPN is. But, in many ways, I think ESPN is much better to poker players (which to me is more important).

If you listened to the Cardplayer WSOP Final table radio show, I think it was Ferguson and Hellmuth who were going over some of the ways this is true at one point.

All that being said, the ESPN show is falling behind some other broadcasts in some ways, and I do expect ratings to slide and changes to be made.

[Phill S]

Hyperthetical thought coming from a brit who hasnt EVER seen WSOP or WPT.

Apparently there are shitloads of repeats on telly where poker shows are on time after time. Why dont they set aside a block of time, like 5 hours, and show a final table with all the hands, with just the shuffling edited out?

Hell, why dont they show a live match (it was done once if memory serves)?

Why dont they do a jazzy 'unification' match between WHUPC Champion Peter Gunnarson and the NHUPC Champion Phil Helmuth. The ultimate HU match to find the ultimate HU World Champion.

Sponsor it by pokerstars/UB or someone, and either broadcast it live or webstream it live.

Why is this not being done?

Phill

[sammysusar]

i seem to remember on one of the wsop updates they stopped at 10 handed (i think omaha) for espn. i think hellmuth was the shortest stack. more players probably means a better chance of having an interesting player to show.

[Quicksilvre]

Fox Sports has done a couple of live broadcasts, but it is unlikely ESPN ever will. I guess there are just too many sporting events going on in the world during reasonable daytime hours to set a large hunk of it away for poker. Don't know what the Travel Channel's exceuse is.

No, wait, I kinda do. Live poker for hours and hours is interesting only to a certain demographic--committed poker players. That demographic really isn't big enough compared to casual fans for it to be considered.