ESPN coverage = ASS, Celebrity Poker Bravo = BEST

[Quicksilvre]

I don't watch CP; I find that I usually want to throttle the players. You are, however, right about Phil Gordon.

[TransientR]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
this post made me laugh many times.

bravo indeed. bravo.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you prefer ESPN's coverage, where you only get ALL-ins, and rarely get to see somebody having to make a tough post-flop decision? Could you please explain to me why that is better poker television than what Bravo does?

ESPN's final table: 9 players, 1 hour
Bravo: 5 players, 2 hours.

ESPN analyst: Norm Chad...who?
Bravo analyst: Phil Gordon WPT Champ

[/ QUOTE ]

I was talking to a poker playing friend about this, and we both agreed ESPN is taking a step backward in poker coverage this year. With all the footage they have in the can, they only provide one hour (30 minutes taking out commercials/interviews etc.), a week?

Last night was three hours of repeats before the puny new episode.

I don't understand their thinking. Poker has been a cable TV hit for a while now, which means many of the people watching are serious about the game. Instead of shortening the coverage, they should be lengthening it ala golf. Once viewers understand the nuances of the game, they want to see as many hands as possible, even the so called non-exciting ones.

Instead both ESPN and the WPT have regressed. The former by limiting new programming to an hour, which means only showdowns get coverage (which are boring to knowledgeable players), the later by making the blind escalation ridiculously quick at the final table, hence again insuring skill-handicapped all-in fests.

Its like if CBS covered the Masters golf tournament and showed only birdies and used an hour of TV time to cover an entire round [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Frank

[lonn19]

[ QUOTE ]
and Dave Foley adds comedic touch.

[/ QUOTE ]
You can't be serious.

[eboller]

I've been extremely unimpressed by espn's coverage so far this year. You'd think after this many years they would at least be showing the amount in the pot. How hard is that? The hosting, while mildly entertaining doesn't have any poker content. The hands generally haven't been interesting.

I'm not sure I agree with the assessment that celebrity poker is better. The best programs so far seem to have been on Fox sports net (save poker superstars II, but hopefully the later rounds won't be all in fests). The first superstars, the full tilt poker tournament? (during the wsop), and the Turning Stone tournament have been great coverage.

[pokerdirty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and Dave Foley adds comedic touch.

[/ QUOTE ]
You can't be serious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dave Foley is awful. His attitude everytime he is on is just "Please, shoot me now." You can tell his improving, and he's not that good at it.

I do like some of the things that HPS does, like "how would you play it?" and the 2 hr format, but it is just hard to watch because these B-list actors are just BAD.

ESPNs coverage would be much better if they were 2 hrs (remember the first episode this season with jean robert?) As for the announcers, what else are you supposed to do? the card comes down, you try to make it sound huge. IT'S POKER. As for Norman Chad, the people that hate him now were probably the first ones laughing their asses off on here a couple years ago when he made his first "divorced wife" jopke.