If any producers read this...

[eastbay]

Poker coverage is in general quite pathetic. Here's what the poker-head wants to know, at an absolute minimum:

The current blind size! All the time. Updated continuously. Not mentioned by Mike S. every once in awhile.

The stack size of every player. All the time. Updated continuously.

How much time left in the blind level, and the blinds for the next level when it gets an orbit or so away.

Play is so heavily dependent on these things that you just don't know what's going on without them. It would be like broadcasting baseball without ever showing the inning, who's on base, or what the count is.

eastbay

[jwvdcw]

I totally agree...its so annoying when they skip ahead in the action and the blinds have changes, but you don't realize it until later.

[blackaces13]

Very true. I guess not enough people know enough about the game for it to warrant the station bradcasting the event putting in the extra effort. If poker continues to grow as it has been of late then I believe the things you mention will become standard.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
How much time left in the blind level, and the blinds for the next level when it gets an orbit or so away.


[/ QUOTE ]

Since thw WPT and other shows are so heavily edited, I don't think this is very important. I think the last WSOP final table lasted 10+ hours but the ESPN broadcast was just two hours with commercials.

A simple graphic with blind and ante amounts and stack sizes would make many viewers happy.

[MicroBob]

i suspect the reason they don't do this is to hang on to the illusion of continuous action.

if they always had the players' stack-sizes on the screen they would be bouncing back and forth like crazy and would only partly resemble the action we are seeing. because of all the hands we don't see....it would be kind of weird to see someone win a pot and see that their stack size is 300,000....and then on the very next hand of action see that they are at 284,000....and then on the nand after that see that they are at 305,000. etc etc.

of course, WE know that the action is not continuous....but a lot of viewers think they are seeing virtually every hand....and the editing and announcing is obviously constructed to do exactly that.
thus, i think their omission of stack-sizes, etc. is more strategic than lazyness.

[toots]

My biggest objection is the need to edit a 1-3 day tournament down to 2 hours. There's more to the story, and more that went on than just the final six players at the final table.

I liked the 2003 WSOP coverage - it let us actually get a sense for the scope and progress of the tournament.

[brassnuts]

2 words:

MORE SHANA [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[toots]

I dunno.

More Shana really doesn't do much for me.

Although, if more Shana means less VVP, I think I'll back you on this one.

[dansalmo]

With lots of extras like the ones you mentioned plus hilarious out takes and uncensored expetives during the major suckouts.

You can also see alternate endings and as a bonus you will get 80 hours of unedtied security footage with some of the best 2/4 capped preflop, single outer bad beats ever seen anywhere!

[jwvdcw]

Just like football games used to not continuously show the score in the upper corner yet now it is like that on every broadcast, things will eventually change for the better.

Poker is still early in its stages of being widely broadcast on tv.