Why does ESPN even bother with 9 players?

[Paradigm]

9 players in one hour offers us as many as 3 hands heads-up, and no more than the elimination hand for players who don't become a central part of the show. I would have no problem with the final table being 6 players for one hour -- at least that would give us a bit more insight into the play.

Of course, I'll tune in anyways...

[benkahuna]

They do it because it's the traditional final table size. They're not all jazzy like WPT. Maybe they do it to be different? I agree with others here that ESPN is less devoted to poker than they could be. It seems the WPT puts forth more effort (2 hours with 6 players) and provides the more in depth play.

[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

[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.

[HamJam]

More insight? From who?

[curtains]

This IMO is ESPN's biggest mistake. They should start with the final 5 or 6 just like the Travel Channel. Yes now they may be getting good ratings, but I think that this will cause them to drop in the future.

Also it's bad for character development when people are constantly eliminated the very first hand they play, which they often have to do due to lack of time.

Also I've lost basically all interest in watching the 1 hour 9 player final tables. I guess I'll watch the one that shaniac is in, but the rest are just too boring to me now.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess I'll watch the one that shaniac is in,

[/ QUOTE ]

You just showed why they have more players at the final table.

[curtains]

[ 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.

[Daliman]

[ 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 ]

Don't you mean you'd watch more with LESS players?