question about ESPN's coverage

[jwvdcw]

Are table cams that expensive? I mean, if the #1 sports network in the world can't afford to put them at every table, then they have to be, right?

I mean, I can kinda understand not having them at every single table, but at least have them at 20 of the more interesting ones or so. How can they not have them at Phil Hellmuth's table at all times? Hes one of the more exciting players out there. And now we'll never know what his opponent had on the KK hand! Moreover, when the field is narrowed, every table needs to have cams, so that they can show every important hand. For example, the Raymer-Matusow hand should've been covered.

So are they really that expensive or is ESPN just dropping the ball?

[nolanfan34]

The cameras themselves aren't necessarily expensive. Wiring 200+ tables, and having enough tape decks to record the action would be.

I see where you're coming from with the additional cameras thing, but it would be a big hassle for the tournament directors I think. What if one of the selected "camera" tables had its big players bust out? Would they move a more interesting table of players there?

It would be cool if they could do it, but I think it would be pretty hard.

[uw_madtown]

[ QUOTE ]
Are table cams that expensive? I mean, if the #1 sports network in the world can't afford to put them at every table, then they have to be, right?

I mean, I can kinda understand not having them at every single table, but at least have them at 20 of the more interesting ones or so. How can they not have them at Phil Hellmuth's table at all times? Hes one of the more exciting players out there. And now we'll never know what his opponent had on the KK hand! Moreover, when the field is narrowed, every table needs to have cams, so that they can show every important hand. For example, the Raymer-Matusow hand should've been covered.

So are they really that expensive or is ESPN just dropping the ball?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd imagine the cams themselves aren't that expensive -- it'd be the idea of putting a whole lot more manpower into editing the show when they already draw a large audience, most of whom don't really care that much about seeing excellent poker coverage.

Just imagine how much footage they'd have to wade through if they covered five tables, let alone twenty. I'm sure there would be ways to simplify this (having observers note particular hands that would good choices to review) but in all the additional cost just isn't worth it from an economic standpoint for ESPN.

Which sucks, because in 20 minutes I could come up with 15 things to make the WSOP coverage much better. But no reason to do so, since I'd say most of the audience is fine with it as is.

- UW

[Cleveland Guy]

There was an article on how ESPN had to build that whole table specially.

Look at how different it is from the rest of them. Also look at all the room that table gets, part of it from being the final table for a lot of the smaller events, but I think it's also gotta be for the wires, cables, lighting, etc.

I don't think any poker room is big enough for 20 tables with that much space.

[ohgeetee]

I think its lame that they put known pros at the camera table(s). I think it should be completely random, regardless of whether or not it makes for good TV. Someone has to be at a disadvantage witht hem non randomizing certain seats.

[eMarkM]

I think at first they just look at the draw of tables for the day and then pick the one they think would be most interesting. Most of the feature tables had only a couple of name pros at them. However, when a Lederer or some other name suddenly fills a spot left empty, it does look a bit suspicious.

[ohgeetee]

they pick specific people for the camera tables, expecially in the later days of the tourney. Howard writes a bit about this in 2003.

[TracyMiller]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Which sucks, because in 20 minutes I could come up with 15 things to make the WSOP coverage much better. - UW

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely. Like where are the chip counts? I haven't seen it once for the main event. I have a hard time telling where the button and the blinds are. Believe it or not, this is one area where Bravo's Celebrity Poker Showdown could teach them a thing or two.

And why do they spend valuable TV time showing us "The Nuts" and "The Crew" and Daniel Negranu's mother, which when added to the commercials, leaves us with barely 20 minutes per show of poker?

[Cleveland Guy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Which sucks, because in 20 minutes I could come up with 15 things to make the WSOP coverage much better. - UW

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely. Like where are the chip counts? I haven't seen it once for the main event. I have a hard time telling where the button and the blinds are. Believe it or not, this is one area where Bravo's Celebrity Poker Showdown could teach them a thing or two.

And why do they spend valuable TV time showing us "The Nuts" and "The Crew" and Daniel Negranu's mother, which when added to the commercials, leaves us with barely 20 minutes per show of poker?

[/ QUOTE ]

Keep in mind- Bravo's special is a made for TV - one table event. It's easy to keep chip counts cause you know them all at all times. With people contanstly moving tables, who knows who has how many chips, and with over 200 people it would be hard to keep it up to date every few hands.

They do show you every time the blinds go up, and I believe when it's important to the hand they let you know who is on the SB, and BB, and who will be acting first/last.

I think coverage is pretty good, not great, but my wife likes to watch it, and she isn't a poker player

[ohkanada]

Do you have a link to this report? I find it hard to believe that they pick players for the tv table. I know at the start of the day they look at the random draws and then pick out the tables that would be interesting.

It would certainly be unfair to choose which players get moved to the tv table when a table is broken.

Ken