High stakes cash games on TV

[cowpie]

Am I the only one who thinks it would be interesting to watch high stakes cash games on TV? The high stakes players (Reese, Ivey, etc) might not like it because of the hole card cameras, and the TV audience maybe want to see Joe Schmoe win instead of only pros, but god damn it, I want to watch them play high stakes cash games for a change.

[deuces09]

How can televising something that doesn't end be profitable to a station? If you want to watch the big cash games, travel there and watch them yourself [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Lazymeatball]

that would be like watching baseball if there were no playoffs

[theBruiser500]

Not really LazyMeatball.

[Lazymeatball]

[ QUOTE ]

Not really

[/ QUOTE ]

Please offer some substance to support your posts in future. This helps to foster more lively debate.

[theBruiser500]

In tournaments the skill level goes down a lot compared to cash games cause of the high blinds, completely different from baseball. Also, if we watched just the really high stkaes games we would have a table full of great players. In touranments the quality of the tables is a lot less. Compare this with baseball where you get th ebest teams in the playoffs... This among many other reasons makes your analogy bad.

[Lazymeatball]

While many on this board would find high stakes cash games between world class players both entertaining and educational, we are a very niche audience at best.

Watching a single poker game (or a baseball game) may have it's charm at first, but will get increasingly boring with each new episode as there is no beginning, middle and end as has been stated. This is very bad from a tv standpoint trying to market to a mass audience.

The point I was trying to make with my baseball analogy was that tournaments are similar to the playoffs in baseball, or any sport in general. Now there is a reason to play, to find out who the winner is, who the best is.

Now of course tournament poker with it's current escalating blind structure introduces a lot of luck into into it's outcomes. But there has been a lot of luck in sports decisions as well causing the underdog to win.
For example: remember the snowbowl in the 2002 Divisional playoffs between New England and Oakland where Tom Brady was very lucky to get that fumble in the 4th quarter ruled as a forward pass. That lucky break led them to win the game, without it, they're history. Sports teams, just like poker players need to get lucky in playoff situations.

[Sundevils21]

[ QUOTE ]
that would be like watching baseball if there were no playoffs

[/ QUOTE ]

tell that to the thousands that show up(and watch on tv) to see a baseball team who has NO chance to make the playoffs, during the middle and ends of a season.

[InchoateHand]

Or better yet, a team that has no chance of winning the world series---ie, the red sox.

[Tuds75]

The history channel had a show called "The History of Poker" and one part of the show they keep showing some hands from a cash game between, Doyle, Ivey, Greenstein, Chip Reese, Gus Hansen, and Daniel Negreanua, just to name a few. ACtually Doyle put the game together and it seemed like A LOT of the big cash game players are sitting down at some point during the show.

The whole show is not this cash game, but is pretty cool see a person bet a 50K in REAL dollars.

Check your TV Guide for the next showing.

Tuds