Making HSP the ONLY Poker Show?

[JackTenOffSuit]

[ QUOTE ]
You are assuming that the high-stakes "cash" games on High Stakes Poker were actually played with each player's OWN money.
...
High Stakes Poker may have a cash game format, but it is still ultimately a TV show. The cash games on High Stakes Poker are not the same as the cash games played at Bobby's Room at the Bellagio each weekend.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really get why/how you think people being staked on HSP is relevant to the quality or strategy of the game being played...it's still real cash and losing it is not "acceptable" simply because it's not truly yours and it's still a ring game and not a tournament. That aside - I agree that HSP is a TV show and not necessarily "the same" as Bellagio cash games, but if you think that players in Bobby's Room aren't being staked then I have a great bridge in Brooklyn that perhaps you'd be interested in.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow. You sir, are why the term LOL DONKAMENTS was created. Do you have any idea how infinitely more interesting a cash game is then a tournament, at least strategically? You do realize that tournaments are played with imaginary money, right?



[/ QUOTE ]

I don't watch poker on TV to learn how to play poker. When I want to improve my own poker game, I read books, I read forums, or I actually go out and play poker. I watch poker on TV to be entertained. And like more people, what I find entertaining are compelling story lines.

I would much prefer to see "big name" players on TV than a bunch of random amateurs that show up on screen once and are never heard from again, because the names I know already have some storyline filled in for me, and I am already emotionally invested in them (for the same reason that people would rather watch a weekly TV show with the same cast than a show that had a completely different cast each time). "Deep stack" poker is also better than "all-in fests" like the WPT because they allow more of a player's personality to shine through through their poker play. On these count, High Stakes Poker has a leg up on some of the other poker shows. I don't want to see all-ins on every hand....I want to see the ebbs and flows of a player's chips stack, and I want to see the drama of more interesting plays that are only possible with larger stacks and deeper betting.

But there also needs to be some continuity and sense of moving the story along. HSP doesn't do this at all...it doesn't even seem to keep track of how much players have won or lost. The hands could be played out of order and it wouldn't make any difference. If asked to describe the "plot" of a HSP episode, you couldn't do it....yet you could describe the "plot" of a movie, or a baseball game, or an episode of WSOP.

I think the WSOP broadcasts do a much better job than any other at creating a good story. Of course, they have a built in advantage of the history behind the event, but ESPN gives viewers both a reason to care about the players and a sense of the overall "WSOP scene".

[innerspace]

NickMPK,

Basicly everything you say is either wrong or stupid. You are either a bad troll or an idiot.

[greggg230]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow. You sir, are why the term LOL DONKAMENTS was created. Do you have any idea how infinitely more interesting a cash game is then a tournament, at least strategically? You do realize that tournaments are played with imaginary money, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are assuming that the high-stakes "cash" games on High Stakes Poker were actually played with each player's OWN money.

I am aware of at least two instances in which players were allegedly "staked" into High Stakes Poker, with those two players playing with OPM (other people's money).

In one of the two cases, the player (P. H.) actually wrote on his blog that he was being staked.

In the other cash, this particular player, allegedly playing with OPM he was allegedly being staked, was able to execute a stone bluff with nothing more than a gutshot straight draw against another player who was holding a big overpair, forcing the player with the big overpair to lay down the best hand.

High Stakes Poker may have a cash game format, but it is still ultimately a TV show. The cash games on High Stakes Poker are not the same as the cash games played at Bobby's Room at the Bellagio each weekend.



[/ QUOTE ]

are you even serious?

you think it's only tv shows that poker players are staked by others?

you think there aren't players who play in Bobby's room that are staked?

...

[pendragon]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe if HSP actually published some sort of "standings" and awarded a "Player of the Year" or something, I would find it more compelling, but there just seems to be no continuity between episodes or anything at stake besides the result of the current hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's a very good idea. If they showed tallies of how much each player won/lost it would definitely add something to the show. I agree with everyone who says continuity is what the show lacks most.

The best part of the show is the table conversation. I just saw this one episode where after Eli Elezra wins a big hand against I think Barry Greenstein, he calls one of the casino girls "Baby". Doyle says "Baby now...if he had lost the hand it would've been, 'Get away bitch!'" That was hilarious, and so unexpected from Doyle.

[ QUOTE ]
watching daniel negreanu get crushed is fun IMO...

[/ QUOTE ]
This is very true [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] But one can watch the clips of that and enjoy it just as much.

[mrjetguy]

[ QUOTE ]

I haven't had much chance to watch HSP because my cable company doesn't carry GSN. But I've seen a couple episodes, and I really have no desire to watch more. It just doesn't seem important.

Do you think people would rather watch the Superbowl, or a pick-up football game of NFL all-stars? I would much rather watch the Superbowl, because there is history and prestige attached to it, creating much more inherent drama.
Unless people are chasing titles and history, you're not going to attract a mainstream audience. Why would most people care if one poker pro wins some money from another?

Maybe if HSP actually published some sort of "standings" and awarded a "Player of the Year" or something, I would find it more compelling, but there just seems to be no continuity between episodes or anything at stake besides the result of the current hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
While I wish that they would be better at keeping us up to date on how people are doing, I laughed when I read the part about it seeming unimportant. It may not be important but either most of the other poker shows on TV.

[The B]

[ QUOTE ]
put HSP on every week all year round (except maybe during the summer during WSOP)...


[/ QUOTE ]


the WSOP brings poker players/gamblers from all over the world...these two months would be the best time to record/air HSP

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
NickMPK,

Basicly everything you say is either wrong or stupid. You are either a bad troll or an idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

You made your first post in three months for this? Nice job.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
While I wish that they would be better at keeping us up to date on how people are doing, I laughed when I read the part about it seeming unimportant. It may not be important but either most of the other poker shows on TV.

[/ QUOTE ]

(I assume you mean "neither are" rather than "either")

How important a poker tournament is depends on how closely you follow poker. Obviously the Superbowl isn't important to someone who has never heard of American football. My point is at least ESPN does a good job of making their WSOP episodes seem important, by given the viewer sufficient background, scope, and historical context.

And I agree that most poker shows are not important. I don't watch "Poker After Dark" or "Cash Poker" or whatever either.

[Zorlac]

I'd put Poker After Dark at #1 as there's very little editing. So many times you see some bizarre play that makes absolutely no sense because the lead up events were cut.

That show and maybe Hip Hop Holdem should stay.


.Z