What was wrong with the PPT?

[Mediocre_Player]

mark seif is a huge douche and his analysis was awful

[dinopoker]

I liked the PPT too, Mark Seif notwithstanding. I liked seeing the tournament progress from the early levels, and also to see some 'name' players make some pretty donkey moves from time to time. Hopefully it's not gone for good, but I think it is.

[kingwood kid]

I liked the show a lot. The announcers were forgettable, but I'd much rather have them than Sexton/Van Patten. Getting to see world-class players play deep-stacked is infinitely more instructive than watching 6 nobodies either have an all-in on the flop or a big bluff.

[Humble Pie]

[ QUOTE ]
Getting to see world-class players play deep-stacked is infinitely more instructive than watching 6 nobodies either have an all-in on the flop or a big bluff.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree, I like seeing new faces and unpredictable plays.

[Army Eye]

Some good points made already. I'm gonna call out the PPT's selection for what the feature table on a given week would be. Their choices often left a LOT to be desired.

Throw in the commentary problems, the fact that you only see people actually win money once every five weeks, and the often lackluster effort by the pros since it's a freeroll with smallish prizes, and you had a lot to overcome. I still really liked the show because I love seeing the entirety of a tournament as opposed to just the final table. I can understand why it wasn't a ratings blockbuster though.

[NNNNOOOOONAN]

phil ivey was never on it.

[dStrangefate]

Mostly I guess it just brought nothing new to the table. Typical tournament stuff but with a smaller prize pool and hosts so irritating you were tempted to mute the program. Not only was their analysis and humor awful, but very frequently they would talk over the players--as though the annoying [censored] they wanted to say was that much more important then hearing the actual people we're watching.

Also, even the only real novelty of the show was an all-pro field, few of the players were household names. While I personally found it entertaining to see former WSOP champs and old pros like Hans Lund, Amarillo Slim, etc, at the table, to the average viewer they might as well have been the usual nobodies that populate WPT programs. The absence of player interviews and profiles--much aligned around here I know--may have contributed to the overall dullness of the program too. As silly as they may be, those asides give the viewer someone to root for (or against), rather then just a table full of anonymous middle-aged poker players.

Last of all, I think there's just a general malaise over poker tournaments. I like televised poker as well as the next guy, but the majority of tournaments bore the hell out of me. The only one I even care about watching any more is the WSOP ME and even that's notable mostly for sucking. Right now all I really look forward to is High Stakes Poker (and the half-assed UPC Cash Poker is okay too). If poker survives as a TV phenom of any lasting success, I think it may be through the televised cash games--they allow programmers to select the players, show a larger variety of hands, and just exert more control in general. Plus it's much easier to stage. All they need is one room and one table.

To get back to the subject tho, the PPT was better then the average TV poker trash, but just barely. A lot of potential got squandered.

[pokergrader]

It is because people care about money more than poker.

[NickMPK]

I liked the PPT a lot, but here's what I didn't like:

- They were often cutting off 4th quarter coverage before reaching the final table bubble. This is really the most compelling time in the tournament, and they completely ignore it.

- They need to select their featured tables better. For some reason, the PPT producers seem to think viewers like watch portly, mustachioed, nitish 55-years olds more than any of the players we see on Poker Superstars.

- Make the prize pool bigger, even at the cost of eliminating the freeroll concept, and pay more than 3% of the field. Make the prize pool an even $1 million, which would mean each player would have to pay like $2.5K for $5K in EV.

[MrFizzbin]

[ QUOTE ]
The announcers on the PPT were terrible.

The poker hands were interesting to watch.

I think the concept was a good idea. I think the biggest problem I have heard is that the WPT grossly overestimated the dollars they could get selling the PPT to a network for telecast.


[/ QUOTE ]

Steve Lipscumbag loves rights based payments for his programming, the problem is (as Olivert often points out) the poker world is going away from rights based (where the channel pays the program provider) to time buy where the provider sells the time to the program provider and the provider sells ad space and time packages to sponsers.

Steve is too lazy and greedy to follow this model so PPT died cause nobody wanted to pay rights for it, and Steve couldn't sell time on the program because he's p.o'd most of the online rooms.

[ QUOTE ]

I even remember hearing rumors of the WPT trying to sell it to ESPN before cutting a deal with The Travel Channel.

I am sure ohter posters can expand but I recall the WPT even going to court with The Travel Channel over the PPT. It seems like it was in the can for something like 18 months?


[/ QUOTE ]

Steve offered the PPT to Travel Channel they said no, so steve peddled it to ESPN, who bought it, but Travel Channel sued saying it was filmed at WPT events and they were unhappy about that so ESPN dropped it rather than fight it. Steve and the boys were po'd about the ESPN deal falling through and sued Travel Channel for restraint of trade, they settled by broadcasting the 04 season in its entirety, and then evaluating it at the end of the year. The evaluation is in. Travel Channel Passes, LipSumbag was never able to get the corporate sponsorship he needed (and was too cheap to keep ponying up prize money.