Norman Chad On the WSOP: "The Viewers Don't Care"

[TurdFerguson]

ESPN's coverage of the WSOP as less strategy-heavy and more storyline-oriented is exactly in line with their general approach over the past 3-4 years. Compare the current version of SportsCenter to SC circa 2001 -- today's product is much more about personalities and stories than the sports scores of the day (such as the ubergay "Who's Now" segment). Ditto their bastardization of MNF, although their current 3-man booth is an improvement from last year.

But how is this bad for poker? I agree w/ this sentiment:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
sounds like a good way to keep creating new fish

[/ QUOTE ]

QFMFT. Do you guys really want a popular TV show teach people to play better?

[/ QUOTE ]

[FF_Woodycooks]

Do you guys realize casual viewers exponentially outnumber poker wonks who read all the antes and blinds and pot sizes, and think about how good or bad plays are?

Just like on ESPN, they don't talk about how the Broncos 3-4 defense is developing this year, or how the Yankees are grooming their minor league bullpen. They talk about arrests, scandals, sappy stories that romanticize athletes, controversies, and the sports equivalent of all-ins (dunks, home runs, highlights in general).

I agree with Shaniac, I have no problem with it, as I don't give a crap about some tv donkament, but I love stuff like Molina, Prahlad-Lisandro, Hellmuth.

[Jibba]

Chad is right, but showing a few more hands wouldn't hurt. I really don't mind the short ante issues and the like, but the frisbee throwing has to go.

[cbloom]

[ QUOTE ]
Chad is right, but showing a few more hands wouldn't hurt. I really don't mind the short ante issues and the like, but the frisbee throwing has to go.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, sure, make it about the stories and the characters and such, but at least make it about the drama at the table, all these off-table interview bits and the "nuts" segments and such are just so so awful, I can't imagine that even the casual fans like them any more.

[BarryLyndon]

[ QUOTE ]
Chad is right, but showing a few more hands wouldn't hurt. I really don't mind the short ante issues and the like, but the frisbee throwing has to go.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is that ESPN hasn't taken a MODICUM of effort to be even close to properly descript about the game that is being played. I agree with Shaniac - I really don't care about DonkFuko's metagame or whether Phil Ivey got knocked out of Day2 after 4-betting with 1010 and getting called by JJ. Most of the stuff is bad for business, and I can understand that.

But, and here comes the caps here: TO NOT DETAIL [censored] POT SIZE, BLINDS, ANTES, OR THE POSITION OF THE ORIGINAL PFR is TOTALLY [censored] RIDICULOUS. How [censored] hard can that be? Seriously - think about it - where do you draw the line between sound business strategy and sheer apathy and negligence to subject matter? This part sounds like a good place to begin.

I suppose that you have to keep Norm Chad because there is nothing sweeter than having a closet homosexual who vanilla coats the game doing your Tuesday evening TV poker commentary. But, do you think that between ESPN's newfound love for hipster nerd coverage of sports and their sweet net worth that they can go out and find someone a little more adept (and perhaps more entertaining) at poker coverage than Norm Chad?

No. The bottom line is that ESPN is [censored] franchise, and as such, it couldn't give a [censored] about your sports / game coverage as long as its profit lines stay in tact. Surely, it could make small but substantial adjustments to its poker coverage to fill some of its obvious voids, but it doesn't give a [censored]. It has an announcer who doesn't give a [censored]. And the players who feed us their money don't give a [censored] either, which is all well and good.

It's all disgusting, but if you don't have the stomach for making $$, chances you you're going to have a hard time doing it.

[Jazzy3113]

[ QUOTE ]
You can bash Chad all you want, but he's basically 100% right. You, the OP, may care, as do the hardcore players here on 2p2. Maybe some live players and pros care too about content. That's where it ends. 90% of viewers of the WSOP are recreational, sporadic, bad players who have only early-level understanding of the game. They're not worried about the number of hands shown, past history between opponents, or +/-EV of scenarios. This 90% want to see POT SIZE - $380,000. They want to see AK all in preflop against JJ so they can talk about the importance of winning races next time they're at their local cardroom. They want the dramatics of Prahlad vs. Lisandro and Matusow vs. Sheikhan.

ESPN makes these episodes in order to cater to the casual viewer. Ratings would plummet if episodes were geared towards only hardcore players. Don't expect this to stop anytime soon.

[/ QUOTE ]

[namisgr]

Am I the only viewer who thinks the WSOP broadcasts are getting stale? As Chad himself writes, the major "innovation" this year, the upgrade to HD quality, adds nothing to the shows. The banter/commentary is getting repetitive and old, the made-for-tv player antics have lost the punch of the genuine and real actions and reactions from the 2002-2004 broadcasts, and the games being shown are the same old same old (with the notable exception of the horse event, which has surpassed the ME not only in professional stature but also viewer interest).

I predict that as a consequence, ratings for the ME will be down from the previous years. To add vitality to the broadcasts for 2008, I really hope they either hire Gabe, or alternatively add a third voice to the booth, in the form of a revolving series of players who can add strategic discussions and personal anecdotes to the commentary.

[tailspin4540]

[ QUOTE ]
But, and here comes the caps here: TO NOT DETAIL [censored] POT SIZE, BLINDS, ANTES, OR THE POSITION OF THE ORIGINAL PFR is TOTALLY [censored] RIDICULOUS. How [censored] hard can that be? Seriously - think about it - where do you draw the line between sound business strategy and sheer apathy and negligence to subject matter? This part sounds like a good place to begin.

[/ QUOTE ]

They've added that stuff this year. Not the PFR part, but everything else.

[TexRef]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you guys realize casual viewers exponentially outnumber poker wonks who read all the antes and blinds and pot sizes, and think about how good or bad plays are?

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly.

The WSOP on ESPN and other poker shows is how you get people calling huge bets with draws and shoving mediocre hands and in general playing poorly because they saw it on TV.

We don't need the Poker Learning Channel.

[Jibba]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Chad is right, but showing a few more hands wouldn't hurt. I really don't mind the short ante issues and the like, but the frisbee throwing has to go.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is that ESPN hasn't taken a MODICUM of effort to be even close to properly descript about the game that is being played. I agree with Shaniac - I really don't care about DonkFuko's metagame or whether Phil Ivey got knocked out of Day2 after 4-betting with 1010 and getting called by JJ. Most of the stuff is bad for business, and I can understand that.

But, and here comes the caps here: TO NOT DETAIL [censored] POT SIZE, BLINDS, ANTES, OR THE POSITION OF THE ORIGINAL PFR is TOTALLY [censored] RIDICULOUS. How [censored] hard can that be? Seriously - think about it - where do you draw the line between sound business strategy and sheer apathy and negligence to subject matter? This part sounds like a good place to begin.

I suppose that you have to keep Norm Chad because there is nothing sweeter than having a closet homosexual who vanilla coats the game doing your Tuesday evening TV poker commentary. But, do you think that between ESPN's newfound love for hipster nerd coverage of sports and their sweet net worth that they can go out and find someone a little more adept (and perhaps more entertaining) at poker coverage than Norm Chad?

No. The bottom line is that ESPN is [censored] franchise, and as such, it couldn't give a [censored] about your sports / game coverage as long as its profit lines stay in tact. Surely, it could make small but substantial adjustments to its poker coverage to fill some of its obvious voids, but it doesn't give a [censored]. It has an announcer who doesn't give a [censored]. And the players who feed us their money don't give a [censored] either, which is all well and good.

It's all disgusting, but if you don't have the stomach for making $$, chances you you're going to have a hard time doing it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a little higher about ESPN than you do, but I agree with all of this for the most part. The commentary really is a joke and they make the game seem so results-oriented. This obviously has a beneficial effect on those who play against the people who learn poker by watching ESPN, but it also makes for bad television for anyone who knows how to play the game.