How to Improve Televised Poker

[invulse]

ESPN needs to start covering big cash games. After watching HSP for 2 seasons, tournament poker coverage seems pointless...I learn and gain nothing from it. But every time I watch HSP I can improve my game from it.

[Frank Zappy]

ESPN can easily borrow from baseball coverage and have a little box off to the side that shows the Pot size, blinds antes, bets, etc.

They can also scroll on the bottom other things going on in the tournament or spiffy little highlights like "Bryan Micon has not bathed since the start of the Tournament."

The commentators can also add some insight. For example, when Bernie Willaims surprised me by trying to bunt in the 3rd Inning last night, it wasn't necessary to have a sidebar on bunting, but it was nice to hear about bunting in general, Bernies last bunt attempt and small baseball, that is, playing for a run.

[MrDannimal]

[ QUOTE ]
One of the main problems with the coverage seems to be where it falls on the: Sport/Game continuum.

ESPN treats it like a results oriented sport and gives zero weight to anything that might even be remotely educational or informational, and they can rightly say that since they covered Chris Moneymaker in 2003 attendance at the ME has skyrocketed. The new attendance is all due to ESPN and virtually all of the new attendees secretly admire Moneymakers run in 2003.

Is the viewing audience ready for the type of hand analysis featured here?

Is it something that you’d even like to see or would you give Hannibal Lecter’s answer to Clarisse on how he would improve FBI profiling: “I wouldn’t”

[/ QUOTE ]

Poker coverage is handled much like Olympics coverage, and to a lesser extent major sporting events (NBA Finals, Super Bowl...).

They're not geared towards the hardcore. When you watch Olympic skiing, it's all about Bode Miller the person. It's not about "He went too tight into that turn, he'll have trouble keeping his edge on the next gate and will likely lose time to the leader."

There's simply not enough time in an episode to get in depth about strategy, without losing the casual viewer (which there are a lot more of than we'd like to admit). For crying out loud, many shows still take the time to explain how NL Hold'em is played early in the show.

Not to mention the times you discuss strategy and then the player does something else. Is he wrong? Was the commentator wrong? So much is variable in any given hand. it's not like football, for example, where you can clearly berate a WR for not getting OB with 30 seconds on the clock and no TOs down 1 on the 40 yard line. If Howard says "I don't see how he can call this raise" and then the guy calls and steals the pot on a later street, was Howard right? Did the player see something in his opponent that Howard couldn't (because he's not at the table, he's watching hands later doing commentary)?

Some of the stuff I totally agree with. Blinds/antes should always be shown. Bet sizes/stacks as well (the WPT at least does a good job of showing the bet sizes).

[NickMPK]

I for one do not watch poker on TV to improve my game. I have books, websites, and actually playing time to do that. I watch for entertainment, as a "fan" of the game, much like I do not watch the Superbowl to learn how to throw a perfect spiral.

As a "fan", I would still like to see more interesting hands, rather than hands that play themselves out (coinflips preflop when the blinds are huge). But I also like to watch programs where I feel like I am witnessing "history"....e.g. the WSOP, and have no interest in watching a cash game.

Nevertheless, I also want to see star players, and my interest in the WPT has waned as they seem to have more amatuers or young online players winning. I also don't like how the WPT plays at casinos all around the world, but the use the exact same boring set almost everywhere they go.

[CanadaLowball]

[ QUOTE ]


Poker coverage is handled much like Olympics coverage, and to a lesser extent major sporting events (NBA Finals, Super Bowl...).

They're not geared towards the hardcore. When you watch Olympic skiing, it's all about Bode Miller the person. It's not about "He went too tight into that turn, he'll have trouble keeping his edge on the next gate and will likely lose time to the leader."

[/ QUOTE ]

not sure which olympic coverage you're watching, but the coverage i watch always has an expert there talking about these exact kinds of things. sure, they might have a couple of segments geared towards the athlete him/herself, but when it comes down to the actual performance, i see a lot of good and intelligent critique

[Mike Haven]

Speaking as a non-player and as an only-occasional-TV-poker-watcher, and assuming most TV-poker isn't live, I think I'd be interested more if during some interesting hands that only one player's cards were shown and that the owner of those cards was asked to talk over his thinking during the play of the hand, win or lose.

In other words, the slant would be to put me in the seat of the subject player, so that I felt it was my money on the line, and I would be agreeing or not and learning with the play of my horse on those particular hands.