What Aren't You Getting From Your WSOP Coverage...?

BarronVangorToth · #1 07-17-2006, 02:42 PM

We all know the sites that have coverage, big and small.

What information aren't you getting enough?

What information do you not care about?

In short: if you had your way when you clicked on Site X, what would you see?

(Note to mods: I wasn't sure if this was WSOP-related or more suited for News, Views, and Gossip; move it there with my apologies if that's where this belongs.)

benza13 · #2 07-17-2006, 03:24 PM

If Card Players coverage was accurate, or up-to-date, it would be a pretty good set up, but it is rarely either.

KenP · #3 07-17-2006, 03:27 PM

Last year CP had great coverage. One improvement this year, the hand for hand info. The video showing is fewer/blander. And CP is reported to have paid a whorehouse price for an exclusive which should have made for more/better. Of course all that may be that I just can't find their crap in the improved web design--but, I doubt it. Last year, there was a decent evening interview show--kinda hokey at time but good at others.. This year it is boytown's version of 'The View' and they aren't getting the interviews and the one's they get are shallow pimping and dependent on bathroom humor.

Pauly is either a jaded sellout or saw the handwriting on the wall and head for his 'hooker bar' There ain't nuttin' there--Gonzo became Bonzo.

Pokerwire seems to be in the same pocket with CP--Full Tilt's pocket. They get the same coverage--evidently due to FT's largess.

Stories critical of Harrah's pop up everywhere and are squashed in short order. There is no objective reporting outside a few blogs that get zero, heresay, or limited access to information.

BarronVangorToth · #4 07-17-2006, 03:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If Card Players coverage was accurate, or up-to-date, it would be a pretty good set up, but it is rarely either.

[/ QUOTE ]

On the up-to-date front, how quick do you think news should be reported. For example, let's say some hand just transpired between Daniel Negreanu and Doyle Brunson. Thinking of the logistics of a viewer of that hand needing a moment or three to write out what happened... should it be posted withint 10 minutes? 15? 20?

As far as accuracy goes, do you care if, say, it says Player X has $80,000 chips when in actuality he has $82,000? Considering the size of the field and the number of "name" players -- not to mention not being able to physically grab a player's chips to count them out, but rather resorting to eyeballing -- what margin of error is acceptable? 5%? 2%?

BarronVangorToth · #5 07-17-2006, 03:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Stories critical of Harrah's pop up everywhere and are squashed in short order. There is no objective reporting outside a few blogs that get zero, heresay, or limited access to information.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would this be information you would want to see more of? Reviews and editorials of the goings-on without a lot of pandering to the "powers that be," but rather just plain ol' journalism with a dash of salt?

As far as interviews go -- what types of questions aren't being asked? Do you like seeing the same names interviewed or would you rather hear from, I don't know, Random Internet Guy who happens to be the chip-leader at a given point?

Thanks to both posters for the replies, as well as any others folks might want to share.

Kevmath · #6 07-17-2006, 03:46 PM

How about if the "exclusive" home of World Series coverage actually provdide coverage of the behind the scenes stuff. For example, the dealers walking out over pay, not "technical difficulties". How about the Harry Demetriou incident that was posted, then pulled? How about that today's $1,500 went from w/rebuy, to no rebuy, to a 2nd tournament with rebuys.

Kevmath · #7 07-17-2006, 03:49 PM

You could also include Harrah's mistreatment of various international players, regarding ITINs. Seems they're going after quite a few people, asking them to pay taxes that were supposed to have been paid last year. http://www.thehendonmob.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=65252 as an example.

ohkanada · #8 07-17-2006, 03:57 PM

I think cardplayer is doing fine for the 1st few days of the events. Obviously more information is better but with huge fields one can only expect so much in these large fields.

The final table has been an issue. Lately we are getting hand for hand details for most final tables which is great. My only issue now is why not only post a few hands at a time instead of posting 5 or 6 hands. I can't see that being any more difficult. At the beginning of the WSOP card player was not doing hand for hand details. The Phil Hellmuth final table had horrible coverage from cardplayer. It will be interesting to see how today goes since there is another Hellmuth final table plus there is also a limit event with a bunch of 2+2ers at the final table. The Chen/Nath final table did not have hand for hand details for some reason. Maybe cardplayer was still sleeping after the long battle in the HORSE event.

Ken

BarronVangorToth · #9 07-17-2006, 04:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think cardplayer is doing fine for the 1st few days of the events. Obviously more information is better but with huge fields one can only expect so much in these large fields.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that it's an incredibly difficult thing to do, and the point of this thread wasn't to bash the work anyone has done thusfar, but mostly to see what, in an ideal world, would be available to people.

benza13 · #10 07-17-2006, 04:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If Card Players coverage was accurate, or up-to-date, it would be a pretty good set up, but it is rarely either.

[/ QUOTE ]

On the up-to-date front, how quick do you think news should be reported. For example, let's say some hand just transpired between Daniel Negreanu and Doyle Brunson. Thinking of the logistics of a viewer of that hand needing a moment or three to write out what happened... should it be posted withint 10 minutes? 15? 20?

As far as accuracy goes, do you care if, say, it says Player X has $80,000 chips when in actuality he has $82,000? Considering the size of the field and the number of "name" players -- not to mention not being able to physically grab a player's chips to count them out, but rather resorting to eyeballing -- what margin of error is acceptable? 5%? 2%?

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as accuracy of chipstacks, it depends on the stage of the tournament - when there is less than 20 people, they should all be pretty damn close. Chip stacks have taken far too long to update when people go on a heater/cooler in the late stages. When the fields are still large chip stacks are going to be hard to keep up with, obviously, but they need to get the action right if they are going to post it. See the Nath sweat thread, CSC's posts about his tournament, or a variety of other posts where they have been way off on the action.

During Nath's final table we were getting up to the minute updates via UCLA's Treo and a couple of people on AIM here, during this time Cardplayer was often 5-10 minutes behind and way off on the action. If they are going to be exclusively reporting from a final table at least get the action right, even if it is 5-10 minutes off.

There's no reason CP can't have someone at the table texting the info to someone at a computer who can easily and quickly update the website.