Originally Posted by nc_royals
I dont think Norman Chad putting someone on a hand is intended to be insightful with his vast poker knowledge. I'd rather have a commentator with a sense of humor than to have one so dry that it's unwatchable.
There's no critisizing... only Chad being Chad. He usually goes on to say that's why he's commentating and not playing.
Don't get me wrong, I don't mind listening to a commentator who's only purpose there is to be funny and doesn't know much about poker (other than the basics obviously). As long as it entertains me, I'm happy.
I just think the whole "commentator reading an hidden hand" thing is really only interesting with someone who knows what he's doing. There's not much to be funny about it either, so I think it's just pointless. I think the production just saw it on another show (I did too, it was made by an actual player, can't remember which show was, though) and decided to copy the idea.
Btw, about the humor in commentary. Why don't they do like The Big Game? They took a really funny guy, Joe Stapleton, and put someone who's good at poker working behind the scenes and telling Stapes what he should say. We have both humor and serious commentary in nice doses, seems like the perfect formula to me.